SLS General Discussion Thread 7

[clongton]

This entire program has become an embarrassment of epic proportions. Waste compounded upon waste. Now they are even getting sloppy in their transparent attempts at covering up the graft and greed. It's not working, at least to those who are aware. Sadly that doesn't include the majority of the American public. And so it continues unabated. Sad, so very sad.

[Vahe231991]

SLS cheerleading during Von braun symposium 2021:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AerojetRdyne/status/1448004528893222917

Sharon Cobb w/@NASA_SLS says #SLS is America’s rocket 🇺🇸 🚀 with unparalleled capability. #VonBraun2021

Although there are no planned deep space launches involving the SLS, if the first three launches of the SLS are successful, then NASA will consider using the SLS for deep space missions, because there have been few unmanned missions to the gas giants or the Kuiper Belt (the New Horizons spacecraft is the only space probe to have explored Pluto).

[Jim]

then NASA will consider using the SLS for deep space missions, because there have been few unmanned missions to the gas giants or the Kuiper Belt (the New Horizons spacecraft is the only space probe to have explored Pluto).

Not really.  Missions to gas giants haven't happen not because of lack of adequate launch vehicles.

[clongton]

Although there are no planned deep space launches involving the SLS, if the first three launches of the SLS are successful, then NASA will consider using the SLS for deep space missions, because there have been few unmanned missions to the gas giants or the Kuiper Belt (the New Horizons spacecraft is the only space probe to have explored Pluto).

It takes years to develop, build and prepare to launch deep space probes. I personally opine that such missions for SLS are a pipe dream.
 

[joek]

Although there are no planned deep space launches involving the SLS, if the first three launches of the SLS are successful, then NASA will consider using the SLS for deep space missions, because there have been few unmanned missions to the gas giants or the Kuiper Belt (the New Horizons spacecraft is the only space probe to have explored Pluto).

Who stated that? Don't see it or similar from other sources. To which my response would be: might want to talk to those proposed-hypothetical "deep space missions", because they will be paying the bill. Not to mention that we have had such missions, although only a few; lack of SLS has not been the primary constraint.

[joek]

It takes years to develop, build and prepare to launch deep space probes. I personally opine that such missions for SLS are a pipe dream.

Yeah... so we have a few years before SLS might be considered for such missions... then a few years to fund-develop such missions-payloads. IMO SLS will be dead by then. No rational PI is going to stake their career on it; without that, SLS is dead without Artemis.

[AS_501]

Funding notwithstanding, SLS will certainly get you to Pluto or to a KBO in a hurry, so to speak.  On the other hand, if you want to go into orbit or soft land on Pluto or some KBO, your probe will need a more powerful braking motor/more propellant to cancel that speed.  Bigger probe, more expensive?

[Coastal Ron]

Although there are no planned deep space launches involving the SLS, if the first three launches of the SLS are successful, then NASA will consider using the SLS for deep space missions, because there have been few unmanned missions to the gas giants or the Kuiper Belt (the New Horizons spacecraft is the only space probe to have explored Pluto).

I think you are confusing commercial launch system qualification for what NASA plans for with their own launchers. They are not the same.

For instance, IIRC the Shuttle had a backlog of ~40 payloads waiting for it by the time it finally launched, and obviously NASA is planning to use the SLS for the Artemis program, even though the SLS has never flown.

Plus, planning for the Europa Clipper started after the Shuttle retired, and well before any new NASA launcher was available. In fact it was the Trump Administration that lobbied Congress to allow the Europa Clipper to NOT fly on the SLS, mainly due to the $2B+ cost of using the SLS.

The SLS not yet being operational is not stopping NASA from working on missions that could use the SLS. There are other reasons...

[joek]

SLS already is the backbone for permanent human deep space exploration and is able to take a crew of four with an unidentified (secret) lander to the moon…
https://jobs.boeing.com/job/new-orans/associate-chief-engineer-for-sls-core-stage-block-1b-and-evolution/185/15799033088

And that tells us what? If this is an attempt at sarcasm, you need to be a bit more explicit.

[joek]

I think you are confusing commercial launch system qualification for what NASA plans for with their own launchers. They are not the same.
...

Chill. Allow @Vahe231991 to respond. Unclear whether that is his-her opinion, or relating-channeling opinions expressed by others.

[Vahe231991]

I think you are confusing commercial launch system qualification for what NASA plans for with their own launchers. They are not the same.
...

