Is NASA's Moon Rocket Getting Canceled? (futurism.com) 23
"NASA has squandered $27 billion on the SLS moon rocket -- $6 billion over budget and 5 years late," writes longtime Slashdot reader schwit1. "The SLS isn't reusable so even if they finished it -- it is already obsolete. It is clear to everyone that the boondoggle has failed but the newest plan is to find a way to blame Trump. There is a big desire for big changes." Futurism reports: According to Ars Technica senior space reporter Eric Berger's insider sources, there's an "at least 50-50" chance that the rocket "will be canceled." "Not Block 1B. Not Block 2," he added, referring to the variant that was used during NASA's uncrewed Artemis I test flight in 2022 and a more powerful design with a much higher translunar injection payload capacity, respectively. "All of it." To be clear, as Berger himself points out, we're still far "from anything being settled." Nonetheless, the reporter's sources have historically been highly reliable, suggesting the space agency may indeed be getting cold feet about continuing to pour billions of dollars into the non-reusable rocket. [...] "Honestly the people who will ultimately make this decision aren't even in place yet," Berger wrote in a followup tweet, likely referring to the incoming Trump administration. "But there is a big desire for big changes."
SLS is achieving its purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
The purpose of SLS was never actually to produce a good rocket but instead to keep people working in the factories that used to make space shuttle parts in jobs so that they will keep voting for the relavent congressmen and senators. And I think its achieving that goal.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be way more efficient to just give them the money and benefits they would otherwise make, but not actually make them work.
Back in the old days, Boeing was internally nicknamed "The Lazy B". Maybe their old leadership was just ahead of it's time?
Re: (Score:2)
,
Maybe their old leadership was just ahead of it's time?
As is your grammar?
I, for one, welcome our new . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Musk (Score:2)
Elon Musk is going to trim government spending from $6.5 trillion a year down to $2 trillion. Do you really think he's going to leave NASA alone? He'll probably squash their budget like a bug, and say they should just go to SpaceX instead.
Re: (Score:2)
If he squashes NASA's budget, they won't have any money left to contract SpaceX. If anything, he'd want to increase their budget, while cancelling programs like SLS, such that NASA has no choice but to turn to commercial partners to replace the lost capabilities... and SpaceX is the only one who can realistically do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Musk (Score:2)
Re: Musk (Score:2)
Well, no. Congress decides on budgets. What Musk may achieve is in three parts:
1. Exposing stupid budget expenditures hidden in those massive omnibus bills, embarrassing Congress into doing something.
2. Directing existing spending more usefully. For example, research grants reaaly do not need to be given to Ecuadorian drag shows.
3. finally, in those areas where the Executive does have discretion, not spending all of the money that was allocated.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk really, at this point, isn't in the picture. There is no such thing as a Department of Government Efficiency, at least not yet. And when it is created, by congress and not Trump, then it's unlikely it will have the power to actually trim things to the degree that Musk thinks he can. He wants to trim 2 Trillion USD, but that's just slightly larger than all discretional spending in the budget - he would have to trim entitlements which means he needs more congressional activity to change laws.
And that's
Re: (Score:2)
Not even Elon can accomplish that.
Re: Musk (Score:1)
Given his role in Space X, this is a conflict of interest, isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is SpaceX's only customer. You think SpaceX runs out of Elon's generous pockets? Corporations don't do major science or major engineering projects, except when being paid for by the government.
NASA is SpaceX's only customer - nonsense (Score:2)
Sorry, but the premise your post is built on is utterly wrong.
NASA is even not SpaceX's biggest customer - it's SpaceX itself, with roughly two thirds of launches deploying Starlink satellites.
And it's fair to label their broadband service as "customer" because it's viable business.
Can't blame NASA for SLS. (Score:3)
I suppose the new Doge will can it (Score:2)
No doubt the new chief of bureaucratic efficiency [usnews.com] will see NASA's moon rocket as a massive waste of taxpayer's money and will cancel it. And it will have nothing at all to do with SpaceX getting the contract instead.
Re: (Score:2)
New Glenn may finally launch this month.
Who knows, maybe Bezos and Blue Origin will land the replacement launch contracts for all the non-SpaceX stuff.
(SpaceX already has a lander contract: https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in... [nasa.gov] )
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that SpaceX only has a 33% chance of landing NASA's former contracts? It's still better than 0% so it's in Musk's interest to can NASA stuff.
And even if SpaceX is barred from competing because of the conflict of interest (fat chance...) it still means that the billionnaire club will get to siphon off more taxpayer's money. Somehow it doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Because quite frankly, fuck Bezos too.
despite hating Musk, wish SpaceX well (Score:2)
don't forget about the business-as-usual scenario that is being discussed here: billions invested in technology that is already obsolete.
Sometimes, even people you hate can do good things - and sometimes, it's good for you if they succeed...