Submitted by jeffsmith202 t3_y6ku1g in space
Comments
_Abe_Froman_SKOC t1_ispub9b wrote
How about they launch the f**king thing first?
smithsp86 t1_ispx6vk wrote
Because launching a rocket isn’t the point of SLS.
[deleted] t1_ispxq8q wrote
[removed]
TheMasterAtSomething t1_ispyh8d wrote
If you don’t know, this is exactly how the shuttle worked. It just makes handling contracts easier for NASA.
SnakeCharmer28 t1_ispyoue wrote
Its Boeing and Northrup, there's no cost savings to be had.
ReturnOfDaSnack420 t1_ispzhyz wrote
Basically Lockheed is the only pig that didn't get an open space on this trough
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
[deleted] t1_isq0tfy wrote
not to mention how they exceeded the reusability factor to cut down the costs
[deleted] t1_isq1nvd wrote
[removed]
TheScienceGiant t1_isq1wbg wrote
You can be sure SpaceX wants a sniff at the slop.
contextswitch t1_isq29if wrote
SLS is my favorite example of Basic Income
[deleted] t1_isq4qnm wrote
termsofsurrender t1_isq4uod wrote
Yep. No more money until SLS proves itself.
Xeglor-The-Destroyer t1_isq68vz wrote
Lockheed gets their feed from the Orion capsule. This contract is just for the SLS rocket.
machaca_master t1_isq6on2 wrote
Didn't congress write the funding such that this was the pre-determined outcome?
MechaSkippy t1_isq98su wrote
They tied in the explicit use of pre-SLS hardware for "cost savings". In reality, it baked in the winners.
ThinkingPotatoGamer t1_isqe3nm wrote
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not
[deleted] t1_isqhcs0 wrote
[removed]
Aquanauticul t1_isqhyym wrote
Well that's just Boeing as a whole.
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.
SniffinLippy t1_isqqbll wrote
Oh yeah, because everyone trusts Boeing these days, they're so straight up
[deleted] t1_isqqtw2 wrote
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?
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.
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.
A40 t1_isqyykh wrote
Pork-barreling at its wurst :-)
Ian_W t1_isqz8qd wrote
Yes.
But put the blame where it's deserved, which is on Congress and not on NASA.
[deleted] t1_isqz93p wrote
[deleted] t1_isr17u5 wrote
[deleted]
404_Gordon_Not_Found t1_isr2l5r wrote
Well actually NASA exec sold congress the idea of a shuttle derived launch vehicle
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.
rabbitwonker t1_isr42in wrote
With a sterling safety record
rabbitwonker t1_isr4nqy wrote
Except there’s nothing basic about it. Except the work product.
seanflyon t1_isr54vo wrote
Cost savings would undermine the primary purpose of the program.
DNathanHilliard t1_isr58yb wrote
Shorter case; "The Senators Boeing and Northrup own told us to do it this way or else."
sg3niner t1_isr5ba5 wrote
Actually, I think I'd trust Willie to be more respectful.
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.
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.
kremdog12 t1_isr5sjc wrote
14 deaths out of 355 astronauts is less than 4%
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_isr6o2z wrote
[removed]
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
stolic_nz t1_isr8pk0 wrote
And I’d gladly give Willy my stash… and then help him smoke it.
icouldbworknow t1_isr95nk wrote
Pretty sure all the astronauts that have ever been on it will die - 100% mortality.....😀
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
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.
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.
rabbitwonker t1_isranxx wrote
I mean the money is put through a complexifying filter of contracts, varying individual rates, lots of accompanying rules, etc.
NotAnotherNekopan t1_isrbdyb wrote
Exactly. And for what was reused, the cost associated with refurbishing it was far higher than anticipated.
PadishahSenator t1_isrcxfi wrote
Like maybe putting them to work on something that's actually productive?
fail-deadly- t1_isre9ff wrote
Well 100% of people who taken a breath will die, but I don’t consider breathing hazardous.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_isrh01n wrote
[deleted]
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.
contextswitch t1_isrhbyl wrote
You must be easily impressed
nautilator44 t1_isrhh9f wrote
And 100% of those that died had dihydrogen monoxide in their bodies.
[deleted] t1_isrhr7t wrote
[deleted]
The-Taxpayer t1_isrhulm wrote
Everybody’s really good at spending my money.
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.
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).
GrittyPrettySitty t1_isrk6gc wrote
The market? You mean the companies who fail to meet deadlines?
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.
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.
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])
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_isrs2sx wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
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.
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.
ReasonablyBadass t1_iss72s6 wrote
That thing had to have it's tiles reglued by hand after every launch. it was a failure.
KindAwareness3073 t1_issacg3 wrote
It's a congressionally mandated pork-barrel jobs program, not a space program.
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...
[deleted] t1_issy71s wrote
[deleted]
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.
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.
bright_shiny_objects t1_isu0j2s wrote
No other company has anything that can do what sls is supposed to do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
seanflyon t1_isufl2x wrote
NASA is a lot more than just pork projects like the SLS.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_isuutzc wrote
[removed]
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.
jamesbideaux t1_isx9y7a wrote
does apple cart mean the same thing here as self-licking ice cream cone?
nate-arizona909 t1_isxywvn wrote
Apple cart means the pre SpaceX status quo which NASA, the primes, and Congress were totally satisfied with.
GrittyPrettySitty t1_it5k005 wrote
Good point. I agree. They are the biggest jobs program in the world.
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.
KindAwareness3073 t1_itakhnw wrote
Don't forget, their "objectives" are pointless.
[deleted] t1_isprnuv wrote
[removed]