NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The SLS is truly a monument befitting of our times: Towering tall, vain, wasteful, and hopefully a lesson to later generations.
Upvote
404
(405
/
-1)
The Chinese lunar program will ironically be the best hope for Nasa turning things around.
Upvote
127
(131
/
-4)
Upvote
480
(501
/
-21)
So, in a semi-sarcastic question... how many supporters does this bloated whale of a rocket still have in Congress, without Shelby's influence?
And when they finally all go away, whether through voting out, retirement, or shuffling off the mortal coil, what are the chances that this thing finally gets its well-deserved toppling over and sinking into the swamp moment?
And when they finally all go away, whether through voting out, retirement, or shuffling off the mortal coil, what are the chances that this thing finally gets its well-deserved toppling over and sinking into the swamp moment?
Upvote
191
(193
/
-2)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Sometimes it just sucks to be right.
I remember joking about the Senate Launch System a decade ago and hoping against hope it would get the axe. Then hoping in recent years I (and countless other skeptics) were wrong and it turn into something at least semi-reliable and useful. Nope. Worst of both worlds.
I would add that while the SLS has formally been around for 15 years the SLS was really just the frankenstein continuation of Ares V to keep the money flowing after that was axed by Obama in 2010. Ares V development goes back to 2005. So we are at 21 years and counting with one test launch. Total cost of Constellation ($9B), post Constellation Orion costs ($18B), and SLS ($32B) is around $60B and increasing by about $2B to $4B a year.
on edit: The Augustine report regarding the Ares V
They changed the name of the rocket and swapped out a few bits but same outcome. For being made 17 years ago the Commission's predictions were pretty damn accurate. We didn't scrap the ISS we just expanded NASA budget and cut other programs so the massive flow of cash to Ares I mean SLS would continue.
I remember joking about the Senate Launch System a decade ago and hoping against hope it would get the axe. Then hoping in recent years I (and countless other skeptics) were wrong and it turn into something at least semi-reliable and useful. Nope. Worst of both worlds.
I would add that while the SLS has formally been around for 15 years the SLS was really just the frankenstein continuation of Ares V to keep the money flowing after that was axed by Obama in 2010. Ares V development goes back to 2005. So we are at 21 years and counting with one test launch. Total cost of Constellation ($9B), post Constellation Orion costs ($18B), and SLS ($32B) is around $60B and increasing by about $2B to $4B a year.
on edit: The Augustine report regarding the Ares V
They changed the name of the rocket and swapped out a few bits but same outcome. For being made 17 years ago the Commission's predictions were pretty damn accurate. We didn't scrap the ISS we just expanded NASA budget and cut other programs so the massive flow of cash to Ares I mean SLS would continue.
Last edited:
Upvote
356
(356
/
0)
Lots of other rockets you can watch: https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
Upvote
41
(43
/
-2)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
I think at this point it is simply sunk cost fallacy. SLS is "almost" done despite the last little bit is going to cost countless more billions. Orion is such a fat pig it can't be launched by anything but SLS.
So if you axe SLS you are axing Orion at which point we have no spacecraft to transport crews to the moon. If you did build an alternate crew transport vehicle you would make sure it can actually get to the moon which would axe the gateway to nowhere as well. Then it will look like we spent $60B+ for nothing and killed it on the finish the line.
So it will lurch forward due to inertia until there is something better. SpaceX fanboys will yell Starship but that would require it actually work, flying regularly, perfected in flight refueling, etc. Nobody is going to cancel SLS on the 1 yard line for a hypothetical. Blue Origin would likewise be an option but not today maybe in 5-10 years.
If I was a betting man I would hazard to guess talk about SLS cancellation grows around 2030 assuming SpaceX and Blue Origin make advancements over the next half decade. Even if axed they likely will wind down after existing planned launches and use up partially completed components so maybe final launch in 2035?
