We have a choice. The status quo as reflected by SLS ...
"We" as a commercial service consumer have several choices, one of which is SpaceX, one of which is NOT SLS. NASA and the government (NASA and DoD specifically) also have several choices one of which is SpaceX, one of whIch IS SLS. The current "status quo" reflects several different and varied commercial launch vehicles that are available and have been modified to meet the requirements of NASA and the DoD payloads. NASA however is still mandated BY LAW, (Congress) to use the SLS "where possible" and "when available" and are charged with keeping the program going. (Again, by Congress) They are however allowed to seek and utilize cheaper and less capable, (or more capable is those existed) commercial launch vehicles that meet their criteria or can be modified to do so.
Hence you may have noted the Artemis lander entry that still specified and baslined an SLS for its launch vehicle was in fact not the design chosen by NASA? You know the folks you keep accusing to pushing the SLS over anything else? This is a loophole driven decision that is allowed under NASA procurement guidelines allowing NASA to set-aside the SLS for time-critical reasons which is what is being used. However those landers will be designed to include NASA requirements as a primary goal since NASA is paying to have them designed and built. Even SpaceX is proposing a dedicated Starship lander design to meet the NASA requirements.
SLS was never given a requirement to 'save money' nor was it ever required to lower cost to orbit. It was mandated by Congress, who in fact are directly in charge of NASA through their budget and annual authorization requirement. NASA was told to build and use it, period. Now as part of that Congressional authorization there is a subset that allows NASA to use Commercial launch services as long as they meet NASA requirements, (or will build something that will meet those requirements) for both payloads and crew. Some payloads which are more or less SLS specific will indeed fly on that launcher, likely sometime in the future but current interpretation and usage of the authorization allows a possible use of future commercial capability to fly these payloads. That of course depends greatly on how far Congress is willing to allow NASA to go.
...or the opportunity to realize a 100 fold cost reduction in launch costs.
To some, that opportunity is worth incentivizing and reward if accomplished. And to others it provokes ridicule.
What's odd is there is no one actually arguing the argument YOU are making, and just so you know that's called a "strawman" argument with no substance or ability to stand on it's own outside your own 'justification' in the framing argument.
It also has nothing to do with SLS since that is something NASA has to do BY LAW which you don't seem to want to understand. You then miss the rather obvious and probably more salient fact that NASA is in fact incentivising and rewarding your stated 'opportunity' as much as they legally can both indirectly and directly yet you are the one who heaps ridicule upon them for not tossing out their legally mandated (by Congress once again in case you missed that part) program to fully pursue what you see as the 'better' option.
That's not how it works and if you would like to have it work differently then it is Congress you need to address not blaming NASA on some internet forums.
I see a profound "we know better" attitude not reflected by actual fact or demonstrated by argument. Instead it is the usual shut up and obey attitude typical of bureaucrats (regardless of whether you are or not).
Except we HAVE demonstrated both by fact and argument that we appear to actually "know better" than you why your arguments are sperious and invalid in the forum in which you've presented them. Your ridicule of NASA for something that is not under their control, continued misunderstanding and refusal to learn about how such things actually work has annoyed some here to feel less and less civil about your stubborn attitude of "I know better" which has as you've noted failed in both fact and argument and your calls for others to essentially "shut up and obey" has not helped calm tempers. I don't think there are any bureaucrats per-se on here and I doubt they'd take the time to try and educate you or enlighten you on how the Federal government works or how Federal agency is limited and restricted by the people who provide their direction and budget. (That's Congress once again, not you) Some of us have actually taken that time and effort but it would appear you are going to simply refuse to understand any of it.
In the end, I will bet that a successful flight of Starship will outweigh the strenuous objections posted by those with strange hostility to inspiring efforts. I will also bet that individuals risking their own money and personal reputations have a far better chance where NASA and bureaucracy have failed.
Please feel free to give us some exact requirements and specifications for a 'successful flight of a Starship'. How many failures are allowed along the way? How many chances do they get if they don't fly successfully the first time? What percentage of the "full capability" will be accepted as a 'successful' flight? How many successful flights in a row will be enough to 'prove' the Starship and how soon after that must the demanded price point be achieved? And what if it isn't for any reason? Is Starship then an obvious failure? Does that mean that despite everything that SpaceX and Elon Musk will then be failures? I could go on.
You assume a hostility towards Starship and SpaceX that isn't actually there, nor is there a hostility towards 'inspiring efforts' pretty much exactly the opposite as a general rule. You also assume a knowledge and understanding of how the government works and how agencies within that government work and are required to do what they are told by those in charge of them. You assume a hostility and malevolence where there is has been actual financial and physical support of you favored commercial enterprise, but because that government agency has not thrown its full support behind your favorite idea you ridicule and belittle its efforts both past and present for some perceived but un-shown slight. Yet ignore that those individuals who risk their 'own money and personal reputations' have in fact been given public money and support for the majority of their effort to state they have a "better chance" on their own than with such public money and support. And yet those who meet your criteria in fact SEEK public money and support to further their goals and what you are REALLY complaining about is "someone" is not allowing ALL the available public money and support to flow to those you think would spend it better than those who are in fact actually tasked with raising, allocating and in fact spending those funds. (Hint: It's NOT NASA btw)
You are in fact complaining about the wrong people, in the wrong forum and on the wrong subject. But those of us that point this out are obviously only some poor 'bureaucrats' who fear our 'control' over public money will somehow be eroded by random comments on an internet forum and so come here to harass and defame you before you expose the truth to the masses. Not at all what's happening nor do things work the way you think they do but what every you need to believe I guess.
Randy
