4 ms·

Need some competition to commercial near-monopolization (in the pre-to-mid 2010s when it was funded), some other program, they already funded SLS (which was fun

Need some competition to commercial near-monopolization (in the pre-to-mid 2010s when it was funded), some other program, they already funded SLS (which was funded to carry way more payload than FH), let it play out, IMO. Also, not to say it isn't a time to start acting, if we are another decade out still adding funding to SLS with the current balance sheet, we have major issues. But $30B over 10Y isn't that crazy when we spend ~$900B a year (with much more in 2026) on defense.

somenameforme 1y ago
This is the definition of throwing good money after bad. Even if SLS can be completed, it just has no purpose. The latest "estimates" (which means will likely be well below what actually happens) put the recurring per launch costs of SLS at $2.5 billion per launch, on top of the ongoing tens of billions in development costs. That's for a system that is aiming for an initial payload of 95k kg (to LEO). By contrast the Falcon Heavy costs $0.097 billion per launch and can send 57k kg to orbit. So in other words, 1 SLS launch will costs more than 25 Falcon Heavy launches, with a payload capacity that's 67% greater.
- saulpw 1y ago
  How about as a backup in case all other current options are unavailable?
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    It's difficult to imagine any scenario where this happens. The only real possibilities are SpaceX going bankrupt or leaving the country. In either case, the government has substantial capacity to nationalize companies for the sake of national security during times of crises. It's also likely impossible for SpaceX to leave the US owing to ITAR and other regulations.
    - riffraff 1y ago
      What about SpaceX deciding to raise the price 30 times because they no longer have any potential competition? I don't believe that likely, but it does seem like something similar is a good reason to keep options open.
      - zamadatix 1y ago
        I'm sure SpaceX would be more than willing to sign a non-exclusive no-minimums fixed-price-per-launch (based on mass/orbit/etc) indefinite contract for any types of missions the SLS could hope to do. This type of contract isn't even new to NASA (or SpaceX), it's just the policy says "competition" like SLS has to exist and be funded too. The two main stated aims of fostering competition are contingencies for any single provider and hopes that funding competition lowers cost in the long term (which is separate from preventing cost from going up). I used to be much more supportive of this policy... but nowadays I find myself on the fence. It's hard for me to believe however many billions of dollars we funnel into SLS per launch will ever result in cheap alternatives being developed. It may even have the opposite effect of "SLS got funded through all of its overruns on this policy, we should have no problems doing it again". On the contingency side it's a bit harder to navigate... but it's starting to feel like programs like SLS don't produce realistic alternatives anyways so how much of a contingency is it really providing to fund things like that.
    - saulpw 1y ago
      Well, I mean it's unlikely but hear me out, what if SpaceX were actually run by a rogue trillionaire and the country were run by another rogue billionaire and they didn't get along?
      - elzbardico 1y ago
        At the stroke of a pen, a rogue billionaire could nationalize SpaceX citing some vague concerns about national security. Money is powerful, but never under-estimate the power of having the coercive apparatus of state at someone's hand.
  - Panzer04 1y ago
    Just build a second Falcon Heavy. If there was a genuine possibility of SLS being competitive, that's one thing. It's another when it's worse in basically every way.
    - ginko 1y ago
      Falcon Heavy as a TLI payload of 16,800kg. A fully decked Orion spacecraft weighs 33,446kg. Really the only alternative to SLS for Artemis would be Starship but that hasn't even achieved orbit yet (meanwhile SLS already did a successful lunar orbit and return).
      - fn-mote 1y ago
        I’m not happy with this argument because the Orion comes in two modules. It’s designed to go in SLS but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. In view of the launch economics, this argument still doesn’t make sense of SLS. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
        ginko 1y ago
        >but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. How do you know that they can feasibly be launched separately? Do you think NASA would have asked for a launch vehicle the size of SLS if could have done a manned lunar mission with something less then half its size?
        ACCount36 1y ago
        Oh, they know it. Saturn V was less powerful than SLS - but it could send an entire mission in a single launch. Capsule, lander and all. A lot of what NASA has been doing with SLS is just trying to... rationalize its existence. This is what gave us NRHO, Gateway and others. Reportedly, some of the people at NASA just believe that having an inefficient, wasteful and corrupt space program is better than not having it.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
  > put the recurring per launch costs of SLS at $2.5 billion per launch I think the current administration puts it at $4B, but those estimates seem to include current and future development costs. IMO, there are plenty of subsystems of SLS that weren't a waste to develop, and it surely fostered a generation of talented individuals, bolstered other companies, etc. I doubt the Artemis program (as planned) survives a full four years of this administration anyway. The majority of "good work" for SLS seems to be completed, and hopefully, the talent, knowledge, resources, and so on will (has?) spread elsewhere.

