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?

SLS isn't actually available and would have required considerable amount of extra work on Clipper that would have taken years. So no research is actually delayed.

Clipper would have to have a schedule fight with Artemis and Clipper very likely would have lost that fight. SLS scaling is very slow so its very likely using SLS would have meant a later arrival.

Either way, one of Clipper or Artemis would have been delayed, this is a 100% fact. So either way one timeline of an important project is delayed.

You ask these scientists if they rather wait a little longer (again questionable) or if they would rather have 2-4 billion $ in extra research grants. That would be a more fair comparison. Now NASA can use that budget actually useful things rather then giving more money to Boeing.