• Zetta@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    Ya I suppose my wording wasn’t great. I compared it to tiangong 2 to point out how small it is, and followed that up with saying China will probably be doing the majority of science in space for a while because I agree with you.

    I’m just happy the USA is doing something at all, we’ve gone stale and stagnant in space development. I am just excited that this will hopefully spark as much competition and price decreases in the space station market over the next 20 years as commercial crew has with launch vehicles. Its not the best outcome at all, but its something thats happening.

      • Zetta@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s true, but it still drove down costs so the original mission goal still worked. Sierra Space has Dream Chaser that will be launching this year which is exciting competition. No crew at first, just cargo. However that’s exactly how SpaceX started so I’m hopefully they will be as successful and we’ll get better competition than Boeing has been offering SpaceX.

        • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          It drove down costs relative to a program explicitly designed (by Congress) to maximize costs in the form of graft. Being cheaper than the Senate Launch System is hardly an achievement.

          This is a common pattern seen with neoliberal privatization schemes. First, make the government program as bad as possible by cutting its budget and by saddling it with unreasonable mandates, then introduce privatization measures which at first seems to save money but in the long run cost more because profits must always rise and cede control to capitalists.

          The Falcon/Dragon system is a legitimately good human launch system, and the first stage reuse is legitimately impressive, but it’s actually less reusable and more expensive to fly per mission than the original version of the Shuttle would have been before the Nixon cuts ruined it.