NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable::“At current cost levels the SLS program is unsustainable.”

  • Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Was Saturn V affordable?

    Because maybe the question isn’t whether it’s affordable but whether we are budgeting enough money.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can I ask: do you actually believe NASA builds their own rockets themselves? Like out back in their shed with a table saw and pliers?

        The prime contractor on the sls is boeing.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s just hate for musk, people who hate musk have blinders on and think every company he has any input into is a scam.

            • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              SpaceX is a tool that directly aids democracy. Without it, we still wouldn’t have independent access to space. We would be relying on the Russian Soyuz to carry us to the ISS, and due to the current situation, I don’t think they’d have let us continue riding the Soyuz if we didn’t have our own method.

      • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        SpaceX is getting 2-3 bn dollars for Starship HLS development, most of the funding is coming from SpaceX itself. SLS costs up to 4 bn per flight. I’m not even going to mention the insane cost-overruns and years of delays associated with NASA’s cost-plus contract with Boeing to build the damn thing.

        SLS is a sunk cost fallacy and jobs program.

      • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even then, commercial launch providers get much further with less money. Sure, if NASA had more budget, they could afford the SLS program. But the commercial launch providers show that they could be more efficient with the money they do have.

      • weew@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If NASA cancelled every single contact they had with SpaceX… they might be able to afford 1/3rd of an SLS launch. Or maybe not, because then they’d have to start paying Russians for rides up to the ISS.

        SpaceX is saving NASA boatloads of money. Which Congress is forcing them to waste on SLS.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even considering that, the SLS is poor value for money. It’s basically a dumber space shuttle that you throw away. It’s a parody of 1970s technology.

      We can, and should, do better for that price tag.

    • Anahkiasen@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was my immediate thought, it’s space exploration, it’s meant to cost more than is reasonable or affordable, because monetary rationale has never been a factor in it. Even if it did pay out in the long run with inventions and discoveries in the past, it’s never going to make budget sense because exploration and pushing our specie’s boundaries shouldn’t be. It’s a miracle what space agencies are/were able to accomplish with super strict budgets in the past, but in the end there’s only so much you can do by cutting corners and letting the private sector fill the gaps