...At current costs, a lunar program of four launches per year would consume $16 billion annually—a large fraction of the agency’s entire budget. This isn’t just expensive; it’s economically incoherent as a foundation for sustained lunar presence...
...The Trump Administration initially proposed a historic 24% cut to NASA’s budget, including 47% reductions to science programs. Congress is moving to restore those cuts, but only after months of uncertainty that disrupted program planning and contractor relationships— exactly the kind of instability that drives up costs in complex technical programs...
...Real economic priorities don’t face 24% budget cuts in the first place...
...Rushing to meet arbitrary political deadlines means accepting higher costs and technical compromises that increase long-term program expenses. The SLS exemplifies this problem: a vehicle designed by political requirements rather than economic optimization, resulting in costs that make sustained operations prohibitive. The political imperative to use existing contractors and proven technologies to minimize schedule risk actively inhibits the cost-reducing innovations that could make lunar operations economically viable...
vatlark @lemmy.world - 2mon
SLS could have been a fine approach but (to the surprise of many people) reusable rockets came to market at the same time. So SLS and many other new-ish launchers can't complete.
5
Delta_V @lemmy.world - 2mon
The article has shades of that old, trite Republican line of "Government sucks, and to prove it I'll get elected and suck at governing." Its proposed remedy is nonsense as a result, nevertheless it does spell out a real problem that exists.
"If America truly wants to win the lunar competition, it needs to start thinking like economists rather than politicians."
This is what killed Boeing.
This is what killed Intel.
Both were highly successful when they had engineers for CEOs. Their fortunes cratered when accountants took over.
4
burble @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2mon
The options aren't only to think like economists or politicians. They could think like scientists or engineers and make a capabilities roadmap and develop technology to accomplish goals. Instead, they're stuck with working backwards to figure out how to build a lunar program around SLS and Orion.
I think it's safe to say that 4 SLS launches per year will never happen. For a goal of continuous lunar habitation, some other options then are to land enough mass at once or use separate cargo landers to allow longer crew stays of up to a year, or start launching on something else.
Delta_V in space
The economic reality of lunar competition: beyond the space race rhetoric
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/5068/1SLS could have been a fine approach but (to the surprise of many people) reusable rockets came to market at the same time. So SLS and many other new-ish launchers can't complete.
The article has shades of that old, trite Republican line of "Government sucks, and to prove it I'll get elected and suck at governing." Its proposed remedy is nonsense as a result, nevertheless it does spell out a real problem that exists.
"If America truly wants to win the lunar competition, it needs to start thinking like economists rather than politicians."
This is what killed Boeing.
This is what killed Intel.
Both were highly successful when they had engineers for CEOs. Their fortunes cratered when accountants took over.
The options aren't only to think like economists or politicians. They could think like scientists or engineers and make a capabilities roadmap and develop technology to accomplish goals. Instead, they're stuck with working backwards to figure out how to build a lunar program around SLS and Orion.
I think it's safe to say that 4 SLS launches per year will never happen. For a goal of continuous lunar habitation, some other options then are to land enough mass at once or use separate cargo landers to allow longer crew stays of up to a year, or start launching on something else.