Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

_Abe_Froman_SKOC t1_ispub9b wrote

How about they launch the f**king thing first?

86

smithsp86 t1_ispx6vk wrote

Because launching a rocket isn’t the point of SLS.

86

contextswitch t1_isq29if wrote

SLS is my favorite example of Basic Income

58

shableep t1_israhaq wrote

You know, to a certain degree it's good to create demand for engineers in diverse regions. It stops brain drain from happening. Keeping incredibly smart people employed and working on solutions is good for everyone. However, there is probably a better way to do this.

11

PadishahSenator t1_isrcxfi wrote

Like maybe putting them to work on something that's actually productive?

13

rabbitwonker t1_isr4nqy wrote

Except there’s nothing basic about it. Except the work product.

1

contextswitch t1_isra77h wrote

Sure it is, it's the government giving out money to people. Maybe we get a rocket out of it but not a really useful one, it's mostly busy work.

1

rabbitwonker t1_isranxx wrote

I mean the money is put through a complexifying filter of contracts, varying individual rates, lots of accompanying rules, etc.

3

TheMasterAtSomething t1_ispyh8d wrote

If you don’t know, this is exactly how the shuttle worked. It just makes handling contracts easier for NASA.

79

ReturnOfDaSnack420 t1_ispzn41 wrote

And of course if the shuttle program was known for anything it was for being cost-effective, coming in under budgetary projections and delivering the promised capabilities

160

[deleted] t1_isq0tfy wrote

not to mention how they exceeded the reusability factor to cut down the costs

63

ThinkingPotatoGamer t1_isqe3nm wrote

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not

3

NotAnotherNekopan t1_isquxxy wrote

It's sarcasm. Shuttle was expensive, hardly reusable, took far longer than expected for first launch, and a fairly dangerous vehicle.

That being said we don't have anything quite like it since and there's a lot of tasks we just can't do without it.

33

relic2279 t1_isu0nxc wrote

> there's a lot of tasks we just can't do without it

We couldn't have fixed the hubble without it. It carried and helped install COSTAR which was as big as a telephone booth. Fun Fact: The guy who came up with the solution did so while in a hotel shower - he noted the way the shower head was mounted and installed and it gave him the idea. Source.

1

Hussar_Regimeny t1_isr64zf wrote

>Hardly reusable

My guy what was the orbitor then. Also the SRBs could be reused although due to how cheap they were it was easier to just build new ones.

−4

WiscoAstro t1_isr9eui wrote

The shuttle had to undergo a heavy refurbishment every launch, the tank and SRBs were expendable, even if they claimed the SRBs were to be reused. It was promised to be much more reusable than what we got in reality

5

NotAnotherNekopan t1_isrbdyb wrote

Exactly. And for what was reused, the cost associated with refurbishing it was far higher than anticipated.

4

TheGoldenHand t1_isru0r0 wrote

> the SRBs could be reused although due to how cheap they were it was easier to just build new ones.

There is no official accounting or source from NASA about the SRBs complete costs, which are very difficult to quantify because of the large nature of the program. NASA said they were potentially cheaper because of the frequency of launches (which was never substantiated). No group has ever released a source or study accurately accounting for all costs.

What we do know, is dumping metal into a salty ocean damages them almost instantly. There is a reason SpaceX lands their engines on dry platforms.

5

ReasonablyBadass t1_iss72s6 wrote

That thing had to have it's tiles reglued by hand after every launch. it was a failure.

3

[deleted] t1_isr17u5 wrote

[deleted]

−10

HereHoldMyBeer t1_isr5j2h wrote

Nah, it was only 2% How many shuttle launches were there? 135? So really about 1.5% total vehicle loss.

Mortality is another subject entirely.

9

icouldbworknow t1_isr95nk wrote

Pretty sure all the astronauts that have ever been on it will die - 100% mortality.....😀

3

fail-deadly- t1_isre9ff wrote

Well 100% of people who taken a breath will die, but I don’t consider breathing hazardous.

2

mjzimmer88 t1_isrg1n8 wrote

That probably depends on where you live. Check the iOS weather so and you'll see a smog index.

This is why you never see a discount on Perri-air.

0

nautilator44 t1_isrhh9f wrote

And 100% of those that died had dihydrogen monoxide in their bodies.

0

Drop_Tables_Username t1_istkmgo wrote

Also, about 4 percent of people who flew on the shuttle died on the shuttle (14 out of 355).

Not a great success story to emulate.

1

toodroot t1_isqriyx wrote

Does it? This project is late, over budget, and keeps on awarding big bonuses to the primes. Which of these problems is improved by setting up a joint venture?

11

bambooboi t1_isr3lh3 wrote

Fuck SLS.

Just strap the Orion to the top of a Falcon Heavy.

