That probably shouldn't be the case, but when it comes to politics, perception is very much reality in that people's perceptions translate directly to votes.
Still the sink cost fallacy though.
I'm sure we've all experienced situations where we realize that the work we're being paid to do is futile and will never reach achieve it's intended purpose. It's really demoralizing but the thing to remember in that situation is that you're still getting paid.
Would you rather be an aeronautical engineer who gets paid and doesn't launch of a rocket, or an aeronautical engineer who doesn't get paid and doesn't launch a rocket?
That's the spirit.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/new-report-finds-nas...
Cost overruns would have put NASA 33% over budget a few years ago, but they committed accounting fraud to cover it up.
The SLS is nothing more than a welfare check to Georgia and Florida.
Note: neither Booster 7, nor Booster 8, or Ship 20 and 24 for that matter, are even close to being anything that could be considered "Starship" by even the most generous observer.
Even if B7/S24 do launch in a test flight they are so far removed from anything that could potentially be in the far future an operational and usable spacecraft that they resemble "starship" the same way a wooden mockup of an airplane resembles an actual airplane.
An object being the same general shape and dimensions of something doesn't make that object the "something".
At least SLS exists and has problems that can be, perhaps, probably at tremendous expense, fixed.
Since it's members joined forces to form ULA 15 years ago, I've watched them launch the same machines they've been using since 2002.
I have a lot more faith that SpaceX will launch something new than that ULA will get anything done.
Artemis 1 doesn't have the configuration of a fully operational vehicle either. Artemis 1's Orion doesn't have a fully functioning life support system, launch abort system, or docking system – and probably is missing other components too.
To compare apples to apples – SLS (without Orion), to just the components of Starship/SuperHeavy which form part of launch vehicle proper (as opposed to payload) – what is Starship/SuperHeavy actually missing?
His original 2018 timeline was likely over ambitious, but SpaceX probably could have achieved it by now – if they'd stuck with their plan to do it. By all accounts, it was abandoned, not because of any technical or financial obstacles, but simply because they decided to redirect their resources towards a far more ambitious alternative (Starship).
I think landing an uncrewed Starship on Mars has a fair likelihood of actually happening, before this decade is over.
It would be tedious launching little pieces of a larger ship and assembling them in orbit but it could absolutely be done.
Instead of doing that they're choosing to build better, bigger rockets, and more infrastructure to make the eventual launches to mars more cost-effective and substantial.
Which highlights the major difference between public and private sector exploration. SpaceX killing everyone on their first attempt is a tragedy and they quickly move on, NASA doing it is a 10 year halt to any further work until a full public investigation takes place.
I think you're confusing Virgin Galactic with SpaceX here.
>SpaceX could absolutely launch a mars mission with their existing rocket platforms and launch infrastructure.
If they launched today they’d be 4 years late
One of the arguments for doing so was that the engines were "proven."
checks news story
Oh hey, it's the engines that are causing these delays.
NASA has been so over-budget on the project, they had to commit accounting fraud to try and cover it up.
??? Last scrub was because of a problem with providing bleed cooling to cold soak everything.
This scrub appears to be a problem with a quick disconnect used in fueling operations or the piping just inside it.
Neither are the "engines".
I'm skeptical of Artemis, but come on.
"Multiple troubleshooting efforts to address the area of the leak by reseating a seal in the quick disconnect where liquid hydrogen is fed into the rocket did not fix the issue"
Meanwhile, starship will see its first orbital flight (likely not before a few RUDs) while SLS just grows mould.
That said, the whole purpose of SLS was to provide jobs and to retain technical expertise in the US, which it has achieved - actually launching the thing is almost besides the point.