Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Moon Space

Is NASA's Moon Rocket Getting Canceled? (futurism.com) 97

Posted by BeauHD from the not-looking-good dept.
"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."

Is NASA's Moon Rocket Getting Canceled? More | Reply

Is NASA's Moon Rocket Getting Canceled?

Comments Filter:

  • SLS is achieving its purpose (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @02:19AM (#64949711)

    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.

    • It would be way more efficient to just give them the money and benefits they would otherwise make, but not actually make them work. It saves all the paperwork and material they're going to spend on SLS before they select SpaceX and cancel SLS in 4 years. Apparently it's communism when you do that but not communism if you also make them work but what do I know.

      • 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?

        • ,

          Maybe their old leadership was just ahead of it's time?

          As is your grammar?

          I, for one, welcome our new . . .

    • Now say that about the military.

      • I can see why people would like us to shrink our military budget. On one hand, I can agree that we could save a lot of money if we shrank down to a military small enough to protect ourselves.

        The other side of spending less on military means we spend less on "world police". Means we stop spending money for things like Ukraine or Israel. Means we stop spending all that money on South Korea and trying to stabilize south east Asian waterways. It means, we stop helping our allies all over the world and leave the

      • The military has exactly the same issues for exactly the same reasons. Now and then they'll want to close a base because they don't need it and have better uses for the money. And they immediately get opposition from congress because the representative for that district doesn't want to see all those jobs go away.

        NASA and the military both waste a lot of money, not because they want to but because congress orders them to do it. SLS is sometimes called the Senate Launch System. There's a reason.

  • Zero reason (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16, 2024 @02:22AM (#64949715)
    There is zero reason the government should be making rockets at all. SpaceX is the future.

    • Re:Zero reason (Score:4, Interesting)

      by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @06:04AM (#64949895)

      There is zero reason the government should be making rockets at all. SpaceX is the future.

      The government isn't making rockets. Private industry is [marketrealist.com]. You know, private companies who do things better than the government.

      • While the government isn't making the rocket engines, it is deciding which components should be produced and how they should be assembled. Curiously, this design exactly matches the specifications of an existing set of rocket components. Instead of letting private contractors design and build a rocket, the government has placed its thumb on the scale to ensure that you must build the SLS. That's the government making rockets.

  • Musk (Score:4, Interesting)

    by anonymouscoward52236 ( 6163996 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @02:59AM (#64949737)

    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:Musk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @03:03AM (#64949745)

      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.

      • Outside Boeing, there is also Dreamchaser from Sierra Space, an X-37B in spirit designed for civilian use. NASA gave the budget to Boeing Starliner instead of Dreamchaser for ISS crew missions, but eventually Dreamchaser got the budget for ISS cargo resupply so it is now progressing onward. NASA is not stuck between either SpaceX or those legacy corporations with legacy tech.

      • 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..

        This is the CEO who let go of 80% of Twitter.

        Now tell me, does that sound like the type of business man who loves to keep justifying a middleman agency just for fucking budget approvals? If he does, it’ll be a staff of half a dozen contract mangers.

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by dbialac ( 320955 )
          Musk got rid of the censors who were censoring conservative philosophy while letting left-wing philosophy go through unchecked. He replaced it with a vastly improved fact-check system that let posts stand but labeled the content as being factual or not.
        • Out of protest? He just told them to not come back
      • they were scuttled on purpose. Privatization so you pay more for the same thing while a billionaire skims 20% off your tax dollars. In exchange you get to have that billionaire run around like a celebrity.
    • Or, he will increase budget to other projects other then rockets and stuff SpaceX, Blue Origin and many other commercial space companies are creating. It's actually in Musks own interest to further other research he needs for his Mars plans.

    • Re: Musk (Score:1, Insightful)

      by bradley13 ( 1118935 )

      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.

      • 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

        • D.O.G.E. will never be an official department. What it is intended to be, or perhaps what I hope it will be, is an external advisory council. I doubt they will even be paid, at least, not by the government. However, they will be given access to inside information, so that they can highlight "stupid" spending. By highlighting it, they may motivate those actually in the government to do something about it.

