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

61–70 of 258 posts

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

#61

Post by Mizoguchi »

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,…

With China and India successfully launching space missions a permanent human presence in the moon and possibly Mars is a matter of time, likely happening in the next decade. This is critical for both science and national security, anything from future interplanetary exploration, mining and development/testing of new materials.

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

#62

Post by foobarian »

inetknght wrote: post #22
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?

> 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…

> private commercial entities can for cheaper?

Could be private commercial entities don't have to pay to train up the workforce but can just poach. Which is fine, system working as intended.

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

#63

Post by captn3m0 »

mcny wrote: post #46
WWLink wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> 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. What if we made this third party (I'm guessing blue origin/space x) bear the cost until we have a proven result so they put their money where their mouth is... They promise USD 1M per engine, they have to deliver at USD 1M per engine. Not a cent more.

That's what recent NASA contracts have been - fixed-price, so the third party bears any additional cost of overrun. NASA has strongly advocated for such contracts.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/nasas-nelson-competitive-con...

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

#64

Post by foobarian »

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.

> buying one fewer

Well maybe buying a lot more F-35s would save us money then! :-)

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

#65

Post by archgoon »

Sharlin wrote: post #36
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 transp…

> Honestly, that's like asking for a source for the fact that people need oxygen to live.

I find this attitude "It's just obvious" to be generally unhelpful. Your sibling comments do a much better job at helping the grandparent get up to speed with context about the SLS program, and associated Senate Legislation.

Being able to cite documents in support of your position is a valuable skill and both helps your own understanding, by clarifying what your understanding is based on, and that of the questioner.

-- From the shadows

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

#66

Post by archgoon »

acegopher wrote: post #33
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Note, NASA has a copy of the original 2010 funding legislation here:

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf

Which can also be found here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/372...

The key part is:

> (2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.

Which explains why NASA isn't necessarily getting engines from Blue Origin or other cheaper new comers for example. The senate law dictates that they should continue using existing contracts. Now, could a NASA administrator argue that they should drop Aerojet (as cited in the ars technica article)? Potentially, but Aerojet could possibly sue, claiming that NASA is in violation of the law.

-- From the Shadows

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

#67

Post by justrealist »

danpalmer wrote: post #29
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.

> and was not human rated

The SLS has not launched a human.

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

#68

Post by justrealist »

danpalmer wrote: post #39
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.

I think it's pretty fair to ask whether the joint program was the right decision in the first place, and the criticism 10 years ago was fair, but yeah it's far too late to turn back.

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

#70

Post by peoplearepeople »

marcusverus wrote: post #44
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.

Do we have to wait? Falcon Heavy already has ~75% of SLS Block 1's payload capacity (to LEO). For the $11.2 Billion that's earmarked for the next 4 years of SLS, you could buy 112 Falcon Heavy launces--one every ~17 days for four years. In contrast, the wiki lists a single planned flight for SLS during that period.

Mass to LEO isn't the name of the game for SLS though, it's mass to LLO.

(though yes you could fix that with a small kick stage)

Post reply on HN