[JumpCrisscross]

> then SLS would represent a ~17 year long program that cost at least 41 billion dollars that netted 5 mission launches

SLS will never be worth it. But I'd discount from that price tag the continuity benefits of keeping the Shuttle folks around, and aerospace engineers employed, across the chasm years of the 2010s.

[ericd]

Yeah, it’d be really nice if we could somehow express the strategic capabilities maintained in these discussions. Because on the face of it, SLS looks terrible, but paying that much to maintain the national capability to make something like the shuttle and SRBs feels reasonable.

Kind of similar to farm subsidies and the strategic implications there.

[JumpCrisscross]

> paying that much to maintain the national capability to make something like the shuttle and SRBs feels reasonable

It’s reasonable to pay something. I’m unconvinced $41bn is the correct amount.

> Kind of similar to farm subsidies and the strategic implications there

There aren’t many. Countries in which farmers aren’t swing voters don’t have farm subsidies. I’ve been looking into buying some farmland and just collecting CRP on it, for example.

[ericd]

Yeah, there should've been a "more" in front of "reasonable". There are probably other ways to maintain knowledge of how to make SRBs.