SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Guess what's on the receiving end of more NASA dollars for SLS?
Hint: It rhymes with 'throwing' as lawmakers baulk at lobbing an unknown amount of cash into the 2024 lunar bonfire[.]
NASA brought a smile to faces of Boeing shareholders this week with the announcement that it would be ordering 10 Space Launch System (SLS) core stages from the US aviation giant for Artemis rocket launches to the Moon. Although paying for the things could be tricky.
[...]It is expected that the next batch of rocket core stages will not suffer the same hideous cost overruns and horrendously drawn-out birthing process of the first build, which might finally fly in 2021 after years of delay.
While more ex-Shuttle RS-25 engines will be needed for dumping into the ocean after the non-reusable SLS is expended, NASA also wants Boeing to finally get on with building the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) to be used from Artemis IV. The EUS is essential to send heftier payloads of the order of 45 tons into lunar orbit.
The comparatively weedy Interim Cryogenic Propulsion stage will be used on the first three Artemis missions in NASA's headlong rush to get those boots on the surface to meet US President Donald Trump's 2024 deadline.
And that arbitrary 2024 date is causing some furrowed brows. At a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee's Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee into NASA's proposal to bring the Moon landing forward from 2028, US lawmakers hauled the agency over the coals as the price tag for all the lunar japery remained unclear.
See also: A House budget committee has likely killed the 2024 Moon landing
NASA will award Boeing a cost-plus contract for up to 10 SLS rockets
Rocket Report: The Falcon 9 goes for four, Boeing's big cost-plus deal
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:54AM (12 children)
1961 - Yuri Gagarin becomes first human in orbit
1962 - JFK gives "We choose to go to the moon speech."
1969 - Neil Armstrong steps foot on the moon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 - SLS program is launched.
2017 - planned trial launch date of SLS (billions of dollars of new funding added)
2019 - new planned trial launch date of SLS (billions of dollars of new funding added)
2021 - new planned trial launch date of SLS (I think we know what will go here...)
2028 - proposed moon landing date (...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From literally absolutely 0 to a man on the moon in 8 years. And the really crazy thing here is that the SLS is not some incredible new tech. Its entire design is just incremental basic improvements to the exact tech we used 50 years ago. This is, in fact, why some former astronauts, such as Buzz Aldrin, have expressed concern about its safety. Perhaps that may not be an issue since at this pace it'll fly in the year two thousand and never.
It's remarkable how completely dysfunctional our nation has become. Boeing is little more than a sponge for taxpayer dollars. At the same time this nonsense is happening SpaceX is building ships that are actively flying and making aggressive progress towards their goals. But due largely to governmental corruption (Boeing is heavily influential in congress and their factories are defacto government jobs programs - same reason them killing a few hundred folks with the 737 will result in no penalty) NASA continues to pour absurd amounts of money into Boeing while providing little more than commercial support to SpaceX. Of course without NASA SpaceX literally would not exist today, as they took a pretty big gamble on them in their early life. That cannot go unsaid, but much like what our space program achieved 50 years ago does not mitigate what is happening today, I do not think that more recent success about 20 years mitigates what is happening today either.
This problem generalizes to many industries beyond just space. And it, along along with our decline in national cohesion, leads me to a conclusion I'd like to imagine is hyperbolic. I believe we are at the end of American excellence. The only question is who will pick up the torch? Will it simply be private industry with SpaceX et al? Will it be another nation, such as China? Or might we simply begin to head into a modern day 'dark ages' where progress simply begins to globally stall out as achievements we appeal to from 50 years ago gradually become those from 100 years ago and perhaps eventually to those hundreds of years ago?
Like with so many other things in our lives, this is such an interesting time to be alive. The internet, automation (or the lack thereof), the climax of fiat currency, becoming a space fairing civilization, revolutionary widescale global demographic change, and so many other things - all wrapped up into one little lifetime of 80 years? Part of the reason I'm of the simulation hypothesis mindset. How ridiculously random and lucky is it to get to live through all of this and see it with our own 14 billion eyes?
(Score: 0, Troll) by qzm on Tuesday October 22 2019, @07:03AM (6 children)
Have you forgotten that NASA can do no wrong?
Its all the fault of the government not giving them ENOUGH resources, and making them spend them wrong!
(ignore for a moment the fact that NASA have actively lobbied for the continuation of SLS)
NASA is a lean mean space exploring machine! it ALWAYS someone else's fault that they cannot modernize their ways.
At least this time if they have another Apollo 13, there will be several commercial options in place to go and pick them up.
