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

NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 258 posts

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#21

Post by sitkack »

svachalek wrote: post #16
bnralt wrote: post #14

While 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,…

Human spaceflight is more or less the marketing budget or loss leader for all the scientific work they do. It gets the public and Congress behind funding the important stuff.

If that is true, I am not sure it is effective as it was in the past. From my viewpoint, the public doesn’t care much and space flight has been normalized.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#22

Post by inetknght »

irrational wrote: post #9
dralley wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So cancel it and tell said MIC companies to build something we actually need, like missiles.

Or a federal free insulin plant. How much would it cost to manufacture and give free insulin to everyone that needs it compared to the cost for SLS?

> Or a federal free insulin plant.

It's not just jobs. It's also relevant to US interests to keep industry skills sharp. Manufacturing insulin doesn't require the same skills that manufacturing a rocket requires.

On the flip side: if the skills are so expensive that private commercial entities are doing it for one or two orders of magnitude cheaper then it's arguable that the skills being paid to be kept sharp aren't really so sharp as they're paid to be. That is: at this price, why can't they deliver while private commercial entities can for cheaper?

So it's almost certainly just for the jobs and not really for the skills then.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#23

Post by [deleted] »

techdragon wrote: post #5

Important context… SLS isn’t the rocket NASA designed or asked for in order to achieve its mission goals… it’s the rocket they were forced into using due to lobbying and senate shenanigans, there’s a reason it has the nickname “senate launch system”. The fact the pork barrel project is so bloated it’s “unaffordable” is irrelevant as far as the senators who are voting for it are concerned. My bet is that the senate wi…

[deleted]

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#24

Post by spandextwins »

lazide wrote: post #12
irrational wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a federal free insulin plant. How much would it cost to manufacture and give free insulin to everyone that needs it compared to the cost for SLS?

Sounds like communism! /s

[flagged]

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#25

Post by araes »

@1970-01-01 well timed other submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37422115

The comparison in space enthusiasm and planning is ... significant.

Wernher von Braun wrote a 281 page engineering text masquerading as a fiction novel to pitch Mars.

Current NASA leadership wrote:

- Stabilize the flight schedule

- Achieve learning curve efficiencies

- Encourage innovation

- Adjust acquisition strategies to reduce cost risk

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#26

Post by danpalmer »

dotancohen wrote: post #18
belval wrote: post #3

> NASA recently said that it is working with the primary contractor of the SLS rocket's main engines, Aerojet, to reduce the cost of each engine by 30 percent, down to $70.5 million by the end of this decade. [...] And even at $70.5 million, these engines are very, very far from being affordable compared to the existing US commercial market for powerful rocket engines. Blue Origin manufactures an engine of comparable…

The other engines burn methane, these RS-25s burn hydrogen.

This is a good point, but to extend it a bit, changing the fuel means changing the chemistry of the whole system, changing tradeoffs and thresholds, changing capabilities, all sorts. Rockets very much need to be designed around a particular fuel, it defines so much of the rest of the rocket either directly or indirectly.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#27

Post by mannerheim »

techdragon wrote: post #5

Important context… SLS isn’t the rocket NASA designed or asked for in order to achieve its mission goals… it’s the rocket they were forced into using due to lobbying and senate shenanigans, there’s a reason it has the nickname “senate launch system”. The fact the pork barrel project is so bloated it’s “unaffordable” is irrelevant as far as the senators who are voting for it are concerned. My bet is that the senate wi…

If/when Starship flies (which, if it doesn't, raises other questions as to the future of Artemis), one has to wonder what the point of SLS will be.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#28

Post by wkat4242 »

belval wrote: post #3

> NASA recently said that it is working with the primary contractor of the SLS rocket's main engines, Aerojet, to reduce the cost of each engine by 30 percent, down to $70.5 million by the end of this decade. [...] And even at $70.5 million, these engines are very, very far from being affordable compared to the existing US commercial market for powerful rocket engines. Blue Origin manufactures an engine of comparable…

Because the other engines are not made in the relevant senators' states.

Re: NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

#29

Post by danpalmer »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #2

SpaceX of ten years ago made SLS look ridiculous.

I think this is a little unfair. SpaceX of 10 years ago didn’t have the same launch capacity and was not human rated, or even close to human rating.

Now the trajectory (no pun intended) of SpaceX was good back then and you might have guessed they would grow rapidly in capabilities and capacity, but it wasn’t a done deal.

I’m no fan of SLS, but it was a very understandable safe bet 10 years ago.

Post reply on HN