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

21–30 of 153 posts

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

#21

Post by mumblemumble »

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…

I'm guessing it has more to do with culture.

A lot of big long-standing organizations develop an internal culture of being more focused on not fucking up than on achieving success. Paradoxically, this leads to more problems, and more of the costs associated with them. People stay in their swim lanes, and nobody has each other's backs. The more you keep your head down and try not to get involved, the less you can be blamed for.

L. David Marquet digs pretty deep into this phenomenon in his book Turn the Ship Around! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16158601-turn-the-ship-a...

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

#22

Post by BurningFrog »

sandworm101 wrote: post #13
Isinlor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comparison of SLS vs. Starship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY Key points: https://i2.wp.com/everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2... Mass to the Moon: - Saturn 5: 49 metric tonnes - SLS: 43 metric tonnes - Starship: 156 metric tonnes Price per launch: - Saturn 5: 1.2B dollars - SLS: 0.875B dollars - Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Price per kg: - Satrun 5: 2…

>> Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Lol. No. That is beyond pipe dream territory. There a innumerable costs associated with spacelaunch that have absolutely nothing to do with reusability. Range closures. Payload integration. Regulatory compliance (ie safety). Telemetry. That USAF person in the back of the room with their finger on the destruct button. That stuff doesn't happen for f…

> That USAF person in the back of the room with their finger on the destruct button.

I'm not going up until that job is eliminated!

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

#23

Post by cowmix »

sandworm101 wrote: post #13
Isinlor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comparison of SLS vs. Starship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY Key points: https://i2.wp.com/everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2... Mass to the Moon: - Saturn 5: 49 metric tonnes - SLS: 43 metric tonnes - Starship: 156 metric tonnes Price per launch: - Saturn 5: 1.2B dollars - SLS: 0.875B dollars - Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Price per kg: - Satrun 5: 2…

>> Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Lol. No. That is beyond pipe dream territory. There a innumerable costs associated with spacelaunch that have absolutely nothing to do with reusability. Range closures. Payload integration. Regulatory compliance (ie safety). Telemetry. That USAF person in the back of the room with their finger on the destruct button. That stuff doesn't happen for f…

Most of the stuff you are citing are ON TOP of the launch costs you are talking about.

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

#24

Post by BurningFrog »

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.

It fits with the OP theory of "an expensive jobs program for Alabama, Texas and Florida."

If you think of that as the actual purpose, this is a successful project.

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

#26

Post by mhh__ »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #16

Add SLS to the list of embarrassing aerospace projects from America F-35, 737 Max, and Starliner.

F-35 is doing just fine at the moment.

It looked bad because it was the first modern aircraft to be developed under the watchful gaze of the internet, now it's doing much better in simulated combat as it's aged. It's not even that expensive anymore - it's not cheap by any means - but the new F-16 is basically the same price.

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

#27

Post by mhh__ »

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…

It is a jobs program. It's not nicknamed the senate launch system for nothing.

If they were doing it now I'm sure they'd be tempted in just contracting out and just building the payloads, but when it was being laid out they didn't exist.

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

#28

Post by Denvercoder9 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #13
Isinlor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comparison of SLS vs. Starship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY Key points: https://i2.wp.com/everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2... Mass to the Moon: - Saturn 5: 49 metric tonnes - SLS: 43 metric tonnes - Starship: 156 metric tonnes Price per launch: - Saturn 5: 1.2B dollars - SLS: 0.875B dollars - Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Price per kg: - Satrun 5: 2…

>> Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Lol. No. That is beyond pipe dream territory. There a innumerable costs associated with spacelaunch that have absolutely nothing to do with reusability. Range closures. Payload integration. Regulatory compliance (ie safety). Telemetry. That USAF person in the back of the room with their finger on the destruct button. That stuff doesn't happen for f…

> And... insurance.

To add to everything else already mentioned, when launch price goes down, it suddenly becomes feasible to build much cheaper satellites: both because you can afford to build them heavier, and you can take more risk. That reduces insurance costs.

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

#29

Post by michaericalribo »

rblatz wrote: post #18
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…

I don’t think the SLS has been on anyone’s realistic roadmap to space tourism for over half a decade. Private companies like SpaceX and to a lessor extent Blue Origin have blown past NASA in that department. This shows nothing besides how broken the politics around NASA are, and how Congress is optimizing for a totally different thing than getting people into space cheaply and safely.

That makes sense. I do think there are network effects...NASA’s success has some influence on private companies’ success. But you’re right, too, that the public sector bureaucracy seems to hobble the possibility of steady and sustained progress.

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

#30

Post by izend »

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.

Notice the use solid rocket fuel in the SLS and the mandate from Congress to retain the skills and experience. What else uses solid fuel? The US ICBM arsenal.
Post reply on HN