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

241–250 of 258 posts

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

#241

Post by sgnelson »

JuanPosadas wrote: post #190
GMoromisato wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Crewed spaceflight is no worse and no different than spending money on Hubble, JWST, or the Voyager missions. If you ignore the huge difference in efficacy and results, sure.

It depends on what your definition of "efficacy" and "results" are.

If all you want is to collect data on the cosmos for the sake of pure science, then absolutely human space flight is a waste of money.

If your goal is to inspire, create an atmosphere that instills interest in a space program (of all types, including manned and unmanned), promotes STEM fields, and is a jobs program, then you'd probably find it very useful and cost effective to sink money into a human spaceflight campaign.

Guess which one of those goals is NASA's true mission.

These sorts of conversations so often ignore that NASA is an organization controlled by politicians and is ultimately responsible to them and the US public who elects them. It's not the engineers and scientists employed or using the data that NASA creates. At the end of the day, those politicians want to have their name connected with inspiration, not just data on the water content of mars.

How many kids do you know that say they want to be an unmanned rover on mars when they grow up? How often do you hear JFK saying "We go to the moon, not because it's hard, but because sending rovers is really cheap and we'll get a much better bang for our buck." How often do you hear someone replaying "Surveyor 1 has landed, one small step for a robot, one giant leap for mankind."

You don't. And there's a reason for that.

You don't have to like it, but you also can't ignore that in reality, NASA has goals that are not just about the science.

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

#242

Post by jakobson14 »

lmm wrote: post #105
roody15 wrote: post #60

Earlier 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.

I don't think the chinese are going to look at this and give up.

They're going to say "we can build our outpost on the moon for way less" and then they'll do it.

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

#243

Post by jakobson14 »

adrr wrote: post #30

I don't understand how NASA is paying $100M for a space shuttle engine designed 40 years ago. R&D has already be amortized so its just manufacturing the thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25

You have to factor in "oh shit, everybody who knew how to do that kind of weld retired" or "oh shit, they don't make that kind of valve anymore" as well. The older shit is, the harder it is to find expertise and spare parts.

The sea dragon concept from the 60's is completely impossible today because they literally don't make the kind of cheap steel plate it was designed to use anymore. We can't build saturn V engines anymore (despite extensive blueprints) because those who knew how to do the extremely long, perfect welds involved are all dead and that kind of weld has fallen out of fashion so the skill no longer exists.

You frequently end up re-engineering each bit of "old technology" for the current era's materials and skills, unless you literally maintain an unbroken chain of continual manufacturing all the way along. We stopped building new space shuttles 40+ years ago.

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

#244

Post by woooooo »

wkat4242 wrote: post #149
woooooo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX is on record with not wanting to use hydrogen for the "pain in the ass factor". It boils at a lower point than oxygen, so you have to insulate the tanks from each other, it's very.. undense (sparse?) per volume so you need bigger tanks, and it's the smallest molecule that exists and makes leaks and shipping harder. Methane is slightly less efficient but way easier logistically.

Yeah I bet if they could do without the LOX they'd do it too. But for the oxidiser there is no choice but to use a compressed gas, obviously.

Liquefied, not compressed. Pressure vessels are heavy, just liquefy it by getting it really cold. It only needs to perform for 10 minutes in booster stages.

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

themadturk wrote: post #235
dirtyid wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Myanmar Pretty much all negative coverage of JF17 (joint PRC+PK manufacturing but so far SOLD by PK) are sourced from Indian tabloid rags with no credibility. Myanmar airforce has 100+ PRC airframes, variety of models in the last 30 years with little issue. Pretty much the only useful piece of info so far is Myanmar doesn't have adequate experience operating tech in 4th gen fighters, most of their fleet is 3rd gen.…

I wonder if PRC really sees using a navy as a means of force projection as important. They could have a world-spanning navy like the U.S. has, but haven't made it a priority. No one has done it as well for as long as the U.S., but it's also something that could be erased in a few minutes by some well-placed Long Swords.

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by fractallyte »

mnky9800n wrote: post #233
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God I wish we could go back and do 1991 again. Unfortunately time travel is impossible so I need to stop ruminating on it.

1999 my friend. That's when Boris Yeltsin gave up democracy to Putin. Think of the Russia that could have come from before that decision.

That was the Russia that invaded Chechnya and committed horrific atrocities, bordering on genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War

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

#247

Post by throwawaymaths »

mannerheim wrote: post #213
throwawaymaths wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. But not at the time of the "f9h is not heavy lift" quote

The quote didn't say Falcon Heavy wasn't heavy lift, which was my point. It said Falcon Heavy was just something on the drawing board, versus SLS which was real. Except then Falcon Heavy ended up flying years before SLS eventually did.

Fine, but my point is falcon heavy wasn't really a properly competitive heavy lift at the time, and arguably still isn't. Though it will be soon.

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

#248

Post by [deleted] »

Sharlin wrote: post #239
hinkley wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The attitude of "I've never heard of this before" has been a common internet troll for at least 25 years. At some point it's not on me to educate you about things that are widely common knowledge, and there's an art to asking for citations without sounding like you're being dismissive, or shifting all of the effort onto the other person. The top level comment did not achieve this art, but I've seen worse.

Yeah, something like "Where could I read more about this?" or "Could you point me to some discussion on this?" would have been a much more polite way to ask.

[deleted]

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

#249

Post by martin8412 »

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?

Insulin costs around $30 when bought from the privately owned manufacturers. No point in having the government manufacture it.

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

#250

Post by adammarples »

GMoromisato wrote: post #216
JuanPosadas wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crewed spaceflight is no worse and no different than spending money on Hubble, JWST, or the Voyager missions. If you ignore the huge difference in efficacy and results, sure.

Ultimately, we spent billions on (e.g.) JWST because it makes us feel good. We're not going to get new cancer cures or end homelessness, right? We're just going to get knowledge about the universe. But why? Why do we need to know the shape of the earliest galaxies? It's not going to improve the GDP. We seek that knowledge only because it makes us feel good to know. That's it. In the same way, we send humans into spac…

I think it's a little reductive to say that JWST is little more than pretty pictures that make us feel good. The drive to understand the universe is more important than the desire to see a cool launch mission.
Post reply on HN