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

NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#61

Post by jltsiren »

Nevermark wrote: post #29
perihelions wrote: post #4

How is it that government contractors can't build this thing on even a 9-year engineering schedule (July 2019–September 2028) when SpaceX is iterating almost exactly the same thing, on a timescale of months? They've already launched 4 SLS-sized vehicles, and have very visibly been redesigning the ground-support equipment each time around. The next launch for instance (next month!) debuts mechanical arms attached to t…

NASA is a political jobs program from a funding perspective. There isn't any way around that. This creates uncertainties, distractions and perverse incentives all around: 0. Everything is dramatically complicated by the artificial divisions of work across states needed to get enough political support. Grossly inefficient from the start, and inflexible into perpetuity. 1. Initial schedules are incentivized to be unrea…

The US government is a jobs program. When you have been the dominant superpower for over 30 years, there is no reason you should be effective or efficient at anything. If nobody is capable of challenging you, private interests tend to override public interests.

And when a real challenger arises, you just have to hope that you can discard the old establishment and replace it with something capable of delivering before it's too late.

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bumby wrote: post #32
perihelions wrote: post #4

How is it that government contractors can't build this thing on even a 9-year engineering schedule (July 2019–September 2028) when SpaceX is iterating almost exactly the same thing, on a timescale of months? They've already launched 4 SLS-sized vehicles, and have very visibly been redesigning the ground-support equipment each time around. The next launch for instance (next month!) debuts mechanical arms attached to t…

This is just my opinion, but I think a lot of it has to do with requirements. NASA is first and foremost about prestige (even above science IMO. This is also - again my opinion - why NASA hasn't been back to the moon in 50 years. There's little prestige to be gained for an expensive operation). With prestige as the backdrop, it makes them very risk adverse. There are layers and layers of requirements made to reduce r…

> NASA has additional requirements they must manage (e.g., political risk) that SpaceX has less exposure to

This doesn't appear to be the issue with ML-2, whose problems are closer to Boeing's subcontracting addiction than e.g. the F-35's sticker-collection approach to manufacturing.

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#63

Post by api »

perihelions wrote: post #4

How is it that government contractors can't build this thing on even a 9-year engineering schedule (July 2019–September 2028) when SpaceX is iterating almost exactly the same thing, on a timescale of months? They've already launched 4 SLS-sized vehicles, and have very visibly been redesigning the ground-support equipment each time around. The next launch for instance (next month!) debuts mechanical arms attached to t…

SLS stands for Senate Launch System. It's a pork distribution program.

Major beneficiaries are the states of Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama (Huntsville) but there are beneficiaries all over the place. Classical DoD/NASA contractors know to locate facilities all over the country to maximize political capital via connection to local jobs in many jurisdictions.

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#64

Post by Diederich »

Animats wrote: post #60
Diederich wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Musk's antics are having a notable negative effect on SpaceX? There's no doubt that's the case with Tesla.

> There's no doubt that's the case with Tesla. Um, yes.[1] [1] https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-is-turning-off-would-be-tesla...

I think we're in agreement about Tesla. I believe that Musk's bullshit has greatly harmed that company. At the same time, I don't think it's hurt SpaceX very much.

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#65

Post by Diederich »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #53
mensetmanusman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s crazy how different the world would be right now. Ukrainian generals admitted they would have been defeated quickly without Starlink.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk... > Musk told engineers to turn off communications network to hobble Ukraine drone attack on Russian warships

Did you see the amendment at the top?

"Update: on 9 September 2023, Walter Isaacson said his biography’s claim about Starlink and Crimea was based on “mistaken” information [see footnote]"

Here's a more accurate summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainia...

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#66

Post by Diederich »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #37
perihelions wrote: post #4

How is it that government contractors can't build this thing on even a 9-year engineering schedule (July 2019–September 2028) when SpaceX is iterating almost exactly the same thing, on a timescale of months? They've already launched 4 SLS-sized vehicles, and have very visibly been redesigning the ground-support equipment each time around. The next launch for instance (next month!) debuts mechanical arms attached to t…

Keep in mind that Starship has never made it to orbit.

This is very technically correct but also misleading.

