Timeline for Why does the government still fund SLS while SpaceX is cheaper and has the same capabilities if not better?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 2020 at 0:59 | comment | added | Ed999 | The other answers all tend to the same implied conclusion: if you spend a billion dollars on launch vehicles, when you might have spent less, that money is wasted. That is a naive argument. That billion dollars is spent in the US, providing jobs for US technicians. The arguments for spending less are, in effect, saying: let's provide fewer jobs in the vehicle manufacturing and/or servicing sectors. Every tax dollar spent is supporting American jobs. That is, in itself, a sufficient justification for this type of project - even if most of the jobs are in Alabama! | |
| Jul 22, 2020 at 15:33 | comment | added | John Bode | This is the correct answer. SLS is a creature of politics, not engineering. It's meant to keep as much of the old Shuttle workforce employed as possible. Which, in and of itself, is not a bad reason - there's a lot of institutional knowledge and skill that's worth preserving. The main problem with SLS/Orion has been shoddy project management on both NASA's and Boeing/LockMart's parts. It was always going to be expensive, but poor management and cost tracking has made it worse. | |
| Jul 21, 2020 at 0:40 | history | answered | SafeFastExpressive | CC BY-SA 4.0 |