9 ms·

Is SLS Worth the Cost?

33 points by abrax3141 4y ago

abrax3141 4y ago
TL;DR: No
elmerfud 4y ago
It's a rocket built by congressional committee. Therefore it will never be worth the cost, but we'll keep funding it because it's a jobs program and not a lot more than that.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  I think someone did a calculation, that they could have just pay every engineer in the program half a million dollars to keep them their job and still have billions left.
  - mft_ 4y ago
    How about all of those subcontractors in congressional districts?
- snerbles 4y ago
  Some are upset by the "Senate Launch System" epithet, but it applied a decade ago and still applies today.
- elsonrodriguez 4y ago
  There is some value to a jobs program if it provides the basis for a larger rocketry industry. The type of knowledge necessary to build and operate these craft is highly specialized and without applying and passing on that knowledge we will lose it. Also SpaceX will have competitors, and those competitors will need a hiring pool, otherwise the growth of the industry will be constrained.
ralusek 4y ago
In the absence of SpaceX,"worth" was basically defined as "how important tax payers find this vs what it costs." Now we actually have a market framework capable of answering this question. Assuming Starship works, then the answer is obviously "no."
- cdot2 4y ago
  I don't think we should gamble our human space flight program on a single rocket. Having multiple separate development programs sounds like a good idea.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    Agreed. While I'd like to see NASA do it right, I'd settle for a couple more companies giving SpaceX real competition. Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic do not appear to be those companies.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    The problem is that SLS is inherently unsafe for humans. Much more so than any possible alternative, real or paper rockets included. Almost all those money left for actual engineering probably were spent on duct taping this monstrosity to be even a little acceptable for human rated flight.
    - sashahrzg 4y ago
      Source on it being unsafe for human flight?
      - Yizahi 4y ago
        The most obvious factor can be observed by any amateur at the SLS photo - it looks like two long white thingies strapped to the sides of the rocket :) . Joking aside - Space Shuttle was deemed about as safe as 1 in 60 flights by two different commissions. This SLS uses exact same hardware in general, and can't be much safer than an inherently unsafe Shuttle. That's unfortunate fact of life. I sincerely hope that no crew would be harmed flying this thing.
Yizahi 4y ago
As a lesson how NOT to spend money, maybe yes. Two best case scenarios for SLS - it will either blow up without crew, or it will be voluntarily put in the museum. In the Museum of American Finance.
speakfreely 4y ago
> So is the cost of the SLS, and the Artemis program as a whole, worth it? Maybe. If Artemis accomplishes all that it has set out to accomplish over the next 10 years or more, that "maybe" could shift to a "probably." Once SpaceX's Starship is launching as often as the company hopes, it's possible we'll see a cancellation of Artemis similar to that of Apollo. But the difference, hopefully, would be the emergence of a bold and flourishing space industry to cement the obsolescence of SLS, letting a new age of human exploration blossom, rather than another 50 years of human spaceflight stagnation, in which people never venture beyond low Earth orbit. This article is so confused. It keeps referencing Artemis as if it is the catalyst for re-developing an American passion for spaceflight. If anything, it's a giant symbol of government apathy and inefficiency. It's like someone is really intent on giving NASA credit for everything that SpaceX has done in the last decade.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  Yes the tail can wag the dog, with enough government insiders anything is possible.
SeanLuke 4y ago
No. This seems to be a straightforward example of Betteridge's law.
thepasswordis 4y ago
Estimated project cost is $13B Or: about 130,000 $100k single family homes. In other words, you could build and gift a single family home to nearby every single homeless person in California for this cost of this rocket. Would I rather waste money on a redundant, congressional committee rocket, or waste money giving people houses? Without spacex, the rocket is worthwhile. But with spacex, it is a complete waste of time and money.
- loudmax 4y ago
  Arguably NIMBYism is a bigger factor to the lack of housing than the cost of building the houses.
  - strawhatguy 4y ago
    yes, everyone says there ought to be more housing, but not here...
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  Still bothers me that un-serious folk will post about how much spacex is 'wasting' on space travel, yet say nadda when the gov wastes like 4000x more. Kudos on running the numbers!
  - abrax3141 4y ago
    I think the complaint is (usually) a bit more nuanced than that. I, for example, am totally encouraging of SX to take over all earth orbital works, as well as the moon. NASA is wasting its time and our money in those areas. However, I think it’s a waste for anyone, SpaceX or NASA, to send people anyplace outside of the moon. (And even putting people on the moon again is of questionable value.) NASA should stick to what it does best: Remote robots and instruments.
- advisedwang 4y ago
  Where are you finding all those $100k single family homes? The median CA house is $760,800 [1]. (I know there's houses cheaper than the median, but if you are buying up 130k houses, likely more than the entire available stock, you will have to go quite high up the price listing.) At that price, you're talking 17,087 houses. There are 161,548 homeless people in CA [2] [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-home-price-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-home... [2] https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/ca/ https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/ca/
foreigner 4y ago
TL;DR: Spacex is literally 4000x cheaper but maybe SLS is worth it because of warm fuzzies.
- rleahy22 4y ago
  That cost is based entirely on projections for a rocket that itself has not left orbit yet.
  - generj 4y ago
    Neither has SLS entered orbit to be fair, and it had a massive development budget and a half decade head start (plus existing engines). Everyone is taking Starship reuse as an assumption because of SpaceX’s earlier work. It will likely be less easy than people think with such a massive vehicle, but even fully expended mode Starship will loft far more mass at less than an eighth of the cost of a SLS launch.
- aero-glide2 4y ago
  SLS costs $4B/launch. It is impossible that Starship will be sold for just $1M/launch.
  - pageandrew 4y ago
    Why not $10m?
  - _g4ls 4y ago
    You've got to consider vastly different payload capacity as well.
    - AshleyGrant 4y ago
      SLS has about 50% more lift capacity to LEO based on a quick google search. But Starship still can lift 100 metric tons to LEO. How much stuff are we launching that needs SLS's lift capability that couldn't be launched across multiple launches and assembled in space?
elif 4y ago
the most elaborate historic reenactment in history. we learn nothing from these experiments. they are a show because presidents are tired of being trolled about the moon.
- veonik 4y ago
  Real Engineering did a video about this[0] and mentioned that SLS was really just a way to create jobs that happens to result in a massive rocket at the end. This makes sense to me and neatly explains the apparently intentionally overblown budget. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waPJXaZgEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waPJXaZgEg
- sashahrzg 4y ago
  We are set to learn immense amounts of information directly useful for extended spaceflight, ie mission to Mars
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Really? What exactly is that?
  - elif 4y ago
    whatd we miss in the 60's
    - sashahrzg 4y ago
      New information on long term deep space radiation exposure, new information on long term space travel in general. Lunar research not done before, now possible due to lunar research station. The list goes on and on. You can look up all research projects included in the Artemis missions online
      - elif 4y ago
        the van allen probes give us higher quality and longer term data about radiation. we are pretty aware of regolith constitution. having a moon base (which isnt in artemis 3) is not research
xnx 4y ago
The question is always: Compared to what? Housing? Multi-state jobs program? JWST 2? More bombs? etc.
anonym29 4y ago
I was very disappointed that this wasn't a price/performance breakdown of the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG compared to other vehicles in the same segment.
tycho-newman 4y ago
America makes like $20 trillion in new goods and services every year. We are so past the point of caring about $13 billion. Want to cut costs? We have 14 nuclear deterrent submarines that cost $20 billion each. Their only job is to end the world. I think we could do that with just five subs.
tycho-newman 4y ago