Now, thats all sing along together..
Pork Pork Delicious Pork!
Pork in the Barrel, Pork Pork Pork!
Poor NASA, They are so busy making sure their new space suits are red white AND blue.. its hard to find time for much else, you know.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday October 22 2019, @09:56AM (5 children)
Not true. SLS is a project of Congress. Educate yourself.
Industry and lawmakers go to defense of SLS [spacenews.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by qzm on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:07PM (4 children)
And what exact part of what you posted is supposed to show that NASA dont want SLS?
As I clearly stated, NASA have pushed FOR SLS constantly, by painting it as an essential way to avoid risk in relying only on commercial suppliers, as well as having a very large amount of oversight, design involvement, etc in the project itself.
All you have done is pointed out that the actual funding is controlled by congress - congratulations on stating the obvious.
Show me statement from NASA saying 'We dont want SLS' or even 'We think SLS is not the best path'....
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:02PM (3 children)
Here’s why NASA’s administrator made such a bold move Wednesday [arstechnica.com]
How I learned to stop worrying and love the big $60B NASA rocket [arstechnica.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:36PM (2 children)
Wow, why not submit this as a main page article? This is a really big deal. Boeing is one of the most well connected companies in existence. Bridenstine saying what every single person familiar with this situation is thinking, is huge. We've been playing a game of the 'The Emperor's New Clothes' for going on a decade with the SLS and Boeing in general. Boeing's now going to put 100% of their political capital into getting him removed, and watching how this plays out is going to be very interesting.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 23 2019, @03:25PM (1 child)
After the Falcon Heavy Launch, Time to Defund the Space Launch System? [soylentnews.org]
President Trump Praises Falcon Heavy, Diminishes NASA's SLS Effort [soylentnews.org]
NASA Administrator Ponders the Fate of SLS in Interview [soylentnews.org]
White House Budget Request Would Move Launches from SLS to Commercial Providers [soylentnews.org]
NASA Chief Says a Falcon Heavy Rocket Could Fly Humans to the Moon [soylentnews.org]
The SLS Rocket May Have Curbed Development of On-Orbit Refueling for a Decade [soylentnews.org]
I don't know if that exact article from March had been subbed, but we've pretty much covered all of it at one time or another.
I like to focus on Starship now because if SpaceX keeps on developing it at their current pace, and SLS gets delayed by another year or so (not unlikely), then Starship could pose an existential risk to SLS. Without Starship, there is nothing that can trade blows with SLS, except maybe Blue Origin's New Glenn. But that's further out. Falcon Heavy is a better choice, with separate crew and cargo launches making more sense, but it can't shame SLS on every aspect like Starship will.
Musk and his supporters can and will trash SLS when the time is right, but having a superior rocket ready to fly makes all the difference. NASA only recently acknowledged the existence of Starship by partnering on in-orbit refueling [arstechnica.com] and studying it as a launcher for LUVOIR [teslarati.com]. Then more recently, Bridenstine and Musk traded barbs [futurism.com] over the Starship presentation, and then they made up (as far as is possible) with a visit to SpaceX HQ [nytimes.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24 2019, @04:25AM
Wow that's embarrassing. I like to imagine I follow these events reasonably closely, but I completely missed this announcement from Bridenstine. I'd assumed when you stated Wednesday that you meant literally yesterday, and did not even bother to check the date on the article. Especially with things like the IAC going on right now, the timing for such an announcement was perfectly reasonable. Though I would say here that the Falcon Heavy does already dominate the SLS. The payload capacity is about 75% that of the SLS to LEO, but you're looking at about 20% of the price. And that's assuming Boeing keeps to their goal of half a billion dollars per launch for the SLS, which it's almost certain that they won't.
Of course Starship will dwarf them both by every possible metric, but there's already no real justification for the SLS - especially when it continues to drain billions of dollars. And as things such as this article emphasize, we continue to just throw money at them while letting SpaceX work entirely unaided. It's quite irrational and certainly unfair. But such is the nature of a productive company competing against the military industrial complex's equivalent of a trust fund baby.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 22 2019, @10:54AM
Fully reusable rockets and in-orbit refueling are going to change the game.
Suddenly, you can put orders of magnitude more mass in low Earth orbit for the same price, or a relatively small mass for very cheap (Starship could rival smallsat launchers even before ridesharing is considered). We could assemble gigantic space telescopes on a shoestring budget.
In-orbit refueling enables the transfer of a large amount of mass to anywhere in the solar system, or a higher delta-v for the same mass. Future technologies will cut travel time further but it is a good start.