Chill. Allow @Vahe231991 to respond. Unclear whether that is his-her opinion, or relating-channeling opinions expressed by others. Yeah, we all get it; please stop beating a dead horse just because it offers an opportunity to get on your soap box.

I was taking note of remarks by Sharon Cobb at the 2021 von Braun symposium about the SLS having unparalleled capability in terms of carrying astronauts and/or large payloads to deep space, but Cobb's remarks imply that the SLS potentially could be used in a secondary role to take large manned or unmanned payloads beyond Mars, even though it is currently tailored for taking astronauts to the Moon.

[AllenB]

SLS already is the backbone for permanent human deep space exploration and is able to take a crew of four with an unidentified (secret) lander to the moon…

https://jobs.boeing.com/job/new-orleans/associate-chief-engineer-for-sls-core-stage-block-1b-and-evolution/185/15799033088

Not only that but (according to Boeing’s job description) it is the most powerful rocket ever built.

Is it really that much more “built” than the other one so many of us have been looking forward to? Which, if simple math serves, is clearly more powerful than SLS.

[ulm_atms]

SLS already is the backbone for permanent human deep space exploration and is able to take a crew of four with an unidentified (secret) lander to the moon…

https://jobs.boeing.com/job/new-orleans/associate-chief-engineer-for-sls-core-stage-block-1b-and-evolution/185/15799033088

Not only that but (according to Boeing’s job description) it is the most powerful rocket ever built.

Is it really that much more “built” than the other one so many of us have been looking forward to? Which, if simple math serves, is clearly more powerful than SLS.

No.

Honestly, the Von Braun symposium sounded/looked more like a PR piece directed towards Congress more then anything else.  The whole thing sounded like it was designed to say specifically what Congress wanted to hear regardless of any truths.

[Spaceguy5]

This entire program has become an embarrassment of epic proportions. Waste compounded upon waste. Now they are even getting sloppy in their transparent attempts at covering up the graft and greed. It's not working, at least to those who are aware. Sadly that doesn't include the majority of the American public. And so it continues unabated. Sad, so very sad.

What's a huge embarrassment of epic proportions to me and other space industry employees who browse this website is seeing how ugly the community has become when we read ignorant comments like these from people who seem to have an extremely poor understanding of how the engineering process, and heck, economics works while trying to pull stupid criticism out of nowhere.

I fail to see what's wasteful and corrupt about spending a relatively small amount of money on much-needed propulsion testing and upgrading of RL10. The fact that Berger fails to realize that RL10C-3 and RL10C-X are nothing like the variants from the 60s is its own massive embarrassment. Besides, it's not like the money is being shot into space. I bet you would have also called Apollo a massive corrupt waste of money back in the 60s.

The only thing that's been wasted was the time I spent reading your weird rant.

[jadebenn]

Honestly, I don't frakking get it. Do they really think they send it all to the Cayman islands, where mustachioed Boeing executives burn it for warmth as they sip Martinis? It's gone way past "jObS pROgRaM" ballyhoo at this point. Do you really think Congress has to make up stuff to justify spending more on the space program? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe there's actually a reason this is a specific line-item appropriation?

It reminds me of the things people post where they claim that SLS "makes more money on the ground," like that makes a lick of sense. Newsflash: Even if we have to accept the stupid "JERBS PROGRAM" argument, productive enterprises are not mutually exclusive to employing people. Building dams were literal jobs programs, just to name one.

[su27k]

Even more pointless pork for SLS:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1450186972950110212

Good work if you can get it: The Senate provides $579 million this year for SLS Exploration Upper Stage "engine development and associated stage adapter work." The engine in question is the RL-10, which has been flying since <checks notes> 1963.

Certainly the RL-10 in the Block 1B is an off-the-shelf engine identical to those developed in 1963, just featuring a $500M paintjob. And its configuration on the EUS will be identical too, so no need for structures or analysis.

It's sure nice to drink just some cool-aids, and then get flared up by actual, publicly accountable budgets. Not that I'm saying the cost is necessarily reasonable, but once again these comments full of axes to grind are something else...

PS: this should be an update for the EUS update thread...

Analysis? Didn't EUS already passed CDR? Didn't SLS supporters repeatedly stated that EUS is ready, just need to assembly the parts together? So why does it need $500M worth of analysis now?

