Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 258 posts

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#11

Post by p_l »

dralley wrote: post #8
madaxe_again wrote: post #4

The 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.

From what I recall reading of some histories of similar messing (including Shuttle), sometimes obvious culprits at MIC wouldn't mind getting a more sensible order... but the senator X and Y are interested in how many "jobs created" will show up for their reelection campaign.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#12

Post by lazide »

irrational wrote: post #9
dralley wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sounds like communism! /s

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#14

Post by bnralt »

While true, it's missing the forest for the trees. NASA spends almost half it's budget on human spaceflight, and there doesn't seem to be any particular goal there beyond "send people into space because we want to send people into space." Meanwhile, a measly 3.5% of the NASA budget is spent on aeronautics.

Yes, the SLS is an inefficient way of performing a mission that NASA shouldn't be performing in the first place, but it's not as if an efficient way of performing a pointless mission is going to get us better results.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#15

Post by vxNsr »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #13

Not sure how this is "unaffordable"? Just buy one fewer F35's, done, you just funded the whole thing.

When people talk about the cost of f35s they’re often including the amortized cost of the whole project. Most that money has already been spent.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#16

Post by svachalek »

bnralt wrote: post #14

While true, it's missing the forest for the trees. NASA spends almost half it's budget on human spaceflight, and there doesn't seem to be any particular goal there beyond "send people into space because we want to send people into space." Meanwhile, a measly 3.5% of the NASA budget is spent on aeronautics. Yes, the SLS is an inefficient way of performing a mission that NASA shouldn't be performing in the first place,…

Human spaceflight is more or less the marketing budget or loss leader for all the scientific work they do. It gets the public and Congress behind funding the important stuff.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#17

Post by dragonwriter »

vxNsr wrote: post #15
TheRealPomax wrote: post #13

Not sure how this is "unaffordable"? Just buy one fewer F35's, done, you just funded the whole thing.

When people talk about the cost of f35s they’re often including the amortized cost of the whole project. Most that money has already been spent.

Yeah, buying one fewer F-35 barely moves the needle on total cost, it just bumps up the per-unit costs of the project because its almost all fixed, not variable, costs.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#18

Post by dotancohen »

belval wrote: post #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…

The other engines burn methane, these RS-25s burn hydrogen.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#19

Post by YetAnotherNick »

techdragon wrote: post #5

Important 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 wi…

> SLS isn’t the rocket NASA designed or asked for

Any source?

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#20

Post by westmeal »

lazide wrote: post #12
irrational wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sounds like communism! /s

I know you're joking but people actually believe this and will advocate for privatization of shit like this it's just so tiresome
Post reply on HN