-
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
Certainly its been obvious for years that the only thing that's going to kill SLS is SLS. There's basically zero chance it never flies. Its always been an expensive, low flight quantity solution--think of it as the modern day Saturn V. Look at big picture demand--there's VERY few things out there except Elon's vision for Mars that actually require a rocket that big in the first place.
"Laughing stock" has nothing to do with it. Public opinion has nothing to do with it. If the politicians that control finances can both a) keep creating demand for a big ass rocket and b) keep funneling money toward SLS to their political benefit, they will do so. Having something like Starship or even New Glenn operational may make that exercise more difficult, but they are not necessarily the death-knell of SLS, since SLS also (whether folks want to accept it or not) has a broader economic benefit (not to mention more abstract state benefits) to it than just the bottom line cost of a launch.
Lastly, to be clear, SLS is not a laughing stock amongs space nerds. Easy jokes not-withstanding, space nerds are super stoked for SLS, even given what it clearly is.
As a follow up to the excellent summary by bxr140, SLS will continue to stick around for as long as it is politically expedient to allow for its existence. At some point in the future it is possible that Starship will shame politicians into dropping the program but it isn't going to happen for years after Starship has proven itself. You can use ULA as an example of what will happen. ULA still exists even though a Falcon 9 is about half the price. F9 has taken a good chunk of their business away but it hasn't eliminated them. It will take a National outcry to get the State politicians to give up their piece of the government contract money.
As a side note, ULA better hope that BO gets their act together and hands them some BE-4's that will do what ULA needs for them to do or they are going to be losing a lot of military launches in the coming years.
As a side note, ULA better hope that BO gets their act together and hands them some BE-4's that will do what ULA needs for them to do or they are going to be losing a lot of military launches in the coming years.
I always thought it hilarious that two losers like ULA and BO partnered up to create ... another loser. You could almost predict the outcome.
And before someone says ULA wasn't a loser since they reliably launched payloads for decades: relying on ancient Russian rocket engines and charging 2x and not innovating while you had a monopoly to the point where you are being driven out of the market makes them a loser in my opinion.
BTW, just a reminder that the very first article in this thread from 2018 had this headline:
And before someone says ULA wasn't a loser since they reliably launched payloads for decades: relying on ancient Russian rocket engines and charging 2x and not innovating while you had a monopoly to the point where you are being driven out of the market makes them a loser in my opinion.
BTW, just a reminder that the very first article in this thread from 2018 had this headline:
NASA 'will eventually retire' its new mega-rocket if SpaceX, Blue Origin can safely launch their own powerful rockets
Yep, good point--while Atlas V numbers have dropped a bit since FT came on line its worth noting that, near as makes no difference, 100% of AV launches in the past 10 years or more (let alone the handful of D4 hucks which of course are also ULA) have been state funded. That's not going away, ever; The Man isn't going to sign up SpaceX for all the launches simply because they're a little cheaper. (Its worth noting The Man usually pays more than the equivalent commercial rate for Falcon) The ~hundreds of $M "wasted" on ULA launches per year vs F9 is, whether we taxpayers like it or not, an easy political sell...and so far below the threshold of any critical mass of outcry that it will never get to that point.
Anyway, SLS will fall in line similarly. Its almost certainly going to have a 100% success rate, and as such its almost certainly going to be hailed as a success. And...its going to fly so infrequently that there's probably not going to be a proper final flight...at some point there just won't be a next flight.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Neutron and Terran-R in that gub'ment space...though most likely those will take from SX's piece of the pie--whatever it is by that point--not ULA's.
A bit off topic. I am curious whether you think ULA has enough clout to get The Man to allow ULA to buy a few more RD-180's? Just enough to get them enough time to have working BE-4s. National security reasons should be enough sway to allow for buying a few more I'd think. From what I understand, they can buy them for non-military launches anyway.
I don't think that scenario is actually required beyond whatever current agreements (+options) have been approved. There's definitely been a bit of Vulcan-->AV shuffling going on, but all signs point toward BE4 productionization happening before the RD-180 well runs dry. There aren't actually too many really time sensitive payloads on the ULA manifest either so I think absorbing some delay is pretty feasible (I think their only commercial launch is Viasat, which would want to get launched ASAP).
Honestly, I'd see Delta 4 taking on another couple of launches and/or shifting of payloads to Falcon before groveling to Vlad for some more AV engines.
tonybelding
Active Member
Care to name any? Because I can’t think of any economic benefit to SLS. From where I sit, it’s been nothing but harmful, hoovering up NASA’s budget that could have been spent on space exploration projects.
