And high-end manufacturing capability is very important to have domestically from a defense perspective.

I recall some NPR story recently about war games the US runs about a hypothetical war with China -- it was said that the US loses most of the time in these simulations. Why? A lack of industrial capability.

If SpaceX hadn't appeared then the ISS would be in an interesting spot still relying on Russian rockets.

That was a good argument in 2009 but it's a bad argument now. There are currently over 100 rocket companies in the US. Having those people work on dead end technologies like SLS rather than forward looking technologies like Starship or RocketLab Neutron or Relativity Terran R or Blue Origin New Glenn etc hurts rather than helps.

> There are currently over 100 rocket companies in the US.

Zero of which are currently capable of putting a human around the Moon.

Many of which would be capable of doing so if they got a fraction of the $40B that SLS got.

They are getting fractions of that. NASA funds small missions across a wide variety of such companies. It’s how SpaceX started. It’s been one of the most effective NASA programs ever, IMO.

Prove yourself and the contracts get bigger.

A good majority of the 100 aren't getting any NASA funding.

By some definition of 'fraction'. They are getting basically nothing.

NASA budget is like 30% SLS/Orion for decades+.

> Prove yourself and the contracts get bigger.

If you hard allocate a huge part of the budget you can only give out so many other contracts for the best bids.

The commercial programs have seen significant expansion in scope and spending as their benefits have become clear. The lunar landing contract to SpaceX is a great example of such.

Astra, Rocket Lab, etc. have to demonstrate capability to move up the ladder.

Yeah but if NASA didn't need to spend 4-5 billion $ a year on SLS/Orion many more other projects would come available.

Again, I doubt it. NASA funding doesn't really work that way. They don't get a big bucket of funds to distribute as they please. SLS was the pet project of a number of powerful Senators, to the point where the joke is it's the "Senate Launch System", and has been specifically appropriated for by Congress.

There are ALWAYS politicians who are happy to give the money to their project. The idea that NASA budget would go down by 5 billion $ without SLS/Orion isn't really credible in my opinion. Some projects would be done, because Senators in space states wouldn't want the budget to just get lost.

SLS is incapable of doing so too.

Sorry, meant to say Moon.

Technically, yes, SLS can send people around the Moon, but gotta remember that Starship is very much on the critical path to the actual goal of boots on the Moon.

So, 'currently' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, not to mention in general the idea of SLS being ready to send people to the Moon now is a bit of a stretch too since Artemis II will be ready to launch in 2024 if we're lucky, which is also when (if we're lucky), Lunar Starship should be starting its testing.

Sure, that'll bring us to 1/100.

You could also have these capabilities by not making terrible strategic and technological choices.