4 ms·

You don't need to imagine - just look up the SLS program and it's budget + timeframe

thallium205 4y ago
And the fact it will cost about 10x as much compared to SpaceX rockets to deliver something to orbit. SLS is a total failure.
- misiti3780 4y ago
  It's amazing how many people hold this opinion (OP) when it could be resolved with < 1 minute of research.
  - comeonbro 4y ago
    Ideological commitments that could be resolved with < 1 minute of research, will not be resolved with < 1 minute of research.
- malfist 4y ago
  Depends on what you consider it's mission objective. If you consider it a jobs program that we happen to get a rocket out of, it's an astounding success. If you consider it a rocket program it's an abject failure. To give you an example of why it's a jobs program and not a rocket program. Congress forced NASA to build a multimillion dollar testing facility they never intended to use for the SLS nor for any other rocket NASA has.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Even judged that way, SLS is substandard. As a pointless jobs program, the TSA definitely has SLS beat.
- pkage 4y ago
  You can blame Boeing for that, it's not like NASA is directly creating the rocket in-house. SpaceX is just disrupting the current MIC contracts.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    You can absolutely blame NASA for that. They are calling the shots and making the design decisions. Its not like NASA puts out a check and simply waits for the rocket to arrive. With the NASA process, they own the design, they are in meetings on specifications, they requests tests, ect. They micromanage and direct work down to the nuts and bolts, literally and figuratively. By analogy, they are the head Chef in the kitchen. With SpaceX, they are the customer at the restaurant.
    - CrazyStat 4y ago
      A lot of it is above even NASA's level. SLS had a bunch of requirements imposed on it by Congress who see NASA primarily as a jobs program/pork barrel and want to make sure the money goes to the right places.
sbuttgereit 4y ago
Let's not forget Shuttle.... which at some level is a fair amount of SLS as well.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  The Shuttle was at least an innovative vehicle and a first attempt at reusability. It was a failure, but most first attempts at anything will be. This doesn't compare at all with the SLS, which is just recycling old tech, and even going backwards from the Shuttle in that it gives up on reusability entirely instead of trying to learn and improve from the Shuttle's mistakes.
nwah1 4y ago
The point you are trying to make is that that government is unlikely to succeed in terms of timeframe or budget, and that is probably true. Yet, your argument doesn't support that point. SLS is also a project that is built by private corporations. SLS vs Falcon Heavy is simply a battle between two different government contractors. One is not more government-based than the other.
- nrb 4y ago
  Research how and where SLS must be designed, manufactured, integrated, and tested. Then research who designated that process and how. Calling Falcon Heavy and SLS equivalently government-led is laughable. The amount of by-design government red tape and congressional district handouts is astounding.
  - nwah1 4y ago
    SLS is a joint project between many large bureaucratic private organizations, and thus design-by-committee is more of a function of the way that those institutions operate, and their need to coordinate with one another. Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. That these institutions were unable to deliver within reasonable time and budget limits is a result of their own dysfunction. Since rocket production is extremely capital-intensive, the market is very thin. The number of players capable of even giving it a go is low. And thus, it has all the hallmarks of a typical market failure. Private companies the entire time could've realized the potential profits and competently worked to achieve them, even outside of begging for government contracts. That they didn't do this for many decades is their own fault.
    - nrb 4y ago
      > Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. This is just not correct if you mean that they only cared about payload and mission requirements. Congress mandated that certain technologies were to be used from non-competitive, single-source suppliers in order to prop up industry in particular congressional districts. Cost overruns are practically by-design because as long as it doesn’t raise too many eyebrows it’s just more money to their local industry and constituents.
newaccount2021 4y ago

And the fact it will cost about 10x as much compared to SpaceX rockets to deliver something to orbit. SLS is a total failure.

misiti3780 4y ago
It's amazing how many people hold this opinion (OP) when it could be resolved with < 1 minute of research.
- comeonbro 4y ago
  Ideological commitments that could be resolved with < 1 minute of research, will not be resolved with < 1 minute of research.
malfist 4y ago
Depends on what you consider it's mission objective. If you consider it a jobs program that we happen to get a rocket out of, it's an astounding success. If you consider it a rocket program it's an abject failure. To give you an example of why it's a jobs program and not a rocket program. Congress forced NASA to build a multimillion dollar testing facility they never intended to use for the SLS nor for any other rocket NASA has.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Even judged that way, SLS is substandard. As a pointless jobs program, the TSA definitely has SLS beat.
pkage 4y ago
You can blame Boeing for that, it's not like NASA is directly creating the rocket in-house. SpaceX is just disrupting the current MIC contracts.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  You can absolutely blame NASA for that. They are calling the shots and making the design decisions. Its not like NASA puts out a check and simply waits for the rocket to arrive. With the NASA process, they own the design, they are in meetings on specifications, they requests tests, ect. They micromanage and direct work down to the nuts and bolts, literally and figuratively. By analogy, they are the head Chef in the kitchen. With SpaceX, they are the customer at the restaurant.
  - CrazyStat 4y ago
    A lot of it is above even NASA's level. SLS had a bunch of requirements imposed on it by Congress who see NASA primarily as a jobs program/pork barrel and want to make sure the money goes to the right places.

sbuttgereit 4y ago

Let's not forget Shuttle.... which at some level is a fair amount of SLS as well.

fallingknife 4y ago
The Shuttle was at least an innovative vehicle and a first attempt at reusability. It was a failure, but most first attempts at anything will be. This doesn't compare at all with the SLS, which is just recycling old tech, and even going backwards from the Shuttle in that it gives up on reusability entirely instead of trying to learn and improve from the Shuttle's mistakes.

nwah1 4y ago

The point you are trying to make is that that government is unlikely to succeed in terms of timeframe or budget, and that is probably true. Yet, your argument doesn't support that point. SLS is also a project that is built by private corporations. SLS vs Falcon Heavy is simply a battle between two different government contractors. One is not more government-based than the other.

nrb 4y ago
Research how and where SLS must be designed, manufactured, integrated, and tested. Then research who designated that process and how. Calling Falcon Heavy and SLS equivalently government-led is laughable. The amount of by-design government red tape and congressional district handouts is astounding.
- nwah1 4y ago
  SLS is a joint project between many large bureaucratic private organizations, and thus design-by-committee is more of a function of the way that those institutions operate, and their need to coordinate with one another. Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. That these institutions were unable to deliver within reasonable time and budget limits is a result of their own dysfunction. Since rocket production is extremely capital-intensive, the market is very thin. The number of players capable of even giving it a go is low. And thus, it has all the hallmarks of a typical market failure. Private companies the entire time could've realized the potential profits and competently worked to achieve them, even outside of begging for government contracts. That they didn't do this for many decades is their own fault.
  - nrb 4y ago
    > Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. This is just not correct if you mean that they only cared about payload and mission requirements. Congress mandated that certain technologies were to be used from non-competitive, single-source suppliers in order to prop up industry in particular congressional districts. Cost overruns are practically by-design because as long as it doesn’t raise too many eyebrows it’s just more money to their local industry and constituents.

newaccount2021 4y ago