Time to Put A Fork in SLS

[deandome]

I probby won't get a lot of support on this, but NASA is officially a laughing stock when it comes to manned flight. Maybe "laughing" is the wrong word, as WE have paid $25 BILLION billion...so far...for this turd, while Falcon Heavy cost $500 million to develop, and it has 75% or so the capacity of the block1 SLS. That doesn't factor in Orion, which hasn't been AS much of a sh**show, but it's also been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

Cost per launch is always hard to calculate and/or compare, but I think it's about 7-10x more than falcon Heavy. It's funny, I remember thinking to myself "well, we've put so much $$ in already, we need to stick it out. THAT WAS OVER 5 YEARS AGO!!!

I love rockets as much as anyone here. I'll wager some of you have worked on the program in some way, and I'm not just insulting your baby, I'm saying we should euthanize it. But it's time to call a turd a turd...and just flush it.

 

[Rob Campbell]

SLS is an example of corporate welfare gone bad.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

It’s been a disappointment, for sure.

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

My brother was a engineer for NASA for 8 years working on SLS before he went to work for several other companies at the cape . One of the biggest reasons he left was as he put it "I'm designing the same part over and over just so they (NASA) can justify another 100 man hours of research and development" . He knew the project would never be completed.

 

[DaHabes]

Projected per flight cost of SLS is a
1 billion $ plus. Our tax dollars at work....

 

[JLP1]

I read an article yesterday (I wish I could find it now) that Boeing is proposing another layer of software to watch the clocks on the spacecraft to make sure they are set right. The brightest minds in our country and they can't set a clock right. Also read where they are having problems with salt corrosion on the propellant valves (that is what shut down the wet test recently) are you kidding how many rockets have been launched from the cape in the last fifty years and they still haven't figured that one out. I think the whole project has just bogged down into a project management nightmare. We are to a point where our country cannot complete the simplest task without 200 reports, 25 studies, 650 meetings, and the wasting of millions upon millions of dollars. And now the EPA, FAA, and the National Parks and Wildlife want to drive SpaceX out of Texas because the noise and smoke upsets the piping plover and the red knot birds......Sheeese if only man can survive.

 

[ShadowSpire48]

NASA is a dying corporation because of the government and their own idiocracy. SpaceX is the future of space travel and exploration. At this point, NASA's only contribution is some launch pads and even then, SpaceX has other places to launch. SLS may fly once but it'll be scrapped soon enough.

 

[Orien]

Oh, man. Thanks for this thread. I've been wanting to rant about this for a while. Prepare for caps lock.

I mean, how hard can it be? You're using familiar, proven components slightly reconfigured into a much more sound design. They literally just have to slap on a bracket with four RS-25's (shuttle main engines) to the bottom of the tank, make an interface for a capsule on top, strap on the boosters and SEND IT. THEY COULDN'T EVEN GET THE DAMN THING GASSED UP! IT'S THE SAME TANK THEY'VE BEEN USING FOR FOURTY YEARS!! But at least we created some jobs, huh? For all that money you could have at least given us a show with a test launch if only to crash it into the ocean. American taxpayers deserve two things out of this: Answers and a refund.

 

[cls]

I mean, how hard can it be? You're using familiar, proven components slightly reconfigured

Actually, no. The ET is completely different, uses a new kind of welding; the SRBs are 5 grain, not 4, had to be qualified from scratch, different nozzles; the RS25s had to be refurbished, and they over paid a lot to have some new ones made.

The RS25 is a beautiful thing and it's a horrible insult to use them one and throw them in the Atlantic.


So the answer is, they made it as hard as it could possibly be, because those dat juicy cost plus contracts gotta keep on rolling.

 

[Sandy H.]

