Live data from Hacker News

NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

arstechnica.com

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#31
post #28

The purpose of the space program isn't to explore space, it's to consume federal funds, accruing influence and kickback contributions to the politicians who arrange it. It's important you understand this primary purpose if you want to understand what happens at NASA. If you are a space program supporter who is okay with the situation as long as NASA is getting money, then you are the reason they can get away with thi…

The way I understand it is that during the space shuttle years, companies made ties and lots of money off of federal contracts. The whole SLS program has since been doninated by those companies using political pressure to get those contracts back on new missions.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#32
Of course, the answer to why it is done, is the money flowing into many states involved in the production. Jobs are something every politician likes to create. And it is part of an economy, that the state spends some amount of the tax dollars to support a wide range and healthy economy. But for that, the jobs need to do something useful. Just overpaying for rocket engine is the quite opposite. The same amount of money could be spent to create jobs which have a longtime value and as a consequence create more jobs. Even if it was just used to accellerate the whole project by not wasting effort on something which can be bought at a fraction. Like in having the funds to make a real moon station, instead of creating a rocket, which goes to the moon once or twice and then gets cancelled because at those costs, you cannot afford a moon station.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#33
post #17
post #2

Tim Dodd just released an excellent (and long) video comparing the costs of SLS with Falcon Heavy and (eventually, maybe) Starship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY&feature=youtu.be SLS will cost upwards of a billion per launch. Compare that to $90 million for a reusable Falcon Heavy launch or ~$150 million for a disposable one.

Kind of off-topic, but trying to watch that video brought this to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22792243

Tim can repeat himself often, but he's not bad at what he does. His content is admittedly designed for children.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#34
post #28

The purpose of the space program isn't to explore space, it's to consume federal funds, accruing influence and kickback contributions to the politicians who arrange it. It's important you understand this primary purpose if you want to understand what happens at NASA. If you are a space program supporter who is okay with the situation as long as NASA is getting money, then you are the reason they can get away with thi…

it's also a high quality job creation program that employs 17K at NASA and who knows how many at contractors

it's also a military capability

it's also saved who knows how many lives with weather satellites and ambulance GPS and satphone rescues

it's also a meteor warning program

it's also a global warming monitoring program

it also begets companies like spacex and capabilities like GPS for all and inspires people to pursue science

sure there's fat, but we're employing highly skilled domestic tech and science people with that fat, would it be better if we left all those tax dollars to be spent on iphones and Starbucks? or the prison industrial complex? NASA and NOAA and the NIH and any pure science agency is super defensible

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#35
post #28

The purpose of the space program isn't to explore space, it's to consume federal funds, accruing influence and kickback contributions to the politicians who arrange it. It's important you understand this primary purpose if you want to understand what happens at NASA. If you are a space program supporter who is okay with the situation as long as NASA is getting money, then you are the reason they can get away with thi…

I worked as a contractor on a NASA project for a couple of years. Your observation that the purpose of NASA is to consume funds, accrue influence, and generally perpetuate itself matches with many of my experiences of those years. This is what comes to my mind:

I saw sounding rocket missions with overall costs of several million dollars completely lost, in terms of science data, because the telemetry link was lost. Well, we were launching recoverable vehicles and overall data recording needs were just a few Gigabytes over a 15 minute mission, so why not just record that data on-board in case the telemetry link to the ground failed? Oh, I was told, doing that is far too expensive. Well, the cost of a recorder is not even close to the cost of launching a whole research rocket with payload, so the whole thing just struck me as a tremendous waste.

My immediate previous job was as an engineer for the US Navy. I was well familiar with the concept of "colors of money", so I get that sometimes you may be flush with cash for some things (staff, facilities) but devoid of cash for things like equipment purchases. But even in my Navy years I saw obvious stupidities like this eliminated with some financial management. The contractor and NASA management didn't care. They were fine with losing years of time and millions of dollars for want of a $10,000 crash survivable solid state recorder.

