Yup, this is what happens when you subsidize states like Alabama with government contracts...
NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
131–140 of 258 posts
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the answer. It's keeping the jobs (i.e. voters) in orbit around the senators. They could care less about space, as long as they can say they brought "jobs" to their state. If it does that, it works as designed.
I always hear this and I never hear anyone say they voted for senate based on Abrams tank manufacturing or whatever. Is it a senate cultural thing that they all tell themselves despite tenuous links to reality? Is it kickbacks? Why doesn't the logic apply to infrastructure projects which seem more marketable?
[deleted]
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you would have to be an incompetent principle investigator if you sent people to space and couldn't figure out a way to maximize scientific knowledge from it. We've been doing that for decades with the ISS and the moon trips and so on. I have no doubts - even a mars mission where you'd send people to interact with things in person and be able to react instantly and not 45 mins later with whatever the camera a…
> Sometimes the cost of a project goes up when a 3rd party group comes in and intervenes with "can't we do this cheaper?!" lol. What if we made this third party (I'm guessing blue origin/space x) bear the cost until we have a proven result so they put their money where their mouth is... They promise USD 1M per engine, they have to deliver at USD 1M per engine. Not a cent more.
[deleted]
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess China is the obvious candidate due to reduced costs in pretty much everything but they still have immense corruption.
There’s no real way to evaluate the effectiveness of the Chinese military because they’ve not seen significant action in several generations. However that itself is not a good sign. As for their kit, Myanmar bought some of their planes but none of them are operational. The planes were a joint project by China and Pakistan, but 8 years after the deal was signed apparently have persistent unsolved technical and structu…
The first few Chinese aircraft carriers were probably never intended to be fully combat effective and are mainly intended to develop an experienced cadre of naval aviators. The carriers lack catapults, which means they can't really launch tankers (or any heavy aircraft at all). US Navy carriers almost always have at least one tanker up while conducting flight operations. This makes a huge difference in safety because an aircraft that gets into any trouble has an option to conduct aerial refueling instead of having to rush a carrier landing, or divert to a distant land base. The next generation of Chinese carriers are expected to have catapults but those are technically challenging. I'm sure that this is a priority area for their spies.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean the Human Landing System program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Landing_System
No, because HLS still uses SLS. Imagine if NASA used commercial fixed-price contracts to get astronauts onto HLS in addition to the existing HLS contracts.
There are various theories about architectures that use a Dragon or Starliner to transfer astronauts to the respective HLS vehicle in low Earth orbit before then departing for the Moon.
There doesn't appear to be too much of a reason that shouldn't be possible, particularly since both HLS vehicles are meant to be able to perform orbital refueling, but the idea has oddly remained absent from official public documents.
My personal theory is that like with orbital fuel depots, the idea is being kept out of official public communications until the HLS vehicles are operational (and thus uncancellable), at which point the political will can be more easily gained to cancel SLS without risking another waste-of-life threatening to kill the entire human spaceflight program if it didn't directly buy him votes.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
SLS doesn't provide any meaningful access to space.
>SLS doesn't provide any meaningful access to space. It could have though. Imagine a world where SpaceX burnt out in the late 2000s, and all that talent and energy moved to Boeing/Lockheed et. al. Point being that they were far from a sure thing in 2008. The traditional contractors were seen as a safe bet by everyone involved. And the speed at which federal government moves means these things are measured in decades.
I disagree, there was no world where SLS would be flying often enough to meaningfully substitute for a failed SpaceX. Such a world would still have ULA with its Vulcan, which would be the more likely candidate for taking on the work instead, possibly even making it difficult for Boing to can ACES.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#137While true, it's missing the forest for the trees. NASA spends almost half it's budget on human spaceflight, and there doesn't seem to be any particular goal there beyond "send people into space because we want to send people into space." Meanwhile, a measly 3.5% of the NASA budget is spent on aeronautics. Yes, the SLS is an inefficient way of performing a mission that NASA shouldn't be performing in the first place,…
This is a common sentiment, but I don't share it. Crewed spaceflight is no worse and no different than spending money on Hubble, JWST, or the Voyager missions. We pay for those missions because they inspire us. For many, gaining knowledge about the universe is its own reward, even if it doesn't lead to cancer cures or longer-lasting batteries. In the same way, sending people into space connects us to all those namele…
> For many, gaining knowledge about the universe is its own reward
But is putting humans in a low Earth orbit really gaining knowledge about the universe at this point? Surely we've hit the point of diminishing returns by now.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because HLS still uses SLS. Imagine if NASA used commercial fixed-price contracts to get astronauts onto HLS in addition to the existing HLS contracts.
There are various theories about architectures that use a Dragon or Starliner to transfer astronauts to the respective HLS vehicle in low Earth orbit before then departing for the Moon. There doesn't appear to be too much of a reason that shouldn't be possible, particularly since both HLS vehicles are meant to be able to perform orbital refueling, but the idea has oddly remained absent from official public documents.…
If starship (and thus HLS) flies and can fly humans eventually there’s nothing really stopping it from being the whole mission using more refuelings in LEO.
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really unfortunate situation with geopolitical consequences. It weakens belief in our system of governance as a whole. The US can spend this kind of money .. with not much progress .. and no real consequences for failure. Adversaries see this as weakness because that is what it is. This has real world consequences … when people see the US spends 10 times more than any other nation on its military and its sp…
> The US can spend this kind of money .. with not much progress .. and no real consequences for failure. Adversaries see this as weakness because that is what it is. I've heard just the opposite about the similar SDI/"Star Wars" - that the US pouring billions into this blatantly impossible and pointless programme, and suffering no real consequences for doing so, was what finally convinced the USSR they couldn't win.
> convinced the USSR they couldn't win
i dont think they were convinced they couldn't win - they just realized their economic laggardness.
The remnants of the USSR is still trying to win!
For a real example of "they couldn't win", you'd have to look towards Japan. And is it such a bad thing to "not win"?
Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess China is the obvious candidate due to reduced costs in pretty much everything but they still have immense corruption.
There’s no real way to evaluate the effectiveness of the Chinese military because they’ve not seen significant action in several generations. However that itself is not a good sign. As for their kit, Myanmar bought some of their planes but none of them are operational. The planes were a joint project by China and Pakistan, but 8 years after the deal was signed apparently have persistent unsolved technical and structu…
I'm not sure it makes much sense to worry about carriers for the war in Taiwan that everyone expects- their aircraft can use their airfields.
Peacetime armies are generally bad, but turnover tends to be high when the fighting starts, and the second or third set of generals is often much better.
The most important advantages China has are pretty overwhelming- a giant population, and they own the global supply chain for microchips and batteries, meaning they can replace smart munitions and systems while their opponents can't.
They also have the best setup for doing go it alone, vertical industrial production, much better than the US or Russia. They're fine in any scenario where they don't get totally blitzed in a week.