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

NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

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

#11

Post by ragebol »

voz_ wrote: post #6

I don't understand - what is the motivation here? The article is a little short, and it gives good insight into just how expensive this is (compared to other similarly classed potential space purchases). However, what I am failing to grasp is... why? Why spend so much when these other options are available? Surely not ignorance. Is it malice? corruption? Someone's ego?

Not that I like the answer, but the reason is assurance: it was not certain these alternatives would exist. And since NASA is beholden to politics with shorter cycles than rocket development cycles, it's also jobs program.

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

#13

Post by Melting_Harps »

voz_ wrote: post #6

I don't understand - what is the motivation here? The article is a little short, and it gives good insight into just how expensive this is (compared to other similarly classed potential space purchases). However, what I am failing to grasp is... why? Why spend so much when these other options are available? Surely not ignorance. Is it malice? corruption? Someone's ego?

> Why spend so much when these other options are available? Surely not ignorance. Is it malice? corruption? Someone's ego?

I went into my disappointment with Bezo's choice to focus on Amazon rather than take the lead at Blue Origin while Boeing is on its knees in both their commercial airliner and Aerospace program a week ago knowing something like his would occur. It just raised $25 Billion in a Bond sale [1] and now we're back to this stagnant entity clogging up the heavy lift system and we revert back to the same nepotism that has plagued aerospace for decades.

> 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.

But this helps clarify things, too.

1: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-raises-25-billion-bond...

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

#14

Post by etrabroline »

> The core stage is structurally similar to the Space Shuttle external tank,[24][25] and initial flights will use modified RS-25D engines left over from the Space Shuttle program.[26] Later flights will switch to a cheaper version of the engine not intended for reuse.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

So they reused as much of the space shuttle as possible, down to using left over engines. Developing a new engine from scratch using a new fuel (methane) like SpaceX did would have been a very risky proposition. Like NASA, Blue Origin and ULA both did much more conventional things and have launch costs multiple times those of SpaceX. The relative cost of NASA's more conservative design decisions is more a testament to Space X's remarkable success with the Raptor engine than NASA being somehow incompetent.

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

#15

Post by helsinkiandrew »

voz_ wrote: post #6

I don't understand - what is the motivation here? The article is a little short, and it gives good insight into just how expensive this is (compared to other similarly classed potential space purchases). However, what I am failing to grasp is... why? Why spend so much when these other options are available? Surely not ignorance. Is it malice? corruption? Someone's ego?

I'd say there's two main justifications:

1. Lower Risk - based on 40+ year old proven rockets. NASA can't have failures if it wants to get future funding.

2. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! - spreading out jobs means politicians are more likely to approve funding

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

#16

Post by Proven »

The Fed's are running trillion dollar budget deficits - they can fund more than NASA's buddies can launch. And the debt will never be repaid, so they should just decide that costs are irrelevant.

$146, $46, $346 million... How does it matter and why should we care?

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

#17

Post by bostik »

tectonic wrote: 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

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

#18

Post by semi-extrinsic »

robomartin wrote: post #5

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.

This should be the top comment, and that video interview from NASA should be mandatory to watch before commenting in this thread.

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

#19

Post by golergka »

Joeri wrote: post #9
voz_ wrote: post #6

I don't understand - what is the motivation here? The article is a little short, and it gives good insight into just how expensive this is (compared to other similarly classed potential space purchases). However, what I am failing to grasp is... why? Why spend so much when these other options are available? Surely not ignorance. Is it malice? corruption? Someone's ego?

This is a jobs program which happens to produce rockets. The rockets are not the key objective, the jobs are.

Playing devil's advocate here: wouldn't "preserve institutional knowledge about building rockets" also be it's goal?

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

#20

Post by dotancohen »

voz_ wrote: post #6

I don't understand - what is the motivation here? The article is a little short, and it gives good insight into just how expensive this is (compared to other similarly classed potential space purchases). However, what I am failing to grasp is... why? Why spend so much when these other options are available? Surely not ignorance. Is it malice? corruption? Someone's ego?

The motivation as proposed was to reuse already existing and certified STS (Space Shuttle) components in the next generation rockets, to reduce costs. The Falcon rocket family did not exist at the time that the SLS was proposed and green-lit.
Post reply on HN