For one, ittl work. Two, ittl land itself and be exponentially cheaper than this corporate welfare shit show.

7

MaltenesePhysics t1_isrkxm7 wrote

While I’d love to see this, FH doesn’t have the performance margin to lift Orion to the moon in a reusable configuration. Slapping it on an expendable Starship-derived upper stage and flying it on Superheavy? That’s more feasible than a FH-Orion combo.

3

Shrike99 t1_isryord wrote

Falcon Heavy in expendable configuration is still an order of magnitude cheaper than SLS. Though even then you'd need some extra development to get it to work - propellant crossfeed, or sticking the ICPS on top of S2.

Starship-derived is definitely the better solution.

6

FTR_1077 t1_isrha70 wrote

Falcón heavy is not human rated, and will never be. Also, SLS is 80% more powerful.. so no, it doesn't work.

−2

Shrike99 t1_isryk8x wrote

>Falcón heavy is not human rated, and will never be.

It could be if the desire was there. SpaceX originally planned to do it when they had a customer who wanted to fly on it, but after the customer changed their mind SpaceX no longer had any reason to do it.

If NASA asked SpaceX to crew-rate Falcon Heavy, it would be done. It would hardly the first time SpaceX changed their minds in order to meet NASA's requirements.

Also, the fact that Falcon 9 is crew rated, currently flying on a regular basis, and arguably the most reliable launch vehicle in history means Falcon Heavy is starting from a good basis, moreso than SLS I'd argue.

>SLS is 80% more powerful

In terms of raw thrust, sure. But it's also very inefficient, such that in terms of payload capability it's only around 25% more capable to TLI, and most of that is from the high efficiency upper stage. If you put a similar high efficiency stage on top of Falcon Heavy (traditionally the SLS's ICPS is proposed, but Centaur V would be even better) it actually gets pretty damn close. With propellant crossfeed in the mix you'd all but match it.

Such developments would take time and money, but would still likely be cheaper than SLS in the long run. However much like with crew-rating SpaceX would prefer to focus on Starship, and NASA currently show no interest in developing such capabilities, though the previous administrator did raise the possibility.

9

nate-arizona909 t1_isudtni wrote

$3B per launch doesn’t work either, regardless of the paper performance.

SLS is really quite the accomplishment. A rocket too expensive to launch.

7

seanflyon t1_isriane wrote

Falcon Heavy will be human rated if their is a customer to pay for it. SLS is years away from being ready to carry humans. Falcon Heavy could easily be ready to carry humans before SLS is ready to carry humans.

3

FTR_1077 t1_isrj68m wrote

>Falcon Heavy will be human rated if their is a customer to pay for it.

Elon said that will never happen, SpaceX is betting on starship.

>SLS is years away from being ready to carry humans.

SLS is ready to carry humans right now, of course it needs to be tested first. But it is already human rated.

>Falcon Heavy could easily be ready to carry humans before SLS is ready to carry humans.

Again, Elon said that will never happen.. and regardless, it doesn't have enough power (remember the 80% mention before).

0

seanflyon t1_isrnrgu wrote

> Elon said that will never happen

Do you have a source for that? Specifically that they would not do it for a paying customer? From what I recall they have said the opposite. You may have heard a statement that they don't think they will ever have a customer want to pay to human rate FH when Starship is better and cheaper.

> SLS is ready to carry humans right now

Either it is ready or it is not. It needs to be tested first and will not be ready to carry humans for a few years assuming everything goes according to plan. It would be ridiculously dangerous to put humans on an untested rocket, not to mention the capsule on top does not yet have a full life support system and the Artemis 1 launch will not have a working launch escape system.

5

Apprehensive_Note248 t1_issetky wrote

I don't know how one can say it's ready for humans now, but needs testing first with a straight face. That is literally not being ready.

SLS apologists...

5

MaltenesePhysics t1_isrl8jf wrote

FH will never be human rated, but I don’t consider SLS human rated. The ECLSS is disabled/missing for Artemis 1, something absolutely critical for Human Spaceflight. It’s ludicrous that there’s no ECLSS on mission 1 to shake out issues, but that’s another story. It’s like they’re begging for something to fail on A2, when they could’ve just tested on A1.

3

Hussar_Regimeny t1_isrnaql wrote

> ECLSS

I should point out that the ECLSS has been tested extenstively on the ground already. Sending up with A1 will give little to no new data. The only way to stress test an ECLSS is to have humans aboard. Plus parts of it at the very least have been tested onboard the ISS

Plus it's not uncommon to not place the ECLSS on flights. DM-1 didn't have one and then DM-2 flew with humans and with the ECLSS for the first time. So this isn't the ludicrous action you think it is.