I think expectations are so high and so much is going on that people don't really appreciate what we have or what's happening. The science/tech press contributes by hyping everything to death.
There is a path for China to fail hard and stop being the boogeyman. That could include the collapse of the Chinese economy, government, and/or demographics (size and retirees). That might be wishful thinking but their juggernaut status is not assured.
The big things to look out for IMO are energy (solar, fusion, batteries, etc.), biotechnology, and further advances in computing. We will see orders of magnitude more performance in supposedly dead classical computing, from the use of new materials and designs like 3DSoC. You'll also see some combination of classical, tensor, optical, neuromorphic, and quantum computing. Maybe even in add-on cards or SoCs for the home users. Eventually, we will get strong AI.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sgleysti on Tuesday October 22 2019, @12:34PM (2 children)
I wonder if proper training in engineering project management is no longer widely available. Perhaps for SLS they just don't care as long as they're making money. In my job, I'm dealing with some coworkers who keep asking to use certain technologies and topologies in a product while at the same time being oblivious to a variety of engineering constraints ("Why do we need voltage isolation?" "Wow, that current budget is tiny..."). They've been at it for months and I just joined the project; I'm nervous about the situation but am working hard to engineer my way out and already have some good alternatives. However, it is quite concerning that project managers say things like, "we just need to make a decision and stick with it." or "we can't reevaluate that until it's completely infeasible." when the decisions were made without looking at the whole system and several good options were not properly considered.
Consider that only someone living now could say this. I put the simulation hypothesis to one of my coworkers, and he replied, "who the hell would simulate my life?" I think that's a good objection from someone who doesn't think much about philosophical topics. If this universe is a simulation, I fancy the idea that the entity running it is fascinated by black holes and dark matter and doesn't give a f*ck about the rest.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 22 2019, @02:18PM
It's pretty simple, and they have a name for it: cost plus.
Members of Congress, particularly Senator Shelby, want to funnel as much cash into it as possible, as a stimulus package for their constituents.
Failure = more money. Boeing/ULA has an incentive to fail enough to get more money but not so much that the program is jeopardized. SpaceX Starship will be a threat, so they need to be mindful of that going forward.
House Spending Bill Offers NASA More Money Than the Agency or Administration Wanted [soylentnews.org]
Northrop Grumman Exec Warns of Coming "Affordability" in the Space Launch System's Future [soylentnews.org]
Lunar Gateway Could be Killed to get More Money for Space Launch System [soylentnews.org]
Note that last one. Lunar Gateway isn't as useful as SLS funding to the Beltway bandits if SpaceX rockets are used to build and service it, as some countries already planned:
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy Could Launch Japanese and European Payloads to Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway [soylentnews.org]
White House Budget Request Would Move Launches from SLS to Commercial Providers [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:57PM
> I put the simulation hypothesis to one of my coworkers, and he replied, "who the hell would simulate my life?"
I think there's a pretty mundane answer here. Think of humanity in the not so distant future. Technology, history, and all of these other topics will be so immense that even a cursory education in traditional means will become impossible. However, what if we were able to effectively simulate these periods in a time accelerated fashion? What feels as 80 years to us is day 1 of 'universal history 101'. There's another unique coincidence about this era as well. Thanks to the widescale data collection of entities such as the NSA, this is also the first time in history that you could create a compelling situation of a time period with historically accurate 'filler.' Assuming these data are not erased, we're effectively creating a 'time capsule' that encompasses a quite large chunk of our entire civilization. Not a fan of the NSA stuff, but I can't help but be enamored by this aspect of it.
But even if it were for entertainment, think of things such as the games you play. Do you prefer to start as a king, or a peasant? The pleasure in a game is not in self indulgence once you reach a height, but in the journey and struggle towards that height. So perhaps I take an even more unusual spin on the simulation hypotheses by proposing one that's somewhat boring. No need for omnipotent beings simulating our universe for imperceptible reasons - it could be just us plain old meatsacks engaging in exactly the same sort of things we engage in today, just with a bit fancier tech.
Fair point in wondering who could get pleasure engaging in a mostly draining for 40 hours a week, every week, to no real end. Who knows? Anyhow gotta go pick a few hundred more digital tulips. My herbalism skill is almost at level 10, then I can start grinding out some potions to raise my alchemy skill!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:53PM
One big difference between then and now is that, back then, the Government built the space program. The contractors were working at the bidding of the Government engineers. Nowadays the Government manages the contractors because, you know, the evils and general unfairness of letting the Government do something that private industry says they can do (or some other BS like that).