Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#111

Post by jariel »

bob1029 wrote: post #9
JackFr wrote: post #2

I’m not a rocket scientist and I also don’t want to bash NASA, but the size of the budget here coupled with the lack of transparency about the failure is in stark contrast with what we’ve seen out of both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Maybe what NASA is trying to do here from an engineering perspective is much, much harder. I also feel there may be unjustified spin in this article. But to an untrained eye this article sure…

Nothing about SLS makes sense to me economically. F9 Launch Cost (without reuse): $65mm FH Launch Cost (without reuse): $150mm SLS Launch Cost: >$2,000mm How does anyone square this arrangement? What saving graces does SLS have (from an engineering perspective) compared to the SpaceX programs? There are certainly a lot of downsides and I would be really disappointed to learn that there are no upsides.

Well could it be the F9 etc. are targeted at a very well established commercial class with tons of buyers, economic outputs, stable market, opportunity for re-use.

Whereas SLS is more like big fantasy science missions, much less frequent and nobody willing to really pay for it but government?

As a very, very crude way of looking at it?

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#112

Post by michaericalribo »

Beached wrote: post #69
michaericalribo wrote: post #8

Bummer! Especially this line: > All of this casts very serious doubt on NASA's plans to launch its Artemis I mission—an uncrewed precursor mission to sending humans to the Moon—before the end of this year. This outcome seems like good safety engineering: prioritize safety and control over speed. Still, it’s a disappointing setback. I want to go to space now! And this moves the eventual realization of space tourism ba…

SLS never was going to enable space tourism. You have private companies doing that, and doing it better than Boeing. SLS is worse than existing rockets in every way but one. Lift Capacity. Near term expected Space tourism doesnt need super heavy lift capacity. cheaper, faster, more reliable rockets already exist to get humans into LEO While Falcon Heavy or Delta may be able to do some of the artemis missions, they cu…

I’m intrigued at the idea that this failure “puts the squeeze” on private companies to get their projects in order faster and more efficiently. Then again I’d rather see Elon or Jeff make the trip ahead of me, as a vote of confidence. I don’t want to get spaced bc of an asshole PM at deep blue! :D

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#113

Post by pfdietz »

kaba0 wrote: post #109
ElFitz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but they are failing very, very , slowly. The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at. Failing at launching the first private rocket on a tight budget, at landing a rocket for the first time, or at iterating on rocket designs at pace rarely, if ever, seen before is expected . As a matter of fact, it’s success that isn’t expected. Failing at making yet…

SpaceX gets tons of government funding, while NASA’s was greatly cut over the years..

SpaceX get tons of revenue for selling a product to NASA. This isn't subsidy, this is purchasing a service SpaceX developed on their own.

Why shouldn't NASA take advantage of technology developed by others? NASA has saved a lot of money through this.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#114

Post by kilroy123 »

mchusma wrote: post #100

I think the SLS program at this point adds negative value to getting to space. I wouldn't normally wish for failure, but I think even if development were free I would vote to axe it. The distraction of this program is immense, and when it's done you have a non reusable rocket in a reusable age.

I agree with you and I suspect many at NASA feel the same way. Sadly, it's not up to them.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#115

Post by akiselev »

pfdietz wrote: post #102
akiselev wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but the nuclear rocketry program for Mars was making breakthroughs like the nuclear lightbulb hybrid reactor & closed loop rocket engine [1] - that the public wouldn't see until declassified papers hit JPL's archives in the 2000s. This program was cancelled by Nixon, setting us back at least half a century. [1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730003970

Not really a setback, because there was no place for that technology. Lack of space reactors wasn't and isn't a roadblock. Had that development continued it would have been largely wasted, and the knowledge gained would have decayed away.

It easily functions as a self-breeding terrestrial reactor that reaches criticality with 1/500th to 1/1000th the fuel of existing nuclear reactors (~20kg). The design requires active power that shuts down the reactor on failure, making any accident a complete nonevent. It can even be kickstarted without huge amounts of enriched fuel with the addition of a neutron gun (which they used to test the design without nuclear fuel). The core infrastructure required to support such a reactor are also covered by far less red tape (mostly centrifuges).