I don't know any specific details about SLS vs. what is public knowledge (i.e. I don't have an inside guy like 3stoogesrocketry above). I will say that I've worked on non-rocket projects in the past (and, sadly, recently) where you were pretty sure the engineering work you were doing was 100% pointless, as management/funding will never allow it to be used. Some people can accept "I did my job correctly and solved this scenario" and move on, but I have a lot of trouble with that personally. If I'm going to spend my time and effort to solve a problem/scenario, it needs to have some value, not just doing homework problems. True, I got paid, but there are lots of jobs where you can get paid and I chose engineering where I hope that more often than not the work I do is involved in creating something that wasn't there. That is part of the 'total compensation' for the work - the belief that the work you do has value.

I feel bad for the people who are actually doing their job and seeing how this good work has no real meaning due to mismanagement within all the different entities involved (NASA, Boeing, Congress etc.). I imagine it is very demoralizing and hope the engineers who still have some hope can find a place to put their work (within the SLS program or somewhere else) and get some professional satisfaction. I've heard similar things from guys in the Nuclear industry. They generally knew that no matter what they were doing for a plant upgrade or bringing a new plant online, they would likely never see their work completed and new capacity added. Yuk.

Sandy.

 

[Orien]

Actually, no. The ET is completely different, uses a new kind of welding

I don't know that a new kind of welding makes it totally different. Same manufacturing facility, same basic dimensions, same fuel type, same infrastructure in place for transport and handling. And although they were never used, NASA was testing 5-segment boosters as early as 2002. ATK fired three back in 2010 and 2011. These were certified for manned flight. And whether we like them throwing those RS-25's in the ocean or not, they are familiar hardware and should pose minimal challenges in the new configuration.

 

[NateB]

https://www.nasa.gov/careers

 

[Antares JS]

NASA is a dying corporation because of the government and their own idiocracy. SpaceX is the future of space travel and exploration. At this point, NASA's only contribution is some launch pads and even then, SpaceX has other places to launch. SLS may fly once but it'll be scrapped soon enough.

Completely absurd statement.

Yes, SLS is a turkey, but you are conflating rocket launches as equivalent to all of space exploration, and this is just plain wrong. SpaceX is a launch service provider; they wouldn't build things like the Hubble, the JWST, and all the interplanetary probe missions that are run by NASA because there is no profit in doing those kinds of pure science missions. As long as NASA continues doing those missions, they still have a place, but they definitely need to shift to purchasing all launches commercially instead of owning and operating launch hardware.

 

[Scott_650]

I’ve been as critical of NASA as the next guy but I’m not going to pile on the SLS this time - the whole program has been an unfortunate collision of conflicting goals, short-sighted leadership (especially Congress!), mission creep and political featherbedding - the thing is built, the money has been spent and there’s no way to go back in time and do it all again better. What I hope happens, just like Antares JS (and myself in past discussions) has stated, is that NASA finally let’s go of the past and realizes that designing/building spacecraft and payloads is their best, greatest destiny as opposed to providing launch services.

It’s easy in hindsight to poke holes in the SLS (really easy - studies can be done for years about how badly this has gone) but when the program started nobody could predict how fast and how well private companies were going to build rockets like SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, etc did. Folks, we’re living through a revolution in the space business and it’s just getting started.

And we’ve all apparently forgotten the myriad problems that NASA had with the Saturns during Apollo - take a look at what happened during Apollo 6 for example, the last unmanned flight after which NASA man-rated Saturn. Imagine if it happened in today’s world! There’d be pitchfork and torch equipped mobs screaming for blood if a “failure” like Apollo 6 was used as the man rating qualification mission of a rocket.

The people who actually designed and built the SLS had a brutal road to travel and deserve a great deal of credit for getting it to the finish line. Their supposed “leaders” - both political and agency-wise - deserve all the criticism they’ve received and a bunch more (heck, some of them deserve a sound thrashing!).

 

[Orien]

And we’ve all apparently forgotten the myriad problems that NASA had with the Saturns during Apollo - take a look at what happened during Apollo 6 for example, the last unmanned flight after which NASA man-rated Saturn. Imagine if it happened in today’s world! There’d be pitchfork and torch equipped mobs screaming for blood if a “failure” like Apollo 6 was used as the man rating qualification mission of a rocket.

