The Space Launch System: A Costly Endeavor and Its Political Future

The Space Launch System (SLS) is a program that has been at the forefront of US space efforts for years, yet it remains a contentious issue. While there are those who hail it as a symbol of technological advancement, others argue that it may be economically unsustainable and over-engineered. This article explores the political implications of the SLS and its uncertain future.

Is the SLS Futile or Feasible?

One of the most pressing questions surrounding the SLS is whether it will be canceled. There are mixed opinions among experts; some believe it could be a one-and-done mission, while others think it might not fly at all. NASA faces a significant challenge as it navigates the political landscape. From within the agency, there is a belief that the mission is to build rockets, period. However, the reality is that the commercial rocket industry, exemplified by the Falcon Heavy, means there may be other players in the market. This raises the question of whether SLS is truly necessary.

NASA's perspective is pragmatic. If the SLS is canceled, the agency might lose the budget spent on it and be faced with reallocating those funds elsewhere. It would be wiser, from their standpoint, to continue building SLS. After all, the world has another rocket, thanks to private companies. The key point here is that the mission of SLS may not be about practical space exploration but more about meeting the expectations and pressures from Congress.

Government Priorities and Budget Allocation

Currently, the highest priority for the government is building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, regardless of the financial implications for taxpayers. President Trump has shown a willingness to shut down the government if Congress does not fund the construction of this wall. While this may seem reminiscent of SLS in terms of political pressure, it highlights the stark differences in priorities between government programs.

The situation in the government is far from ideal for those who advocate for the continuation of the space program. While issues such as the detention of immigrant children are being addressed in the courts, the current political climate does not bode well for future space initiatives. The cruel and harmful policies toward these children, including the use of sedatives and anti-psychotic medications, have had profound negative effects. These actions could have long-term consequences, especially if these children grow up with deep-seated animosity and fear towards Americans.

The Politics Behind the SLS

One of the criticisms of the SLS is that it was initially designed to distribute pork rather than serve any real mission. The creation of the SLS is often referred to as the "Senate Launch System," reflecting its origins in Congress. The mandate for the SLS included the use of existing Shuttle orbiter engines and solid rocket boosters, which seems like a frugal measure in theory. However, in practice, this approach proved more costly and less effective. The SLS has changed little in purpose over the years, and it is destined to be canceled sooner or later, serving only as a means to provide financial boost to favored contractors and politicians.

The ultimate decision on the SLS's fate will depend on the relative lobbying power of its various stakeholders. NASA itself is a neutral pawn, carrying out the wishes of Congress. This dynamic means that the space program can be significantly influenced by political whims rather than sound engineering or practical needs.

Decisions on such complex and expensive programs like SLS often hinge on factors that are not directly related to the success of the mission. The SLS's budget spent so far and its future role in space exploration make it a target for both supporters and detractors. As the political landscape shifts, the future of the SLS remains uncertain. Whether it will fly as intended or be shelved depends on this complex interplay of political and financial interests.