Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Moon Space

Is NASA's Moon Rocket Getting Canceled? (futurism.com) 46

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 . . .

          • Isn't it time to get over this it's and its thing?

            This is Angelo's post. It is a genitive. Angelos would be plural. Like many Angelos.

            But you write "it's" for "it is" and not as genitive.

            Does not make any sense.

            And most people do not see simple errors like that, when they prove read it.

            But if you ask them: when do you write it's and when do you write its, they can answer that perfectly well.

            Humans make mistakes. Get over it.

            A spelling mistake is a very simple thing, it is not car crash or a reactor explosio

            • In fact, mistakes such as this can be useful. It gives me confidence that the text I am reading was not generated by some type of AI or bot.
      • Maybe it's time for America to drop the whole red scare bullshit. The Bolsheviks are not going to have a revolution in America. If we end up lining up for hours for stale bread, it certainly won't be because of communism.

        • Of course they're not going to have a revolution. They've already inflitrated a good percentage of all the places worth controlling: media, higher education, public and private k-12 education, big city governments, many influential corporations and nonprofits.

          Try saying putting your name to any statement that isn't hard-left and watch your career prospects evaporate to zero in any university, big media outlet, or similar institution. And if you're extra special, like if you want to go into business in firea

  • Musk (Score:3)

    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:4, 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

          • 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

    • Not even Elon can accomplish that.

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

      • Not really. The Space-X systems actually work. The problems Musk will go after are all the projects and departments that donâ(TM)t work and impede those that do work.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  • Can't blame NASA for SLS. (Score:3)

    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.

  • 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.

  • ..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.

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

  • 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.)

Slashdot Top Deals

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller

Close