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.

One aspect of this I had not read about yet: other countries’ interests:

Up next, an EU SpaceX manufacturing facility.

I kid of course, since rocket development has a ton of nation state security laws around it. But I wouldn't put anything past Elon. If there's a significant enough angle to exploit, he'll use it.
 

One aspect of this I had not read about yet: other countries’ interests:
Great article, the quote that caught my attention was
"In terms of lift capacity, the vehicles (SLS and SS) are similar. Starship and Super Heavy should be able to put about 100 tons into low Earth orbit. However, SpaceX is already capable of building one Starship a month, and the plan is to reuse each booster and spacecraft dozens of times. Imagine the kind of space program NASA could have with the capacity to launch 100 tons into orbit every two weeks—instead of a single annual mission—for $2 billion a year. Seriously, pause a moment and really think about that."
 
An aspect of SpaceX winning the Artemis program that I believe has gone largely unnoticed is the con-ops. Per the press release SLS will carry astronauts from earth to lunar orbit. Once there they will: transfer from the Orion capsule to the SpaceX HLS, HLS to the moon, moon back to Orion, and then back to Earth.

The SpaceX HLS will not utilize SLS to get to orbit, rather it will utilize the SpaceX Super Heavy booster. So a trip for the HLS will be entirely free of NASA hardware which begs the question; why do we need the SLS for Artemis at all?

The HLS will be human rated and already carrying the necessary cargo for the lunar mission. All SLS is providing is a ride for astronauts from earth to lunar orbit. SpaceX is already developing Super Heavy and Starship (HLS is a simplified version of Starship).

NASA could put astronauts on the HLS to begin with and forego SLS entirely. Less complex con-ops, definitely cheaper, and fewer risks (single system, no lunar rendezvous, etc.).

I'm sure NASA realized this when evaluating the three Artemis proposals. Although not a requirement they could evaluate against I'm sure that they realized that given the sparse funding NASA is likely to get, if they had to they could utilize SpaceX for the entirety of the mission and save even more $.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbcarioca
An aspect of SpaceX winning the Artemis program that I believe has gone largely unnoticed is the con-ops. Per the press release SLS will carry astronauts from earth to lunar orbit. Once there they will: transfer from the Orion capsule to the SpaceX HLS, HLS to the moon, moon back to Orion, and then back to Earth.

The SpaceX HLS will not utilize SLS to get to orbit, rather it will utilize the SpaceX Super Heavy booster. So a trip for the HLS will be entirely free of NASA hardware which begs the question; why do we need the SLS for Artemis at all?

The HLS will be human rated and already carrying the necessary cargo for the lunar mission. All SLS is providing is a ride for astronauts from earth to lunar orbit. SpaceX is already developing Super Heavy and Starship (HLS is a simplified version of Starship).

NASA could put astronauts on the HLS to begin with and forego SLS entirely. Less complex con-ops, definitely cheaper, and fewer risks (single system, no lunar rendezvous, etc.).

I'm sure NASA realized this when evaluating the three Artemis proposals. Although not a requirement they could evaluate against I'm sure that they realized that given the sparse funding NASA is likely to get, if they had to they could utilize SpaceX for the entirety of the mission and save even more $.
Starship does not have launch escape system and its re-entry is yet to be tested. I understand that NASA prefers entry method that has been tested and used since 60’s.

But of course Orion could be lifted with Starship’s firs stage in a separate launch.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SmartElectric
Starship does not have launch escape system and its re-entry is yet to be tested. I understand that NASA prefers entry method that has been tested and used since 60’s.

But of course Orion could be lifted with Starship’s firs stage in a separate launch.
Space Shuttle didn't have LES either. In the past NASA also refused to fly "used" Falcon 9 boosters but the most recent Crew-2 mission utilized a previously-flown F9 booster. That is to say - NASA has shown a willingness to change requirements (slowly) as technology progresses.

At this point virtually no aspect of Starship has been proved so the fact that the reentry features haven't either is moot. Starship is designed is to carry humans from the surface of the Earth to another planet (Mars) or point-to-point on earth and return safely. It doesn't seem to be a stretch that it could serve that function for Artemis mission as well if NASA requested it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmartElectric
Space Shuttle didn't have LES either. In the past NASA also refused to fly "used" Falcon 9 boosters but the most recent Crew-2 mission utilized a previously-flown F9 booster. That is to say - NASA has shown a willingness to change requirements (slowly) as technology progresses.

At this point virtually no aspect of Starship has been proved so the fact that the reentry features haven't either is moot. Starship is designed is to carry humans from the surface of the Earth to another planet (Mars) or point-to-point on earth and return safely. It doesn't seem to be a stretch that it could serve that function for Artemis mission as well if NASA requested it.
Of course it could serve in that function. I’m just saying that it is in my opinion fully understandable that NASA wants rather to use Orion, whose LES and reentry have already been tested. But as I said, Orion could be launched with Starship‘s first stage. And maybe in the future it will. SLS has a flyaway cost of 876 million and with fixed costs 2 billion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SmartElectric
Great article, the quote that caught my attention was
"In terms of lift capacity, the vehicles (SLS and SS) are similar. Starship and Super Heavy should be able to put about 100 tons into low Earth orbit. However, SpaceX is already capable of building one Starship a month, and the plan is to reuse each booster and spacecraft dozens of times. Imagine the kind of space program NASA could have with the capacity to launch 100 tons into orbit every two weeks—instead of a single annual mission—for $2 billion a year. Seriously, pause a moment and really think about that."
(emphasis mine)

I think that article doesn't quite paint it accurately... SpaceX is currently building Starship test vehicles at about 1 a month... an amazing rate to be sure, but not a full-blown Starship with all systems and features...
 