          Honestly, though, I expect the effects will be very limited. Spending is ultimately dictated by Congress

          • Re: Musk (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @05:53AM (#64949873)

            D.O.G.E. will never be an official department. What it is intended to be, or perhaps what I hope it will be, is an external advisory council. I doubt they will even be paid, at least, not by the government. However, they will be given access to inside information, so that they can highlight "stupid" spending. By highlighting it, they may motivate those actually in the government to do something about it.

            Honestly, though, I expect the effects will be very limited. Spending is ultimately dictated by Congress. Back to the topic of TFA: SLS has been a boondoogle for years. Everyone knows that it is a waste of money. And yet, it lives on, because it puts money into the "right" Congressional districts.

            tl;dr: Congresscritters will defend their soup bowls, even in the face of embarrassing revelations by D.O.G.E.

            Oh, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will be paid. Those payments will come in the form of contracts awarded to their crappy companies to do things the Pentagon and the rest of the government already does but now with a massive private sector markup and no bidding process just direct contract awards. The Trump administration is on track to becoming the most corrupt and inept US administration ever now that there is literally no brake on who Trump can appoint without paying any attention to the abilities of his appointees other than flattery skills and/or sycophantic loyalty.

          • It's intentionally there. The congress critters don't think of any of the money spent through their bills as 'waste' or as embarrasing

      • Re: Musk (Score:4, Interesting)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @10:13AM (#64950139)

        Well, no. Congress decides on budgets. What Musk may achieve is in three parts:

        If you haven't noticed, Congress isn't really a thing any more.

        If a Republican in Congress doesn't do what Trump says, then they will not be in Congress any more. (Just ask Liz Cheney, Tom Rice, and others). Democrats are out of the picture. Ergo, the US Government = Trump.

        The way to get what you want out of the federal government right now is to buddy up to Trump and take his abuse. Elon Musk (who people online constantly say is the world's richest man only by pure luck) somehow saw the writing on the wall and now has more power over the budget than any Senator.

        The truth is this will all be settled, however it is settled, within the Party behind closed doors and we'll never know the reasons why it turns out as it does.

        • If Donald Trump says ‘jump 3 feet high & scratch your head,’ we all jump 3 feet high & scratch our heads. -- GOP Congressman Rob Bonta, speaking unsarcastically.

    • Not even Elon can accomplish that.

    • Given his role in Space X, this is a conflict of interest, isn't?

    • 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 budget should go to science/exploration/boundary pushing missions. Launch was a necessary means, not a core objective.
      Apollo/Shuttle eras launch wasn't a private industry endeavor.
      It is now, which is fantastic! Mission success!
      Now NASA doesn't have to divert attention to launch and can focus on things only NASA can do/fund. Assume Starship economies of scale, then what previously impractical ideas deserve reconsideration? Just Falcon changed everything. Imagine proposing an over 6,000 sat constell

    • Musk has stated his intent to reduce the budget by at least $2 trillion that would bring it down to about $4.5 trillion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      He's saying he can cut it by $2 trillion. It's simply not possible. See how far you get cutting Medicare, Social Security and the Defense budget, which are by far the largest expenditures. Good luck trying to cut VA benefits. Even cutting Obamacare is going to be difficult at this point because a lot of small businesses exist because of it. There are for sure places where non-productive staff can be cut, but even that is a difficult process because of strong union protections. If you're going to counter wit

      • You can cut funding to social security while improving benefits. For example, you replace an unnecessary position by streamlining, or cut expenses to facilities by switching from $100 toilet paper rolls to ones bought in bulk from Sams Club. That's what it's called "government efficiency." Effeciency allows the same benefits for less cost.

      • I read about $200B in 'lost' money or overpayments. That's like 1/10 of what he needs to do as long as he can fix whatever process is responsible for losing $200B.

  • Can't blame NASA for SLS. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @03:02AM (#64949743)
    They're literally forced by acts of law from the Congress to work on it despite the cost. They're not allowed to cancel it, and have been retaliated every single time they tried. But yeah, the program should have gotten a stake through the heart a very long time ago.

    • They're literally forced by acts of law from the Congress to work on it despite the cost. They're not allowed to cancel it, and have been retaliated every single time they tried..

