We’ve been quoted $4bn per launch. If this pattern of delays turns out to be fundamental (a big, if plausible, if), what would the launch costs actually be?
…which is why it’s often a good idea to not use a new launch vehicle on the critical path for your crewed spaceflight program. (Could have used LEO rendezvous of various types to go to the Moon.)
> 39. The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.
The initial SpaceX Falcon rocket was entirely privately funded, at a total cost of of ~$100 million. The first 3 launches were failures. The 4th launch was a success, and the rest is history. And that vessel would ultimately go on (through various again largely privately funded innovations) to revolutionize spaceflight.
The same is now true of the Starship, which is again being entirely privately funded. The cost is certainly going to be much more than $100 million, but also nowhere near the absurd extremes of cost that Boeing imposes on the taxpayer. At this point "we" have spent tens of billions of dollars on this catastrophe. And the icing on the cake is that if this monstrosity is ever deemed flight worthy, it will likely already be obsolete.
It's quite difficult to understand why giving a company billions of dollars a year, unless they succeed, does not seem to be leading to great outcomes. Maybe we should just give them more money. That'll fix everything.
Size of budget doesn’t determine jobs or not. Artemis exists because Congress didn’t like Constellation’s cancellation. Its Block II configuration underperforms Starship at significantly higher cost, both to develop and to operate, all without anywhere close to the technological progress of even Falcon Heavy. SLS exists first to provide jobs. The military-industrial complex has an obvious first and foremost purpose, and it’s pretty good at it.
