Webb was expensive too. I just think SLS is also worth its costs.
Webb‘s price tag does not justify the SLS.
I actually want SLS more as a modern day Titan IV on steroids for missions like this:
Mission concepts to the outer solar system are relatively common, as planetary scientists are increasingly frustrated by our lack of knowledge of the farthest planets. Neptune, the farthest known planet, was last visited by Voyager 2 in the 1980s.
phys.org
Interstellar Precursor---things that could benefit from hydrogen NTRs
Why? What’s the point, when we will have a plethora of technologies that would enable larger, more complex missions for less money? Is the purpose of a national program to drum up business for the SLS, or is it to explore the solar system (and the universe)? I mean genuine exploration, too - not the namby-pamby, paltry thing we call exploration today, which isn't worthy of the name. Our technologies should serve our goals, not the other way around.
The civilian sector is baselining ammonia, not hydrogen, but it’s unlikely that there will be any flights out that far before we’ve developed better propulsion. Even if we didn’t, hydrogen can be launched by New Glenn, Vulcan, and in the future, sourced from the Moon and asteroids. The SLS isn’t necessary, and there’s no fairing yet anyway, nor will there be for many years - perhaps ever.
I actually need Starship to take manned spaceflight off my hands for Super Probe missions to have SLS available--so we really aren't at cross purposes.
Starship just worries me....not out of any concern that it will be an SLS replacement--.
--but that it won't.
For Starship to become a viable manned spacecraft, especially for Mars flights, it will require reliability and launch rates well in excess of the SLS's (before we mention price). What scientist is going to want to wait five or ten years (or more) for an SLS to be available if there's a Starship, New Glenn, Vulcan, Terran R, Neutron, or MLV flight available sooner at much lower cost? Scientists will either redesign their missions to fit available launch vehicles and budgets, or they won't go at all. The SLS lost Europa Clipper for multiple reasons, all of them good and cogent.
Now if the feds would just get out of Elon's way.
Starship's bane may not be spelled "SLS" but "FAA"
Excessive regulatory burden causes economic harm and can undermine trust in government. Policymakers wishing to ease this should be more mindful of people's differing responses to rules, says Ph.D. candidate Ritsart Plantenga in his dissertation.
phys.org
That has no bearing on Starship's technical aspects.
www.nasa.gov
