2 ms·

I 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 to

I 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 ago
Every 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Falcon 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
bayesian_horse 4y ago
SLS is also pretty good at what it does and it is ready to fly. o "better" alternative would have gotten there cheaper faster, at least not with much certainty.
ragebol 4y ago
Also: SLS is a hedge against eg. SpaceX or Blue Origin (in some time hopefully) or any other commercial heavy lift launcher failing. SLS, in various incarnations, has been in the works longer than those companies exist and certainly longer than SpaceX actually living up to it's promises. Now that they do with Falcon, and Falcon Heavy and (maybe) are about to with Starship, it seems outdated of course. However, changing the program again (to eg. make SLS reusable) would only make things worse. It's also not a given that Starship will work. I totally expect and hope so, but it's not a given. Further, it's not that the money has been burnt, it has mostly been spent in the US, right? Just redistributed :-) . Could also have pissed it away in the army. Of course some other good have been done with it too, to be fair. Alas, not my taxpayer money for the largest bit: as a ESA member state citizen, I only paid a fraction of the ESA supplied module.

Isinlor 4y ago

Every 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Falcon 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

bayesian_horse 4y ago

SLS is also pretty good at what it does and it is ready to fly. o "better" alternative would have gotten there cheaper faster, at least not with much certainty.

ragebol 4y ago

Also: SLS is a hedge against eg. SpaceX or Blue Origin (in some time hopefully) or any other commercial heavy lift launcher failing. SLS, in various incarnations, has been in the works longer than those companies exist and certainly longer than SpaceX actually living up to it's promises. Now that they do with Falcon, and Falcon Heavy and (maybe) are about to with Starship, it seems outdated of course. However, changing the program again (to eg. make SLS reusable) would only make things worse. It's also not a given that Starship will work. I totally expect and hope so, but it's not a given. Further, it's not that the money has been burnt, it has mostly been spent in the US, right? Just redistributed :-) . Could also have pissed it away in the army. Of course some other good have been done with it too, to be fair. Alas, not my taxpayer money for the largest bit: as a ESA member state citizen, I only paid a fraction of the ESA supplied module.