I just want to know how at roughly $4 billion a launch ANYONE can be layed off.... I mean holy shit talk about really gibing ammo to cancel SLS this is it. It is a black hole sucking money and still they lay people off? How is Boeing not turning a profit with this?!?
pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko 19 Feb
None of these words are in Encyclopædia Britannica
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @User21000000 19 Feb
It’s interesting my company is looking to lay off 100 plus people next week
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln 19 Feb
If that's not a conflict of interest, i don't know what is. Musk should have no say in anything related to competitors' space programs...
reply
139 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 OP 19 Feb
We have talked about canceling SLS ever since I started on the Committee I work on almost 3 years ago now. The cost over runs are terrible, they keep having issues with it (the heatshield showed significant issues after reentry), and it is slow as hell.
The biggest issue with SLS is that they are using what they thought was a cost cutting idea in combining Saturn 9 tech with Apollo tech and space shuttle tech. However, they didnt realize until it was to far along those techs... well being decades apart they do not integrate well together.
Considering the Biden admin selected SpaceX to develop the lunar lander it might appear like there is but it kinda goes in the same vein as the $400 million for bullet proof Tesla's the Biden admin had wanted to order... Trump canceled that one and so far it really doesnt seem to be the case. I know where there is smoke there is often fire but given the scrutiny no one can seem to find it.
Also for what it is worth NASA and SpaceX have dramatically different goals in the near future with space. NASA wants to go to the moon and Congress wants them to go to the moon. SpaceX and Elon want to go to Mars and thats not on NASA's near term radar.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 19 Feb
So it should be an easy case for Musk to distance himself from these discussions. You are making good points about why it should be cancelled. If they are valid, no need for Musk to be involved. Optics matter.
Him and his companies stand to benefit from government contract funds to be freed up. SpaceX would not be what it is today without all the public money it benefited from. Through contracts with the government. So even if they don't have the same goals in the near future, they are competing for the same money.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 19 Feb
110%! We get almost regular notices from the NASA IG for the cost over runs and other things associated with SLS that are about to hit new thresholds of going over. I forgot what it was but something super dumb and I want to say it was a single bolt or a spring was going to eclipse the 200% more expensive mark and they still were not sure entirely how they were going to address whatever issue was going on.
SpaceX's success has been a huge blow to United Launch Alliance (ULA) which is a Boeing/Lockheed Martin joint venture. Before SpaceX ULA was the only launch provider for the government and their most basic launch was over $200 million. Elon got it all the way down to $65 mil so the government has more than earned its money back. It is why I am starting to think we need to see if we can just contract SpaceX or Blue Origin against each other to get us to the moon.
It would likely be quicker and even with the large contracts up front it would be cheaper than what the US government is already spending.
A big issue we have heard from companies working with NASA though is that they can do the task build the rocket, space habitat, space suits, etc. but NASA wants to own the IP meaning that these companies would have to go through the government to build more of the stuff they invented and created and all sorts of other bureaucratic paperwork.
That is an issue across US government research things though.
reply