4 ms·

Not that two failed launch attempts are all that big a deal in the grand scheme, but they just add more evidence to the already weighty pile that says that SLS

Not that two failed launch attempts are all that big a deal in the grand scheme, but they just add more evidence to the already weighty pile that says that SLS is a bad rocket and a dead-end path.

was_a_dev 4y ago
It's a dead-end path because the private space industry is now maturing to the point they can provide launch services for all use cases. If the private launch services didn't exist how they are, SLS would be heralded as the latest generation of rocket. The timing is terrible for all sorts of reasons.
- pohl 4y ago
  SpaceX doesn’t have this capability yet. Soon, maybe, but not now.
  - aetherson 4y ago
    If you asked me to bet at even odds on who would be first to orbit, SLS or Starship, I'd probably bet on SLS. If you asked me to bet at even odds on who would be able to do two, or five, or ten launches to orbit first, my bet would be on Starship.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    It depends with what you mean with 'this capability'. What specifically are you talking about, a rocket that can throw 39t to moon rather then 23t. Ok sure I guess, but at the price you can launch 300t the moon. If you design a mission specifically for SLS then yeah, SLS difference matters, but if you simply want to make a good architecture, you much rather go with the smaller cheaper rocket. In terms of Orion, can Dragon do everything it can do. No not by itself Orion plus the Orion service module can do some thing Dragon can't. But Dragon can do most things and with a few simple add-ons like extend tank in the trunk. So in reality if NASA had the freedom to plan, a few years ago they could have switched a Falcon Heavy/Dragon architecture and achieved the same thing. SpaceX would likely even have been willing to do things like cross feed and potentially even a Raptor based upper stage. All of these would have been ready far earlier then when Orion will actually launch with humans. So just saying, SpaceX doesn't support something is a really narrow view. It doesn't support it but SpaceX certainty would have the capability to do the Artemis 1/2 missions if NASA had asked them too. And all of that while completely ignoring Starship, just with the capabilities they had in 2019. Between then and now SpaceX could have already done this mission quite easily. And likely they could have done it 5 more times before Artemis 2 launches.
Majromax 4y ago
> Not that two failed launch attempts are all that big a deal in the grand scheme The question to me is, does SLS have a grand scheme? The entire program is specified and budgeted for about five missions, with extensions uncertain. Each launch is a tremendous (and tremendously expensive) affair, and this launch is the first time that all of the SLS systems are coming together. Commercial launch services (not just SpaceX) get to amortize these sorts of failures over dozens to hundreds of eventual launches, but SLS is not designed to "fail fast" as a learning experience.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  The grand scheme is to have a more than one option and path forward to a moon mission, keep the US' aerospace building capabilities fresh and available, and probably also to provide some of the usual pork barrel giveaways to the usual folks. It is both unfortunate but understandable. In an alternate timeline people might now be upset that NASA and the US put all their bets on SpaceX that could now not deliver for some reason. Yes, the price tag is an abomination and the engineering strategies outdated and frankly kind of embarrassing. But hindsight is 20/20.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > more than one option and path forward to a moon mission Then SLS is the exact opposite. Building around existing commercial crew and commerical rockets would be that. SLS/Orion is the actual both 'single point of failure'. So really SLS/Orion is the opposite of what you suggest. > keep the US' aerospace building capabilities fresh and available And by that you mean removing money from the actual productive aerospace industry and instead keeping age old infrastructure in place and rebuilding production lines for old outdated technology. Had this money actually been invested in the advanced aerospace industry, the US would have more and better aerospace capability. So again, SLS/Orion is literally the opposite of what you suggest. > provide some of the usual pork barrel giveaways to the usual folks That's its real and only goal. But again, there would have been other ways to do this. > US put all their bets on SpaceX that could now not deliver for some reason. That was never the alternative. That's just a strawman. > But hindsight is 20/20. Its not hindsight. Its actually mostly known at the time. If you look at the internal NASA studies, they all indicated that many other paths including using commercial rocket and building a Saturn style rocket would have been far, far better. See: https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/rac_stuff_summary_kinda_idk_anymore/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/r...
SyzygistSix 4y ago
It's not that they were two failed launch attempts. They were actually more like two more wet dress rehearsals that they should have done before trying to launch. But they didn't, and now still have not managed to complete a full wet dress rehearsal satisfactorily. There was no indication they were actually ready to launch going into this and there still is not.
- landemva 4y ago
  NASA management is the problem. Sixty years ago launches somehow got done with pencil and paper. It's time to clean house and stop wasting tax dollars on failed management.