−1

MaltenesePhysics t1_isth0j0 wrote

That’s not true. DM-1 had its ECLSS installed and enabled. They ran into some issues with it during flight, even with no crew aboard. You can’t find unexpected issues with a system without having the system installed. It doesn’t make sense for them to not take the opportunity to test the entire system in deep space.

4

actual-rationalist t1_isqjosk wrote

Yea, NASA, cost plus and gov contracts are a complete failure. The markets handles deadlines and failures a lot better than the gov.

6

GrittyPrettySitty t1_isrk6gc wrote

The market? You mean the companies who fail to meet deadlines?

2

nate-arizona909 t1_isuuqzj wrote

Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, et. al. are so enmeshed with the federal government it’s almost impossible to see where the one ends and the other starts. They are at best quasi-government entities.

The big clue to this is you will almost never see a cost plus contract of these sorts in the private sector.

5

SexualizedCucumber t1_iswo9du wrote

Government contractors aren't allowed enough risk of failure and because of this, they drag their feet at massive cost to the government.

For example: If Starliner and SLS fails, Boeing will be at 0 risk of going under. If Starlink and Starship fails, SpaceX will almost definitely go under. So it's no surprise which of those two moves more quickly.

1

BobRab t1_isqn4zl wrote

Asking Bill Nelson to watch over taxpayer money is about as dumb as asking Willie Nelson to watch over your weed stash. You’re not getting anything back.

40

sg3niner t1_isr5ba5 wrote

Actually, I think I'd trust Willie to be more respectful.

28

This_Username_42 t1_isr75qz wrote

Willie would only use it in a bind and leave you double the cash to cover it

Unless you’re the IRS

11

stolic_nz t1_isr8pk0 wrote

And I’d gladly give Willy my stash… and then help him smoke it.

7

machaca_master t1_isq6on2 wrote

Didn't congress write the funding such that this was the pre-determined outcome?

32

MechaSkippy t1_isq98su wrote

They tied in the explicit use of pre-SLS hardware for "cost savings". In reality, it baked in the winners.

36

nate-arizona909 t1_isu7pos wrote

The SLS costs $2B+ per launch and God only knows what the real development cost was but certainly in excess of $24B. Thank goodness they took the cost savings route.

7

seanflyon t1_isubq85 wrote

$2.2 billion for the rocket itself, $600 million for ground support, $1.3 billion for the Orion capsule, and none of that includes any development costs.

7

nate-arizona909 t1_isucy9q wrote

It’s insanity. With these sorts of launch costs you can afford to do almost no science. Maybe you get that Artemis “first gal on the moon” photo op but not much more.

Honestly, the best outcome for space science at this point would be for the first SLS to rise gracefully off the pad, roll and arch over the Atlantic then explode over an empty piece of the ocean with the shattered remains falling harmlessly into the deep. Then maybe we could forget about this regrettable waste of money and move on to something productive.

7

A40 t1_isptiii wrote

But think of all the starvin' lil' porkbarrels a single contract will exclude!

(Or is Boeing-Northrop going to shop it all around in the exact same, wasteful way NASA did?)

23

SnakeCharmer28 t1_ispyoue wrote

Its Boeing and Northrup, there's no cost savings to be had.

19

ReturnOfDaSnack420 t1_ispzhyz wrote

Basically Lockheed is the only pig that didn't get an open space on this trough

13

TheScienceGiant t1_isq1wbg wrote

You can be sure SpaceX wants a sniff at the slop.

1

nate-arizona909 t1_isueozu wrote

SpaceX has produced a hell of a lot more for a hell of a lot less money in recent years than these dinosaur aerospace contractors.

One day SpaceX may be as fat, dumb, and corrupt as these guys, but that day is not today.

4

Ian_W t1_isqyrtm wrote

NASA doesn't make any decisions regarding the Senate Launch System.

It's all dictated by Congress, who have the power to direct how money is spent, and use that power extensively.

13

A40 t1_isqyykh wrote

Pork-barreling at its wurst :-)

5

Ian_W t1_isqz8qd wrote

Yes.

But put the blame where it's deserved, which is on Congress and not on NASA.

5

nate-arizona909 t1_isufdsw wrote

Yeah, NASA is just a poor innocent bystander in all this. That’s why the GAO caught them hiding billions of SLS dev costs in other unrelated programs.

Why they are just as pure as the driven snow.

5

SniffinLippy t1_isqqbll wrote

Oh yeah, because everyone trusts Boeing these days, they're so straight up

13

KindAwareness3073 t1_issacg3 wrote

It's a congressionally mandated pork-barrel jobs program, not a space program.

13

HighDagger t1_itajtss wrote

Which wouldn't be as much of a problem if they would at least have results to show for it. Flight cadence is low, capability is low, costs are high, thus sustainability is low. It's madness. Corruption of the most blatant kind.

