22 ms·
After years of setbacks, NASA’s SLS moon rocket is ready to fly
- bumblebritches5 4y ago
- kristianp 4y agohttps://archive.ph/fO73G https://archive.ph/fO73G
- the_third_wave 4y agoPigs may not be able to fly but soon we'll get proof of pork barrels being able to do so. What does SLS add to the already existing panoply of launchers, other than revenues for those companies which stood to lose out on the retirement of the Space Shuttle? Why is this thing set to dump SSMEs which were designed for reuse into the ocean after a single launch? Did they at least fix the problems with those o-rings which caused the loss of an orbiter before using derivatives of those SRBs on this launcher?
- bayesian_horse 4y agoWhat does SLS add "to the existing panoply of launchers"? It can lift almost 100 effing tons into LEO... and is human rated. It's the only rocket currently capable of putting Humans near the moon. And now its about to prove itself or not...
- Vecr 4y agoThe seals were already somewhat fixed after the shuttle blew up. It would still be better not to have any seals at all and just have the boosters be one piece, but you would have to build a new factory (probably in a different state, can't have that!) to make them. It's probably mostly fine how it is.
- panick21_ 4y agoOr you know, you could just not use solid rocket boosters at all. Solid rocket booster make absolutely no sense at all, they are only used because they represent a political interest. Note how there was no attempt at using them for Apollo and no new rocket company uses them. The only reason so many countries relay on them because it sharing costs with ICBMs. NASA own internal investigation suggested the same thing, but politics is more important.
- bryondowd 4y agoIf there's significant overlap with ICBMs I could see it being reasonable from the perspective of maintaining military production readiness. Imagine you need a bunch of people trained to do X, and machines capable of Y, in order to build your missiles, but you don't need many missiles right now, but if a war against a major power broke out you'd need to ramp up production massively and instantly. Either you keep making missiles you don't need, or you somehow train people and maintain machines without actually using them, either way you're spending just to maintain readiness for no immediate value. Or you find a close enough use where you can get some value by producing something similar enough that you can convert to military use rapidly. That wouldn't be so much political pork as actually practical. But I know little to nothing in this area, so just speculation.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoSolid fuels have a limited shelf life. There is always low level production to replace expired rockets whether you use them or not.
- ghaff 4y agoAnd there are also regular tests as systems get upgraded etc.
- bandyaboot 4y agoI would think that if you find yourself engaged with a major power, expending your supply of ICBMs, replacing them is probably one of the few things you no longer need to worry about.
- qbasic_forever 4y agoThe shuttle o-rings were working exactly as designed. The shuttle management was full of bureaucracy that decided it needed to 'move fast and break things' and ignore known cold weather launch condition issues like failure of o-rings. The o-ring engineers/designers objected to the launch and refused to sign off on it, but they were overruled by management and ignored.
- UIUC_06 4y agoThere is a presentation by Edward Tufte claiming that PowerPoint caused, in part, the shuttle disaster. Hang on... The claim is that PP's economy of words meant that the presentations to each level of management got more and more dismissive of the danger, the higher up the chain they went. Euphemisms got more and more bland, until the top people thought "screw it, we're launching." Note that I'm not endorsing that theory, since I haven't seen the slide decks that got used. It's disputed here: https://eagereyes.org/criticism/tufte-and-the-truth-about-the-challenger https://eagereyes.org/criticism/tufte-and-the-truth-about-th... I find that dismissal to be completely missing the point. Tufte wasn't arguing physics, he was arguing that PP euphemisms caused top execs to minimize the danger.
- philipkglass 4y agoThere is a presentation by Edward Tufte claiming that PowerPoint caused, in part, the shuttle disaster. I can imagine him blaming a presentation style, but PowerPoint? The Challenger exploded in 1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas... PowerPoint didn't exist until 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerPoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerPoint
- qbasic_forever 4y agoPowerpoint is such an enormous force it has collapsed in on itself into a blackhole that tunneled through space and time. Powerpoint is slowly leaking into the past and destroying our history before our very eyes.
- unethical_ban 4y agoSpaceX and Blue Origin were nowhere near where they are today in terms of launch capacity, reliability, or reuse. The fact you're referencing "did they fix the defect from Challenger in 1986" tells me what I need to know.
