Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SLS - On the Scent of Inevitable Capitulation

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

Since the start of the proposed 2024 vanity project, NASA has known the Europa mission was going to be an Achilles heel for Boeing to cover the near term number of SLS vehicles required in the early 2020's. If I recall correctly, Bridenstine has stated that Artemis would not take away from other science missions that NASA has on the books. I'm assuming his remarks apply to both budgetary and timeline commitments. Unfortunately for NASA, pulled pork takes a long time to cook and boss Shelby just wants to use his smoker. Without an alternate booster for Europa, here is the current NASA SLS launch order.

- Artemis 1: (Formerly EM-1) 2021, First SLS test launch. Uncrewed Orion capsule on a 20 day mission. Couple of lunar flybys.

- Artemis 2: (Formerly EM-2) 2022, SLS/Orion. Four astronauts on a free return trajectory. Maximum duration of 21 days.

- Europa Mission: 2023, SLS launch

- Artemis 3: (Formerly EM-3) 2024, SLS/Orion. Four astronauts rendezvous with a minimal gateway equipped with a lunar lander. Two astronauts land on the moon for an approximate one week stay. Possibly four lunar walks are to be scheduled.

Can't forget all of the commercial support launches that are still in a state of flux. For example, some at NASA have proposed pre-positioning a lunar rover near the landing site prior to a crewed landing. Puzzling to me, where is there an Apollo 9 type mission for Artemis? Is NASA/ASAP really okay with not human flight testing a lunar lander prior to an actual landing? This could all be accomplished with commercial launches, but then there's a problem. It all circle back to Shelby's proclamation that any crewed support for Artemis must be launched by SLS. Regardless of NASA timelines or demand for SLS production, Boeing is just loving their blank check government funding.
 
My dog is that a big rocket. I love a big rocket. Even if it is unlikely to do what they said it would.
Jim Bridenstine on Twitter

ENOYblfXUAAB0JE
 
And it will only launch once, and minutes later end up in the ocean as underwater junk. This is 2020. How can that be right?

1. Why develop reusable technology on a booster that is going to fly so infrequently that the cost and schedule impact from that development activity would far outweigh the benefit? It would probably cost them another $1-2B and another 1-2 years to layer on reusability.
2. Just because one entity has [more or less] perfected reusability doesn't mean that technology is magically available to everyone.
 
My point was the entire SLS program should have been cancelled once SpaceX proved that reusable rockets were feasible. That SLS budget could have been redirected towards something sensible. I know that the SLS design could not be made reusable without spending far more money and adding years to the development timeframe. That’s why it should have been cancelled years ago.

I realize that Shelby is in control of the SLS program. I simply find it shocking that in 2020 America is spending billions to launch a rocket that is only used once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal and mspohr
My point was the entire SLS program should have been cancelled once SpaceX proved that reusable rockets were feasible. That SLS budget could have been redirected towards something sensible. I know that the SLS design could not be made reusable without spending far more money and adding years to the development timeframe. That’s why it should have been cancelled years ago.

I realize that Shelby is in control of the SLS program. I simply find it shocking that in 2020 America is spending billions to launch a rocket that is only used once.
As an observer of this system, it fascinates me that someone elected to office by a small portion of the country’s population (the folks electing their senator) gets to control national resources and programs to the benefit (jobs) of his constituents with little regard for the rest of the country’s priorities or any impact on federal budgets and taxes. And that this way, this person gets to ensure their re-election. I know about “the tyranny of the majority (Congress)” Vs “the tyranny of the minority (Senate)” balancing act, but it still throws me every time.
/politics

When I shut down my right brain (or is it left), I just want this sucker to fly once at least, because that will be quite the show. But yeah, a massive waste of funds and resources. That all US-taxpayers are on the hook for.
Am going back to play Simple Rockets 2 where I have a rough version of Starship and Superheavy flying. Just not landing quite yet...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bxr140
...I just want this sucker to fly once at least, because that will be quite the show. But yeah, a massive waste of funds and resources.

I'm pretty sure I made the point in some thread here, but pretty much the only thing that's going to kill SLS is SLS. So...it needs to fly for more than giving folks a show. ;)

Even with an operational Starship and New Glenn, SLS won't get shut down until it actually completes at least one successful mission...and possibly two (during which it will illustrate the still-massive recurring cost and crazy long turnaround schedule).
 
Speaking for schedules, this is from the latest Ars Rocket Report:

NASA sole-source document reveals SLS details. NASA is presently negotiating with Boeing over the procurement of core stages number three through 12 for the Space Launch System rocket, and NASASpaceflight.com has reviewed a formal justification for the award that provides insight into the contract. For example, Boeing estimates it will take about three years to build a single core stage. The sole-source justification document notes that there would typically be three units being processed at Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, simultaneously, in different phases of production. Each core stage takes 16 months to procure and receive long-lead materials, and another 36 months to manufacture, test, and deliver to the Kennedy Space Center.”

Which in reality means it will take well over 3 years.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: e-FTW
All this was done, as a very expensive backup in case Space X cannot deliver.

Now that SpaceX has proved capable and reliable, justification for these expensive alternatives is going to be hard.

Don'tn however, underestimate the power of pork barrel politics. If it buys a couple senators votes on other issues, it may continue for years.
 
All this was done, as a very expensive backup in case Space X cannot deliver.

Now that SpaceX has proved capable and reliable, justification for these expensive alternatives is going to be hard.

Don'tn however, underestimate the power of pork barrel politics. If it buys a couple senators votes on other issues, it may continue for years.
The pork is alive and well in the first two sections of that document.
I admit that writing “Proposes to launch the Europa Clipper on a commercial launch vehicle to save over $1.5 billion compared to using an SLS rocket” is a rather big deal. But lost more pork to get rid of in there.

This though, could be a pretty major first step: “Defers funding for SLS upgrades to focus on achieving successful early flights and establishing an annual flight cadence.”
Eric has the quotes on that. NASA will annoy Congress a lot: Eric Berger on Twitter
EQbrAJsXYAEuXl_


EQbsPESWsAADtve
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Grendal and mspohr