2

FuriouslyListening t1_isr5faa wrote

Case is that a number of senators need more pork for their state and want to keep the contracts where they are. Boeing is such a piece of shit and should not be given any more space contracts from NASA. Which has been proven over and over and over again. They are slow, technologically inferior, and constantly over budget. They are so significantly more expensive than their obvious competitor, SpaceX, it is absolutely ridiculous.

10

DNathanHilliard t1_isr58yb wrote

Shorter case; "The Senators Boeing and Northrup own told us to do it this way or else."

8

spoollyger t1_isrtt8f wrote

It’s all good. Starship will out this thing to shame. Especially when they start work on the super sized version of the starship, 18m diameter.

6

HoomanMK2 t1_isqd9kf wrote

Prove SLS works, then go spend money on reusable rocket tech. SLS design is so dated :(

5

nickcut t1_isrn4wn wrote

Why don't they just put out a contract for delivering 42t to the moon? Why does it have to use SLS? Why not pay for what you want to accomplish and let SLS compete?

5

bright_shiny_objects t1_isu0j2s wrote

No other company has anything that can do what sls is supposed to do.

0

seanflyon t1_isud596 wrote

Falcon Heavy can do a lot of what SLS is supposed to do and Starship can do so much more, but that is beside the point.

NASA can and does award development contracts for things that don't exist yet. It works much better when NASA specifies the goals and only pays the contractor when they achieve milestones. This holds the contractor accountable for results. The other option is a cost-plus contract like the SLS program where the contractor gets paid more if they spend more. There is little incentive to actually deliver results.

4

nate-arizona909 t1_isu775l wrote

The case is that Boeing funnels tons of money to politicians and provides cushy jobs to upper level bureaucrats and military brass once they leave the government.

5

ioncloud9 t1_isqh917 wrote

So they made the whole thing now they are just giving it away to a joint venture that has a guaranteed profit. There is no cost savings in a structure like this. You’d save more bringing it entirely in house.

4

seanflyon t1_isr54vo wrote

Cost savings would undermine the primary purpose of the program.

11

StevenK71 t1_isr2h4r wrote

To justifiably pay over the top what everybody thought would be cost-effective

3

So_spoke_the_wizard t1_isr69tx wrote

So they just end up eliminating their negotiating power with SpaceX after the SLS turns out to be a cost overun, slow delivery bust.

2

Ok-Signature-8038 t1_isrfn2n wrote

Government!!! Follow the money being shuffled under the table. Like I heard it said, “That’s what you have to do”…. Bet on it.

1

Decronym t1_isrm62x wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CCtCap|Commercial Crew Transportation Capability| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |ECLSS|Environment Control and Life Support System| |GAO|(US) Government Accountability Office| |ICPS|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |SRB|Solid Rocket Booster| |TLI|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starliner|Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |crossfeed|Using the propellant tank of a side booster to fuel the main stage, or vice versa|

Event Date Description
DM-1 2019-03-02 SpaceX CCtCap Demo Mission 1
DM-2 2020-05-30 SpaceX CCtCap Demo Mission 2

^(11 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 18 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8161 for this sub, first seen 18th Oct 2022, 04:43]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

nate-arizona909 t1_isu85aq wrote

NASA is nothing but a white collar jobs program and a means to shovel tons of money at preferred contractors. Space exploration is but a side effect of this true purpose.

1

seanflyon t1_isufl2x wrote

NASA is a lot more than just pork projects like the SLS.

6

nate-arizona909 t1_isuompb wrote

NASA is a pale shadow of what it could be were it not so cozy with their prime contractors. Had NASA insisted on real cost reductions in space access then they would be doing 10x the science they do today. SpaceX with their reusable boosters isn’t doing anything that could not have been done as early as the 1990s. It was just not in the interest of Boeing, Lockheed, etc. financially, therefore NASA had no interest in it either.

I’m old enough to remember NASA lying to Congress about the flight rate on the Shuttle (one going up every two weeks). This was done so they could amortize the fixed overhead cost to hit their per launch targets. They were lying. Congress knew they were being lied to. And the prime pitched in to support all the outlandish claims. NASA couldn’t have cared less what it cost to launch a shuttle. Everybody got what they wanted. The primes got paid, Congress got their pork, and NASA expanded their bureaucracy. Nobody cared that the amount of science that could be done was a fraction of what might have been.

That operating dynamic continues to this day. Most of the upper echelon at NASA are more pissed at SpaceX for potentially upending the apple cart than they are excited about how much more science they can do with significantly cheaper launches.

4

jamesbideaux t1_isx9y7a wrote

does apple cart mean the same thing here as self-licking ice cream cone?

1

nate-arizona909 t1_isxywvn wrote

Apple cart means the pre SpaceX status quo which NASA, the primes, and Congress were totally satisfied with.

1