NASA's Europa Clipper Launch

ETA is 2030. Originally planned for a rocket (SLS) which would have delivered the Clipper in ~3 yrs, but which was decided to be not viable for the Clipper (with some lobbying suspected).

How much science is delayed by the extra 2+ years? Looking at the 'project plan', is the Clipper's arrival (and delivery of data) on the critical path for research? And how much research?

I'm picturing a lot of scientists and research projects waiting an extra 2-3 years, and then all the research, follow-on missions, etc. also delayed. Essentially, the decision might shift everything in this field 2-3 years further away, and then centuries from now human habitation of other planets is 2-3 years later (ok, a bit exaggerated).

But seriously, maybe it's not on the critical path or doesn't impact that much. Is anyone here familiar with the research?

> (with some lobbying suspected)

The lobbying was from the SLS side. Congress was set on forcing Europa Clipper to fly on SLS regardless of technicalities and only backed off because the Europa Clipper team made it clear they'd want an additional $1B to make the spacecraft able to handle the exceedingly rough ride SLS provides. They were perfectly happy handing $2B of taxpayer money to Boeing, but were unwilling to spend another $1B on science.

On top of that, it's worth considering that SLS wouldn't be ready to fly right now anyway. As it stands, they can't even manage to build one rocket per year, the Artemis-2 rocket has already been delayed to next year, so, Clipper would've launched 2-3 years later anyway.

You don't think SpaceX did any lobbying? They just passively stood aside? Look at this story, about SpaceX, via the Project 2025 think tank's FOIA requests, searching for NASA employees who has written things critical of SpaceX:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41757578

It's really hard to discuss any topic that brushes SpaceX tangentially on HN. I asked about the research, not about the rockets, but if one even mentions SpaceX in anything less than glowing terms they get six (so far) responses re rockets, all defending SpaceX, and not a mention of the research.

NASA and SLS are actually the property of the people posting; their mission is to serve all Americans. SpaceX is a private business, whose mission is to serve only itself and, in the practice of its owner's businesses, has zero regard for everyone else.

In that context it's bizarre that people are fans of the latter. In context of social media, where mass influence is bought, it's perhaps what we'd expect - that's not NASA's business.

> private business, whose mission is to serve only itself

Any private business's primary mission is to serve its customers - in order to even exist.

By theory and - especially these days - by practice, private business is there to enrich its owners.

One way it does that is to serve customers, another is to manipulate, cheat, and squeeze them of every dime the business can get, and then drop them for higher-margin customers. Just look at modern business.