Maybe I just hang out with the wrong crowd. Most of the SLS reporting that I’ve read has been on Ars Technica, and their articles have been universally negative—and the comment section much harsher, even. I would have to do a lot of searching to find anyone there who is “super stoked for SLS”. The general feeling seems to be that it’s symptomatic of everything that’s been wrong with our space program for decades.
Hurricane4911
IT Guy From 1980-2013, Retired
I'm all-in on what you say about BO, but not ULA.
Yes, ULA has been a reliable launch contractor for NASA for decades. They handled and processed shuttle launch manifests right down to their toothbrushes. They are reliable.
As for rocket engines, from where do you expect them to purchase, SpaceX? They contracted with BO and got screwed. ULA are not engine developers. Never were, never will be. Greasing the rails and staffing launches is what they do best. Tony Bruno does a good job with the hand he has been delt.
Blue Origin is certainly a joke.
United Launch Alliance handled and processed every shuttle mission. Not a joke.
Not decades (blame @Cosmacelf ) ULA has only been around 15 years (Dec 1 2006). They dropped the history of LM and Boeing when formed which is how they claim a 100% success rate.
Shuttle flew 1981 - 2011. United Space (not Launch) Alliance (USA) was the prime contractor for the shuttle ops from 1996 to the end of the program.
Well, I for one am excited to see it fly. We can't change what it is, and the powers-that-be seem hell-bent on pushing it through to fruition, so I figure we might as well enjoy the show. It doesn't change my opinion that it is a wasteful travesty of a program, but since my opinion doesn't count, I hope it flies successfully so all the people that have been pouring their hearts and souls into it can at least get the satisfaction of seeing the mighty beast roar. As well, as a non-American I don't have any monetary skin in the game which probably lowers my outrage level a bit.
I am very impressed with JWST and hope to see SLS rocket into space but wonder, with the success of SpaceX will future NASA endeavors change the pork barrel approach to space exploration? I hope the SpaceX Lunar lander program is the first step to a more robust use of our financial and temporal assets to seek out new frontiers.
Yes, I do believe attitudes have changed at NASA, and may slowly change in the military too, although the military, ironically enough, appears to have less integrity at the top levels and can easily be bribed by the established military contractors.
Jeff Hudson
Lovin the Tesla Life
To your point EVCollies I also detect the beginning of a paradigm shift away from governmental contracted profit to actual commercial profit because of SpaceX's first principles approach that throwing away the first stage of any orbital class rocket was always an unsustainable and unprofitable approach. They put their engineering expertise to more imaginative use and here we are. This coming decade will be as significant for spaceflight as the 1960's and possibly more significant due to the 50 year delay.
That one (including myself) may think those dollars are better spent elsewhere does not change the fact that many of the billions of dollars are going straight to skilled labor FTEs in the space sector—all the sub suppliers, all the test and launch facilities…a lot of the folks that used to work on Shuttle, etc.
Among other things there’s also the point of pride for a super heavy, state branded rocket—shoes that Starship (despite its lower cost and inevitably higher payload) simply won’t be able to fill.
My point made.
FWIW, Ars is a tech site with barely any space content. Most of the space content is penned by Berger who, while typically thorough and accurate, has a clear bent toward SpaceX and against anyone who's not doing it "the SpaceX way" and his articles are best consumed in that context.
Maybe March
www.nasa.gov
NASA Invites Media to Launch of New Mega-Moon Rocket and Spacecraft - NASA
Lee esta nota de prensa en español aquí.
www.nasa.gov
mspohr
Well-Known Member
POLITICO: Why Musk's biggest space gamble is freaking out his competitors. Why Musk’s biggest space gamble is freaking out his competitors
The potty-mouthed D.C. lobbyist, a longtime detractor of SpaceX, described the reaction among his clients to Musk’s presentation on Thursday as “promises, promises, promises.” But he said such dismissals are passé. “It’s like you keep saying ‘he can’t do it’ but it keeps working. It keeps working. I think people are scared. He’s starting to make people who were never believers think he might.”
The potty-mouthed D.C. lobbyist, a longtime detractor of SpaceX, described the reaction among his clients to Musk’s presentation on Thursday as “promises, promises, promises.” But he said such dismissals are passé. “It’s like you keep saying ‘he can’t do it’ but it keeps working. It keeps working. I think people are scared. He’s starting to make people who were never believers think he might.”
Ouch.
arstechnica.com
Finally, we know production costs for SLS and Orion, and they’re wild
Someone finally said the quiet part out loud.
arstechnica.com
Similar threads
