NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
1–10 of 258 posts
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#2SpaceX of ten years ago made SLS look ridiculous.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#3> NASA recently said that it is working with the primary contractor of the SLS rocket's main engines, Aerojet, to reduce the cost of each engine by 30 percent, down to $70.5 million by the end of this decade. [...] And even at $70.5 million, these engines are very, very far from being affordable compared to the existing US commercial market for powerful rocket engines. Blue Origin manufactures an engine of comparable power and size, the BE-4, for less than $20 million. And SpaceX is seeking to push the similarly powerful Raptor rocket engine costs even lower, to less than $1 million per engine.
If their engine is between 5-100x more expensive than an equivalent engine from competiting companies. Why is it so impossible to be a little bit more agile and consider the other engines?
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#4The affordability isn’t relevant - in fact, the lack of affordability is pretty much the point. SLS is a jobs program, pork barrel spending to keep the MIC contractors and the voters who are dependent upon them sweet. The more it costs, the better it plays in whatever Poughkeepsies or Peorias they make the gold-plated doohickeys in.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#5Important context…
SLS isn’t the rocket NASA designed or asked for in order to achieve its mission goals… it’s the rocket they were forced into using due to lobbying and senate shenanigans, there’s a reason it has the nickname “senate launch system”.
The fact the pork barrel project is so bloated it’s “unaffordable” is irrelevant as far as the senators who are voting for it are concerned.
My bet is that the senate will just raise the budget because and continue to make SLS happen as they have always done since the SLS program began.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#6> NASA recently said that it is working with the primary contractor of the SLS rocket's main engines, Aerojet, to reduce the cost of each engine by 30 percent, down to $70.5 million by the end of this decade. [...] And even at $70.5 million, these engines are very, very far from being affordable compared to the existing US commercial market for powerful rocket engines. Blue Origin manufactures an engine of comparable…
Because they aren’t made by the parties who lobbied for SLS.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#7Time for a "backup plan" Commercial Lunar Crew program.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#8The affordability isn’t relevant - in fact, the lack of affordability is pretty much the point . SLS is a jobs program, pork barrel spending to keep the MIC contractors and the voters who are dependent upon them sweet. The more it costs, the better it plays in whatever Poughkeepsies or Peorias they make the gold-plated doohickeys in.
So cancel it and tell said MIC companies to build something we actually need, like missiles.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#9The affordability isn’t relevant - in fact, the lack of affordability is pretty much the point . SLS is a jobs program, pork barrel spending to keep the MIC contractors and the voters who are dependent upon them sweet. The more it costs, the better it plays in whatever Poughkeepsies or Peorias they make the gold-plated doohickeys in.
So cancel it and tell said MIC companies to build something we actually need, like missiles.
Or a federal free insulin plant. How much would it cost to manufacture and give free insulin to everyone that needs it compared to the cost for SLS?
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#10You have to view the cost of SLS like insurance. Premiums are also a huge waste of money until you need to make a claim. In this case, we didn't; SpaceX came through with flying colors. But that was far from a sure thing 15 years ago, and the risk of being left without access to space was real.