SLS…SD-HLLVs in general—faced opposition unlike anything else. Planetary Scientists didn’t want small NASA budgets going to LV development at all…this is pre-Musk mind you. Had it been a boost-back program like Falcon, the EELV lobby, sub-orbital enthusiasts, etc. would probably have hated it too.
Forgive me for my rudeness, but I don’t see why anyone should care. The SLS and SD-HLLVs have, in my opinion, faced the opposition that they deserve. Without presuming that the opposition hates spaceflight, NASA, or you, have you ever asked what values people might have that would lead them to opposing the SLS?
Mars Sample Return looks to cost more than two SLS launches…for something you could put in a pup trailer.
MSR being exorbitantly expensive does not justify the price tag of the SLS.
SD-HLLV advocates still get more venom though.
I suspect you’re taking things personally where they were never intended as such, but your advocacy gets more opposition because the SLS is seen as an ongoing failure, while MSR is a one-off.
I want hydrolox infrastructure kept for its own sake—and for NTRs, high-energy missions to ice giants-etc.
None of that requires the SLS, and the latter two don’t require hydrogen.
Mars is crawling with bomb-disposal robots as it stands.
And? If you want to see more investment into space, and more money going to your favorite ideas, you have to persuade people that it’s worth it in the first place. A large part of that means junking expensive, expendable systems; it will never make sense to deploy a factory, solar power satellite, habitat, or asteroid mining mission from the SLS. Caltech, Vast, AstroForge, Starlab, and Varda all chose SpaceX for a reason.