      That is the challenge everyone faced that came in claiming they will reduce waste and cut government spending. Everyone is for that until it cuts into their district or state; then it is a vital program that must be saved, and suddenly everyone in Congress becomes bipartisan.

      • The immortal satire, Catch-22, said it best: "He was a [...] God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism."

        • The immortal satire, Catch-22, said it best: "He was a [...] God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism."

          Catch-22. One of the greatest pieces of political/social commentary ever written. I often find myself reminded of quotes from it, and periodically reread it because, well, Catch-22.

  • 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.

    • 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:I suppose the new Doge will can it (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @03:42AM (#64949791)

        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.

        • 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...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          Contract awards don't work by rolling dice. Your hypotheses are not only wrong, by dumb.

        • This whine is conveniently ignoring that SpaceX is literally the only alternative.

          Government employees have had a geyser of funding and couldn't get it done.

          Instead of bitching about "the billionaires" maybe recognize that they are billionaires perhaps because they actually accomplish things?

          • The government employees manifestly do not have a geyser finding a launch system sans couldn't get it done.

            What they have is a huge pile of useless pork they are legally obliged to use which is shaped vaguely like a launch system

            Don't blame NASA or government employees when Congress has legislatively ensured their failure before they started.

            They are not going to magically stop covering pork to their district because a billionaire showed up, because these things were never funded to get a launch system in t

  • ..but the newest plan is to find a way to blame Trump.

    With ingenuity being redefined and demonstrated like that, no shit NASA is dying.

    And when they want to try and pull that Too Big To Fail bullshit? Tell NASA that funding contract will be sitting on the lunar surface to sign. IF they can make it there on time and on budget.

    *snort* Good luck with that.

    • Well if their plan is to blame Trump it will work no better than their current moon landing designs! I voted for Harris, but if Trump manages to get the SLS money redirected to something else, I'll give him credit where credit is due.

    • NASA is way too important to fail: it's how Congress get huge amounts of pork shoveled to their district while being able to foist the blame on hapless government employees (NASA).

      If you think anyone is going to tell NASA they get no money then you have never tried to take money away from a congressional district before. The people making the laws and mandating how money is spent don't care about success, they care about the pork.

  • I've been assured that seven dollars are returned for every dollar spent on space. Someone got rich!

  • Starship replaces SLS (Score:4, Informative)

    by irchans ( 527097 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @08:22AM (#64950013)

    Given the surprising fact that the SpaceX Starship is doing well with its test flights, the SLS is no longer a good investment. The cost per launch of the SLS is estimated to be 2.5 billion. The cost per launch of the Starship will be less than $50 million and it could easily be as little as $20 million per launch.

    2.5 billion / 50 million = 50.

    (Also, the Starship has a payload capacity that is at least double that of the SLS.)

    • Starship is making steady (and admittedly, impressive) progress. But it's way too early to say it's "doing well."

  • SLS was pure pork and dumping it is understandable ... However dumping the Mars Sample Return mission is very bad....

  • The impetus came when Trump #45 wanted NASA to land an American on the moon by the end of his term. Presumably his first, second or third term /s. During this time DT was talking about 2 more years on top of two terms.

    In October 2019, NASA solicited proposals from industry to facilitate the rapid development and demonstration of an HLS to deliver a crew to the Moon by 2024.

    https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-conten... [nasa.gov]

  • Well yeah, of course the competitors project get canceled when a new contractor becomes part of the government. That's how it works.

  • Even reusable rockets are expended for heavy loads. So the argument in favor of them is purely economic rather than them being more capable, and that's a source of uncertainty.

    Designing a vehicle to be reusable is a *constraint*; refurbishing a rocket engine is not *free*. So the economic advantages of a reusable vehicle isn't something you can take for granted -- which is a lesson we should have learned with the Space Shuttle. Nobody doubts reusable systems *can* be more economical to operate, but wheth

    • A country that is horrible at recycling is awed by the fact that a rocket is reusable....

      I'd like to see a fair cost comparison between the insanely complex reusable setup, and the old traditional single use. A rocket is just a big tin can to store fuel in. If you think rocket launches are bad for the environment, well hey, reusability just adds to that.

Slashdot Top Deals

6.023 x 10 to the 23rd power alligator pears = Avocado's number

Close