/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12799284
It would be one thing if the test stand was on the ocean but it's in Huntsville Alabama. It's only going to be an uneconomical rocket if they use legacy facility.

Imagine SpaceX having to put their rocket engines on a truck and ship it hundreds of miles to test it instead of paying an intern to drive a fork lift 2mph down a road and get it to the test stand 2 hours later.

>>12484872
I hope they fail mainly because of the retarded BLM thing

>>12482580
You mean

>cheap enough to mass produce that they drive them around on forklifts driven by black female interns, while the shuttle required boomer engineers who make a quarter of a million a year.

>>12446326
It's not shocking that people support Space.

The problem with NASA is that their shuttle program degenerated into a jobs program for the Administrators. The public lost interest when NASA stopped innovating.

It also helps that we can watch Space X's progress daily.

Look at this picture & how they're man handling the rocket engine with a fork lift. That's almost Airline industry. They just need their hundreds of star ships.

>>12429491
Even so the rock engines cost 1-2 million each compared to the 140 million dollar RS-25s.

Heads should roll for allowing museum pieces to be thrown away into the ocean when they were going to make new engines.

Had we gone to Mars in the 1990s the Martian program would had been canceled by now, and we wouldn't be back for another 50-100 years due to cost over runs.