But the Apollo Program was bleeding edge technology. This isn't, for the most part. And I find it hard to believe that anyone would be "screaming for blood" if a test flight of SLS was sub-optimal. That's what tests flights are for - finding problems before manned flight.

The people who actually designed and built the SLS had a brutal road to travel and deserve a great deal of credit for getting it to the finish line.

What finish line? This beast hasn't flown one inch yet. The farthest it's traveled is from the VAB to the pad for a failed "wet" rehearsal.

 

[Funkworks]

I get that some some are really ticked off, but these lines actually made me :

... I'm not just insulting your baby, I'm saying we should euthanize it ...

... Prepare for caps lock ...

Carry on.

(no opinion on the subject, maybe I should follow NASA finances more closely)

 

[Hobie1dog]

NASA is a dying corporation because of the government and their own idiocracy. SpaceX is the future of space travel and exploration. At this point, NASA's only contribution is some launch pads and even then, SpaceX has other places to launch. SLS may fly once but it'll be scrapped soon enough.

+1

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Completely absurd statement.

Yes, SLS is a turkey, but you are conflating rocket launches as equivalent to all of space exploration, and this is just plain wrong. SpaceX is a launch service provider; they wouldn't build things like the Hubble, the JWST, and all the interplanetary probe missions that are run by NASA because there is no profit in doing those kinds of pure science missions. As long as NASA continues doing those missions, they still have a place, but they definitely need to shift to purchasing all launches commercially instead of owning and operating launch hardware.

I’ve been as critical of NASA as the next guy but I’m not going to pile on the SLS this time - the whole program has been an unfortunate collision of conflicting goals, short-sighted leadership (especially Congress!), mission creep and political featherbedding - the thing is built, the money has been spent and there’s no way to go back in time and do it all again better. What I hope happens, just like Antares JS (and myself in past discussions) has stated, is that NASA finally let’s go of the past and realizes that designing/building spacecraft and payloads is their best, greatest destiny as opposed to providing launch services.

It’s easy in hindsight to poke holes in the SLS (really easy - studies can be done for years about how badly this has gone) but when the program started nobody could predict how fast and how well private companies were going to build rockets like SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, etc did. Folks, we’re living through a revolution in the space business and it’s just getting started.

And we’ve all apparently forgotten the myriad problems that NASA had with the Saturns during Apollo - take a look at what happened during Apollo 6 for example, the last unmanned flight after which NASA man-rated Saturn. Imagine if it happened in today’s world! There’d be pitchfork and torch equipped mobs screaming for blood if a “failure” like Apollo 6 was used as the man rating qualification mission of a rocket.

The people who actually designed and built the SLS had a brutal road to travel and deserve a great deal of credit for getting it to the finish line. Their supposed “leaders” - both political and agency-wise - deserve all the criticism they’ve received and a bunch more (heck, some of them deserve a sound thrashing!).

I agree with both of you. NASA does some things GREAT, but this is not one of them. They do great work designing and operating probes and telescopes. They do good science. They don’t do such a great job providing launch operations.

For the manned space program, I think they should be designing missions and figuring out what science and exploration they want to do, and then they should pay someone to get them there. The crew and cargo programs to get astronauts and cargo to and from ISS has been successful. I think they could do something similar for other manned missions. Pay for a ride and the other logistical services to get to the moon, the asteroids, Mars, etc.

 

[Sandy H.]

I agree with both of you. NASA does some things GREAT, but this is not one of them. They do great work designing and operating probes and telescopes. They do good science. They don’t do such a great job providing launch operations.

For the manned space program, I think they should be designing missions and figuring out what science and exploration they want to do, and then they should pay someone to get them there. The crew and cargo programs to get astronauts and cargo to and from ISS has been successful. I think they could do something similar for other manned missions. Pay for a ride and the other logistical services to get to the moon, the asteroids, Mars, etc.

