9 ms·

Between Clipper and this, we’ve arrived at an inflection for SLS - it’s a dead program walking. The Senator from Alabama, Sen. Shelby is set to retire. And so i

Between Clipper and this, we’ve arrived at an inflection for SLS - it’s a dead program walking. The Senator from Alabama, Sen. Shelby is set to retire. And so it has become politically viable to sunset SLS. I predict that the program will end after Artemis flies and they have a plan in place for the jobs it creates

eloff 6y ago
I think it's the sunk cost fallacy. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong, even if it couldn't have been predicted when they made the initial decision. It goes double for politicians who not only lose face, but lose political capital as well. SLS stopped making sense years ago. They need to cut their losses now.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  SLS made no sense from the moment it was proposed.
  - Spartan-S63 6y ago
    It did from the perspective of saving STS jobs.
    - avmich 6y ago
      But saving jobs by itself doesn't bring much benefits. Maybe if you're going to use that experience in a soon to come follow-up project... which with NASA could be very much not guaranteed.
      - bumby 6y ago
        Benefits to whom? If you assume it’s to benefit NASA, but I think this statement is meant to speak to benefits to politicians
        pfdietz 6y ago
        Graft and corruption make sense to politicians. They don't make sense to the country as a whole. Public Choice Theory offers explanations, not justifications.
        bumby 6y ago
        I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but was taking a less cynical perspective. I was talking about the “self licking ice cream cone” in that politicians will protect their constituents interest whether it makes sense for the country or not.
  - eloff 6y ago
    Probably true, but I'm trying to be generous. It's been a huge political boondoggle.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    There's a difference between "it's twice as expensive as the alternatives" and "it's 20x as expensive as the alternatives", though. SpaceX has upended the cost analysis on stuff like this.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      The issue is that there was no program using SLS that made any sense. It was so expensive it could not be used. The only way forward is reducing launch costs. SpaceX did that, but if that had not happened SLS still would have been pointless.
- interestica 6y ago
  SLS is such a strange beast. So many weird things about it. Its design looks like someone tried to literally combine a Saturn V and the Space Shuttle: in an alternate universe, it might be the design we got in the 70s instead of the Shuttle. They're using rockets that were used on previous shuttle launches for the first few planned missions -- and instead of reusing then, they're dumping them. It just doesn't feel like....an advancement. It's not something that can get the general public excited about space. Edit: it turns out today is the 40th anniversary of the first firing of those rockets while attached to the orbiter (the 'SSME' - space shuttle main engines). https://www.nasa.gov/feature/40-years-ago-two-months-away-from-sts-1-the-first-space-shuttle-mission https://www.nasa.gov/feature/40-years-ago-two-months-away-fr...
  - vwoolf 6y ago
    It's not something that can get the general public excited about space Space is like a sports team: the public gets excited when there are wins. The public is excited about SpaceX because of the company's many wins. All ULA needs to do is post some wins to generate excitement.
    - _coveredInBees 6y ago
