Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

machaca_master t1_isq6on2 wrote

Didn't congress write the funding such that this was the pre-determined outcome?

32

MechaSkippy t1_isq98su wrote

They tied in the explicit use of pre-SLS hardware for "cost savings". In reality, it baked in the winners.

36

nate-arizona909 t1_isu7pos wrote

The SLS costs $2B+ per launch and God only knows what the real development cost was but certainly in excess of $24B. Thank goodness they took the cost savings route.

7

seanflyon t1_isubq85 wrote

$2.2 billion for the rocket itself, $600 million for ground support, $1.3 billion for the Orion capsule, and none of that includes any development costs.

7

nate-arizona909 t1_isucy9q wrote

It’s insanity. With these sorts of launch costs you can afford to do almost no science. Maybe you get that Artemis “first gal on the moon” photo op but not much more.

Honestly, the best outcome for space science at this point would be for the first SLS to rise gracefully off the pad, roll and arch over the Atlantic then explode over an empty piece of the ocean with the shattered remains falling harmlessly into the deep. Then maybe we could forget about this regrettable waste of money and move on to something productive.

7