- the_third_wave 4y ago> soon we'll get proof of pork barrels being able to do so. Leaky pork barrels don't fly it seems, the launch was scrubbed due to (among others) an engine bleed problem [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32637493
- panick21_ 4y agoWell its ready to fly as in, one test flight. It will take 2-4 years until it will fly a second time. One of the biggest issues with SLS (besides cost) is the launch rate. It will limit the NASA for a long time.
- jiggawatts 4y agoYou forgot the launch cost! One of their single-use engines costs more than any SpaceX rocket… which are all reusable.
- syntaxing 4y agoAren’t rockets to the moon vs LEO and GEO on completely different levels of requirements?
- criddell 4y agoI’m curious about this too. Are any of the private companies anywhere near ready to send a ship to the moon and back?
- XorNot 4y agoSpaceX is closest, but no. Not until Starship flies. If history is any guide and they haven't missed any big blockers though, then they'll get there - but I think a 10 year horizon is probably a reasonable expectation.
- gpm 4y agoFalcon Heavy (existing SpaceX rocket, not human rated) can get a ship to above the moon and back today, but probably not within enough margin to land on the moon in one launch. Making a lander which launches on top of it would require substantial development work anyways, so not really close (and not planned). Starship is a SpaceX rocket reasonably late in the development cycle, and is planned to land on the moon in an uncrewed demonstration flight no earlier than 2024, and with people during NASA's Artemis 3 mission no earlier than 2025. According to the plan this will be the first mission to land people on the moon since Apollo. SLS at this point is not planning on launching a vehicle that lands on the moon, instead just a very very expensive taxi to a starship in lunar orbit which could have easily carried the astronauts there itself...
- gsibble 4y agoPersonally I hope this expensive boondoggle built by the worst space company of the last decade gives us a huge fireworks show tomorrow and gets promptly cancelled, like it should have been a long time ago.
- macinjosh 4y agoHear! hear!
- Sakos 4y agoI can't believe there's somebody on HN who actually wants this to fail. Just ... how unbelievably fucking selfish and self-absorbed.
- gsibble 4y agoAaaaaand SCRUBBED. Didn't even make it off the ground. Shocking.
- allenrb 4y agoThis stuff is hard. I'm obviously not an SLS fan, but first launch of a new rocket? So many things have to go right. Granted, they're playing on hard mode by choosing a poor first stage fuel (hydrogen), but it's a tough problem regardless. Last thing you want to do is lose the vehicle because you decided some issue wasn't worth running down. In any event, the weather was lurking in the background and might well have caused a scrub regardless.
- panick21_ 4y agoI don't want it to fail, to many people have invested to much and it would be sad for the people involved. Also testing of some of the systems on Orion could be useful. But I certainty would cry about it failing and I would suggest that success or not, the program should be canceled after this launch.
- gsibble 4y agoI don't like seeing mine and everyone else's tax dollars wasted and put into cost-plus contracts to the benefit of a few friendly government contractors.
- mabbo 4y agoI do not want to see it fail. I want to see the SLS launch be a complete success. Everything we've dreamed it could be, finally. I don't want to see all the pork-barrel waste of money literally explode and be for nothing. But if it does, I hope it leads the US government to change course on this nonsense. We need to switch to purely fixed-cost contracts, that do not pay in full without full success, for all space launch related endeavors.
- pstuart 4y agoIndeed! This should be the way for other endeavors too ;-).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pfdietz 4y agoIt's in the long term interest of NASA for it to fail. I wonder what that does to the rigor of their QC process for a launch?
- DoctorOetker 4y agowhy would it be in the long term interest of NASA for it to fail?
- pfdietz 4y agoNASA's future would be much brighter if its programs had a reasonable chance of leading to something worthwhile. Nothing based on SLS will ever be worthwhile.
- biotinker 4y agoThere could very well be worthwhile things spurred or inspired by things the SLS does. If the SLS indeed manages to put people back on the moon in the next 2-3 years, that could inspire a permanent moon presence, and that would be huge for development of future technology.
- Sakos 4y agoI'm excited for the launch tomorrow. I'm too young to have experienced Apollo and this is the closest I'll probably ever get. We're going back to the moon!
- Jorge1o1 4y agoNot today we’re not: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/29/world/nasa-artemis-1-launch-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/29/world/nasa-artemis-1-launch-s...
