NASA Pays the Price of Being Subjected to a Massive, Expensive Rocket

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) doesn’t seem to be in the best shape. The rocket came into fruition way back in 2010, but nearly seven years later, we still haven’t gotten our launch, which may not happen until November 2018. Moneywise, we’re already looking at a nearly $10 billion expenditure, but that may not even be the biggest issue: consider the impressive alternatives by SpaceX and Blue Origin, which could be less of a burden on taxpayers, and the fact that the SLS lacks any kind of clear mission.

…how was the agency likely to miss the original deadline by as much as three years, if not more? "I don’t know," Gerstenmaier replied. "I don’t know—I would just say it’s really kind of the complexity of what we’re trying to go do, and to build these systems. We weren’t pushing state-of-the-art technology, like main engines sitting underneath the rocket or new solid rocket boosters. But we were pushing a lot of new manufacturing, and I think that new manufacturing has caused some of the delays we’ve seen. No one welds the way that we’re welding material at the thicknesses we’re welding."
 
how did they miss it? easy, they have to answer to the american people and the government which means they're under way more scrutiny and regulations than a private company that can throw as much money as they want at any problem they run into vs NASA who has to account for every penny they spend.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Government bureaucracy. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

Yup. Follow the money and it was all lead to specific districts that are employing people to build these systems. I'm an avid human spaceflight fan, but this 23Bn boondoggle is beyond waste. Especially a craft that has 0 planned missions. That money could have gone toward a future moon base or lagrange point space station, or something more useful. Seems reasonable with Falcon 9 on the way as well as other heavy lifters.

NASA is driven by law and the winds of political change. They are unable to do anything efficiently as every new fart that comes their direction undoes years of work and money spent, or it adds to it because of some political porkbarrel bullshit. While there likely is some blame to be placed on NASA, the bulk comes down to the political powers using NASA as a yo yo and ultimately the public that elects them.
 
I think the last NASA designed meant for human flight rocket system that came in pretty much at budget and on time and worked as specified was the Saturn V. While Congress did get their fingers in the pie, few wanted to risk being blamed for missing the deadline of before 1970, so they let NASA design the spacecraft pretty much as NASA wanted and earmarked construction of NASA facilities all over the country. After the moon race was over, NASA had all the facilities it needed and Congress started interfering with space booster design. Nothing since has been on budget or on time or did what was needed. Plus each new President seems to want to put their fingerprint on a "New Bold Vision" and starts by canceling the previous "New Bold Vision".
 
vagabond102 said:
Yup. Follow the money and it was all lead to specific districts that are employing people to build these systems. I'm an avid human spaceflight fan, but this 23Bn boondoggle is beyond waste. Especially a craft that has 0 planned missions. That money could have gone toward a future moon base or lagrange point space station, or something more useful. Seems reasonable with Falcon 9 on the way as well as other heavy lifters.

NASA is driven by law and the winds of political change. They are unable to do anything efficiently as every new fart that comes their direction undoes years of work and money spent, or it adds to it because of some political porkbarrel bullshit. While there likely is some blame to be placed on NASA, the bulk comes down to the political powers using NASA as a yo yo and ultimately the public that elects them.
Click to expand...
Yup, on the button.
 
What about doing things because we can....as a species?

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Click to expand...





But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the Moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to Earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in that plea that "made sense". Pure fantasies of a unique species on this planet. But we did it. We still don't even know what the "clear mission" of it was....other then to beat the Russians. But all of humanity is better off for it. The Moon is not a fantasy anymore.....it's just another place. All because we decided to, on a whim.
 
Okay you need to understand something.

The SLS is the largest most powerful rocket EVER built. To put this in perspective, the Saturn rocket that took us to the moon had enough fuel to release a bigger explosion than the first atomic bomb. This is NOT an exaggeration. This and the design is based on direct injection chamber rockets which were invented by the former Soviet Union. This means that you want to be extra careful testing this brand new engine design. NASA needed this design to achieve the pressures which create the efficiency needed during the combustion process for this to work.

And we need a rocket like this to be able to launch the payloads that will be necessary to reach Mars.
 
Pretty damn impressive...

PSE9tSi.jpg


nasa-launch-vehicles.jpg




edit: Not sure if this has anything to do with the SLS but it's awesome....

 
Last edited:
Spaceflight-wise I've only worked on the Atlas V and portions of the SLS crew module system. While Atlas is expensive, it's not a man-rated system. Once you put a crew on a rocket, everything that touches it becomes exponentially more expensive. They even x-ray hardware (think nuts and bolts) a lot of the time to ensure they won't fail. People like spacex and blue origin, while innovating, usually skip out on these types of steps to save money. I think it's good to have the competition, I just wish they would remember from the mistakes of the last 50 years instead of having to relearn them.
 
Megalith said:
consider the impressive alternatives by SpaceX and Blue Origin, which could be less of a burden on taxpayers, and the fact that the SLS lacks any kind of clear mission.
Click to expand...
There is a clear mission for the SLS: Large payloads. The alternatives simply have limits on their payload capacity. Until space elevators are a thing, the only way to get large payloads into space is via large rockets. The SLS is a large rocket.
Payload and vehicle mass comparison:
payloads_large.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top