After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
arstechnica.com
After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
1–10 of 153 posts
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#2I’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 makes it look like an expensive jobs program for Alabama,Texas and Florida.
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#3SLS is often jokingly referred to as the Senate Launch System for good reason. Its bloated budget and insistence on reusing space shuttle components means that it’s more a jobs program, than a serious attempt at building a launch vehicle.
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#4Great, in-depth reporting. My initial understanding was that delays were COVID-related.
Feb at least will be a busy month for robotic exploration of Mars, with probes from US, UAE and China!
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/science/space-astronomy-l...
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#5I’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…
It's not an expensive jobs program for AL, TX, and FL... it's an expensive jobs program for the entire country.
NASA prides itself on sourcing components from / having a presence in each of the 50 states.
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#6I’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…
Blue Origin hasn't actually delivered anything.
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#7I’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…
Transparency with the public can only happen after transparency exists within the organization. They probably don't yet know what happened. They might have ideas, some people might be confident, but at this point the organization as a whole doesn't know much. There is no point in them communicating theories or ad hoc explanations. We will all have to wait for the internal review of the data.
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#8Bummer! 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 back incrementally further into the future... so much for my kids being Belters
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#9I’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
Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
#10I’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.
You gotta take care of your brothers and sisters, and you ex-colleuages too, and that's a lot of money bro. The real upside I think is that people finally figured out there are more economical choices other than the big boys alliance.