@cyberlyra it's a different approach to development than present day NASA's.

NASA has taken 11 years and over $20B to get one successful launch of SLS. A launch that resulted in the entire vehicle except for the capsule being dumped into the ocean. With luck there will be a second SLS launch in 2025. And another billion dollar vehicle at the bottom of the ocean.

About 4 years ago SpaceX started from zero on the Booster/Starship combo and have now flown, if ever so briefly, the largest and most powerful rocket ever made.

While I'm no fan of Elno, the SpaceX approach is closer to the way that put Americans on the moon in less than a decade. If you were around or read up on that era you'll find a lot of rocket explosions back then, too.

@cyberlyra @HalDe My feeling is that testing rockets to destruction is not inherently dangerous or bad. The FAA is serious about protecting the public, and they have the teeth to stop launches.

On NASA wastefulness: I think they do the best they can with Congressional requirements. I do think their budget is better spent on basic science than in designing and building launchers

JWST and the Mars rovers are awesome; I wish they could have spent the SLS budget on things like that.

@cyberlyra @HalDe I work in research at a public university; I have zero belief that NASA is wasting money. I think that Congress tells them to do silly things, though.

NASA tried to say "we don't want to build launchers anymore" at the end of the shuttle program and Congress told them they had to, so we have SLS. And NASA has done a good job making it.

But that doesn't mean I think SLS is fundamentally a good idea; I wish NASA could spend that budget sending a lander to Europa