The success of Space X and Starship has made SLS redundant at best - and more accurately a multi-billion dollar boondoggle.
Right now, the only reason for NASA to even be involved in the development of launch systems is to prevent Space X from gaining an effective monopoly - and they are doing a really terrible job of that.

tracer, I refer you back to the article at #7....

https://www.pprune.org/space-flight-...l#post11284288

To be clear we are *far* from anything being settled, but based on what I'm hearing it seems at least 50-50 that NASA's Space Launch System rocket will be canceled.

Not Block 1B. Not Block 2. All of it. There are other ways to get Orion to the Moon.….

Scott Manley sharing his views on, amongst other things, SLS.

Going to send a lot of ripples through the supply chain if they do. Be a brave call, but one I think needs making.

If the Orange Man has his way, there are going to be a lot of 'vendors' who've become used to sucking at the government teat who are going to be unhappy.

I don't like the idea of giving one company an effective monopoly on anything, but unless someone can come close to duplicating what Space X can do, it become pretty hard to justify spending tax money on much more costly alternatives.

The first manufacturer to win on time, cost and quality earns the right to the monopoly. Let's have competition by all means, but at the tax-payer's expense ? Nasa need to wake up and smell the coffee, the days of dining out on past success are over.

NASA has always served two purposes and one of them is the broad distribution of federal dollars to STEM-related industry in parts of the country that would otherwise be doing nothing but growing corn and raising pigs.

So whenever NASA spends money, it's already succeeding in that mission.

The idea that the purpose of NASA is to get into space as aggressively and efficiently as possible is a gross misconception. NASA exists to spend money, and the nature of the spending is aerospace technology. I honestly don't have a problem with that. The idea that NASA needs to be "efficient," or that it should be, doesn't reflect the reality of why the agency exists. The vital function that NASA serves is not space access. The vital function that it serves is funding aerospace R&D.

I would suggest moderating enthusiasm that SpaceX would replace NASA and thereby improve something. It will not and cannot.

The fact that SpaceX has achieved such success in a relatively short period of time is laudable, but they are a commercial enterprise. They have nothing in common with a government agency and there is almost nothing that SpaceX does that is what NASA does, nor is the success of either entity measured in any similar way.

I don’t think the suggestion is that NASA should go away, rather that - as you suggest - it has far more areas in which to spend money fruitfully than in carrying on with the SLS and its waste -such as the $B to build a new launch platform.

FLCON/Vulcan/New Shephard etc can take Orion to the moon and beyond. NASA can concentrate on areas such as exploratory probes, new space telescopes, and that air part of its name….

Remi
The problem is that there is precious little 'new' technology being funded by NASA in the last couple of decades - and almost no new technology for the SLS. In fact, SLS was sold as leveraging 'existing technologies as quick and cost effective (0 for 2, since it's been neither). SLS uses the same liquid fuel engines as the Space Shuttle, and the solid fuel strap-ons are simply longer versions of the Space Shuttle solid boosters. During 1960's and 1970's and into the 1980s, NASA spending was contributing greatly to the overall technology base of the USA - developing Apollo, the Saturn V, and the Space Shuttle literally meant developing the technology from scratch. SLS is simply repurposing technology that already exists (and not doing it very well at that - actually moving away from useable and back to single use components).
NASA has had some positive effects in their unmanned programs (Webb telescope and some interplanetary missions, for example), but SLS has been nothing but a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle.
IF we want to continue the mission of NASA as a technology development tool, it should be to develop new, cost effective technology and platforms to place payloads into space safely and at low cost. Perhaps a 21st century reuseable space shuttle type platform - incorporating all the lessons learned from 30 years of experience with the original Space Shuttle. SLS simply spends tax money, costing more per pound of payload into orbit than the original Saturn V, using largely the same technology.

Here is a small part of last year's "precious little 'new'" technology:

https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.ne...ual-report.pdf

SLS has the air of an expensive project going nowhere, but we've already covered the fact that it's the subcontractors (alternative spelling: "Boeing") that aren't performing:

https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uplo.../ig-24-015.pdf

Well, yes, and no, coming down on the side of "not really."

https://www.sme.org/globalassets/sme...zzle-liner.pdf

What Musk really wants to do with "NASA" is make sure Boeing isn't ever a viable competitor, but I don't think he needs to choke off NASA funding to accomplish that mission. McDonnell Douglas management did that already. Meanwhile, Elon will never be able to make even a dent in LockMart's business.

Even though it seems like technology creates things "right now," in aerospace (and military in particular), systems don't really mature in less than a decade after initial deployment. Many continue to just get better as they move through different "Blocks" for several decades.

NASA has released a high resolution photo of the Artemis 1 heatshield, alongside a detailed explanation of the mechanism behind the unexpected char loss during the flight.

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemi...eld-char-loss/


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....035f10a59.jpeg
​​​​​​​

Boeing limbering up for big job cuts in the Artemis program....
https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...fs-2025-02-08/

Even jobs and contractor enrichment programs like the SLS have their limits--after too many headlines of "billions over budget and years behind schedule" without showing results, even the most bought-and-paid for politicians start asking questions. I strongly suspect Musk has been whispering in Trump's ear that SpaceX can do it better/cheaper/faster.

Well...SpaceX can.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4935/1

Redirecting NASA’s focus: why the Gateway program should be cancelled

The Gateway, a small space station intended to orbit the Moon, has been an integral part of NASA’s Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface and establish a permanent presence on the Moon. However, it has become increasingly clear that the Gateway is a poor use of our limited resources for space exploration. This article delves into the reasons why the Gateway program should be cancelled, with the Gateway funding redirected to the Artemis program and to landing the first humans on Mars.

NASA’s Artemis program is years behind schedule, its costs have ballooned out of control, and the architecture is too complex. The remedy is to eliminate costly parts of the Artemis architecture that are unnecessary, namely the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion spacecraft, and the Gateway. My recent article described how the SLS and Orion programs could be phased out and replaced with an architecture based solely on the Starship.

This article calls for an immediate end to the Gateway program.....

The first company to fly a methalox engine successfully in production: Blue Origin
The first methalox powered launch vehicle to reach orbit: New Glenn

Is it really that clear who's in the lead?
SpaceX isn't doing methalox cheaper and faster yet.

The Raptor burns methalox, first flew in April 2023 and is in mass production with V3 entering production. Current production rate is 500 a year but will need to ramp up to 4000 a year with current Booster/Starship production plans.

Blue Origins BE-4 first flew in January 2024 with a current production rate of 42 a year.

If you want to go back and argue who flew the first methalox engine to put a payload in orbit - it was the Chinese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TQ-12

https://www.spaceintel101.com/post/c...powered-rocket

Simply pointing out the facts, which are that SpaceX is testing, and Blue Origin is in production in two separate launch vehicles.

Calling New Glenn “in production” when the booster failed to be recovered and the prototype pathfinder put in orbit is technology demonstrator - but decrying Starship as testing when they’ve successfully caught to boosters and water landed 3 starships is being economical with the truth.

They’re also in different classes - New Glenn is in competition against Falcon Heavy, not Starship.

Once Starship is in productive service the economics will make both the above into niche launchers.