NASA: Let's end SLS right now

Mar 17, 2020
22
11
515
I commented many times about the need and waste of money of the SLS rocket development. After two decades of design and not that much development, the government is projecting a $20 billion price tag and they are not even close to the very first launch.

Now Charles Bolden, former head of NASA , is reversing his opinion and saying that SLS should "go away". He should immediately try to gain momentum and put SLS to rest and leave the further moon rocket development to the commercial guys - Finally once and for all.
 
Oct 23, 2020
208
93
160
I commented many times about the need and waste of money of the SLS rocket development. After two decades of design and not that much development, the government is projecting a $20 billion price tag and they are not even close to the very first launch.

Now Charles Bolden, former head of NASA , is reversing his opinion and saying that SLS should "go away". He should immediately try to gain momentum and put SLS to rest and leave the further moon rocket development to the commercial guys - Finally once and for all.
Generations of SpaceX models are more modern than SLS. They have more advantages so they have more chances to succeed in particular missions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark.Zanghetti
Oct 23, 2020
3
1
15
This is not the first time I have come across this topic, the SLS is a NASA project correct? The culture at NASA has gone horribly wrong and they are so afraid of another accident they are overbuilding and overtesting and SLS won't ever get off the ground before it is already obsolete. I agree with you, end the program now!
 
Feb 1, 2020
165
93
660
SLS isn't going away any time soon.

First, NASA inherited something from the US Military. That is that they need three versions of anything from different manufacturers for redundancy. For present large space missions that is Falcon Heavy, Delta 4 Heavy and SLS. Until they have another vendor, they will be keeping SLS because it is Number 3.

Second, the most often cited replacement for SLS is the SpaceX Starship system, but that isn't actually flying yet. Given say two more years, then yes, it might. But still, then Starship simply replaces Falcon Heavy.

SLS lifts twice what Falcon Heavy lifts, but Starship is supposed to lift several times what SLS is expected to be able to do.

Third, the SLS is mandated by congress specifically. NASA can't abandon SLS without either an act of Congress or a willful violation of US law. That being the case, they won't abandon it. They will though most likely move more and more cargo to other, less expensive carriers. Currently SLS is expected to cost one to two Billion Dollars per launch. That's a serious bite for any NASA project to shoulder, since NASA has a budget of between twenty and twenty-five Billion per year. Four launches per year would bankrupt the agency. A moon base needs more than ten.

Blue Origin, if they ever get their New Glen or New Armstrong off the ground would mean that NASA could then go back to Congress and ask to have the SLS canceled, but they still need that sacred three sources for contracting purposes. By the time that happens, SLS will most likely have flown to orbit several times. To be a viable source for human spaceflight, SpaceX needs to have at least ten successful launches of the Starship system
to Earth Orbit. Orbital refueling would also be a serious plus.

But NASA is still committed to having three suppliers of anything. It's why they have three moon landers now in the works. They are most likely going to drop one of them in favor of their 'in-house' (Artimus) version if and when that is more than a paper dream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: serhiy1635
Mar 17, 2020
22
11
515
MORE FUEL ON THE SLS FIRE!

I just read a very incriminating article from a very well established technical newsletter. It said that:

"One major implication of NASA's $2.89 billion award to SpaceX in April for the Human Landing System is that the contract provided significant funding for the Starship rocket and its Super Heavy booster. This advanced launch system will directly compete with NASA's Space Launch System rocket, which is built by traditional space contractors and provides thousands of jobs in all 50 states. If Starship works, which seems increasingly likely, it will launch more payload than the SLS booster, for substantially less money, all while being reusable. In short, it should be superior to NASA's SLS rocket in every conceivable way, except politically."

Unfortunately certain members of congress don't want to kill the already obsolete SLS because much of the billions of appropriated dollars will be stopped in Alabama and other states that keep people working on something that makes no practical sense. The article goes on to say:

“This is pretty wild for a couple of reasons. For one, all of the HLS bidders were told they could choose whatever rockets they preferred to launch on back in 2019. At the time, NASA and Boeing actually pitched a "commercial" version of the SLS for lunar landers. None of the main three bidders (SpaceX, Blue Origin, or Dynetics) chose the SLS rocket, of course. It was too expensive, and there was no guarantee NASA or Boeing could build them at a high enough rate.

In addition to mandating lunar lander flights, the supporting congressman says that NASA must have a plan for an SLS cargo launch once a year by 2032. Imagine how this provision, had it been adopted, would have hamstrung NASA. Congress is basically telling the agency, 'More than a decade from now, you have to use this super-expensive rocket every year, whether you need it or not. And to make sure you do so, we're writing it into law.' How can NASA possibly know that it will need to launch a mission per year on a cargo version of the SLS rocket in 11 years? It cannot, of course."

Are some folks out there insane? Will the SLS be less obsolete in 2032 than now? PLEASE LET'S GET REAL AND STOP THE WASTED EXPENSES RIGHT NOW!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slarty1080
Jul 30, 2020
41
8
535
I agree, SLS should go away. Except that a jobs program isn't such a bad idea to keep engineers and technicians working I guess - I'm torn about that. In Wyandotte, MI you can see WPA (Works Projects Administration) bricks from the 1930s and 40s in the city sidewalks. Even if they never launch, we should erect the SLS rockets around the country as symbols to how we kept folks working during hard times and as monuments to our stupidity. They will go away when SpaceX gets Starship working with launches under 10 million dollars anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mreyspacework.org
Apr 23, 2021
43
17
35
True, Even though I'm looking forward to seeing SLS launch , in some ways its obsolete even before it gets off the ground since SpaceX, Virgin Galactic ,Blue Origins and others are so much more innovative reusable rockets are the way to go cost wise.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts