9 ms·

Personally 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 cancel

Personally 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 ago
Hear! hear!
Sakos 4y ago
I can't believe there's somebody on HN who actually wants this to fail. Just ... how unbelievably fucking selfish and self-absorbed.
- gsibble 4y ago
  Aaaaaand SCRUBBED. Didn't even make it off the ground. Shocking.
  - allenrb 4y ago
    This 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  I 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.
- n8cpdx 4y ago
  Why does it matter? The money has already been spent and frankly the Senate Launch System is a jobs program, so the value has already been delivered. The real risk is it works and leaders are tempted to throw more money at it until it has a chance to kill Americans, like the Shuttle it is replacing.
- orangecat 4y ago
  How is it selfish? SLS is a tremendous waste of resources and talent. A "successful" launch means that it will continue to waste resources and talent for many more years; a failure means there's some chance we can cut our losses.
- CodeWriter23 4y ago
  > how unbelievably fucking selfish and self-absorbed Really? Maybe you missed the recurrent theme on HN, that of disruption of bloated and inefficient legacy companies that should be dead already but government subsidies keep them afloat. And they innovate precisely as if they have zero skin in the game.
- allenrb 4y ago
  Make that two somebodies. I'm a huge space fan, follow everything worth following, and grew up with the Shuttle program, which was amazing despite its many, many flaws. I'll be watching tomorrow morning hoping for a spectacular explosion that takes out ground facilities along with the rocket. Perhaps then the ensuing government finger-pointing will expose this mess for what it really is -- a poorly conceived, incredibly expensive jobs program masquerading as a "moon rocket". People have made the inevitable comparisons to SpaceX's Superheavy/Starship, and there have naturally been responses pointing out that Starship is far from proven. That's absolutely right, but think about this: If SpaceX never reuses a single nut, bolt, or hunk of stainless steel, SH/Starship is by far the better launch system. Fully expendable, it would cost somewhere in the range of 10-25% of an SLS launch, while delivering something like twice the payload to orbit. I'm super-excited about the growing enthusiasm for going back to the moon, landing on Mars, building larger and more capable orbital installations, and who knows what else. SLS enables none of that. It is both too expensive, and too rare, to be a part of any effective program. By merely existing, SLS sucks money out of other programs that could show real results. I promise you this: If we go back to the moon with SLS, it will make Apollo look like the better program. That, in spite of 50+ years of technological advancement. I'd rather sit here on earth than let our spacefaring dreams die that way. The other day I turned 50, which means I'm too young to remember any of the moon landings. If we rely on SLS now, it's unlikely that I'll live to see the next attempts.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    Thinking that SLS getting us to the moon will set us back? Thinking that the enthusiasm of SLS is worthless? Somehow ignoring that SLS is getting it done, not SpaceX, to the moon first? Do you think SpaceX literally dies if SLS succeeds? What kind of logic are you using to think that a successful SLS moon mission sets humanity back? I would assume you know that government space programs take a fuckton of money to operate on, and that they take years if not a decade or more to execute. SpaceX wasn't anywhere near proven 10 or 15 years ago. Cutting SLS doesn't mean SpaceX and BO suddenly get $30b in funding. By such logic, we should have wished the other shuttles had blown up in the 90s too.
    - 4y ago
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  It is so self-evident to me that we should support and root for the success of large scale scientific and engineering developments, even (or especially) those funded by our union, the government. A failure would represent failure of process, funding, intelligence and collective action. It is one thing to think it may fail on some technical merit, or to wish it had been done differently, but to actively wish for a rocket to blow up is unpatriotic and irrational. I may hope that SpaceX can get Super Heavy to a lunar landing by 2024 as well but I'm not going to wish that human space travel gets set back.
