4 ms·

How about as a backup in case all other current options are unavailable?

by saulpw 1y ago

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.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      This is drastically under-appreciating the blowback nationalizing SpaceX would generate. Both from the Republican base, to whom government is anathema and private industry the best. And to corporate interests supporting the Republican Party. Want to see where the real power is? Follow the political money.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Twenty years ago, would you have thought the religious right would accept a serial philanderer former Democrat from NYC whose favorite Bible verse is “Two Corinthians” as their idol? The Republican base doesn’t actually care about the things they claim to.
        ethbr1 1y ago
        Yes. Reagan got elected too. What’s being said now is more important than what someone historically said, as long as the current messaging is consistent. (And opponents have been eliminated)
      - kelipso 1y ago
        You just have to say something something national security and they will fall in line. Modeling politics on people or groups of people having principles is way outdated, and it’s questionable whether it ever was accurate.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Musk is having SpaceX give money to bankroll xAI.[1] There is absolutely no company that is actually "too big to fail". [1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/spacex-to-invest-2-billion-into-elon-musks-xai-413934de https://www.wsj.com/tech/spacex-to-invest-2-billion-into-elo...
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.

How about as a backup in case all other current options are unavailable?

by saulpw 1y ago

How about as a backup in case all other current options are unavailable?

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.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    This is drastically under-appreciating the blowback nationalizing SpaceX would generate. Both from the Republican base, to whom government is anathema and private industry the best. And to corporate interests supporting the Republican Party. Want to see where the real power is? Follow the political money.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Twenty years ago, would you have thought the religious right would accept a serial philanderer former Democrat from NYC whose favorite Bible verse is “Two Corinthians” as their idol? The Republican base doesn’t actually care about the things they claim to.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        Yes. Reagan got elected too. What’s being said now is more important than what someone historically said, as long as the current messaging is consistent. (And opponents have been eliminated)
    - kelipso 1y ago
      You just have to say something something national security and they will fall in line. Modeling politics on people or groups of people having principles is way outdated, and it’s questionable whether it ever was accurate.
XorNot 1y ago
Musk is having SpaceX give money to bankroll xAI.[1] There is absolutely no company that is actually "too big to fail". [1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/spacex-to-invest-2-billion-into-elon-musks-xai-413934de https://www.wsj.com/tech/spacex-to-invest-2-billion-into-elo...

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.