Not that two failed launch attempts are all that big a deal in the grand scheme, but they just add more evidence to the already weighty pile that says that SLS is a bad rocket and a dead-end path.

was_a_dev 4y ago

It's a dead-end path because the private space industry is now maturing to the point they can provide launch services for all use cases. If the private launch services didn't exist how they are, SLS would be heralded as the latest generation of rocket. The timing is terrible for all sorts of reasons.

pohl 4y ago
SpaceX doesn’t have this capability yet. Soon, maybe, but not now.
- aetherson 4y ago
  If you asked me to bet at even odds on who would be first to orbit, SLS or Starship, I'd probably bet on SLS. If you asked me to bet at even odds on who would be able to do two, or five, or ten launches to orbit first, my bet would be on Starship.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  It depends with what you mean with 'this capability'. What specifically are you talking about, a rocket that can throw 39t to moon rather then 23t. Ok sure I guess, but at the price you can launch 300t the moon. If you design a mission specifically for SLS then yeah, SLS difference matters, but if you simply want to make a good architecture, you much rather go with the smaller cheaper rocket. In terms of Orion, can Dragon do everything it can do. No not by itself Orion plus the Orion service module can do some thing Dragon can't. But Dragon can do most things and with a few simple add-ons like extend tank in the trunk. So in reality if NASA had the freedom to plan, a few years ago they could have switched a Falcon Heavy/Dragon architecture and achieved the same thing. SpaceX would likely even have been willing to do things like cross feed and potentially even a Raptor based upper stage. All of these would have been ready far earlier then when Orion will actually launch with humans. So just saying, SpaceX doesn't support something is a really narrow view. It doesn't support it but SpaceX certainty would have the capability to do the Artemis 1/2 missions if NASA had asked them too. And all of that while completely ignoring Starship, just with the capabilities they had in 2019. Between then and now SpaceX could have already done this mission quite easily. And likely they could have done it 5 more times before Artemis 2 launches.

Majromax 4y ago

> Not that two failed launch attempts are all that big a deal in the grand scheme The question to me is, does SLS have a grand scheme? The entire program is specified and budgeted for about five missions, with extensions uncertain. Each launch is a tremendous (and tremendously expensive) affair, and this launch is the first time that all of the SLS systems are coming together. Commercial launch services (not just SpaceX) get to amortize these sorts of failures over dozens to hundreds of eventual launches, but SLS is not designed to "fail fast" as a learning experience.

SyzygistSix 4y ago
The grand scheme is to have a more than one option and path forward to a moon mission, keep the US' aerospace building capabilities fresh and available, and probably also to provide some of the usual pork barrel giveaways to the usual folks. It is both unfortunate but understandable. In an alternate timeline people might now be upset that NASA and the US put all their bets on SpaceX that could now not deliver for some reason. Yes, the price tag is an abomination and the engineering strategies outdated and frankly kind of embarrassing. But hindsight is 20/20.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > more than one option and path forward to a moon mission Then SLS is the exact opposite. Building around existing commercial crew and commerical rockets would be that. SLS/Orion is the actual both 'single point of failure'. So really SLS/Orion is the opposite of what you suggest. > keep the US' aerospace building capabilities fresh and available And by that you mean removing money from the actual productive aerospace industry and instead keeping age old infrastructure in place and rebuilding production lines for old outdated technology. Had this money actually been invested in the advanced aerospace industry, the US would have more and better aerospace capability. So again, SLS/Orion is literally the opposite of what you suggest. > provide some of the usual pork barrel giveaways to the usual folks That's its real and only goal. But again, there would have been other ways to do this. > US put all their bets on SpaceX that could now not deliver for some reason. That was never the alternative. That's just a strawman. > But hindsight is 20/20. Its not hindsight. Its actually mostly known at the time. If you look at the internal NASA studies, they all indicated that many other paths including using commercial rocket and building a Saturn style rocket would have been far, far better. See: https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/rac_stuff_summary_kinda_idk_anymore/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/r...

SyzygistSix 4y ago

It's not that they were two failed launch attempts. They were actually more like two more wet dress rehearsals that they should have done before trying to launch. But they didn't, and now still have not managed to complete a full wet dress rehearsal satisfactorily. There was no indication they were actually ready to launch going into this and there still is not.

landemva 4y ago
NASA management is the problem. Sixty years ago launches somehow got done with pencil and paper. It's time to clean house and stop wasting tax dollars on failed management.