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    SLS already does represent a failure of process and funding. It's blatant corruption that keeps being overlooked by the broader public. Think of all the genuinely useful developments all those people could've been paid to work on instead of this project that does little more than serve as a means for politicians to buy votes. Then consider that they want to keep this waste going for another decade at least. The mere existence of SLS as a program would have run the US space launch capability into the ground if it weren't for SpaceX serving as the seed for 'New Space' launch companies. Without SLS we could've had refuelable second stages to provide a genuinely sustainable lunar presence (Boeing outright tried to get the guy who proposed such at ULA fired because it would make SLS mostly pointless) without having to rely on sheer luck of having a motivated private party. So if anything, it's unpatriotic to wish for the success of SLS since it fundamentally represents everything that's wrong with the US and allowing it to continue is the same as allowing politicians to continue screwing over the average person. That said, while I'm hoping for it to fail, I don't expect an explosion tomorrow to be able to make it fail, if anything it'll just give Congress an excuse to transfer more money to Boeing. I'd rather it fly properly and then be cancelled after a 3rd or 4th flight when it becomes way too clear that SLS is useless (Ideally SpaceX will have done the DearMoon and Polaris Dawn flights by then). SLS will fail but not because it'll fail to fly, but rather because it will fail to be worth flying. I'd also love for a reckoning where every politician responsible for pushing the program is punished but there's zero chance that'll happen.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  I may not want it to fail, but I fully expect it to. Do they really expect this launch to go right the first time? How many times did SpaceX blow up before getting a rocket into orbit?
  - allenrb 4y ago
    To be fair, it's pretty common for "mature" organizations to reach orbit on the first try. SpaceX had three Falcon 1 failures before their first success, and a few other startups have shown similar numbers. On the other hand, the first Falcon 9 reached orbit. More directly relevant, Shuttle was a success on its first launch (good thing, too, with a pair of astronauts flying!). On the third hand, the first Ariane 5 failed 37 seconds into flight, for reasons discussed on HN every so often. I'd give SLS an 85% chance of reaching roughly the correct initial orbit, and only a small chance of leaving a smoking crater.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Do they really expect this launch to go right the first time? Yes, they really do. They want the second flight of this rocket ever to be crewed. That's obviously not going to happen if the first launch goes wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Launch_System_launches#Future_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Launch_System_la... They aren't doing the SpaceX thing of iterating fast and blowing up a few rockets early on.
  - natch 4y ago
    I fully expect this launch to be flawless other than having, shall we say, a less than elegant design. The companies who have put this together are very experienced at making launches successful. The self congratulations do seem premature, but they are very good at blowing time and money budgets on disposable solutions that optimize for the maximum payroll per flight… absolute world class experts at what they do.
- mlindner 4y ago
  I think the fans of SLS are the ones who are selfish and self-absorbed. They just want to see a big rocket launch irrelevant to the damage it's doing to the US space program simply by existing.
- natch 4y ago
  Or… you’re missing something. Could be. I’d suggest giving the reasons of the other side a listen. I try to take this advice myself sometimes btw.. it’s not always easy.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    Oh please. All the comments I've seen are incredibly closed-minded and short-sighted with a bunch of wishful thinking. Nothing but Schadenfreude with no concept of the consequences. It's not like I'm a big SLS fan either. If SpaceX had a rocket going to the moon today, I'd be excited too.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gsibble 4y ago
  Oooop......and there's a problem with one of the engines. Doubt we'll even get to see a launch today. Shocking.
comeonseriously 4y ago
Elon?
mlindner 4y ago
Yes, agreed. Hopefully it fails so we can get moving towards a more reasonable and sustainable system in the future. It's inevitable so the sooner it happens the better.
seb1204 4y ago
While this reads harsh I can sympathize with your view. From the outside the whole Artemis project with all they sub projects and programs look great. A huge ambitious and bold goal using high tech. Combining countries and workforce all aligned for this big lift off. Then I come here to read all these very valid questions that I would also ask as an engineer and realise that it is all politics with weak compromises or rebranding of past solutions coming out top.

macinjosh 4y ago

Hear! hear!

