108
submitted 1 year ago by zhunk@beehaw.org to c/space@beehaw.org
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] zhunk@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

It's so frustrating how expensive this thing is.

I get that SLS and Orion have insane congressional approval. And keep getting overfunded because of it. And a lot of that money would go away without them. And there's a lot of interesting development in HLS and CLPS that wouldn't exist without them. But it still just stinks to see how expensive SLS is and that there's basically nothing that can or will be done about it.

[-] Hypx@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago
[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Are you familiar with Wernher von Braun? He was a Nazi who ran Germany's V2 rocket program during World War II. He produced thousands of ballistic missiles intended to indiscriminately bombard British cities, they were unable to accurately target specific military sites so they were just aimed at civilian centers and let loose. Slave labor was used in their production, resulting in many thousands of innocent Jews and other concentration camp prisoners dying under hazardous conditions and bombardment of the manufacturing facilities.

After the war he went to work for NASA and was the principle designer behind the Saturn V that took humanity to the Moon. Should NASA have repudiated the Saturn V design and gone with a less capable vehicle? Should people be responding "Fuck Nazi propaganda" whenever the virtues of the Saturn V are mentioned? Or is it possible to separate the evaluation of the merits of a rocket from the evaluation of the rocket's designer?

Elon Musk is a shitty person. The Starship is a fantastic rocket. Both of these things can be simultaneously true.

[-] interolivary@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

Interesting tidbit about the V2: as far as I know it's the only weapons system that killed more people during the manufacturing process than it did in actual use. Casualties caused by V2 strikes are estimated to be around 9 000, but around 12 000 slave laborers died making them (see eg the wiki).

In any case, comparing von Braun to Musk is uncharitable towards von Braun: he actually did design rockets and knew what he was doing, where Musk is just a bigoted windbag that emits money. But I do tend to agree with your sentiment though: SpaceX has good designs, but that's completely separate from Musk being a human turd (and his only part in it is the part where he emits money.)

[-] ConsciousCode@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Death of the ~~author~~ ~~engineer~~ venture capitalist?

[-] RoboRay@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

It's not propaganda when it's true.

And SLS is hideously expensive compared to every other launch vehicle in history.

[-] zhunk@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

It looks like there are a few new articles since this one came out:

https://spacenews.com/gao-report-calls-for-more-transparency-on-sls-costs/

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/gao-nasa-not-transparent-about-unaffordable-sls-costs/

Neither of those mention SpaceX at all, and the OP article just mentions them and Blue in the context of engine prices.

[-] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

There are Republicans in government too. They will always sell out to corporations over public interest.

[-] upstream@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

You can take SpaceX out of the equation and it still is a massive money spend.

Compare the cost of the entire Apollo program (adjusted for inflation) to the SLS program.

You might be surprised.

[-] Player2@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

You cannot argue with the numbers

[-] Hypx@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

The numbers are bullshit. All money spent on NASA goes back to the economy. And it's all public domain technology. Fascists would love to replace that will privately controlled technology.

[-] zhunk@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

How is a fixed price launch contract for SpaceX that different from a cost plus contract for Boeing to build an SLS as far as money going back to the economy? I genuinely don't get how those are meaningfully different.

How does the public domain technology actually matter, other than from an idealistic standpoint? NASA is even spinning off SLS production and management to be more private under EPOC to Deep Space Transport (Boeing+NG). They, along with Aerojet, basically get these sole-sourced, partially because of their non-public IP for making this stuff.

[-] lorgo_numputz@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago

Meanwhile:

"As of 10 March 2023 the fiscal year 2024 (FY2024) presidential budget request was $842 billion."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

[-] Unaware7013@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Killing people is always affordable

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

But will that mean the ignore the sunk cost fallacy and ditch the program?

Who am I kidding, of course not. Actually launching shit was never the goal of the program in the first place.

[-] zhunk@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

It's just maddening. The money could go to so many better things, but it has to get funneled to the same bloated old Shuttle contractors.

[-] TheTurducken@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

It's called the Senate Launch System for a reason. Many components are built in strategic states to ensure support from key senators.

[-] aeternum@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

the federal department charged with analyzing how efficiently US taxpayer dollars are spent,

lmao. what a joke.

[-] luciole@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago
[-] stevecrox@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The GAO has performed an annual review of the Space Launch System every year since 2014 and switched to reviewing the Artemis program in 2019.

Each year the GAO points out Nasa isn't tracking any costs and Nasa argues with the GAO about the costs they assign. Then the GAO points out Nasa has no concrete plan to reduce costs, Nasa then goes nu'uh (see the articles cost reduction "objectives").

The last two reports have focused on the RS-25 engine, last time the GAO was unhappy because an engine cost Nasa $100 million and Nasa had just granted a development contract to reduce the cost of the engine.

However if you took the headline cost of the contract and split it over planned engines it was greater than the desired cost savings. Nasa response was development costs don't count.

Congress reviews GAO reports and decides to give SLS more money.

[-] aeternum@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

they're wasting money like nobody's business.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryIn a new report, the federal department charged with analyzing how efficiently US taxpayer dollars are spent, the Government Accountability Office, says NASA lacks transparency on the true costs of its Space Launch System rocket program.

Published on Thursday, the new report (see .pdf) examines the billions of dollars spent by NASA on development of the massive rocket, which made a successful debut launch in late 2022 with the Artemis I mission.

"Senior NASA officials told GAO that at current cost levels, the SLS program is unaffordable," the new report states.

The report also cites concerns about development costs of future hardware for NASA's big-ticket rocket program, including the Exploration Upper Stage.

"Some NASA officials told us that changes to Artemis mission dates should not affect the SLS program’s cost estimate," the report states.

"Other officials noted that the program’s cost estimate would be expected to increase to account for the delay to the Artemis IV mission, which shifted from 2026 to 2028."


Saved 78% of original text.

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
108 points (100.0% liked)

Space

7242 readers
1 users here now

News and findings about our cosmos.


Subcommunity of Science


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS