Just for the fun of it, I thought I'd compare historical spending on Orion/SLS with the ESD Budget Availability Scenarios produced in 2011
Relying on 93154's determination that the Scenarios are in future-year dollars
(I was skeptical at first, but he convinced me), I've deflated expenditures from those scenarios to FY2012 using values from the NASA New-Start Index that applied at the time (attached), and then re-inflated to FY2016 using the tables for FY2015 (I can't find a table for FY2016, but the difference is likely small).
Appropriations, on the other hand, have simply been inflated by FY2016. The results are plotted for ESD Scenarios 1 & 2 only, since those are the two that most closely correspond to actual funding levels.
Orion/SLS in general seems to be slipping quite a bit relative to the target dates outlined in the scenarios, despite funding that's more than adequate for those scenarios. But it's really bad for Orion, where lots of the costs are being picked up by ESA: how can it be slipping so much, given what would seem to be more than ample funding?
EDIT: ESA spending on the ESM, not included in the plots, appears to be about $400M per year. NASA effectively pays this, because in exchange it covers some of ESA's ISS costs. Use of symbols in plots now rationalized, as follows. Solid lines show appropriations, dotted lines (with markers) show ESD cases. SL
S is in s
ver grey represented by a square on top of which a capsule could be stacked, Or
ion in or
ange with a triangle resembling a capsule, and gr
ound systems in gr
een with a disk representing a green light given by the ground crew before launch. The total budget is in black, with a round ball representing the "whole."
EDIT: "Oroin" to "Orion" in opening sentence, and removal of extraneous apostrophe