This is John Batchelor. Bob Zimmerman, my good colleague, reports that there's trouble with a solid booster made by North of Grumman for SLS.

This follows other trouble with those solid fuel boosters for another rocket. Raising the question is, as L.S. worth the scale of investment, given that it's a one-time only use,

and then it's thrown away.

Bob answers severally.

I do note that SpaceX looks to have taken NASA's place.

Why SLS?

Bob gives the first of several versions of what's going on with NASA,

having to do with Congress more than with rocket science.

Here's Bob Zimmerman on SLS, SpaceX, Starship, Solid Fuel Booster Failure, North of Grumman, and the U.S. Senate, and more.

Bob.

Yes, and no.

No, no.

The original plan was NASA wanted an SLS to fly forever for billions and billions of dollars,

and Starship was only going to be used to land people on the moon.

Starship super heavy were never in NASA's plans.

That might be changing now under Trump.

We'll have to wait and see.

There is political pushback against Trump's proposals to cancel SLS.

We're going to have to wait and see how it plays out.