Sakos 4y ago

I can't believe there's somebody on HN who actually wants this to fail. Just ... how unbelievably fucking selfish and self-absorbed.

gsibble 4y ago
Aaaaaand SCRUBBED. Didn't even make it off the ground. Shocking.
- allenrb 4y ago
  This 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 ago
I 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 ago
I 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.
n8cpdx 4y ago
Why does it matter? The money has already been spent and frankly the Senate Launch System is a jobs program, so the value has already been delivered. The real risk is it works and leaders are tempted to throw more money at it until it has a chance to kill Americans, like the Shuttle it is replacing.
orangecat 4y ago
How is it selfish? SLS is a tremendous waste of resources and talent. A "successful" launch means that it will continue to waste resources and talent for many more years; a failure means there's some chance we can cut our losses.
CodeWriter23 4y ago
> how unbelievably fucking selfish and self-absorbed Really? Maybe you missed the recurrent theme on HN, that of disruption of bloated and inefficient legacy companies that should be dead already but government subsidies keep them afloat. And they innovate precisely as if they have zero skin in the game.
allenrb 4y ago
Make that two somebodies. I'm a huge space fan, follow everything worth following, and grew up with the Shuttle program, which was amazing despite its many, many flaws. I'll be watching tomorrow morning hoping for a spectacular explosion that takes out ground facilities along with the rocket. Perhaps then the ensuing government finger-pointing will expose this mess for what it really is -- a poorly conceived, incredibly expensive jobs program masquerading as a "moon rocket". People have made the inevitable comparisons to SpaceX's Superheavy/Starship, and there have naturally been responses pointing out that Starship is far from proven. That's absolutely right, but think about this: If SpaceX never reuses a single nut, bolt, or hunk of stainless steel, SH/Starship is by far the better launch system. Fully expendable, it would cost somewhere in the range of 10-25% of an SLS launch, while delivering something like twice the payload to orbit. I'm super-excited about the growing enthusiasm for going back to the moon, landing on Mars, building larger and more capable orbital installations, and who knows what else. SLS enables none of that. It is both too expensive, and too rare, to be a part of any effective program. By merely existing, SLS sucks money out of other programs that could show real results. I promise you this: If we go back to the moon with SLS, it will make Apollo look like the better program. That, in spite of 50+ years of technological advancement. I'd rather sit here on earth than let our spacefaring dreams die that way. The other day I turned 50, which means I'm too young to remember any of the moon landings. If we rely on SLS now, it's unlikely that I'll live to see the next attempts.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Thinking that SLS getting us to the moon will set us back? Thinking that the enthusiasm of SLS is worthless? Somehow ignoring that SLS is getting it done, not SpaceX, to the moon first? Do you think SpaceX literally dies if SLS succeeds? What kind of logic are you using to think that a successful SLS moon mission sets humanity back? I would assume you know that government space programs take a fuckton of money to operate on, and that they take years if not a decade or more to execute. SpaceX wasn't anywhere near proven 10 or 15 years ago. Cutting SLS doesn't mean SpaceX and BO suddenly get $30b in funding. By such logic, we should have wished the other shuttles had blown up in the 90s too.
  - 4y ago
unethical_ban 4y ago
It is so self-evident to me that we should support and root for the success of large scale scientific and engineering developments, even (or especially) those funded by our union, the government. A failure would represent failure of process, funding, intelligence and collective action. It is one thing to think it may fail on some technical merit, or to wish it had been done differently, but to actively wish for a rocket to blow up is unpatriotic and irrational. I may hope that SpaceX can get Super Heavy to a lunar landing by 2024 as well but I'm not going to wish that human space travel gets set back.