And no, the RL-10 used won't be identical to those developed in 1963, but they are off-the-shelf more or less, since NASA already bought them!

https://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-delivers-rl10-engines-will-help-send-nasa-astronauts-deep-space

Aerojet Rocketdyne is under contract to deliver 10 RL10 engines to NASA to support the Artemis program. One of the four engines that were recently delivered will be used to support the Artemis II mission that will use the ICPS upper stage, while the other three are slated to support future Artemis missions aboard the EUS. Delivery of the remaining six engines will be completed by 2021.

[jdon759]

And no, the RL-10 used won't be identical to those developed in 1963, but they are off-the-shelf more or less, since NASA already bought them!

The line is "engine development and associated stage adapter work."  If it were talking about the engines themselves, there would be no need to say associated, because the engines are not the stage adaptor.  Therefore, this sounds like work on integration development for the entire engine subsection of the stage.

[VSECOTSPE]

What's a huge embarrassment of epic proportions to me and other space industry employees

Mr. Longton worked Titan and Atlas.  I’ve done two tours at NASA HQ.

I fail to see what's wasteful and corrupt about spending a relatively small amount of money on much-needed propulsion testing and upgrading of RL10.

It’s over a half-billion dollars.  We got two new LVs and capsules/transfer stages out of the COTS program for less.  Entire modern planetary missions have been completed for less.

It may not be a complete waste. And Berger may be overstating his case.  But it is way too much taxpayer money and limited NASA budget resources for way too little in return.

[spacenut]

Congress critters aren't the brightest crayons in the box.  Some believe Guam will tip over if we put to many soldiers on the island.  Some believe we have already gone to Mars.  They vote for things they know nothing about because someone tells them it puts jobs in their district.  We really need term limits for all elected officials.  They spend way too much money on almost anything and don't get a lot accomplished or there is no accountability for money spent. 

[eeergo]

This entire program has become an embarrassment of epic proportions. Waste compounded upon waste. Now they are even getting sloppy in their transparent attempts at covering up the graft and greed. It's not working, at least to those who are aware. Sadly that doesn't include the majority of the American public. And so it continues unabated. Sad, so very sad.

What's a huge embarrassment of epic proportions to me and other space industry employees who browse this website is seeing how ugly the community has become when we read ignorant comments like these from people who seem to have an extremely poor understanding of how the engineering process, and heck, economics works while trying to pull stupid criticism out of nowhere.

I fail to see what's wasteful and corrupt about spending a relatively small amount of money on much-needed propulsion testing and upgrading of RL10. The fact that Berger fails to realize that RL10C-3 and RL10C-X are nothing like the variants from the 60s is its own massive embarrassment. Besides, it's not like the money is being shot into space. I bet you would have also called Apollo a massive corrupt waste of money back in the 60s.

The only thing that's been wasted was the time I spent reading your weird rant.

Honestly, I don't frakking get it. Do they really think they send it all to the Cayman islands, where mustachioed Boeing executives burn it for warmth as they sip Martinis? It's gone way past "jObS pROgRaM" ballyhoo at this point. Do you really think Congress has to make up stuff to justify spending more on the space program? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe there's actually a reason this is a specific line-item appropriation?

It reminds me of the things people post where they claim that SLS "makes more money on the ground," like that makes a lick of sense. Newsflash: Even if we have to accept the stupid "JERBS PROGRAM" argument, productive enterprises are not mutually exclusive to employing people. Building dams were literal jobs programs, just to name one.

Finally some sense.

Some of these chest-thumping forum members are proudly repeating, with ever more insistence, in every thread that becomes minimally conductive to their scopes, how basically nothing matters except the project-that-shall-not-be-named. It's frankly embarrassing, and extremely tiring, that basically anyone working in space endeavors gets dismissed as irrelevant unless they belong to a certain very select group. A group whose ratio of tangible results vs predictions can be at the very least least factually contested, and whose declared expectations are consistently overblown so much (first by the developers, then even more by the amazing people) they should have long become comical, yet haven't.

Meanwhile the US DoD budget has been upped to $700B or some other ridiculous amount, who cares anymore. The $10B increase over requested levels seems like a drop in the bucket anyway (actually it is, about 1%). Schemes of indentured labor on Mars, wealth hoarding on Earth by a radically unaccountable plutocracy to not only unheard-of levels, but actually orders of magnitude higher levels than any time since these indicators are measured, lawless opportunistic land runs basically anywhere in space... those have all become "reasonable" expectations for space developments in the last few years, or even commendable - while wealth and welfare creation on Earth, through space, should appear as retrograde, no matter how "peanuts" the amounts under discussion are, or how much accountability backs them up.