(emphasis mine)

I think that article doesn't quite paint it accurately... SpaceX is currently building Starship test vehicles at about 1 a month... an amazing rate to be sure, but not a full-blown Starship with all systems and features...

While very true, Starship is in testing phase. From everything Elon has said, while the build cadence would become much more complex for a fully functional Starship, the manufacturing line would grow (as we've seen) right along with the advancements. Elon sees Starship and Super Heavy manufacturing along the lines of how Tesla vehicles are made. His goal, as he has said, is to build thousands of Starships and hundreds of Super Heavies. I expect that to take a decade to accomplish reaching the speed of manufacturing that Elon wants. He's going to try hard to get there though. I also expect to see what we've seen at both Tesla and SpaceX of continuous improvements as they happen. The Starship landing on Mars will be a significant improvement on what we're seeing now. SpaceX will learn from recovered Starships on what needs to be improved and what is wearing out. It will take a year or two but we'll see a "Block 5" Starship and Super Heavy within (my WAG) five years.

Once he has a "Block 5" Starship that is as robust and safe, then we'll see the manufacturing line kick into overdrive.
 
Last edited:
While very true, Starship is in testing phase. From everything Elon has said, while the build cadence would be become much more complex for a fully functional Starship, the manufacturing line would grow (as we've seen) right along with the advancements. Elon sees Starship and Super Heavy manufacturing along the lines of how Tesla vehicles are made. His goal, as he has said, is to build thousands of Starships and hundreds of Super Heavies. I expect that to take a decade to accomplish reaching the speed of manufacturing that Elon wants. He's going to try hard to get there though. I also expect to see what we've seen at both Tesla and SpaceX of continuous improvements as they happen. The Starship landing on Mars will be a significant improvement on what we're seeing now. SpaceX will learn from recovered Starships on what needs to be improved and what is wearing out. It will take a year or two but we'll see a "Block 5" Starship and Super Heavy within (my WAG) five years.

Once he has a "Block 5" Starship that is as robust and safe, then we'll see the manufacturing line kick into overdrive.
Agreed, and I sincerely hope that comes to fruition... but thought it was worth pointing out the article's use of "already capable" doesn't really apply to full-blown[1] Starship.... yet.

[1] Not "blown-up"... they are certainly capable of doing that at one per month ;)
 
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere:

The whole SLS thing is a tragedy really, but it is an enormous beast and it's going to look impressive as can be when it flies, and were it not for what SpaceX has done/is doing I would be agog at this machine. I still am really, I just wish it didn't seem like such a wasteful boondoggle. Nevertheless, a lot of talented people are working hard on this so I am looking forward to seeing it fly, even if it only happens once.
 
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere:

The whole SLS thing is a tragedy really, but it is an enormous beast and it's going to look impressive as can be when it flies, and were it not for what SpaceX has done/is doing I would be agog at this machine. I still am really, I just wish it didn't seem like such a wasteful boondoggle. Nevertheless, a lot of talented people are working hard on this so I am looking forward to seeing it fly, even if it only happens once.
I’m more impressed with the building and cranes. Sad that whole rocket is just going to dump in the ocean each time. Very wasteful indeed.
 
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere:

The whole SLS thing is a tragedy really, but it is an enormous beast and it's going to look impressive as can be when it flies, and were it not for what SpaceX has done/is doing I would be agog at this machine. I still am really, I just wish it didn't seem like such a wasteful boondoggle. Nevertheless, a lot of talented people are working hard on this so I am looking forward to seeing it fly, even if it only happens once.
It's likely that Starship/Super Heavy will soon be knocking down one of NASA's proudest SLS talking points. For years now we've been exposed to plenty of SLS hype, including hearing it frequently billed as the "World's most powerful rocket." Time to move over SLS. That's the cost "plus" for the years wasted spent pissing into the wind.
 
C'mon. Is anyone surprised?
"A top NASA official says the agency will soon set a target launch date for the first Space Launch System mission, but that it’s “more than likely” it will slip into early 2022."

For some value of "early"....
 
I've been watching this play out for years, and my crystal ball is telling me that SLS will only be cancelled after it blows up. . . in the press.

What I mean by that is, it has to become a laughingstock. Right now it's a laughingstock among space nerds, the space community, but the general public has no clue. The way I see this playing out is, first Starship will get in some successful orbital flights, then the press will pick up on the disparity and begin lampooning NASA's wildly expensive "rocket to nowhere" (which means many people will be hearing about SLS's existence for the first time ever), and then—finally—the senators and others who've kept SLS going all this time will begin to feel the heat of national public opinion, which they've never had to really contend with before. They'll be put on the spot to actually try and defend SLS, and they won't be able to.