NASA thoroughly understands the problem but so do congress and the senate. NASA are required by law to spend money on SLS. They are required to use the preferred (by congress) contractors even when the costs are astronomical. To accomplish this they have to employ people who can do that work without vomiting. Plenty of people at NASA lack this important requirement but most are able to avoid commenting on SLS while they get on with something constructive.
Take a closer look at job creation schemes. Head bean counter takes a taxi to work = 1 job. Bean counter takes a taxi home, that is another job - even if it is the same driver. SLS does actually employ some people so it is a step up from many job creation schemes. If the law requiring SLS were cancelled tomorrow, everyone on the project capable of designing or constructing a rocket could get new jobs in under a month. Rocket start-ups are popular with investors at the moment. SLS as a job creation scheme is really harmful because it diverts skilled workers from constructive projects.
Starship is not going to cancel SLS. The key difference between New Glenn and SLS is that Jeff has at least some clue that he is being fleeced but few US tax payers have cottoned on. Some space enthusiasts hope SLS will explode early enough in the launch to destroy the MLP. This would leave congress with the choice of taking years to build a replacement, taking years to convert the other MLP to Block 1 SLS, waiting years for Block 1B SLS or cancelling SLS. I think they could go for converting the MLP to block 1 and ordering another one for block 1B while getting enthusiastic cheers from voters for creating jobs for people who would otherwise be doing something useful.
The only good news at the moment is progress on the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Starship. A new delay in publication should be announced tomorrow.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