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  SLS already does represent a failure of process and funding. It's blatant corruption that keeps being overlooked by the broader public. Think of all the genuinely useful developments all those people could've been paid to work on instead of this project that does little more than serve as a means for politicians to buy votes. Then consider that they want to keep this waste going for another decade at least. The mere existence of SLS as a program would have run the US space launch capability into the ground if it weren't for SpaceX serving as the seed for 'New Space' launch companies. Without SLS we could've had refuelable second stages to provide a genuinely sustainable lunar presence (Boeing outright tried to get the guy who proposed such at ULA fired because it would make SLS mostly pointless) without having to rely on sheer luck of having a motivated private party. So if anything, it's unpatriotic to wish for the success of SLS since it fundamentally represents everything that's wrong with the US and allowing it to continue is the same as allowing politicians to continue screwing over the average person. That said, while I'm hoping for it to fail, I don't expect an explosion tomorrow to be able to make it fail, if anything it'll just give Congress an excuse to transfer more money to Boeing. I'd rather it fly properly and then be cancelled after a 3rd or 4th flight when it becomes way too clear that SLS is useless (Ideally SpaceX will have done the DearMoon and Polaris Dawn flights by then). SLS will fail but not because it'll fail to fly, but rather because it will fail to be worth flying. I'd also love for a reckoning where every politician responsible for pushing the program is punished but there's zero chance that'll happen.
Aeolun 4y ago
I may not want it to fail, but I fully expect it to. Do they really expect this launch to go right the first time? How many times did SpaceX blow up before getting a rocket into orbit?
- allenrb 4y ago
  To be fair, it's pretty common for "mature" organizations to reach orbit on the first try. SpaceX had three Falcon 1 failures before their first success, and a few other startups have shown similar numbers. On the other hand, the first Falcon 9 reached orbit. More directly relevant, Shuttle was a success on its first launch (good thing, too, with a pair of astronauts flying!). On the third hand, the first Ariane 5 failed 37 seconds into flight, for reasons discussed on HN every so often. I'd give SLS an 85% chance of reaching roughly the correct initial orbit, and only a small chance of leaving a smoking crater.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Do they really expect this launch to go right the first time? Yes, they really do. They want the second flight of this rocket ever to be crewed. That's obviously not going to happen if the first launch goes wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Launch_System_launches#Future_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Launch_System_la... They aren't doing the SpaceX thing of iterating fast and blowing up a few rockets early on.
- natch 4y ago
  I fully expect this launch to be flawless other than having, shall we say, a less than elegant design. The companies who have put this together are very experienced at making launches successful. The self congratulations do seem premature, but they are very good at blowing time and money budgets on disposable solutions that optimize for the maximum payroll per flight… absolute world class experts at what they do.
mlindner 4y ago
I think the fans of SLS are the ones who are selfish and self-absorbed. They just want to see a big rocket launch irrelevant to the damage it's doing to the US space program simply by existing.
natch 4y ago
Or… you’re missing something. Could be. I’d suggest giving the reasons of the other side a listen. I try to take this advice myself sometimes btw.. it’s not always easy.
- Sakos 4y ago
  Oh please. All the comments I've seen are incredibly closed-minded and short-sighted with a bunch of wishful thinking. Nothing but Schadenfreude with no concept of the consequences. It's not like I'm a big SLS fan either. If SpaceX had a rocket going to the moon today, I'd be excited too.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gsibble 4y ago
Oooop......and there's a problem with one of the engines. Doubt we'll even get to see a launch today. Shocking.

comeonseriously 4y ago

Elon?

mlindner 4y ago

Yes, agreed. Hopefully it fails so we can get moving towards a more reasonable and sustainable system in the future. It's inevitable so the sooner it happens the better.

seb1204 4y ago

While this reads harsh I can sympathize with your view. From the outside the whole Artemis project with all they sub projects and programs look great. A huge ambitious and bold goal using high tech. Combining countries and workforce all aligned for this big lift off. Then I come here to read all these very valid questions that I would also ask as an engineer and realise that it is all politics with weak compromises or rebranding of past solutions coming out top.