Last edited:
Upvote
194
(197
/
-3)
Upvote
97
(100
/
-3)
In terms of the pork funding that has kept the fragile SLS alive, why does it have to be the SLS? I mean, why can't we axe this flawed program and replace it with a handful of more useful ones that keep the pork and jobs flowing in the (red) states which propped up the SLS?
Upvote
84
(86
/
-2)
The chief supporters include Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Shelby's replacement in the Senate, Katie Britt. Cruz and his staff have been doing a lot of the heavy lifting of late.
Upvote
194
(194
/
0)
Orion can be launched by New Glenn and moved via tug to the Moon. However Blue Origin keeps flirting with building its own crewed spacecraft, so the marriage between the two has never occurred. But the bottom line is that I do not believe SLS and Orion are tied to the hip beyond Artemis III.
Upvote
185
(185
/
0)
SLS is like oracle or facebook or ice:
If you're involved, you should have zero pride in what you do.
If you're involved, you should have zero pride in what you do.
Upvote
-14
(55
/
-69)
Any chance 4 and 5 will be cancelled because the engineers who have worked on 1,2 and 3 will all have retired because of old age? What young engineer really wants to start his rocket building resume with "I spent 20 years building SLS 4 and 5"?
Upvote
142
(142
/
0)
Lifting of what? His luggage to flee Baja Oklahoma before a storm?
Upvote
64
(78
/
-14)
I'm currently trying to fix my Mercedes, and it's also leaking a lot. The difference is I haven't spent 20 years and about 7 trillion dollars on it
Upvote
82
(82
/
0)
Saturn-V used LH2 for its second and third stages 60 years ago, and those were very large stages. Shuttle used LH2 as its main propellant for 30 years, also a large rocket. Atlas and Delta second stages used LH2 for decades. The Vulcan second stage uses LH2. Ariane-5 used and Ariane-6 still uses LH2. Even the SLS second stage uses LH2!
So what's the deal, NASA? Although this is rocket science, it is not NEW rocket science. We have literally over half a century of experience fueling rockets with LH2. These leaks are inexcusable. They should have been addressed after Artemis-1. From what I understand, NASA and Boeing made NO hardware changes after Artemis-1. They only made procedural changes to the fueling process, such as lower LH2 flow rates, pausing to to let the seals warm up and reseat, etc.
Sad.
So what's the deal, NASA? Although this is rocket science, it is not NEW rocket science. We have literally over half a century of experience fueling rockets with LH2. These leaks are inexcusable. They should have been addressed after Artemis-1. From what I understand, NASA and Boeing made NO hardware changes after Artemis-1. They only made procedural changes to the fueling process, such as lower LH2 flow rates, pausing to to let the seals warm up and reseat, etc.
Sad.
Upvote
180
(183
/
-3)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
The SLS is the greatest rocket you can make if forced to use the components of the space shuttle. It wasn't just keep funding flowing in general. It was keep funding flowing to the "right" companies namely the companies which built components of the Space Shuttle.
The companies which made components for the Space Shuttle guzzled down $200B over the 30 years of the Space Shuttle program with essentially zero competition once the design was finalized. Suddenly that gravy train was coming to an abrupt halt. It was going from billions a year to zero. That was an emergency for them. Congress intervened on behalf of lobbyists and made sure the money would flow only to the right companies.
As a result you have a rocket defacto design by the senate. If are given money for a new rocket but required to use STS based main engines, core stage using STS based external tank, and STS based boosters then you are going to get the SLS. You can fiddle with some bits here and there but whatever you come up with will look very close to the SLS. NASA does share some of the blame, execution and oversight has been terrible even compared to Space Shuttle but the program was compromised before detailed designs even began.
Last edited:
Upvote
263
(263
/
0)
Upvote
63
(64
/
-1)
So you're saying launching the rocket would halve average the unit costs!?
What a time to be alive!
What a time to be alive!
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
What mark625 said.
