from the SLS-has-taken-longer-than-Apollo-and-what-has-it-accomplished? dept.
During a hearing of the House space subcommittee on Wednesday, the outlines of a battle over the future of NASA's Artemis Moon program emerged. Yet it was not a partisan fight over whether the Republican White House plan to land humans on the Moon by 2024 should or shouldn't happen. Instead, some members of both political parties questioned how the space agency planned to conduct the Artemis program.
These members, including Oklahoma Democratic representative and committee chair Kendra Horn, as well as Alabama Republican representative Mo Brooks, were particularly skeptical of private rockets in their comments and questions during the hearing. They also pressed NASA on why the agency is not moving more quickly with development of a powerful second stage upgrade for the agency's Space Launch System rocket. This "Exploration Upper Stage" would increase the amount of mass the rocket could send to the Moon from 26 tons to 37 tons.
Wednesday's hearing was notable because it appears to mark an escalation in an intense lobbying battle going on behind the scenes by some contractors—most likely led by Boeing—to kill NASA's proposed Lunar Gateway and instead accelerate funding for the Exploration Upper Stage.
...
What was surprising is that Horn and others at the hearing also appeared to be swayed by Doug Cooke's view that bypassing commercial rockets and the Gateway would lead to a simpler and faster lunar mission. "I believe there is value in developing commercial capabilities," she said toward the end of the hearing. However, she added, "I am concerned that the decisions are not being driven by what is most efficient or effective and what is most cost efficient."This is an interesting viewpoint given that commercial rockets cost $100 to $200 million, at most, versus the $1 billion to $2 billion cost of a single SLS rocket—not including the hundreds of millions of dollars, at a minimum, the agency would have to invest in Exploration Upper Stage development contracts with Boeing. Moreover, one of the commercial rockets—the Falcon Heavy—already exists and has flown three successful missions. Other boosters, including Blue Origin's powerful New Glenn rocket, should be ready to fly in two or three years. An SLS rocket with the better upper stage almost certainly wouldn't be ready by 2024, and NASA knows this.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @09:26AM
Mike Pence, VP, is lobbying for the increased payload for the SLS, so he can increase the number of bibles that can be sent to the moon, to convert the heathen moon people. Serious. Why do you think he was "touching" the space thing, with his fingers covered in olive oil? Christening? Eh?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:06AM (1 child)
Boeing and those other lobbyists may have written off a long term future for the SLS and are instead looking to cash out in the near future. Exploration Upper Stage could no doubt be radically reworked for a few billion more to fit on near future commercial launchers and thus, have more future revenue potential than the SLS itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @05:49PM
Starship plus an unfortunate accident or delay for SLS could derail the gravy train. So they need to pour as much money into it as possible as soon as possible. The aggressive 2024 deadline for boots on the Moon gives them cover to expose Gateway as a waste of time and demand SLS funding to beat the clock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @01:33PM (3 children)
it crashed. Nobody wants it. They should loose money for that. Their stock should reflect it.
This is not about the SLS. This is about a subsidy for being an asshole.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:17PM (2 children)
You don't even scratch the surface with that accusation. General/President Eisenhower warned us not to trust the military industrial complex. Did we listen to the man?
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Sunday September 22 2019, @03:30AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday September 23 2019, @04:17PM
Wow, he hit the nail on the head over 60 years ago. Too bad we never listened. His statements are merely a logical conclusion to what was going on and has continued.
From a gaming perspective. Sure, the loot boxes may only be cosmetic or in the case of Diablo 3, the people get a cut in the auction as well. The issue isn't that it can't work. The issue is that the developers are incentivized to "rig the game" / gear it towards making them more money. As opposed to gearing the game towards making it more fun, so that more people want to buy said game. Sure, they have to make it fun enough to attract people, but the pursuit of the almighty dollar really detracts from the experience.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by corey on Saturday September 21 2019, @10:03PM (1 child)
Gee it must be frustrating in the program management levels at NASA to execute work and manage thousands of engineers when you have politicians interfering and reprioritising space programs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 22 2019, @03:04AM
Or profitable. Certain dysfunctional systems are frustrating only for those trying to do something.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:15AM
It should read: "Lunar Gateway Could be Killed to get More Money for WA state Public Education System"
Embezzlement & swindling at the state level: McCleary, et al. v. State of Washington - Supreme Court Case Number 84362-7: https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supremecourt/?fa=supremecourt.mccleary_education [wa.gov]
How to steal an American city: Montes v. City of Yakima - https://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/montes-v-city-yakima-0 [aclu-wa.org]
(Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Monday September 23 2019, @05:05PM
The RS25 is the ferrari of rocket engines and reusable to boot. So let's take our remaining inventory and throw them away. :/
How many times did the shuttle era engines get used? 1? 10? 100? Maybe since they were refurbished after every use, that number maybe hard to nail down exactly; but I bet the number was > 1
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy