At the risk that you were actually being sarcastic (as an engineer, I seem to be sarcasm-challenged), what we want is value for our money. If the scientists, engineers, and technicians working on SLS are not going to produce a rocket that provides a valuable service, then we might as well put them all on welfare — saving enough money either to buy other useful goods or services or to fund other welfare recipients. However, I would prefer that we direct these scientists, engineers, and technicians to space projects that would be beneficial.

If SLS costs more than it is worth, then SLS looks like Icepilot’s suggestion to dig and fill ditches; just makework that makes workers feel useful.

On a general note:
At least SLS now has a mission. But do we need a 70 tonne capability in order to explore Europa? We have sent missions to Jupiter and to Saturn with less capable launch vehicles.

Since the article says that the original intention was to use an Atlas V, this would suggest that the needed capability is only 18 tonnes. That is quite a difference. It seems that we are going to pay several billions of dollars for something that should cost 1/10 as much. Those are a lot of squandered space-bucks that could have funded plenty more science missions. We could have employed a bunch of people to do several productive science programs and the several rockets needed to launch them, rather than to build one larger-than-needed rocket.

The missions that we propose for SLS should need the capabilities of SLS. Presumably that is why Congress designed it for such capabilities. Otherwise we are squandering valuable resources, including the talents and expertise of our workforce.

I agree; we could have employed those people to dig ditches (with spoons — hat tip to Milton Freedman) and then to fill them in again.

Unemployment solved.

You’re Welcome,
The Federal Government

Yay for launch delays extending the program to the right!