NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by WWLink » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

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,…

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 and sensors happen to show you.

Now, whether that scientific information is worth the cost? Hard to say. As much as people like criticizing public programs for "pork barrel" this and "bureaucrat red tape" that and whatever.... publicly funded programs are usually run with penny-pinching oversight and angry politicians wanting to get their day of glory by killing programs.

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.

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

#32

Post by wkat4242 » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

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.

And the whole reason for the hydrogen burning was to keep the space shuttle contractors jobs. Once again it's not a technical reason but a pork barrel one.

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

#33

Post by acegopher » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #19

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…

> SLS isn’t the rocket NASA designed or asked for Any source?

https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-we-have-the-sls

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

#34

Post by wmf » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

mannerheim wrote: post #27

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.

Jobs.

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

#35

Post by SkyMarshal » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #19

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…

> SLS isn’t the rocket NASA designed or asked for Any source?

You can just google “Senate Launch System” and find numerous references. Here are a few, including Wikipedia’s chronicle of its funding cycles:

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2022/08/24/...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-artemis-del...

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

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

#36

Post by Sharlin » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:40 PM UTC

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #19

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…

> SLS isn’t the rocket NASA designed or asked for Any source?

Honestly, that's like asking for a source for the fact that people need oxygen to live. Fuck, they weren't even allowed to finally correct the design flaw in the solid rocket boosters that was the direct cause of the Challenger disaster – namely the fact that they were made of several segments not for any engineering reason but simply because they were manufactured in Utah (due to pork barrel) and could not be transported to Florida in one piece.

For twenty years now they have tried to build a launcher based on recycling as many ~parts~jobs from the Shuttle program as possible and thus far have flown exactly zero people and exactly zero kilograms of cargo. The Senate doesn't mind, because the STS is a jobs program, not a spaceflight program. (Although it's not like the market for SRBs in particular has been very hot lately given how few of them have been in fact launched, so I dunno. Probably the govt is paying ATK just to keep the plant running so they'll be able to build/refurbish a pair of boosters every two or three years which is the expected STS launch rate.)

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

#37

Post by 9dev » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:41 PM UTC

mannerheim wrote: post #27

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.

Funnelling tax money to the military industrial complex :)

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

#38

Post by wmf » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:42 PM UTC

ramesh31 wrote: post #10

You have to view the cost of SLS like insurance. Premiums are also a huge waste of money until you need to make a claim. In this case, we didn't; SpaceX came through with flying colors. But that was far from a sure thing 15 years ago, and the risk of being left without access to space was real.

SLS doesn't provide any meaningful access to space.

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

#39

Post by danpalmer » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:42 PM UTC

TheRealPomax wrote: post #13

Not sure how this is "unaffordable"? Just buy one fewer F35's, done, you just funded the whole thing.

I recently found out the “price” is now at or below $100m per plane now which was a real surprise to me.

I also found out (afraid I don’t have a source to hand) that re-engineering the A10 (is that right?), the darling of F35 criticisers would cost more to retrofit up to modern requirements.

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

#40

Post by bigfudge » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 9:42 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #17

vxNsr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people talk about the cost of f35s they’re often including the amortized cost of the whole project. Most that money has already been spent.

Yeah, buying one fewer F-35 barely moves the needle on total cost, it just bumps up the per-unit costs of the project because its almost all fixed, not variable, costs.

I’m sure this is true, but “buying one less f35” to me sounds like shorthand for “don’t spend such a stupid amount on the next boondoggle military project”. I assumed it was a given that money had already been spent.