Regretfully (and sadly) I agree. The reason it makes me sad is that I don't believe the fundamental issue is all NASA's fault, I believe it is floating mandates and internal leadership that has been optimized to work with those kind of mandates. My preference would be that they were allowed to succeed or fail by their own efforts.

In my life, if I am not good at something but I want to be good at it, I try to get better. If I'm not good at something and I don't want to be good at it, I hire someone to do the work. The parallel for me would indicate that NASA doesn't want to be good at rockets, they want to be good at science. I'm cool with the science part, but the rocket side makes me sad. I would like for them to be good at both. In general, I would prefer that they were more self-sufficient, but I also know that isn't the reality of the world and even in the early days, Rockwell, Boeing and tons of others that have come and gone were really critical in the path to success. It just seems strange to me that a child today who loves rockets wouldn't dream of working for NASA. I never wanted to be an astronaut, but I did dream of working for NASA.

Sandy.

 

[Antares JS]

(...) NASA doesn't want to be good at rockets, they want to be good at science. I'm cool with the science part, but the rocket side makes me sad. I would like for them to be good at both.

The thing is, the science is really the actual mission. All the rocket does is get the payload going. It's the most glamorous part of the mission, but really not the important part.

 

[Reinhard]

Oh, man. Thanks for this thread. I've been wanting to rant about this for a while. Prepare for caps lock.

I mean, how hard can it be? You're using familiar, proven components slightly reconfigured into a much more sound design. They literally just have to slap on a bracket with four RS-25's (shuttle main engines) to the bottom of the tank, make an interface for a capsule on top, strap on the boosters and SEND IT. THEY COULDN'T EVEN GET THE DAMN THING GASSED UP! IT'S THE SAME TANK THEY'VE BEEN USING FOR FOURTY YEARS!! But at least we created some jobs, huh? For all that money you could have at least given us a show with a test launch if only to crash it into the ocean. American taxpayers deserve two things out of this: Answers and a refund.

The Shuttle and SLS are still hugely complicated and finicky pieces of technology. Now that folks had 10 years to lose proficiency due to lack of flying opportunities, I'm not surprised that things aren't running completely smoothly. Given the expected flight rate, I'm not sure what to expect from the future.

Reinhard

 

[rocket_troy]

I agree with both of you. NASA does some things GREAT, but this is not one of them. They do great work designing and operating probes and telescopes. They do good science. They don’t do such a great job providing launch operations.

The tragedy is that it's not NASA's fault. They're told where to and what to spend those particular big bucks on from Washington. Remember NASA never wanted the shuttle in the form it took and they likely never wanted SLS either. There have been committees commissioned to provide better spending recommendations on launch capability, but politics is politics and it's those gracing the floors of Capitol Hill that call the shots. I feel for NASA on this.

TP

 

[Grog6]

Just think of what all we could have built and sent on a falcon heavy. Hell, we could have bought 10 heavys for 20Billion.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Just think of what all we could have built and sent on a falcon heavy. Hell, we could have bought 10 heavys for 20Billion.

Way more than that! A Falcon Heavy launch costs about $100 million or up to $150 million for an expendable launch. So for $20 billion, you could have as many as 200 Falcon Heavy launches.

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

Way more than that! A Falcon Heavy launch costs about $100 million or up to $150 million for an expendable launch. So for $20 billion, you could have as many as 200 Falcon Heavy launches.

Wait till the general public finds out all these fueling issues on SLS , happened when they removed the computer safety system and massively over pressurized the fittings to the point the will not seat properly anymore.....

There is a fix it tool being made ( BFP , Big Fudging Puller ) to try and fix a internal problem .

 

[Marc_G]

Way more than that! A Falcon Heavy launch costs about $100 million or up to $150 million for an expendable launch. So for $20 billion, you could have as many as 200 Falcon Heavy launches.

This is why on other threads I often comment that I'm all for robotic exploration but that the costs of manned missions to moon/Mars/elsewhere just seem wasteful to me. I'm not saying I never want humans to go other places, just that right now we could spend the money more impactfully and get a lot more done if we weren't factoring in the human element. If we were just sending robots, we wouldn't need SLS, or something like it.

