Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Saturday September 12 2020, @09:38AM   Printer-friendly
from the from-the-are-we-talking-about-real-money-yet? dept.

Charlie Bolden says the quiet part out loud: SLS rocket will go away:

Charlie Bolden, a four-time astronaut, served as NASA administrator from mid-2009 through early 2017. During that time, he oversaw the creation and initial development of the agency's large Space Launch System rocket.

Although some NASA officials such as then-Deputy Director Lori Garver were wary of the rocket's costs—about $20 billion has now been poured into development of a launch vehicle based on existing technology—Bolden remained a defender of the large rocket, calling it a lynchpin of the agency's plans to send humans beyond low-Earth orbit, perhaps to the Moon or Mars. He also dismissed the efforts of commercial space companies like SpaceX to build comparable technology.

[...] Since that time, a lot has changed. In February, 2018, SpaceX launched the Falcon Heavy rocket for the first time. It has since flown successfully two more times, and it will play a role in NASA's future exploration plans. Meanwhile, the SLS rocket, originally due to launch in 2017, is now delayed until at least the end of 2021.

As a result of this, Bolden appears to have changed his mind. In an interview with Politico published Friday morning in the publication's Space newsletter, Bolden was asked what might happen during the next four years.

"SLS will go away," he said. "It could go away during a Biden administration or a next Trump administration... because at some point commercial entities are going to catch up. They are really going to build a heavy lift launch vehicle sort of like SLS that they will be able to fly for a much cheaper price than NASA can do SLS. That's just the way it works."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Saturday September 12 2020, @05:14PM (2 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday September 12 2020, @05:14PM (#1050014)

    you'd have to be pretty dumb or delusional to not realize the private sector could do it cheaper than nasa.

    Of course, given the completely broken and inept way that US government contracting works, a private corporation could certainly do anything cheaper than the US government, but only when there's a profit motive involved. I could understand how, perhaps 20 or more years ago (before private space companies like SpaceX existed) someone would think that the private sector could not accomplish heavy-lift capability, because back then there was just no reason to try to build rockets like that without a cushy government contract involved. How exactly is your company going to profit from building these rockets and launching them? That's changed these days.

    However, this issue is more complex than "private sector. vs NASA". Who do you think built rockets for NASA before SpaceX existed? It wasn't NASA: they've never been able to build a rocket. That stuff has always been done by contractors like Rocketdyne (i.e., the "private sector"). SpaceX is just a new contractor that's doing a better, cheaper job than the creaky old incumbent contractors like Boeing. It probably helps a lot that they're able to leverage their purely-commercial business like satellite launches, which seems to be something the creaky old government contractors never did, and generally don't. We see this with military contractors: they simply specialize in winning government contracts and building things for the government at inflated prices, and just don't bother with any purely commercial work, and the commercial companies that could potentially compete with them don't bother, because government contracts are a huge hassle.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @01:12PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @01:12PM (#1050331)

    Thank you for pointing out the "private sector is cheaper" fantasy. Even during WWII, which was the largest mobilization of government driven industrial activity, you had to have LOTS of oversight to minimize war profiteering. And this was during a time when there was a very strong feeling of sacrifice and patriotism that resulted in very bad PR for companies caught. When it comes to things that involve large public funds going to contractors, the idiots who parrot the "the government has no place in . . ." need to get a clue and realize that the government most definitely needs to be involved in overseeing. Doesn't matter if it is rockets or healthcare. Anyone who argues that an industry will regulate itself should be run out of town on a rail.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 14 2020, @12:55AM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday September 14 2020, @12:55AM (#1050568)

      Anyone who argues that an industry will regulate itself should be run out of town on a rail.

      It's too bad we can't make those people personally liable for any overcharges or excesses resulting from poor regulation.