[ramesh31]

You have to view the cost of SLS like insurance. Premiums are also a huge waste of money until you need to make a claim. In this case, we didn't; SpaceX came through with flying colors. But that was far from a sure thing 15 years ago, and the risk of being left without access to space was real.

[wmf]

SLS doesn't provide any meaningful access to space.

[ramesh31]

>SLS doesn't provide any meaningful access to space.

It could have though.

Imagine a world where SpaceX burnt out in the late 2000s, and all that talent and energy moved to Boeing/Lockheed et. al.

Point being that they were far from a sure thing in 2008. The traditional contractors were seen as a safe bet by everyone involved. And the speed at which federal government moves means these things are measured in decades.

[dotnet00]

I disagree, there was no world where SLS would be flying often enough to meaningfully substitute for a failed SpaceX. Such a world would still have ULA with its Vulcan, which would be the more likely candidate for taking on the work instead, possibly even making it difficult for Boing to can ACES.

[mannerheim]

That's an excuse that might have worked before the Falcon Heavy started flying. Not a reason to have kept funneling money into an obsolete design afterwards, and not a reason to keep doing so now.