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: 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.