Two possible conclusions:
1. NASA of today is not NASA of 50 years ago
2. Hydrogen does not work.
Two possible conclusions:
1. NASA of today is not NASA of 50 years ago
2. Hydrogen does not work.
Upvote
16
(21
/
-5)
Nice line, "...the SLS rocket is dead hardware walking." Says it all. Now think about the people going in that rocket and spacecraft. It's refreshing to see this piece looking at SLS/Orion from an angle other than reacting to NASA story lines, or IG and GAO reports. This view about what we call "cadence" or "reliability growth" in the biz is part of what I try to grapple with and resolve in my substack a couple of days ago, here-->
"Artemis II, a calculated risk, or something else entirely?"
"Artemis II, a calculated risk, or something else entirely?"
Upvote
11
(14
/
-3)
To be fair, this was almost never meant to fly, it was a nice way to funnel money into congressional districts (this is what I get reading past Ars articles on the SLS)
Upvote
56
(58
/
-2)
New Glenn would need a special stage adapter with aero, plus a bunch of crew related work: EDS, access arm, tower escape, etc. It would be a very similar cost and effort to put it on Starship with an expendable version of the ship and launch directly to TLI. So there are several good options, and neither need orbital refueling or other unproven tech.
There remains the issue that without a lander to rendezvous with, Orion has no actual purpose.
Upvote
73
(73
/
0)
Try "restoring" old classic cars - you'll soon start looking at what you can sell in the 2nd hand market and selling drugs after you put a few trillion in
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
Wait, if you know that ahead of time then I would think that a relatively(relatively) cheap change to the build/launch procedure is to proof test(FWR) when the last bolt is turned? It seems cheaper than a bunch of failed tests and launches.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Hydrogen works fine. It wasn't even necessarily a bad decision for the STS Orbiters. The engines needed to come home and hydrogen as an upper stage is a good choice.
The horrible choice was to make SLS a traditional disposable launcher from parts made for a (partially) reusable launch system. NASA had already optimized a heavy lifter for that role. It was called Saturn V. So blame congress for forcing NASA to build a new rocket to meet the Saturn V's mission using Shuttle parts - not Saturn V derivatives.
Upvote
144
(147
/
-3)
Obama got a lot of heat for trying to kill this white elephant. Now a decade and a half later he looks like a genius.
Remember even if they succeed on flying this mission without killing everyone onboard. Even if they manage to cobble together enough jury rigged equipment to fly another one and land on the moon, it will be meaningless. This system is simply a total loss. The US will not be able to establish a base and do multiple missions with the SLS. Two more flights and then it will be time to throw away all the work, all the years, all the money and start over with a rocket that isn’t Saturn V Mk. 2. As it stands there the SLS is as obsolete as a B17 on an Air Force base would be today.
Remember even if they succeed on flying this mission without killing everyone onboard. Even if they manage to cobble together enough jury rigged equipment to fly another one and land on the moon, it will be meaningless. This system is simply a total loss. The US will not be able to establish a base and do multiple missions with the SLS. Two more flights and then it will be time to throw away all the work, all the years, all the money and start over with a rocket that isn’t Saturn V Mk. 2. As it stands there the SLS is as obsolete as a B17 on an Air Force base would be today.
Upvote
122
(126
/
-4)
Saturn V cost $68 billion (2020 dollars) before its first flight, and it wouldn't have been any cheaper the second time around.
Upvote
41
(46
/
-5)
Killing SLS without funding a credible replacement was a bad idea. The US should have superheavy lift. Just not this one.
Upvote
7
(23
/
-16)
Congress of course deserves most of the blame for SLS, but NASA hasn't exactly covered itself with glory in the process either. How many "excellent" ratings and performance bonuses did NASA authorize for Boeing etc. despite all of the missed deadlines, screw-ups, massive schedule slips, etc.?
Upvote
114
(114
/
0)
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.
- Everett Dirksen - 1896-1969
Upvote
68
(68
/
0)
How unfortunate. SLS could’ve been something had there been better control on flight cadence and cost. I liked the idea and look of the rocket, but it is what it is. Money wasted. I’ll go buy the LEGO set and that’ll be that.
Upvote
5
(10
/
-5)