- pdonis 4y agoAll this time and effort and money, and we still have a launch system that is less capable than the Saturn V. Payload to LEO: from 95 tons (Block 1) to 130 tons (Block 2) for SLS; 140 tons for Saturn V. Payload to TLI: from 27 tons (Block 1) to 43 (Block 2 Crew) tons for SLS; 43.5 tons for Saturn V. (Block 2 Cargo does just edge out Saturn V for payload to TLI at 46 tons, but that's cargo only, no crew.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
- akvadrako 4y agoNot only that, but Saturn V was cheaper to launch. It cost $185 million in 1969, which equates to $1.49 billion today. The SLS is expected to cost closer to $4.1 billion.
- Dalewyn 4y agoI sincerely hope this will be the first and last launch of the SLS. If the launch somehow fails spectacularly, all the better. I'm not even saying that as some sort of retarded Starship fanboi, we absolutely lack a heavy lift + man-rated launch vehicle and we need a replacement/successor to Apollo and the Space Shuttle ASAP. I don't care if it comes from NASA, SpaceX, Boeing, or Bill Gate's dog's cousin twice removed. But the SLS is not that replacement nor successor. It brings no technological advancements to the table, it quite literally throws away reusable rocket engines (Space Shuttle Main Engines) in perfect working condition, it costs far too much fucking money per launch, and most importantly it's a rocket to nowhere because NASA's goals change with the coming of every Congressional and Presidential party switch. The only purposes the SLS serve are to keep prior infrastructure related to the Space Shuttle in operation, and by consequence and most importantly feed votes to Congressmen. As regards human space exploration, the SLS is an abhorrent waste of time, resources, and money that can't end soon enough.
- bottlepalm 4y agoSLS has been dead for 4 years at least - landing boosters, Dragon 2, and Falcon Heavy were the nails in the coffin. After that the writing was on the wall that SLS is obsolete. At this point it's some sort of society wide sunk cost fallacy that few can face.
- unethical_ban 4y agoIf they were nails in the coffin, they would be launching a crew capsule around the moon by now.
- Dalewyn 4y agoI would argue that the reason we don't have men on the moon again yesterday, let alone today, is due to the simple fact of the matter that there is no political nor economic incentive to invest the substantial time and resources into doing so. We went to the Moon already, and we know it's basically a desolate ball of regolith with nothing of interest that would surpass the costs of getting more men there in the first place. Countries that haven't landed their own men on the Moon yet have a political dick contest incentive, but the US isn't one of them, and regardless they still don't have any economic incentive anyway. I stated earlier that the SLS is a rocket to nowhere, but I will also go a step further and posit that human space exploration itself is an endeavour to nowhere for the forseeable future. We have yet to find anything out there in the black that surpasses the sheer costs of transporting live humans across space. This isn't the Age of Exploration, where the West was lured to map out the world in the hopes of landing a lucrative trade passage with the East and maybe finding some dirt to Manifest Destiny. This is the Age of Human Space Exploration, and we still haven't found any reason to engage in it beyond idolized dreams and dick size contests that we graduated from over 50 years ago.
- erdos4d 4y agoIt's really a tragedy that 4 RS-25 space shuttle engines, marvels of engineering and fully reusable, are going into the drink tomorrow.
- bhk 4y agoThat's the best case scenario...
- bayesian_horse 4y agoThe bigger tragedy would be if they would never be used again. You wouldn't reuse them in anything designed from scratch, they are too inefficient. There isn't going to be a new space shuttle, especially not in the next decades. The shuttle had its run, but it's mostly a failed concept. It smacks, but it's the right decision.
- mschuster91 4y agoThey should be put in a museum.
- mlindner 4y agoHopefully it blows up so we can change the course toward more rapid and sustainable missions.
- unethical_ban 4y agoI get the frustration with government pork, but the logic in so many of these comments is piss-poor. We can wish SLS were designed better, but it being gone tomorrow or blowing up will not help SpaceX or BO or ESA get to the moon or Mars quicker. The "hoping it fails" just comes off as... I don't know how to even describe it, juvenile? Edgy, bitter? This is the most shameful, depressing comment thread I've seen on HN in ten years. I grew up near JSC. I remember watching Columbia break apart. I remember watching the last shuttle land (Atlantis?). I was at the Falcon Heavy launch. I wish SLS were better. But I want space travel and space exploration to be moving again. Without SLS, there is no moon landing. I'd love for SpaceX and BO to put out lunar landings as well, good for them! But cancelling or having SLS fail will not make that happen. To wish for failure smacks of a juvenile brand of anti-government-waste ideology without a hint of reality or understanding of the logistics of planning a government rocket program.
