Shuttle-flown solid rocket segments arrive in Florida for Artemis 1 SLS rocket

[Admin]

A rocket booster segment that helped launch the Hubble Space Telescope, the space shuttle Endeavour and John Glenn has arrived back in Florida to lift off with the Space Launch System.

Shuttle-flown solid rocket segments arrive in Florida for Artemis 1 SLS rocket : Read more

 

[newtons_laws]

The article states "The Artemis 1 mission will mark the final launch for all of the hardware as unlike during the space shuttle program, the solid rocket boosters will not be recovered after they splash down in the ocean due to budget constraints. "

So the SLS launch vehicle will have no re-usable elements? Compared to what SpaceX are doing with reusability this seems so backward. Is it really the case that it works out cheaper overall to discard the solid rocket booster segments rather than as previously recover and re-use them?

 

[Hughjer]

Not to mention that they are "re-using, just once" leftovers from the Space Shuttle program? Did they not have enough money to budget in new designs and materials either? Trying to dust-up old nostalgia alone will not get it done... especially when they will just be permanently ditched into the ocean. The Space Shuttles were based off of technologies that are over 5 decades removed now, with two catastrophic failures out of four working shuttles. SpaceX seems to be the future for all the right reasons, meanwhile NASA is still moving sideways.

 

[kelpypony]

In light of currently super famous other options, deliberately dumping rocket junk in the ocean strikes me as an ugly, backwards, irresponsible thing to do at this time.

 

[B.L. Alley]

Once again NASA desperately clings to the past and their traditional partners, in spite of the fact private companies like Space X and others are not only advancing space technology but doing it for a fraction of the cost. Boeing received almost twice the money as Space X yet can't even get unmanned Starliner to the ISS and back, even though they are using Apollo-era ideas. The only real updates are a bracket for an iPad next to the control panel and air bags to land on dry ground, but Space X is already well past that with Crew Dragon being able to conduct propulsive landings. Unfortunately, that made Starliner and Boeing look bad, so NASA refused to certify Crew Dragon for powered pad returns. The integrated Super Dracos are still used for launch abort instead of a separate disposable tower, but that's like installing two motors in a Tesla but leaving one disconnected.
NASA will never live up to its potential as long as creatively bankrupt bureaucrats like Jim Bridenstine are in charge.

 

[johnmiller]

Once again NASA desperately clings to the past and their traditional partners, in spite of the fact private companies like Space X and others are not only advancing space technology but doing it for a fraction of the cost. Boeing received almost twice the money as Space X yet can't even get unmanned Starliner to the ISS and back, even though they are using Apollo-era ideas. The only real updates are a bracket for an iPad next to the control panel and air bags to land on dry ground, but Space X is already well past that with Crew Dragon being able to conduct propulsive landings. Unfortunately, that made Starliner and Boeing look bad, so NASA refused to certify Crew Dragon for powered pad returns. The integrated Super Dracos are still used for launch abort instead of a separate disposable tower, but that's like installing two motors in a Tesla but leaving one disconnected.
NASA will never live up to its potential as long as creatively bankrupt bureaucrats like Jim Bridenstine are in charge.

Agreed! Time to move into the future.

 

[newtons_laws]

Rather than spend so much money on a non re-usable heavy lift launcher NASA would do better using SpaceX's re-usable heavy lift launchers and if they are serious about ever sending manned missions to Mars developing nuclear thermal rockets for the propulsion stage to Mars which would drastically reduce the journey time compared to chemical rocket propulsion - that is the sort of advanced technology which NASA as a government organisation is best equipped to undertake in view of the nuclear regulatory aspects. https://www.space.com/nuclear-propulsion-future-spacecraft-nasa-chief.html