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

51–60 of 258 posts

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

#51

Post by r00fus »

westmeal wrote: post #20
lazide wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like communism! /s

I know you're joking but people actually believe this and will advocate for privatization of shit like this it's just so tiresome

I mean, it's not like Hollywood hasn't spent nearly a century carrying water for the moneyed elites. The premise of so many movies hinges on the solution being some superhero or Ayn Rand-ian mold-breaker that can only happen with privatized super-tech.

We complain about China brainwashing its citizens when the US is the OG offender.

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

#52

Post by rdtsc »

wmf wrote: post #34
mannerheim wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#53

Post by mannerheim »

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.

That's an excuse that might have worked before the Falcon Heavy started flying. Not a reason to have kept funneling money into an obsolete design afterwards, and not a reason to keep doing so now.

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

#54

Post by throwawaymaths »

mannerheim wrote: post #49
SkyMarshal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on Starship’s partial-success in its very first test flight, as well as how routine rocket landing and recovery is becoming for SpaceX, I think Starship will fly, it’s only a matter of when not if. The fact that SLS isn’t designed for reusability, making its per-launch cost something like $4billion, means it’s effectively already outclassed, outcompeted, and obsolete.

SLS was already made redundant when the Falcon Heavy flew. 'Let’s be very honest, We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.' - Charles Bolden Note the reason given here isn't that the Falcon Heavy didn't have as large a payload capacity - that excuse came after it started flying years before SLS, because app…

Isn't it the case that f9h's lift capacity has increased over the years due to engine improvements and stage lengthening..? Iirc fairing size is still a major limiting factor.

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

#55

Post by cratermoon »

hypercube33 wrote: post #48
wkat4242 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Possibility of corruption aside, these are clones of the Saturn 5 rocket engines and tech just scaled up - the whole thing is built for hydrogen which is clean burning (water is the byproduct) but you'd think SpaceX could take the design and make something for 20mil

The RS-25 is related to the J-2 used in S-II and S-IVB upper stages - a very successful engine. The STS program came up a new design based on a high-pressure combustion chamber running at 3,000 psi (21,000 kPa) for higher performance.

The first SLS flights will use available Block II RS-25D engines left over from the shuttle program, and when those run out (and if SLS is still flying) the rocket will switch over to the RS-25E, a cheaper, expendable version.

The F-1 engines used on the first stage of the Saturn V were built to burn Kerosene, and the RS-25 series has no common heritage.

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

#56

Post by GMoromisato »

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,…

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 nameless explorers who sailed into the Pacific in rickety boats, or conquered the Americas (the first time) via the Bering ice bridge.

When I think of the Apollo 8 astronauts seeing the Earth from the Moon for the first time, I can almost feel what they felt: awe, perspective, loneliness, and maybe even that primal fear that we all get from being so far from home. I truly cannot wait to watch (and to have my kids watch) astronauts walking on the Moon.

Sure, we can argue about whether we should spend more money on X and less money on Y--that's what democracy is all about. But to say that NASA shouldn't be sending humans into space is, in my mind, missing the forest for the trees.

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

#58

Post by cratermoon »

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

SLS will use the remaining used Block II RS-25D engines, then (if SLS is still flying) switch to a newer RS-25E, designed to be cheaper and expendable.

Not all R&D is amortized.

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

#59

Post by SkyMarshal »

mannerheim wrote: post #49
SkyMarshal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on Starship’s partial-success in its very first test flight, as well as how routine rocket landing and recovery is becoming for SpaceX, I think Starship will fly, it’s only a matter of when not if. The fact that SLS isn’t designed for reusability, making its per-launch cost something like $4billion, means it’s effectively already outclassed, outcompeted, and obsolete.

SLS was already made redundant when the Falcon Heavy flew. 'Let’s be very honest, We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.' - Charles Bolden Note the reason given here isn't that the Falcon Heavy didn't have as large a payload capacity - that excuse came after it started flying years before SLS, because app…

I concur not much excuse remains. I suppose FH needs to be human-rated, but Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon module recently achieved that rating so FH could probably get it too without undue difficulty.

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

#60

Post by roody15 »

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…

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 space program it becomes apparent this doesn’t equate to necessarily a 10x factor in results. So yes we may have the best tech/gear in the world but may be spending way too much to only get a slight edge and find this edge is not even sustainable.

Post reply on HN