somenameforme 1y ago

This is the definition of throwing good money after bad. Even if SLS can be completed, it just has no purpose. The latest "estimates" (which means will likely be well below what actually happens) put the recurring per launch costs of SLS at $2.5 billion per launch, on top of the ongoing tens of billions in development costs. That's for a system that is aiming for an initial payload of 95k kg (to LEO). By contrast the Falcon Heavy costs $0.097 billion per launch and can send 57k kg to orbit. So in other words, 1 SLS launch will costs more than 25 Falcon Heavy launches, with a payload capacity that's 67% greater.

saulpw 1y ago
How about as a backup in case all other current options are unavailable?
- somenameforme 1y ago
  It's difficult to imagine any scenario where this happens. The only real possibilities are SpaceX going bankrupt or leaving the country. In either case, the government has substantial capacity to nationalize companies for the sake of national security during times of crises. It's also likely impossible for SpaceX to leave the US owing to ITAR and other regulations.
  - riffraff 1y ago
    What about SpaceX deciding to raise the price 30 times because they no longer have any potential competition? I don't believe that likely, but it does seem like something similar is a good reason to keep options open.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      I'm sure SpaceX would be more than willing to sign a non-exclusive no-minimums fixed-price-per-launch (based on mass/orbit/etc) indefinite contract for any types of missions the SLS could hope to do. This type of contract isn't even new to NASA (or SpaceX), it's just the policy says "competition" like SLS has to exist and be funded too. The two main stated aims of fostering competition are contingencies for any single provider and hopes that funding competition lowers cost in the long term (which is separate from preventing cost from going up). I used to be much more supportive of this policy... but nowadays I find myself on the fence. It's hard for me to believe however many billions of dollars we funnel into SLS per launch will ever result in cheap alternatives being developed. It may even have the opposite effect of "SLS got funded through all of its overruns on this policy, we should have no problems doing it again". On the contingency side it's a bit harder to navigate... but it's starting to feel like programs like SLS don't produce realistic alternatives anyways so how much of a contingency is it really providing to fund things like that.
  - saulpw 1y ago
    Well, I mean it's unlikely but hear me out, what if SpaceX were actually run by a rogue trillionaire and the country were run by another rogue billionaire and they didn't get along?
    - elzbardico 1y ago
      At the stroke of a pen, a rogue billionaire could nationalize SpaceX citing some vague concerns about national security. Money is powerful, but never under-estimate the power of having the coercive apparatus of state at someone's hand.
- Panzer04 1y ago
  Just build a second Falcon Heavy. If there was a genuine possibility of SLS being competitive, that's one thing. It's another when it's worse in basically every way.
  - ginko 1y ago
    Falcon Heavy as a TLI payload of 16,800kg. A fully decked Orion spacecraft weighs 33,446kg. Really the only alternative to SLS for Artemis would be Starship but that hasn't even achieved orbit yet (meanwhile SLS already did a successful lunar orbit and return).
    - fn-mote 1y ago
      I’m not happy with this argument because the Orion comes in two modules. It’s designed to go in SLS but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. In view of the launch economics, this argument still doesn’t make sense of SLS. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
      - ginko 1y ago
        >but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. How do you know that they can feasibly be launched separately? Do you think NASA would have asked for a launch vehicle the size of SLS if could have done a manned lunar mission with something less then half its size?
        ACCount36 1y ago
        Oh, they know it. Saturn V was less powerful than SLS - but it could send an entire mission in a single launch. Capsule, lander and all. A lot of what NASA has been doing with SLS is just trying to... rationalize its existence. This is what gave us NRHO, Gateway and others. Reportedly, some of the people at NASA just believe that having an inefficient, wasteful and corrupt space program is better than not having it.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
> put the recurring per launch costs of SLS at $2.5 billion per launch I think the current administration puts it at $4B, but those estimates seem to include current and future development costs. IMO, there are plenty of subsystems of SLS that weren't a waste to develop, and it surely fostered a generation of talented individuals, bolstered other companies, etc. I doubt the Artemis program (as planned) survives a full four years of this administration anyway. The majority of "good work" for SLS seems to be completed, and hopefully, the talent, knowledge, resources, and so on will (has?) spread elsewhere.