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

111–120 of 258 posts

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

#111

Post by gumby »

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…

> 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.

A phrase I learned at NASA: "With enough thrust anything can fly".

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

#112

Post by ramesh31 »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #13

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

The price of having the most capable EW platform on earth is nothing compared to its value for national defense. Traditional cost analysis does not apply to SOTA technology.

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

#113

Post by elcritch »

adolph wrote: post #82
roody15 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really unfortunate situation with geopolitical consequences. It weakens belief in our system of governance as a whole. The US can spend this kind of money .. with not much progress .. and no real consequences for failure. Adversaries see this as weakness because that is what it is. This has real world consequences … when people see the US spends 10 times more than any other nation on its military and its sp…

> The US can spend this kind of money .. with not much progress .. and no real consequences for failure. Adversaries see this as weakness because that is what it is. I donno about this. Adversaries might just as well conclude the opposite, that the US can blow that kind of cash on SLS and other dumb stuff all over the world without major problems. IIRC, UBL's thesis was A-stan is/was the graveyard of empires and woul…

I generally agree, but I don't think Afghanistan and Iraq were rounding errors by any factor. It's a major percentage of the US'es debt, as in trillions of dollars.

Perhaps the US economy (and politics) is resilient enough to handle it and not crash outright, but poorer folks in the US feel the squeeze of inflation and lowered wages due to cantillion effects.

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

#114

Post by simonh »

WitCanStain wrote: post #87
rgbrenner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which adversary are you thinking of that has less corruption and less waste than the US? And then has the economy to take advantage of this?

I guess China is the obvious candidate due to reduced costs in pretty much everything but they still have immense corruption.

There’s no real way to evaluate the effectiveness of the Chinese military because they’ve not seen significant action in several generations. However that itself is not a good sign.

As for their kit, Myanmar bought some of their planes but none of them are operational. The planes were a joint project by China and Pakistan, but 8 years after the deal was signed apparently have persistent unsolved technical and structural issues.

Meanwhile Thailand bought three of the new Yuan class subs from China, but they aren’t operational either. Problems with the engines so bad that they need replacing.

Meanwhile China now has two aircraft carriers, but still hasn’t committed either of them to long range operations. They have only conducted experimental night takeoffs and landings, their carrier assigned planes are still largely land based, and they have yet to operate the boats beyond range of land based airstrips. Modern carrier operations are as complex as it gets, and they seem to be struggling with it.

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

#115

Post by ajross »

josh-sematic wrote: post #106
ajross wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crewed spaceflight is no worse and no different than spending money on Hubble, JWST, or the Voyager missions. We pay for those missions because they inspire us. That's true only in a very strained and tautological sense of "inspire". Science has quantifiable results. There are facts that we know and theories we've understood (and discarded!) because of telescopes and probes that we would not know had they not flown…

There are also facts we know and things we’ve built because someone watched a manned space flight as a kid and decided to go work in STEM because it’s just so freaking cool. Discounting “inspiration” on the grounds that it has no immediate, tangible results is pretty shortsighted. Also if you’re willing to count facts like “details of Martian geology” as potentially valuable, then one can also say that by doing manne…

I'm not "discounting" "inspiration", I'm saying that the upthread comment only makes sense if you choose the correct definition for "inspiration", which makes the argument sort of specious.

The simple truth is that there are quantifiable justifications for preferring spending finite resources on science instead of manned space flight. The metrics used might be subjective (because at the end of the day everything is subjective), but that doesn't make them merely "inspiration".

Again, what you're doing is playing a semantic trick with words to respond to what is clearly an almost wholely objective opinion held by other people. That doesn't work. You declaring something "inspiration" does nothing to convince me that launching humans into orbit isn't a ridiculous waste of money.

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

#116

Post by cyanydeez »

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 works because the pork is evenly distributed around the country.

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

#117

Post by GMoromisato »

ajross wrote: post #74
GMoromisato wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common sentiment, but I don't share it. Crewed spaceflight is no worse and no different than spending money on Hubble, JWST, or the Voyager missions. We pay for those missions because they inspire us. For many, gaining knowledge about the universe is its own reward, even if it doesn't lead to cancer cures or longer-lasting batteries. In the same way, sending people into space connects us to all those namele…

> Crewed spaceflight is no worse and no different than spending money on Hubble, JWST, or the Voyager missions. We pay for those missions because they inspire us. That's true only in a very strained and tautological sense of "inspire". Science has quantifiable results. There are facts that we know and theories we've understood (and discarded!) because of telescopes and probes that we would not know had they not flown…

I used the word "inspire" as a short-hand for "benefits which have no practical value".

We agree exactly on this: "Whether that knowledge has value or not is...subjective."

Ultimately, we're talking about whether spending money on X has value. If you agree that the value of both crewed spaceflight and robotic probes is "subjective", then by definition there is no objectively correct answer.

We support Hubble because it yields knowledge, and having knowledge is something that we (as a society) value.

We support crewed spaceflight because we (as a society) value seeing humans explore space.

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

#118

Post by ajross »

GMoromisato wrote: post #117
ajross wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crewed spaceflight is no worse and no different than spending money on Hubble, JWST, or the Voyager missions. We pay for those missions because they inspire us. That's true only in a very strained and tautological sense of "inspire". Science has quantifiable results. There are facts that we know and theories we've understood (and discarded!) because of telescopes and probes that we would not know had they not flown…

I used the word "inspire" as a short-hand for "benefits which have no practical value". We agree exactly on this: "Whether that knowledge has value or not is...subjective." Ultimately, we're talking about whether spending money on X has value. If you agree that the value of both crewed spaceflight and robotic probes is "subjective", then by definition there is no objectively correct answer. We support Hubble because…

"We" don't though. Plenty of people like telescopes but not meat cans (not least because you can get like twelve telescope for one meat can at the going rate!), and you can't short-circuit that (subjective) debate by just declaring "inspiration". At some point you need to convince people of a value proposition.

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

#119

Post by plandis »

troyvit wrote: post #101
rgbrenner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which adversary are you thinking of that has less corruption and less waste than the US? And then has the economy to take advantage of this?

The Taliban is a good example. IMO they're evil, but not as corrupt as the US. They did a pretty good job running us out of Afghanistan.

> but not as corrupt as the US

I’m wondering how you determined this?

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

#120

Post by simonblack »

NASA's problem with the SLS is not really its high cost. A 'high cost' is strictly relative.

NASA's problem is lack of funding. That is something that can't be fixed in today's world. Because the US just does not have the amount of spare cash lying around like it did in the 1960s.

That lack of NASA funding is why I predict that the US will never again put men on the Moon, no matter what all the pundits try to tell us. There just ain't no spare cash, period.

Post reply on HN