I understand your point and completely agree that NASA has produced some amazing technological feats, but we could probably use a different example than the SLS to highlight their accomplishments. Even with supposedly repurposed rocket engines and technology from the Shuttle era, that project is billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. If you want to highlight how amazing it is that SLS has actually flown with all the political manipulations associated with it, then I’d probably agree with you in that sense. This is no criticism of the engineers, but to completely ignore the issues of this project as a whole, not just financially related, seems to be a bit disingenuous.
All I’m saying is you could choose a better example, which NASA is full of them.
But lets say I built you a car that already came with an engine and some other important things, just to make it quicker and cheaper to get that car in your hands. Unfortunately, you want me to complete work on the car in five different states and use components from those areas. Guess what, the car is now about $5 million over budget and 5 years behind schedule. Not only that, but we encountered issues during the first test that are going to require more fixes ($$$) and more delays for the second test.
In this situation, you’re saying it’s great, it ran correctly the first time because it went down the road and back, and budgets and timelines don’t matter. I’m saying ehhhh, not really - we’re over budget by millions, delayed by years, and there were issues, even though we repurposed stuff that was in a car that actually ran a few years back. It’s great we built the car, but the project itself isn’t something that I would showcase as my best work.
I understand your point and completely agree that NASA has produced some amazing technological feats, but we could probably use a different example than the SLS to highlight their accomplishments. Even with supposedly repurposed rocket engines and technology from the Shuttle era, that project is billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. If you want to highlight how amazing it is that SLS has actually flown with all the political manipulations associated with it, then I’d probably agree with you in that sense. This is no criticism of the engineers, but to completely ignore the issues of this project as a whole, not just financially related, seems to be a bit disingenuous.
Here’s a good article from Berger talking about what the Government Accountability Office thinks of the project: https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/nasa-finally-admits-what-everyone-already-knows-sls-is-unaffordable
The budget wasn’t really relevant to my point. And it did work correctly the first time.
All I’m saying is you could choose a better example, which NASA is full of them.
But lets say I built you a car that already came with an engine and some other important things, just to make it quicker and cheaper to get that car in your hands. Unfortunately, you want me to complete work on the car in five different states and use components from those areas. Guess what, the car is now about $5 million over budget and 5 years behind schedule. Not only that, but we encountered issues during the first test that are going to require more fixes ($$$) and more delays for the second test.
In this situation, you’re saying it’s great, it ran correctly the first time because it went down the road and back, and budgets and timelines don’t matter. I’m saying ehhhh, not really - we’re over budget by millions, delayed by years, and there were issues, even though we repurposed stuff that was in a car that actually ran a few years back. It’s great we built the car, but the project itself isn’t something that I would showcase as my best work.