-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SLS - On the Scent of Inevitable Capitulation
- Thread starter Nikxice
- Start date
That appears to my non-expert eye to be an innovative proposal worthy of serious consideration. Thanks for posting!
mspohr
Well-Known Member
e-FTW
New electron smell
In this interview Bridenstine contrasts the SpaceX approach of rapid iteration, fly, and fix issues and fly again in comparison to traditional space companies that “qualify all the components on the ground” (I’m probably paraphrasing) and then from the first launch the entire SLS vehicle is “qualified” (his word). But then he immediately says that “of course we don’t fly humans on that first mission”. He praises both approaches but I think he’s just being diplomatic (a kind way to put it). He’s trying to make nice with both SpaceX and ULA/Boeing.
Eric Berger of Arstechnica is getting grumpier and grumpier about SLS. Here’s how he ends his latest article.
“One of the architects of the authorizing legislation, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby (R), has demanded that NASA use the SLS rocket to launch humans to the Moon, despite the availabilityof the Falcon Heavy, which costs significantly less and has already flown three times.”
After a “corrective action,” Boeing back at work on SLS rocket core stage
“One of the architects of the authorizing legislation, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby (R), has demanded that NASA use the SLS rocket to launch humans to the Moon, despite the availabilityof the Falcon Heavy, which costs significantly less and has already flown three times.”
After a “corrective action,” Boeing back at work on SLS rocket core stage
I wouldn’t describe Mr. Berger as ‘grumpy’; he is simply pointing out the obvious. Over and over again...
Quote from that article: “Last week, in fact, marked the ninth anniversary of the SLS rocket program, which was created by a Congressional authorization bill in 2010. The rocket was originally supposed to be ready to launch by 2016. Before the rocket's first flight, NASA will have spent about $20 billion developing the SLS core stage, other elements of the rocket, and ground-support equipment.”
Quote from that article: “Last week, in fact, marked the ninth anniversary of the SLS rocket program, which was created by a Congressional authorization bill in 2010. The rocket was originally supposed to be ready to launch by 2016. Before the rocket's first flight, NASA will have spent about $20 billion developing the SLS core stage, other elements of the rocket, and ground-support equipment.”
That was the article's last line. But Eric wasn't quite done, grumpying it up on the first page of the comments section with an SLS zinger.
Eric Berger Senior Space Editor
REPLYOCT 14, 2019 9:44 AM
- STORY AUTHOR
- POPULAR
+164 (+165 / -1)
e-FTW
New electron smell
He is even saltier on Twitter:
Eric Berger on Twitter
Eric Berger on Twitter
Single-word (and GIF) burn: Eric Berger on Twitter
Eric Berger on Twitter
Eric Berger on Twitter
Single-word (and GIF) burn: Eric Berger on Twitter
e-FTW
New electron smell
e-FTW
New electron smell
My favorite reply in that Twitter thread
Chris B - NSF @NASASpaceflightThe second SLS Mobile Launcher (ML-2) is aiming to host the fourth SLS launch (first Block 1B). Block 1B is slightly taller, so the current SLS ML isn't compatible without hundreds of millions of bucks in mods, so they are building a second one for hundreds of millions of bucks.
Scott Manley didn't waste much time proposing a sarcastically framed solution for NASA. His project might be called the SMP.............SLS Money Pit.
Scott Manley @DJSnM 22h22 hours agoReplying to @NASASpaceflight
Wrong idea, they just need to dig a hole in the launch pad rather than making the tower taller.
Eric Berger describes, in his usual keenly perceptive manner, how two years after soliciting proposals for an alternate SLS second stage, NASA decided to reject an offer by Blue Origin and stick with the bloated and behind schedule plan by Boeing. See NASA rejects Blue Origin’s offer of a cheaper upper stage for the SLS rocket
Quote:
“The irony in this document is that NASA said it would consider opening up a competition for the SLS rocket's new upper stage in 2017. And then two years later it told a bidder that proposed a commercial, cheaper upper stage that its bid failed because NASA and Boeing had already designed their rocket around Boeing's proposal. This seems like less than a fair competition.
Moreover, NASA is already procuring an interim upper stage for the SLS rocket from United Launch Alliance, a company co-owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. United Launch Alliance has extensive experience with the RL-10 engine and building upper stages. It also has tooling and factory space for this purpose, and it likely would have been cheaper and faster for NASA to contract with ULA. However, this would have meant that Boeing had to share any profits from the upper stage with Lockheed.
As a result, NASA has gone with a contractor that significantly under-performed on the SLS core stage, which is years behind schedule, billions of dollars over budget, and yet to prove itself in flight. Now it has bet the future of its deep space exploration program for at least the next decade on the same company. NASA fans can only hope that Boeing builds rockets as well as it does lobbying coalitions.”
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Every month seems to bring new evidence that SLS is a slow-motion disaster. What an appalling waste of taxpayer money. As someone who grew up in the 60’s ,at a time when NASA could actually accomplish great things (and still does in unmanned solar system exploration, but really that’s mostly about JPL) it makes me sad to see how far a once mighty organization has fallen.
I would love it if Starship lands on the Moon in 2024, long before Artemis even reaches lunar orbit, if that is what it takes to kill the SLS program.
Quote:
“The irony in this document is that NASA said it would consider opening up a competition for the SLS rocket's new upper stage in 2017. And then two years later it told a bidder that proposed a commercial, cheaper upper stage that its bid failed because NASA and Boeing had already designed their rocket around Boeing's proposal. This seems like less than a fair competition.
Moreover, NASA is already procuring an interim upper stage for the SLS rocket from United Launch Alliance, a company co-owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. United Launch Alliance has extensive experience with the RL-10 engine and building upper stages. It also has tooling and factory space for this purpose, and it likely would have been cheaper and faster for NASA to contract with ULA. However, this would have meant that Boeing had to share any profits from the upper stage with Lockheed.
As a result, NASA has gone with a contractor that significantly under-performed on the SLS core stage, which is years behind schedule, billions of dollars over budget, and yet to prove itself in flight. Now it has bet the future of its deep space exploration program for at least the next decade on the same company. NASA fans can only hope that Boeing builds rockets as well as it does lobbying coalitions.”
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Every month seems to bring new evidence that SLS is a slow-motion disaster. What an appalling waste of taxpayer money. As someone who grew up in the 60’s ,at a time when NASA could actually accomplish great things (and still does in unmanned solar system exploration, but really that’s mostly about JPL) it makes me sad to see how far a once mighty organization has fallen.
I would love it if Starship lands on the Moon in 2024, long before Artemis even reaches lunar orbit, if that is what it takes to kill the SLS program.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The SLS project is not about launching rockets. It's a corporate welfare project.
It would be no surprise to learn NASA's pro-Boeing decision was Shelby driven. But with the current White House, wonder if there were any other negative influences working against Blue Origin. Trump versus Washington Post...Trump versus Bezos...
why not Trump versus Blue Origin? Just putting it out there because of last month's speculation concerning Trump versus Amazon, whereby front-runner Amazon lost the Pentagon cloud computing contract worth 10 billion.
Pentagon Awards $10 Billion Contract To Microsoft Over Front-Runner Amazon
Similar threads