In the last test flight, Starship reached a velocity of 7.3km/s. Orbital velocity is 7.8km/s.

Why didn't they make it to 7.8km/s? Because they choose not to. Starship had the fuel, control and capability to burn a few more seconds for another 500m/s.

It also (barely) survived re-entry and achieved a fully controlled, powered, soft splashdown.

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#67

Post by gangstead »

sjm-lbm wrote: post #22
somenameforme wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't for the rocket, just the structure that it's connected to before launch. Tens of billions of dollars have already been wasted on the rocket. I say "wasted" because it's already essentially obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy which has been ready to go for years, is reliable, and launches at a tiny fraction of the cost. And by the time Starship comes into play you're talking about a Ford Pinto being sold at Lambo…

Just to add on, if you don't mind: the SLS uses four RS-25 engines, the exact same engines that were used on the Space Shuttle (admittedly, there is a plan to improve them later), as well as solid rocket engines that are derived from the Shuttle SRBs. I actually do think that more than one US-based provider of space launch systems is something important, but it's wild to me that mature US launch systems can basically…

I'd like to expand on this and clarify for anyone reading this that it's not just using the same type of engines as the shuttle. They are literally the same reusable RS-25 engines taken off the shuttles over a decade ago and used for one final expendable launch. Likewise the SRB segments are reused from shuttle launches, but reconfigured and expended for one more launch on SLS. The $32 Billion spent so far on SLS have been to rearrange pieces from the shuttle parts bin.

There are further contracts to make new RS-25 engines and SRBs optimized for expendability once they run out of old shuttle equipment.

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#68

Post by JohnDeHope »

Nevermark wrote: post #29
perihelions wrote: post #4

How is it that government contractors can't build this thing on even a 9-year engineering schedule (July 2019–September 2028) when SpaceX is iterating almost exactly the same thing, on a timescale of months? They've already launched 4 SLS-sized vehicles, and have very visibly been redesigning the ground-support equipment each time around. The next launch for instance (next month!) debuts mechanical arms attached to t…

NASA is a political jobs program from a funding perspective. There isn't any way around that. This creates uncertainties, distractions and perverse incentives all around: 0. Everything is dramatically complicated by the artificial divisions of work across states needed to get enough political support. Grossly inefficient from the start, and inflexible into perpetuity. 1. Initial schedules are incentivized to be unrea…

> 3. Creativity flows to the most basic constraint. The most basic constraint is political will to fund, so top level attention goes to managing/manipulating up.

Can you or somebody elaborate on this? Is there an idea or a terminology or something I can read more about this? I'm very interested in the idea that you can pay attention to where the "smart kids" are going, to help identify where the most basic constraint is. I'm also interested in what the word "basic" means here. I'm familiar with the theory of constraints and the idea of bottlenecks. But that doesn't seem like what this is getting after. Thanks!

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#69

Post by robryan »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #37
perihelions wrote: post #4

How is it that government contractors can't build this thing on even a 9-year engineering schedule (July 2019–September 2028) when SpaceX is iterating almost exactly the same thing, on a timescale of months? They've already launched 4 SLS-sized vehicles, and have very visibly been redesigning the ground-support equipment each time around. The next launch for instance (next month!) debuts mechanical arms attached to t…

Keep in mind that Starship has never made it to orbit.

Because the mission profile has been intentionally sub orbital to avoid any possibility of uncontrolled reentry. There would be minimal change in the burn for the last 2 flights to place it in orbit.

Re: NASA's SLS rocket's Mobile Launcher-2 increase from $383M to $2.7B

#70

Post by rdtsc »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
rdtsc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That't s a good link, thank you. > NASA intends to keep Bechtel accountable to the cost and schedule agreed to in December 2023. It's mind boggling how they heck is Bechtel qualified to handle this project? Bechtel is at the center of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War / https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/bechtel-battles-against-... . Talk about an agency that supposedly cares to look progressive and…

> Shouldn't somebody there fire Bechtel This means cancelling Artemis II.

I was exaggerating. It's, of course, too late for that. The OIG recommended "learning a lesson" at least:

> (1) ensure lessons learned from the ML-2’s acquisition, contract, and project management are codified to inform future development efforts a

Post reply on HN