- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
It's looking like the SLS may be over before it's begun. They are going to start looking for ways to stick Orion on top of a Falcon 9 or Heavy.
NASA Space Launch System Costs
- Thread starter user 35280
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
That shouldnt be too difficult....
Do you have a source for this, or is it just your speculation?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
Pure speculation.... But once a government watchdog says that something is too expensive, unless it's a military asset, it's a good bet that Congress will cut the funding, and tell NASA to find a cheaper alternative. Let's look at the makeup of Congress right now. You've got 8 radicals who just kicked out the speaker of the house because they want huge cuts in government spending. They are willing to shut down the government unless they get what they want.
They want to kill everything that's not absolutely critical. Does a mission to the moon sound absolutely critical? Not to those guys, who only want to appeal to the most radical of their base who will vote for them again in the next primary. Because that's all that counts. Chances are these guys are from districts so Gerrymandered that they run un-opposed in the general election. They don't need to worry about being re-elected to Congress, only about defeating another contender in the primary. And being as radical as possible is the surest way to victory. The more they cut, the more they can claim they did something during their tenure and be assured of re-election.
So, yes, SLS is toast. Unless you know some Congress-critters that are pro-space.
And given our state of the world at this time, a moon-shot is the least of their concerns.
Almost stopped reading right there but decided to give it a chance.
You are forgetting is that, according to NASA's own propaganda, the SLS has parts manufactured in all 50 states. This is a deliberate strategy to ensure that as many constituencies as possible have a stake in SLS and it will cost congressmen political capital to push for its cancellation, and they will have to worry about it because it's their action that caused the job loss in their districts. Not great if you're looking to get re-elected. You can still be primaried even if your district is gerrymandered to guarantee R or D.
You are also forgetting that even if the house passes a bill trying to kill it (and I will be shocked if that happens), it has to get past the senate, and the SLS isn't called the "Senate Launch System" for nothing.
Critics have crowed about the impending doom of SLS for years now, and it's still going strong on pure political momentum, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. So as you admitted, it's pure speculation, and all unrealistic.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
Assuming the job losses are in their district. Congressmen aren't responsible or held accountable for the entire state, just what they did for their district. Of course, as you say below, it has to get past the Senate, which ironically, is majority other-side so anything unreasonable sent to them is DOA regardless, *and* if it's something that hurts the state, the Senator could come against the Congressman in the primary, but, that's less likely than you think, as you'll notice that the Senate hasn't done squat regarding the lack of a speaker. Not a pip from the usual mouths.
You've got me there. It will be interesting to see what happens. There are a lot of defict-hawks when a democrat is in the White House. Of course, those same people spend like drunken-sailors when there's a republican in the white house, but let's not go there in this conversation.
I'll concede that I am speculating. I'll also concede that the Senate is likely to trash any bill that cuts too much that comes out of the House. I'll also concede that Senators would have to answer for any job-losses that stem from the cutting the SLS in it's entirety.
However, $2.5Billion per SLS rocket is a lot, and NASA does need to find some way to reduce those costs. The government needs to answer for that as well.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
- Reaction score
- 7,948
I think this is the real answer. I have no doubt that Artemis will land astronauts on the Moon, and that there will be one or two or three followon missions. But with the fate of Apollo on my mind, I don't see how continued flights past that are sustainable. To me, the question is what happens after Artemis 4. Do we have a retrenchment like we did after Apollo (boo!) or do we support a moon base with cheaper options (yay!)?
The answer may not be putting Orion on a Falcon Heavy (F9 is out of the question)--I don't think it fits particularly well and I don't know if FH can throw something that heavy that far. However, if Starship's refueling-in-space plan works and Starship is one or two orders of magnitude cheaper to fly, then there will be tremendous pressure on NASA to switch over. Both of those are big ifs though. I don't count SpaceX out, but I want to see successful flights before I say that's the way of the future.
That political calculus may also change if global events change. For example, if China sets up a semi-permanent moon base, there will be tremendous pressure for us to follow suit. I would hope we would collaborate with the ESA a la ISS, but who knows.
Just my two cents to make two points:
1) We probably won't see any long-term commitment to this Artemis manned lunar landing program, any more than we did for Apollo.
The support for manned spaceflight in the US is a mile wide and an inch deep. Most people just don't give a rat's rear end and, worse, are more interested in Star Trek or Star Wars than they are interested in real people in real spacecraft exploring the real moon.
Why? Hell if I know. But as someone who's followed the space program since Alan Shepard's first launch, my long perspective informs my jaundiced opinion here.
2) Having said that, I also think (at the same contradictory time) that since the lid has come off any spending restraint in Washington, maybe the SLS/Orion/Artemis Program will just get funded since we're spending so much money on so many things each year, that it will just slide through unnoticed.
Should be interesting to see how it turns out...
Last edited:
terryg
Well-Known Member
I started watching that two or three weeks ago but it took too long to get to any kind of a point.
Similar threads