The contractor has since merged with a larger competitor, then merged again. That same entity and largely the same people remain in place, managing (and in my opinion, mis-managing) this program. The only people who really seemed to "lose" when mission data was lost, as far as I could tell, were the graduate students working for our Principal Investigators who lost the data they were depending on for their PhD theses...

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#36

Space isn’t easy. Going to the moon is significantly harder than LEO. I don’t think one can claim functional and performance equivalence between SLS to FH. https://youtu.be/Y81vx__JngY Now, if the argument is: Why go to the moon? Well, that’s a different conversation.

Jim Bridenstine sounds like a competent guy, but the fact is that NASA as an organization is no longer competent. They can't build rockets anymore. SLS has been a complete failure. The program was announced in 2011. The plan was to make an expendable vehicle based on existing RS-25 engines, existing SRBs, and the existing Space Shuttle external tank. This idea of reusing all of these systems was based on the previous Constellation project. Over the past decade NASA has spent $15 billion on SLS and they have yet to launch. Falcon Heavy went from a concept in 2011 to launching Elon Musk's car into interplanetary space in 2018. The development cost for Falcon Heavy was around $500 million. That is 30x cheaper and almost twice as fast.

Orion has also been in development for over a decade and has cost $16 billion. Current estimates put the total development cost at $23 billion.

If you add up the development costs of Constellation, SLS, and Orion, I am sure it would be close to $50 billion. That's for an expendable launch system that costs $1 billion per launch. For the price of a single SLS launch, you could develop Falcon Heavy and launch 5 of them. Obviously Falcon Heavy doesn't have all the capabilities of SLS, but SLS is vaporware. And by the time SLS is working it will have to compete with Starship. It seems totally insane to continue this program considering that in the best case, we will have a launch system that is 10x more expensive than its competitor.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#37
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> preserve institutional knowledge about building rockets No it would be "preserve institutional knowledge about building OUTDATED rockets" If you are a tech company are you going to run your own outdated servers at 10x the cost because you would like to preserve institutional knowledge about running outdated hardware ? Your argument would be correct if the cost difference was not that huge, the fact that it is so hu…

The cloud hardware metaphor is a good one. Preserving knowledge is easy and cheap. Preserving capability (that is to say, people and companies with knowledge and ability to use it) is not. To use the metaphor, a huge part of the military procurement budget is dedicated to continue building, deploying, and operating on-prem servers. Not because it's more efficient, but because at an international level, having a cloud…

[deleted]

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#38
post #28

The purpose of the space program isn't to explore space, it's to consume federal funds, accruing influence and kickback contributions to the politicians who arrange it. It's important you understand this primary purpose if you want to understand what happens at NASA. If you are a space program supporter who is okay with the situation as long as NASA is getting money, then you are the reason they can get away with thi…

it's also a high quality job creation program that employs 17K at NASA and who knows how many at contractors it's also a military capability it's also saved who knows how many lives with weather satellites and ambulance GPS and satphone rescues it's also a meteor warning program it's also a global warming monitoring program it also begets companies like spacex and capabilities like GPS for all and inspires people to…

We can spend all the taxpayer money on creating 17k highly skilled jobs that actually do something.

NASA does some useful stuff, but we could be doing much more useful stuff with the same money, while still having 17k+ jobs and good military technology and weather satellites etc.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#39
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just assume that there are other options that meet their requirements, which might not be the case

The requirements were made so that the SLS would be the only thing that would be rated to launch it

Is there another moon-capable rocket i dibt know about? And please dont say starship - its highly experimental, has never flows, and spacex has never flown people.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#40

I feel like we'd all be better off if the federal government just cut an equivalent no-strings-attached check to Alabama in perpetuity, cancelled the SLS, and freed up all the rocket scientists to build something useful. They could probably even do it in Alabama! SpaceX could open a local branch and mop up the talent. The current "waste money on the SLS for political reasons" just feels like the worst of all possible…

I feel we are better closing down instagram/, and using freed up computer scientists to build something usefull.
Post reply on HN