 

[Antares JS]

I'm not saying I never want humans to go other places, just that right now we could spend the money more impactfully (...)

When is the time for humans to go then? If we listen to people like you, we are unlikely to ever go anywhere.

 

[boatgeek]

Apologize for necromancing a comment...

Oh, man. Thanks for this thread. I've been wanting to rant about this for a while. Prepare for caps lock.

I mean, how hard can it be? You're using familiar, proven components slightly reconfigured into a much more sound design. They literally just have to slap on a bracket with four RS-25's (shuttle main engines) to the bottom of the tank, make an interface for a capsule on top, strap on the boosters and SEND IT. THEY COULDN'T EVEN GET THE DAMN THING GASSED UP! IT'S THE SAME TANK THEY'VE BEEN USING FOR FOURTY YEARS!! But at least we created some jobs, huh? For all that money you could have at least given us a show with a test launch if only to crash it into the ocean. American taxpayers deserve two things out of this: Answers and a refund.

This is a bit of a pet peeve for me. Customers come all the time and say something like "We want to take this existing design from 10 years ago, make it 1' shallower, 1, longer, and use Caterpillar engines instead of Cummins. How much will that cost?" They're invariably shocked when we tell them it will be about 50% of a new design. What seem like small changes cascade through designs in unpredictable ways. It is never as easy as you think it will be from the beginning.

I don't know that a new kind of welding makes it totally different. Same manufacturing facility, same basic dimensions, same fuel type, same infrastructure in place for transport and handling. And although they were never used, NASA was testing 5-segment boosters as early as 2002. ATK fired three back in 2010 and 2011. These were certified for manned flight. And whether we like them throwing those RS-25's in the ocean or not, they are familiar hardware and should pose minimal challenges in the new configuration.

Well, for starters, there's an entire upper stage on the top of the tank instead of an STS on the back. Plus a raft of piping that goes to the bottom instead of the back and a thrust structure at the bottom instead of the back. And a 25% increase in foundation loads for the side boosters (I guarantee that the originals weren't designed with 25% margin!). Regardless of welding approaches, you're probably looking at 50% to 75% of the structural parts being redesigned. The details and connections are the hard part--the big expanses of tube are the easy part.

And to reiterate, a vast amount of the stupid in SLS is not NASA's fault. It was Congress that conceived it as a jobs program, Congress that wanted a cost-plus structure, and Congress that mandated the architecture. Like it or not, we live in a representative republic and Congress gets to make the rules. I would like Congress to own their own stupid rather than blaming the agencies, but I'm also not going to hold my breath.

 

[Marc_G]

When is the time for humans to go then? If we listen to people like you, we are unlikely to ever go anywhere.

I see it as a question of timing and pragmatism.

We have no viable plan to do anything productive or economically sustainable either on the moon or Mars. Our spaceflight capabilities are developing but still not where we need them to be for sustainable human presence. Let's learn more via robots while developing the tech needed to eventually properly sustain manned missions.

The Apollo mission was a national imperative of the time and represents a high water mark of humanity, for the ages, but even now we grapple with the implications of what doing "more like that" means and costs.

I'm a scientist at heart and want us to explore the solar system, and we can do it better with robots for now. It won't be forever. As our tech improves, and we identify missions best suited for human presence, great, go there. Meanwhile let's not drain our budget on yet another one off certain to be abandoned once done.

 

[Funkworks]

I think having a plan for Mars is great way to keep young people interested in STEM. My guess is they want to do better than whatever happened 50 years ago. In any case, I'm rooting for those who want it. Doesn't matter how far people go as long as there's some kind of progress.

Costs? If it's like anything else, SLS problems will be solved once and for all and each future launch will be easier and cheaper. Might not be Starship, but 2 teams are better than one. Put all your baskets in the same egg is what I always say (or whatever the old saying is).