2 ms·
By some definition of 'fraction'. They are getting basically nothing. NASA budget is like 30% SLS/Orion for decades+. > Prove yourself and the contracts get b
by panick21_ 4y ago
By some definition of 'fraction'. They are getting basically nothing.
NASA budget is like 30% SLS/Orion for decades+.
> Prove yourself and the contracts get bigger.
If you hard allocate a huge part of the budget you can only give out so many other contracts for the best bids.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe commercial programs have seen significant expansion in scope and spending as their benefits have become clear. The lunar landing contract to SpaceX is a great example of such. Astra, Rocket Lab, etc. have to demonstrate capability to move up the ladder.
- panick21_ 4y agoYeah but if NASA didn't need to spend 4-5 billion $ a year on SLS/Orion many more other projects would come available.
- ceejayoz 4y agoAgain, I doubt it. NASA funding doesn't really work that way. They don't get a big bucket of funds to distribute as they please. SLS was the pet project of a number of powerful Senators, to the point where the joke is it's the "Senate Launch System", and has been specifically appropriated for by Congress.
- panick21_ 4y agoThere are ALWAYS politicians who are happy to give the money to their project. The idea that NASA budget would go down by 5 billion $ without SLS/Orion isn't really credible in my opinion. Some projects would be done, because Senators in space states wouldn't want the budget to just get lost.