4 ms·
This is the extreme take that's echoed across online fora by proponents of commercial enterprises such as SpaceX. There's an big argument to be made for the ef
by CaptArmchair 4y ago
This is the extreme take that's echoed across online fora by proponents of commercial enterprises such as SpaceX.
There's an big argument to be made for the efficient investment of "taxpayer money".
Then again, the SLS program does fund the private space industry. While it's easy to dismiss it as a mere "jobs program", it did / does provide a bed for the next generation of engineers to learn, gain knowledge, become experts and so on. It also provided a bed for contractors and subcontractors to grow their businesses. Just like the Apollo program did.
The big difference with the likes of SpaceX is that the latter aims to provide a completely integrated platform with all the components. At a fraction of the cost. In a way, SpaceX aims to mimic Apple's business model. It's already a commercial brand in it's own right rather then some white-label name.
While choosing the cheaper, efficient option would seemingly be preferable, a public government isn't a private customer. It's the 'res publica' that represents society and its manifold interests. So, that leaves us a poignant question: Would the cheap price and efficiency offered by a single private actor who does everything, really be worth trading in supporting a diverse, competitive, advanced space industry as part of a public mission?
After all, when taxpayers point fingers to the Senate, let's not forget that this institution exists in a democratic model which the people of the United States have chosen as part of their own representation over the past 250 odd years. Pork and barrel politics are - ultimately - part and parcel of a well-functioning consensus model that doesn't let one dominant voice determine whose interests should be favored at the expense of all others.
Finally, in the grand scheme of things, NASA's budget in FY2020 represented 0.48% of all federal expenses. As far as the taxpayer is concerned, the cost of SLS over a decade pertains to a negligible fraction of their contributions through taxation on an individual level.
- bradgessler 4y agoI don’t think people understand how bad the charter is for SLS. Obama tried to cancel the program (called Orion then) and Congress brought this back. The rocket you see standing on the launchpad has 4 used space shuttle engines strapped to the bottom of it because Congress mandated they have to use existing components. Imagine optimizing the design of a rocket for a congressional mandate like this—how does that provide a bed for the next generation of engineers?
- bryanlarsen 4y ago> Then again, the SLS program does fund the private space industry. While it's easy to dismiss it as a mere "jobs program", it did / does provide a bed for the next generation of engineers to learn, gain knowledge, become experts and so on. It also provided a bed for contractors and subcontractors to grow their businesses. Just like the Apollo program did. This is completely backwards. It traps highly-skilled, highly-demanded engineers in dead-end jobs that do absolutely nothing to advance the state of the art. Same with the contractors. SpaceX doesn't use OldSpace subcontractors for very good reasons. They're too slow and too expensive. They famously use industrial grade components rather than aerospace grade components. You can blame the loss of CRS-7 on this practice. OTOH Falcon9 has a perfect record since CRS-7, the highest number of consecutive successes of any rocket ever.
- tmikaeld 4y agoDon't forget that the knowledge unlocked in the private space industry is locked and owned by these corporations. While government funded programs can be re-used for generations to come and are more than often public domain.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoSLS is therefroe worst of both worlds. The knowledge gained by it is locked in Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al.
- CaptArmchair 4y agoI'd argue that progress for progress' sake is a meaningless goal. Especially when "advance the state of the art" or "industrial grade components" aren't argued as concrete tangible value. When it comes the latter part, defining that value is the essence of the debate. No matter how advanced the technology is, it's just a tool that serves a purpose. Once a business establishes a market dominance, what incentives remain to keep advancing that tech? What guarantees could anyone offer that SpaceX will stay on the "cutting edge" once that point is reached? And how will that impact NASA's ability to make operational choices regarding it's launch capabilities and it's larger mission to foster human exploration of space starting on Earth itself? Finally, we're not discussing CRS-7 or Falcon 9. This is about SLS and it's Starship counterpart and which developed within their shared, particular timeline.
- Isinlor 4y agoWhy would you care about access to space if you do not plan to do there anything valuable? The biggest issue with SLS+Orion is that these 40 billions could be spend on launching space telescopes or missions to other planets. You could get 3 or 4 James Webb Space telescopes. 60 missions like Kepler. 12 Curiosity/Perseverance rovers. One, single, SLS launch will cost 2 billion dollars! That's already 3 Kepler Space Telescopes right there or a Curiosity rover on Mars.
- joshuanapoli 4y agoAside from comparing different launch programs that don't compete with each other, the article is also purely "20/20 hindsight". A more entrepreneurial path to a moon mission was obviously feasible when the Artemis program started. So it's not so much that we chose a more expensive option, it's that we have been blessed with experience and confidence with a new path since the original program began.
- Isinlor 4y agoObama wanted to get rid of Constellation and did not want SLS. He knew that there needs to be a new approach. And the new approach he put in place works excellently.