Comment by Teever

A practical issue with government spending is that it's self motivated. Politicians' only job is to get elected. And one big way to do that is by ensuring that money goes to your district, creating jobs and opportunities. This is how you get things like the SLS, nicknamed the Senate Launch System. It was a tremendous waste of money, spending on the order of decades to build a launch system that was arguably obsoleted years before it completed, and will in any case be far too expensive to ever regularly use.

But the reason we kept throwing good money after bad is because the goal was never really about making a good launch system. It was all about sending money and creating stable long-term jobs in various states and districts, actively supported by the politicians representing those areas. So you had parts being built all over the place, in a way that just sends costs skyrocketing, but that's okay - because the rocket isn't the goal.

Of course the government itself is aware of this problem, much like fishermen are aware that overfishing is self destructive in the long-run, even if they are nonetheless individually motivated to do exactly that. So I think this was why the big push for commercializing space. And I think we'll ultimately see the exact same thing with deeper space missions and technologies. SpaceX's goal is Mars and I see no reason to think they will fail there. At that point, costs for various Martian missions - be they sample return, rovers, or whatever else - should be relatively negligible relative to today. Exactly as happened when we went from ferrying people to the ISS using the Space Shuttle, to when we started launching them on Falcon rockets.

For both operating mars rovers, the launch vehicle cost was about 10% of the total. So even if the providers paid you to launch, you'll still be picking up 80% of the remainder. Cut the development cost by 10x? Still in the hundred million dollar range. So still only large goverments can afford. And none of them would approve a bunch of rovers, they'd just see a discount on the one rover they already don't want to give you - "you have one, isn't that enough? Why do you need two?"

I won't find it now, but I distinctly remember watching a video about some big NASA event a few years back but when Starship Booster (first stage) had been flying already. Basically none one at the event even considered switching paradigm from ultra custom probes and landers built from unobtainium and unicorn blood in favor of the way cheaper and way less robust, almost mass market hardware, to be launched once every 10 months instead of every 10 years on a regular basis. (PS: I know all the laundry list of arguments against this approach, and they are not that convincing at NASA scale). And I won't even talk about Space Disgrace System for manned flight.

NASA is stuck in the past and does it consciously and voluntarily.

We've had 8 launches in the past 3 years, with only 10 in the combined 17 years before [1].

Seems that the reduced cost is being taken advantage of. And, make sure to exclude the drastic reduction in non-lunar launches in your cost comparison for lunar launches.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon#2...

The nature of science and exploration is that every mission is harder than the last, which is a reasonable first order proxy for expense. For NASA specifically, there has also been a large focus placed on making delivery to orbit and the moon a commercial service rather than something that NASA has to do in-house which has held us back.

And as others have said, there is really no such thing as a cheap rover. As a recent example, there was recently a push by NASA HQ to refurbish a Mars rover engineering unit (basically a one-to-one copy of the one sent to Mars, kept at JPL for use in ops planning and issue debugging) into an operational lunar rover. The estimated cost to take this existing piece of hardware and make it fully flight ready and suitable for the new mission was hundreds of millions of dollars.

Outside of specifics like the space shuttle program, launch costs have never been that big of a factor. Like 5-15% of a program's cost. If your satellite or rover costs billions to build and another billion to run for a decade, saving a hundred million (or even a couple hundred million) isn't that much of a game changer

Sending a probe to orbit another planet costs X. Landing a probe softly on another planet costs 10X. Landing and then returning a probe costs 100X.

The numbers above are notional, not literal. But you get the idea.

Probably has something to do with the recent anti-science movement that currently has our country and government in a chokehold.

[flagged]

Some types of launches to some classes or orbits have gotten cheaper. Not all launches to all orbits. I don't know if any commercial launch services can even do planetary transfer orbits.

In space everything is an orbital change. To change orbits you need to speed up and slow down, all of that requires fuel. Even using what are known as "low energy" trajectories that use a bunch of gravitational slingshots need velocity changes to adjust trajectories to get the right angle of approach to some large body.

Most commercial launch services focus on LEO because the secondary stages don't need to carry much fuel and their engines only need to fire reliably once to get into a stable orbit.

A planetary transfer requires multiple engine firings. That's much harder than a single reliable firing. It's not impossible but the testing and engineering is expensive.

A science mission often needs to beg, borrow, and steal to get built. There's one shot to accomplish the mission objectives. That's more expensive engineering and testing. Some mission profiles require specific planetary alignments with very narrow launch windows to boot. So there's a lot of expensive work made more expensive by a tight deadline.

The actual marginal cost of the rocket, fuel, and launch is a very small part of the mission cost. Halving the launch price doesn't necessarily affect the cost of anything else.

Starlink satellites are effectively disposable. If a Falcon 9 explodes or fails to get the second stage to orbit they're out maybe a few tens of millions of dollars. If a science mission has some mission-killing failure there's no funding for a do-over.