- Isinlor 4y agoEvery single launch of SLS will cost 2 billion dollars. It's just waste of money. Cancelling SLS will also not make Artemis program any more late than it is. Starship must be fully successful to get people to the Moon surface. If Starship is fully successful, then you have Starship+Crew Dragon. And you don't need SLS+Orion.
- unethical_ban 4y agoIt would be nice to have at least two functional super-heavy options. Falcon Heavy (not sure if it's good for lunar) or Starship, and SLS. One could make the argument that SLS being an option keeps SpaceX and others pushing to be the superior functional candidate. Without SLS as an option, SpaceX has a monopoly on the capability. just thinking out loud. Related questions for anyone who knows: * Can Orion fit on Falcon Heavy/Starship? * Can Crew Dragon support more-than-LEO missions? * Can Falcon Heavy support crewed more-than-LEO missions?
- Isinlor 4y agoFalcon 9 + Crew Dragon and Starliner (hopefully, once it flies) can support Starship in LEO. Then Starship can get you to Lunar and Mars surface. SLS is not pushing SpaceX on anything anymore, because Falcon Heavy took almost everything besides Orion from SLS. That's Falcon Heavy mind you, not Starship. SLS was important for assembling Lunar Gateway. Lunar Gateway itself is useless and was invented for justifying SLS existence. But if we skip that, then funny fact. Lots of pieces of Lunar Gataway will fly on Falcon Heavy! Resupply to Lunar Gateway will also fly with SpaceX on Dragon XL and Falcon Heavy. There was also NASA flagship Europa Clipper mission. But due to lack of available SLS vehicles, NASA shifted it away from SLS and it will fly on Falcon Heavy. You just can't make it up. https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-falcon-heavy-to-launch-first-gateway-elements/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-falcon-heavy-to-launch-fi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon#Dragon_XL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon#Dragon_XL
- wallfacer120 4y agoThe Saturn V also took many years to develop and there were several "rehearsal" missions before there was a landing. NASA is not incompetent or corrupt and neither are its contractors. The people who work all their lives at those institutions don't do so because they love the idea of never going to space. You might consider that the process is subject to other pressures than corruption. The reason why things are so expensive and take so long is because of how our society demands that government act. The response to failure of any kind is pull the plug, and skin those responsible alive in the press, and treat it not as a setback or a problem to be solved, but yet another play in a partisan-ideological football game. The people saying that they hope it fails so their preferred vision can be implemented do not understand that if this fails, then that's just more years away from the goal. There isn't some tiny group of people you can point to and say "its their fault." The enemy here is actually broader society reads about, talks about, and votes about its government.
- hahaitsfunny 4y ago
- ranman 4y ago> NASA is not incompetent or corrupt and neither are its contractors. Corruption is one thing I don't feel qualified to comment on but having worked for both NASA and for a few contractors... yes they're absolutely incompetent. They have expertise in small pockets but the overall organization is surrounded by giant cushions of bloat. NASA could drop ~50% of their staff and nothing would materially change. ULA could drop ~20% of their staff and nothing would materially change.
- bumblebritches5 4y ago
- Dylan16807 4y ago> not as a setback or a problem to be solved, but yet another play in a partisan-ideological football game Can we agree to call that external corruption? ...but I think there was a word for reorganizing your entire business model to bend toward the whims of external corruption.
- jokoon 4y agoI'm guessing Elon musk is trying to compete with NASA and will tweet whatever about it.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoI think Elon Musk is not in a juvenile competition but rather hopes everything goes well so the lunar lander contract stays on track. NASA is his best customer.
- pmontra 4y agoThe Apollo Program was launching a Saturn V every two or three months and Apollo 10 descended to 15 km from the surface of the Moon to test all the systems for Apollo 11. Technology is much more tested now but are they really so confident that they'll land people on the Moon on their first attempt with the third SLS mission?
- tibbydudeza 4y agoJeepers so much negativity towards the SLS as a platform - yes govt expenditure is political and compromises and budget expenditure must be made to get the right senators onboard. One of the things that got me interested in space was seeing a Saturn V launch on the cover of my favorite science magazine. I really hope this will be a success.
- finikytou 4y agotrump legacy and greatest achievement was funding NASA back.