It's very simple ...
Artemis inherited SLS and Orion.
The rest of Artemis: the Artemis Accords, HLS, the Spacesuits, CLPS, the LTV are all great programs or agreements that can and should survive SLS and Orion.
The Moon to Mars goals and strategies are fine but in the end what really matters are the programs that are associated with these objectives and the programs are good.
Artemis is not worth $8B/yr. and tens of thousands of aerospace careers for that. There’s literally nothing they can do or that would grow out of their activities that would ever be remotely commensurate with those costs. It’s a really expensive stunt.
The Accords, CLPS, and the Starship half of HLS all largely exist independently of the program. The Artemis budget could disappear tomorrow and those three elements would continue based on rounding in the HQ overhead budget (Accords), what Planetary Science wants/needs (CLPS), and StarLink revenue/SpaceX deep pockets (Starship).If they’re only going to be used once every 2-3 or 4-6 years, the suits, the second lander, and the LTV aren’t worth it. Yeah, they’re fixed-price contracts so the government’s downside is limited unlike Orion/SLS. But that doesn’t mean that the money being spent on them can produce anything commensurate with their costs under such limited usage. And to be realistic, even these fixed-price contracts don’t open up frontiers without a SpaceX-like organization on the other end. Antares and Starliner attest to that, and so far there’s no with SpaceX’s combination of organizational drive, technical competence, and deep pockets amongst these contractors. (As much as I wish we were not relying so much on SpaceX.)
The program is likely facing 7% cuts starting in 2024, and the Deputy Administrator’s documents provide no clarity on where priorities lie and what should go and what should stay.
I disagree that it is a stunt and I think that it is worth it even at $8B per year.
Only one company has to succeed in finding non-NASA clients for the program to be successful.
Where do you get your 7% cut? From what I have read discretionary spending will be frozen in FY24 and will get a 1% increase in FY25.
Quote from: yg1968 on 06/07/2023 01:08 pmOnly one company has to succeed in finding non-NASA clients for the program to be successful.So for the RS-25 and booster overruns to be looked at as good investments, and not corporate pork, all we need is for SpaceX to sign up a non-NASA customer? And then all sins are washed away?And yeah, you may have been WAY off topic and talking about things not related specifically to the SLS cost overruns, but it is all related. Because as long as the SLS is justified as being required for the Artemis program, then massive cost overruns will continue to be ignored.When do rational people get a voice in all of this? When will Congress do their job and ask NASA to reassess their use of the SLS due to the enormous cost and likelihood of lower cost alternatives?THAT is the topic being debated here.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/07/2023 04:26 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 06/07/2023 01:08 pmOnly one company has to succeed in finding non-NASA clients for the program to be successful.So for the RS-25 and booster overruns to be looked at as good investments, and not corporate pork, all we need is for SpaceX to sign up a non-NASA customer? And then all sins are washed away?And yeah, you may have been WAY off topic and talking about things not related specifically to the SLS cost overruns, but it is all related. Because as long as the SLS is justified as being required for the Artemis program, then massive cost overruns will continue to be ignored.When do rational people get a voice in all of this? When will Congress do their job and ask NASA to reassess their use of the SLS due to the enormous cost and likelihood of lower cost alternatives?THAT is the topic being debated here.My comment was in the context of what VSECOTSPE said about Boeing and Antares.
Quote from: yg1968 on 06/07/2023 04:40 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 06/07/2023 04:26 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 06/07/2023 01:08 pmOnly one company has to succeed in finding non-NASA clients for the program to be successful.So for the RS-25 and booster overruns to be looked at as good investments, and not corporate pork, all we need is for SpaceX to sign up a non-NASA customer? And then all sins are washed away?And yeah, you may have been WAY off topic and talking about things not related specifically to the SLS cost overruns, but it is all related. Because as long as the SLS is justified as being required for the Artemis program, then massive cost overruns will continue to be ignored.When do rational people get a voice in all of this? When will Congress do their job and ask NASA to reassess their use of the SLS due to the enormous cost and likelihood of lower cost alternatives?THAT is the topic being debated here.My comment was in the context of what VSECOTSPE said about Boeing and Antares.Yes, and the Starliner, Cygnus, and Orbital Reef programs are NOT the topic here, the RS-25 and boosters are. There are other threads for those programs.Do you have anything to say about the SLS program RS-25 or boosters cost issues the OIG uncovered?