It would have changed the face of power generation at a critical time for climate change if it was allowed to reach fruition. Instead it was locked away in UTC & NASA archives.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#116

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

Failure at NASA isn't like failure at SpaceX. This was the culmination of 10 years of simulations and pork jobs. For SpaceX its the culmination of a couple weeks of wielding on a tent using private money instead of direct public funds.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#117

Post by tailspin2019 »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #98
tailspin2019 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind sharing a link to the podcast? It sounds interesting!

I tried to find it a bit but I’ll do a more thorough search to see if I can figure out where I learned this. I’ll let you know if I find it. EDIT: Did a thorough google search and looked through my podcast lists but I haven't been able to find it. I did find this podcast in my listening history which may or may not cover the topic, but unfortunately I don't see a transcript I can search through: https://theorbitalmec…

Appreciate you looking for it! Will give that episode a listen.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#118

Post by nickik »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

Difference is SpaceX welded some tanks on a field. This program spend 20 billion over 10 years designing the whole system on paper with very little iterative testing.

This not a prototype, this is the actual rocket that should fly. It has already spent over 1 year on the test stand to do 1 static fire. SpaceX did 3 static fire in ONE DAY last week.

Consider this, when SLS started development SpaceX Starship literally didn't exist on paper, the engines didn't exist, the facilities they were built in didn't exist, they didn't even have approval to build facilities.

So SpaceX designed a totally new engine, a engine mass manufacturing line, multiple new test stands, designed threw many iteration on the Starship design, build a totally new private space port with a huge manufacturing facility. All of this was done for a budget that is less then what SLS gets PER YEAR and not just a little less.

One year of SLS development could have likely funded all of SpaceX research and development over the last 10 years.

NASA simply should not build its own rocket. And even worse they should not blow unlimited amounts of money into these contracts while they are showing absurdly bad performance. In fact, I think the government should systematically be compensated with stocks of these companies when they go over budget and over time by this amount.

The whole program is political, it serves no function. Payloads like Europa Clippers are fighting politically for the right NOT to launch on SLS. Having SLS around forces NASA into suboptimal moon architectures. SLS is a political straight-jacked for NASA. With the SLS budget alone so many amazing project could be funded, it is hard to even comprehend.

We can 'cut the slack' on this issue, but the issues keep coming and the rate of delay is pretty crazy and the cost are even crazier.

> Let’s not forget also that it’s NASA who have also drastically changed their strategy and have enabled private companies like SpaceX to shine through their partnerships.

Fantastic, totally agree. Lets do more of that, and less giving Boeing and LM money for not performing well.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#119

Post by nickik »

giantrobot wrote: post #83
mumblemumble wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lore suggests that that's a misconception, born of the Agile myth that the only thing that existed before the invention of either XP or Scrum was waterfall. The truth is perhaps more like this: agility got us to the moon, bureaucracy trapped us in low earth orbit, agility seems to be offering our best hope at getting back out of LEO again, including to Mars. For example, see https://www.computerweekly.com/news/224011…

Congress and the Nixon administration trapped NASA in LEO. There was extensive planning inside NASA for applications of Saturn-Apollo technologies [0]. Two of the ambitious ones were a manned Venus flyby [1] and a permanent Lunar base [2]. After the Apollo I fire Congress lost its appetite for space and slashed NASA's budget [3]. The Nixon administration went all-in on the Space Shuttle which ate up all of NASA's man…

Had NASA engineers actually build a better design for Space Shuttle, lots of budget would have been available to do more. The Space shuttle could have done much more much better things if it was designed differently.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#120

Post by nickik »

kaba0 wrote: post #109
ElFitz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but they are failing very, very , slowly. The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at. Failing at launching the first private rocket on a tight budget, at landing a rocket for the first time, or at iterating on rocket designs at pace rarely, if ever, seen before is expected . As a matter of fact, it’s success that isn’t expected. Failing at making yet…

SpaceX gets tons of government funding, while NASA’s was greatly cut over the years..

What a bunch of nonsense. Please actually inform yourself before just saying things.

NASA budget has actually gone up over the last couple of years.

SpaceX got funding from NASA. So literally part of the funding NASA got was from the NASA budget because NASA bought things from SpaceX.

And SpaceX gave NASA some of the best deals in the history of spaceflight.

Post reply on HN