      While you are not wrong, that doesn't feel entirely true. Every single time I watch some version of the 2 Falcons landing back on earth [1], I get chills and have a tear or two in my eyes. It feels right, it feels like progress and it is awe inspiring. Not that I don't have an immense amount of admiration and respect for everything that has come before and was achieved in the past. But it feels like time to move forward with newer designs, ideas and technology. Especially when SpaceX, BO and others are achieving success with these new ideas and showing that we can take that next step forward. [1] - https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8?t=189 https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8?t=189
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Not just SLS. The whole notion of a "Lunar Gateway" makes even less sense. Like, absolutely none at all. Its original purpose seems to have been a place SLS would be able to get to, and then SLS would have the purpose of getting to it, in the same weird way that the ISS was a place the Shuttle could get to, and the Shuttle was needed to resupply ISS. Until it wasn't; and now the ISS has no purpose or value. Don't need SLS to get to ISS, so make a "Gateway" that does. Make no mistake, a "Lunar Gateway" is much worse than completely useless. If you want to go to the moon, go to the moon. If you want to go to Mars or an asteroid, go there. Stopping at lunar orbit, effectively halfway, just costs a huge amount of extra fuel to stop and then start again.
imglorp 6y ago
It would really help if Boeing and ULA could score some wins. They're having trouble competing on price, schedule, and quality. We need more than one healthy launch provider to maintain competition. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/22/boeing-has-a-delta-iv-rocket-problem/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/22/boeing-has-a-delta... https://spacenews.com/starliner-test-flight-slips-to-early-april/ https://spacenews.com/starliner-test-flight-slips-to-early-a...
- generalizations 6y ago
  I totally agree, but I think that first Boeing and ULA need to figure out how to earn those wins by improving their product.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    I predict that Bezos is prepping to buy ULA if the Vulcan proves to be a success. It's the natural growth option for Blue Origin to buy their way into an orbital vehicle.
    - nexuist 6y ago
      It was my understanding that ULA was a joint alliance rather than an individual company? Isn't it comprised of Boeing and Lockheed Martin among others? Wouldn't Bezos have to buy it from them?
      - skissane 6y ago
        ULA is a 50-50 joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, yes. So if Blue Origin wants to buy ULA, it has to negotiate with both Boeing and Lockheed Martin to be able to do it. I have no idea if Boeing and Lockheed Martin would be interested in selling. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have their own space businesses separate from ULA, and likely view part-owning ULA as having some synergies with their own space businesses, and selling ULA to Bezos could threaten those synergies. OTOH, as they say, everyone has their price, and Bezos has enough money to pay just about anybody's.
nickik 6y ago
That SLS program was terrible was clear before it started. It actually lost NASA own internal evaluation by a large margin but because of how the requirements from congress were designed, NASA couldn't not do it. https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/rac_stuff_summary_kinda_idk_anymore/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/r... But while people love to talk about the Shelby thing, its overrated. Congress in general love SLS, its not about Shelby. House Democrats actually pushed for even more SLS budget then the Republican Senate. Its just a terrible design for a rocket, terrible executed at an absurd price. Everybody involved should be fired and the contractors shouldn't get a new large contract until they prove successful at smaller contracts. It consumes a perverse amount of NASA budget every year that could be invested in amazing programs that NASA has.