33 points by abrax3141 4y ago

TL;DR: No

It's a rocket built by congressional committee. Therefore it will never be worth the cost, but we'll keep funding it because it's a jobs program and not a lot more than that.

Yizahi 4y ago
I think someone did a calculation, that they could have just pay every engineer in the program half a million dollars to keep them their job and still have billions left.
- mft_ 4y ago
  How about all of those subcontractors in congressional districts?
snerbles 4y ago
Some are upset by the "Senate Launch System" epithet, but it applied a decade ago and still applies today.
elsonrodriguez 4y ago
There is some value to a jobs program if it provides the basis for a larger rocketry industry. The type of knowledge necessary to build and operate these craft is highly specialized and without applying and passing on that knowledge we will lose it. Also SpaceX will have competitors, and those competitors will need a hiring pool, otherwise the growth of the industry will be constrained.

ralusek 4y ago

In the absence of SpaceX,"worth" was basically defined as "how important tax payers find this vs what it costs." Now we actually have a market framework capable of answering this question. Assuming Starship works, then the answer is obviously "no."

cdot2 4y ago
I don't think we should gamble our human space flight program on a single rocket. Having multiple separate development programs sounds like a good idea.
- pstuart 4y ago
  Agreed. While I'd like to see NASA do it right, I'd settle for a couple more companies giving SpaceX real competition. Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic do not appear to be those companies.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  The problem is that SLS is inherently unsafe for humans. Much more so than any possible alternative, real or paper rockets included. Almost all those money left for actual engineering probably were spent on duct taping this monstrosity to be even a little acceptable for human rated flight.
  - sashahrzg 4y ago
    Source on it being unsafe for human flight?
    - Yizahi 4y ago
      The most obvious factor can be observed by any amateur at the SLS photo - it looks like two long white thingies strapped to the sides of the rocket :) . Joking aside - Space Shuttle was deemed about as safe as 1 in 60 flights by two different commissions. This SLS uses exact same hardware in general, and can't be much safer than an inherently unsafe Shuttle. That's unfortunate fact of life. I sincerely hope that no crew would be harmed flying this thing.

