Quote from: CorvusCorax on 02/28/2017 05:33 amAs such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy. This statement is really what your entire argument rests on, and the numbers are obviously completely made up.The SpaceX number is obviously wrong, because you are basically claiming that 80% of money paid to SpaceX goes to aluminum imports and similar, which is completely untrue.Also, because of multiple stages of trickle down the total increase can be greater than 100%, but your description is incomplete and ignores this. As an example, NASA spending in 1987 overall had a multiplier effect of 2.1, and some specific industries were higher such as electronic components with a multiplier of 5.9. (Your .92 of "general economy for SLS" would mean a multiplier of 1.92) Source.
As such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy.
Dare I mention, in context to the previous post, that the SLS core stage panels are being fabricated in Germany? That the ICPS LH2 tank comes from Japan? That the RL10 extension comes from Europe? - Ed Kyle
Since SpaceX claims to have secured at least one commercial launch contract for FH, you could argue that FH will/may have a larger economic impact on the U.S. economy in the near term.
In the longer term, it gets much, much harder to estimate. There is no demonstrated commercial market for a launch vehicle in the class of SLS. The arguments that some markets may evolve for such a class of launcher are highly speculative and not (purely in my opinion) particularly compelling.
Now without turning this into an SLS vs FH thread (of which there are far too many already), it's arguable that there is a (potentially very large) long term economic return from investing in technologies and capabilities that are useful for public policy reasons and do not yet have a commercial use but that may open up new markets and commercial opportunities in the future.
I agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market. However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2017 09:35 pmI agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market. However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.
Quote from: incoming on 04/12/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2017 09:35 pmI agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market. However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.This post for about economic trickle-down of the SLS vs Falcon Heavy, not about small outposts in cis-lunar space.You are responding to a topic on a different thread.
The dollar spent on SpaceX may have the same trickle down effect as a dollar spent on SLS, but you get far more bang for the buck. Also, Because Europe went into depression BEFORE America and therefore didn't buy American products. This helped cause the Great Depression. Germany went in to depression by 1924, bringing down Europe. Domestically produced products create more jobs. For every manufacturing factory, it helps create at least 4 support jobs. SpaceX gets a better handle on things producing them in house and in America. Chinese products are crap compared to former American made by the same companies. I've older and have been around longer. In my opinion, America, Japan, Germany, and usually most European countries make better products. We make the best Rockets, hands down. Falcon 9, Atlas V, Delta IV, previously the shuttle, Titan, and Saturn IB and Saturn V.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/12/2017 02:31 pmQuote from: incoming on 04/12/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2017 09:35 pmI agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market. However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.This post for about economic trickle-down of the SLS vs Falcon Heavy, not about small outposts in cis-lunar space.You are responding to a topic on a different thread.I know what thread i'm responding to. the point you were arguing in THIS thread is that SLS is not being planned to be used in a way that creates markets for commercial opportunities. That isn't true.