eloff 6y ago

I think it's the sunk cost fallacy. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong, even if it couldn't have been predicted when they made the initial decision. It goes double for politicians who not only lose face, but lose political capital as well. SLS stopped making sense years ago. They need to cut their losses now.

pfdietz 6y ago
SLS made no sense from the moment it was proposed.
- Spartan-S63 6y ago
  It did from the perspective of saving STS jobs.
  - avmich 6y ago
    But saving jobs by itself doesn't bring much benefits. Maybe if you're going to use that experience in a soon to come follow-up project... which with NASA could be very much not guaranteed.
    - bumby 6y ago
      Benefits to whom? If you assume it’s to benefit NASA, but I think this statement is meant to speak to benefits to politicians
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        Graft and corruption make sense to politicians. They don't make sense to the country as a whole. Public Choice Theory offers explanations, not justifications.
        bumby 6y ago
        I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but was taking a less cynical perspective. I was talking about the “self licking ice cream cone” in that politicians will protect their constituents interest whether it makes sense for the country or not.
- eloff 6y ago
  Probably true, but I'm trying to be generous. It's been a huge political boondoggle.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  There's a difference between "it's twice as expensive as the alternatives" and "it's 20x as expensive as the alternatives", though. SpaceX has upended the cost analysis on stuff like this.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    The issue is that there was no program using SLS that made any sense. It was so expensive it could not be used. The only way forward is reducing launch costs. SpaceX did that, but if that had not happened SLS still would have been pointless.
interestica 6y ago
SLS is such a strange beast. So many weird things about it. Its design looks like someone tried to literally combine a Saturn V and the Space Shuttle: in an alternate universe, it might be the design we got in the 70s instead of the Shuttle. They're using rockets that were used on previous shuttle launches for the first few planned missions -- and instead of reusing then, they're dumping them. It just doesn't feel like....an advancement. It's not something that can get the general public excited about space. Edit: it turns out today is the 40th anniversary of the first firing of those rockets while attached to the orbiter (the 'SSME' - space shuttle main engines). https://www.nasa.gov/feature/40-years-ago-two-months-away-from-sts-1-the-first-space-shuttle-mission https://www.nasa.gov/feature/40-years-ago-two-months-away-fr...
- vwoolf 6y ago
  It's not something that can get the general public excited about space Space is like a sports team: the public gets excited when there are wins. The public is excited about SpaceX because of the company's many wins. All ULA needs to do is post some wins to generate excitement.
  - _coveredInBees 6y ago
    While you are not wrong, that doesn't feel entirely true. Every single time I watch some version of the 2 Falcons landing back on earth [1], I get chills and have a tear or two in my eyes. It feels right, it feels like progress and it is awe inspiring. Not that I don't have an immense amount of admiration and respect for everything that has come before and was achieved in the past. But it feels like time to move forward with newer designs, ideas and technology. Especially when SpaceX, BO and others are achieving success with these new ideas and showing that we can take that next step forward. [1] - https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8?t=189 https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8?t=189
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Not just SLS. The whole notion of a "Lunar Gateway" makes even less sense. Like, absolutely none at all. Its original purpose seems to have been a place SLS would be able to get to, and then SLS would have the purpose of getting to it, in the same weird way that the ISS was a place the Shuttle could get to, and the Shuttle was needed to resupply ISS. Until it wasn't; and now the ISS has no purpose or value. Don't need SLS to get to ISS, so make a "Gateway" that does. Make no mistake, a "Lunar Gateway" is much worse than completely useless. If you want to go to the moon, go to the moon. If you want to go to Mars or an asteroid, go there. Stopping at lunar orbit, effectively halfway, just costs a huge amount of extra fuel to stop and then start again.

imglorp 6y ago

It would really help if Boeing and ULA could score some wins. They're having trouble competing on price, schedule, and quality. We need more than one healthy launch provider to maintain competition. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/22/boeing-has-a-delta-iv-rocket-problem/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/22/boeing-has-a-delta... https://spacenews.com/starliner-test-flight-slips-to-early-april/ https://spacenews.com/starliner-test-flight-slips-to-early-a...

generalizations 6y ago
I totally agree, but I think that first Boeing and ULA need to figure out how to earn those wins by improving their product.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  I predict that Bezos is prepping to buy ULA if the Vulcan proves to be a success. It's the natural growth option for Blue Origin to buy their way into an orbital vehicle.
  - nexuist 6y ago
    It was my understanding that ULA was a joint alliance rather than an individual company? Isn't it comprised of Boeing and Lockheed Martin among others? Wouldn't Bezos have to buy it from them?
    - skissane 6y ago
      ULA is a 50-50 joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, yes. So if Blue Origin wants to buy ULA, it has to negotiate with both Boeing and Lockheed Martin to be able to do it. I have no idea if Boeing and Lockheed Martin would be interested in selling. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have their own space businesses separate from ULA, and likely view part-owning ULA as having some synergies with their own space businesses, and selling ULA to Bezos could threaten those synergies. OTOH, as they say, everyone has their price, and Bezos has enough money to pay just about anybody's.

nickik 6y ago

That SLS program was terrible was clear before it started. It actually lost NASA own internal evaluation by a large margin but because of how the requirements from congress were designed, NASA couldn't not do it. https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/rac_stuff_summary_kinda_idk_anymore/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/r... But while people love to talk about the Shelby thing, its overrated. Congress in general love SLS, its not about Shelby. House Democrats actually pushed for even more SLS budget then the Republican Senate. Its just a terrible design for a rocket, terrible executed at an absurd price. Everybody involved should be fired and the contractors shouldn't get a new large contract until they prove successful at smaller contracts. It consumes a perverse amount of NASA budget every year that could be invested in amazing programs that NASA has.