Yizahi 4y ago

As a lesson how NOT to spend money, maybe yes. Two best case scenarios for SLS - it will either blow up without crew, or it will be voluntarily put in the museum. In the Museum of American Finance.

speakfreely 4y ago

> So is the cost of the SLS, and the Artemis program as a whole, worth it? Maybe. If Artemis accomplishes all that it has set out to accomplish over the next 10 years or more, that "maybe" could shift to a "probably." Once SpaceX's Starship is launching as often as the company hopes, it's possible we'll see a cancellation of Artemis similar to that of Apollo. But the difference, hopefully, would be the emergence of a bold and flourishing space industry to cement the obsolescence of SLS, letting a new age of human exploration blossom, rather than another 50 years of human spaceflight stagnation, in which people never venture beyond low Earth orbit. This article is so confused. It keeps referencing Artemis as if it is the catalyst for re-developing an American passion for spaceflight. If anything, it's a giant symbol of government apathy and inefficiency. It's like someone is really intent on giving NASA credit for everything that SpaceX has done in the last decade.

birdyrooster 4y ago
Yes the tail can wag the dog, with enough government insiders anything is possible.

SeanLuke 4y ago

No. This seems to be a straightforward example of Betteridge's law.

thepasswordis 4y ago

Estimated project cost is $13B Or: about 130,000 $100k single family homes. In other words, you could build and gift a single family home to nearby every single homeless person in California for this cost of this rocket. Would I rather waste money on a redundant, congressional committee rocket, or waste money giving people houses? Without spacex, the rocket is worthwhile. But with spacex, it is a complete waste of time and money.

loudmax 4y ago
Arguably NIMBYism is a bigger factor to the lack of housing than the cost of building the houses.
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  yes, everyone says there ought to be more housing, but not here...
strawhatguy 4y ago
Still bothers me that un-serious folk will post about how much spacex is 'wasting' on space travel, yet say nadda when the gov wastes like 4000x more. Kudos on running the numbers!
- abrax3141 4y ago
  I think the complaint is (usually) a bit more nuanced than that. I, for example, am totally encouraging of SX to take over all earth orbital works, as well as the moon. NASA is wasting its time and our money in those areas. However, I think it’s a waste for anyone, SpaceX or NASA, to send people anyplace outside of the moon. (And even putting people on the moon again is of questionable value.) NASA should stick to what it does best: Remote robots and instruments.
advisedwang 4y ago
Where are you finding all those $100k single family homes? The median CA house is $760,800 [1]. (I know there's houses cheaper than the median, but if you are buying up 130k houses, likely more than the entire available stock, you will have to go quite high up the price listing.) At that price, you're talking 17,087 houses. There are 161,548 homeless people in CA [2] [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-home-price-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-home... [2] https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/ca/ https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/ca/

foreigner 4y ago

TL;DR: Spacex is literally 4000x cheaper but maybe SLS is worth it because of warm fuzzies.

rleahy22 4y ago
That cost is based entirely on projections for a rocket that itself has not left orbit yet.
- generj 4y ago
  Neither has SLS entered orbit to be fair, and it had a massive development budget and a half decade head start (plus existing engines). Everyone is taking Starship reuse as an assumption because of SpaceX’s earlier work. It will likely be less easy than people think with such a massive vehicle, but even fully expended mode Starship will loft far more mass at less than an eighth of the cost of a SLS launch.
aero-glide2 4y ago
SLS costs $4B/launch. It is impossible that Starship will be sold for just $1M/launch.
- pageandrew 4y ago
  Why not $10m?
- _g4ls 4y ago
  You've got to consider vastly different payload capacity as well.
  - AshleyGrant 4y ago
    SLS has about 50% more lift capacity to LEO based on a quick google search. But Starship still can lift 100 metric tons to LEO. How much stuff are we launching that needs SLS's lift capability that couldn't be launched across multiple launches and assembled in space?

elif 4y ago

the most elaborate historic reenactment in history. we learn nothing from these experiments. they are a show because presidents are tired of being trolled about the moon.

veonik 4y ago
Real Engineering did a video about this[0] and mentioned that SLS was really just a way to create jobs that happens to result in a massive rocket at the end. This makes sense to me and neatly explains the apparently intentionally overblown budget. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waPJXaZgEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waPJXaZgEg
sashahrzg 4y ago
We are set to learn immense amounts of information directly useful for extended spaceflight, ie mission to Mars
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Really? What exactly is that?
- elif 4y ago
  whatd we miss in the 60's
  - sashahrzg 4y ago
    New information on long term deep space radiation exposure, new information on long term space travel in general. Lunar research not done before, now possible due to lunar research station. The list goes on and on. You can look up all research projects included in the Artemis missions online
    - elif 4y ago
      the van allen probes give us higher quality and longer term data about radiation. we are pretty aware of regolith constitution. having a moon base (which isnt in artemis 3) is not research

xnx 4y ago

The question is always: Compared to what? Housing? Multi-state jobs program? JWST 2? More bombs? etc.

anonym29 4y ago

I was very disappointed that this wasn't a price/performance breakdown of the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG compared to other vehicles in the same segment.

tycho-newman 4y ago

America makes like $20 trillion in new goods and services every year. We are so past the point of caring about $13 billion. Want to cut costs? We have 14 nuclear deterrent submarines that cost $20 billion each. Their only job is to end the world. I think we could do that with just five subs.

tycho-newman 4y ago