/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12112399
History would be the same because Shuttle contractors would just change the payment method from fixed-price to cost-plus, or if they couldn't do that then they would just negotiate for extra money outside of the initial fixed-cost like that Boeing did with commercial crew. The Shuttle has been used to maintain aerospace jobs for decades, and after its official retirement that became the only mission for it. Any attempt to try to use Shuttle components will incur the same management issues that SLS has today. A theoretical gutsy and politically immune NASA admin could play hardball and try to whip the contractors into shape, but they would just fight back hard and delay things again.

>>11994699
Something like that or a Jupiter could work and makes sense. Anything "small" in LEO can be easily handled by launchers already flying at the time (Delta IV, Atlas V, or even Soyuz if you're desperate). I can't really fault your plan other than political forces would mess things up.

>An Apollo capsule also massed five tons, compared to Orion’s 11.
Anyone have any idea why Orion ended up so chunky even though it's supposed to be a modern Apollo?

>>7555487

>>7505986
Right, thing is it's only now that it is at the advertised capacity. It's not like they had needed it yet, but now they can do a lot more with this rocket.

All I know is that however cool the SLS is, the people making it are fucking NASA with the profits they demanded. They wanted to be compensated for the slower flight cadence of the SLS compared to the old shuttle, since flights to the ISS were not going to be handled by the SLS.

SLS flights should only cost 5-600 million, not the 1+ billion like each shuttle launch was.