The problem I have with this approach is that it's an excuse that will always be used. If we think this way, I don't see humans ever leaving Earth, and I am a firm believer that humans need to expand beyond Earth or die.
Time to Put A Fork in SLS
- Thread starter deandome
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Use SLS as an intermediate heavy lift vehicle until Starship, New Glenn and other commercial vehicles are fully developed and man rated. Then put a fork in it.
ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,249
- Reaction score
- 7,482
Agreed. They shouldn’t scrap it until there are alternatives with a proven track record. But then, I don’t think it will be even remotely competitive. You’ll probably be able to get a Starhip launch for far less than a tenth the cost of an SLS launch.
I haven't articulated my point well.
I'm fine with expanding beyond Earth. Let's start with a proper space station in orbit. Big enough to spin up to simulate ~1 g gravity. Let's build it with structural material primarily from asteroids, or the moon, harvested by robots. Develop the tech to do that, mostly remotely, and we would be pretty far along to colonizing the solar system in person.
Here's my main point: if we are going to invest big money (tens, hundreds of billions, trillions over decades) on something, there has to be an economic product driving it. The days of trickle down products derived from basic research are drawing to a close. Velcro and Tang won't cut it anymore, and space research has already given us most of what we will practically get anytime soon: comms and weather satellites, all manner of geo mapping and visualization, advances in computing and materials science: the low hanging fruit has been harvested.
The budgetary trickle funding things like Perseverance and DART is fine for basic science, and I would love to pay a bit more in taxes to expand that budget.
But the $ scale of what's needed for "Humans on Mars: Sustained" is a price tag of a different order. Sustaining it means there has to be a tangible "so what" involved.
Can we send a colony of mice (hell... Maybe just ants?) There and back again first? That would cost less than a manned program and would enable tech exploration we would need.
The first step is to put a mining robot on the moon. A factory that can make aluminum or titanium construction materials. Furnaces are easy; lunar sunlight is harsh, lol. It would be trivial to build a mass seperator that used the ionized lunar rock from the smelter to feed a gravity based seperation facility. send a stream of ions to be bent in a magnetic field, and it will separate the ions by mass. They will land in slightly different places, so you need a bucket for each. Reclaim any gases by letting them freeze out in the shade. 
This was all in SF 50 years ago or more. There was a great story about one of these gone wonky by JP Hogan, code of the lifemaker.
This was all in SF 50 years ago or more. There was a great story about one of these gone wonky by JP Hogan, code of the lifemaker.
The first step is to put a mining robot on the moon. A factory that can make aluminum or titanium construction materials. Furnaces are easy; lunar sunlight is harsh, lol. It would be trivial to build a mass seperator that used the ionized lunar rock from the smelter to feed a gravity based seperation facility. send a stream of ions to be bent in a magnetic field, and it will separate the ions by mass. They will land in slightly different places, so you need a bucket for each. Reclaim any gases by letting them freeze out in the shade.
Loved that book! And most anything by Hogan.
Generally agree with the process outlined above. Bootstrap robotic mining, eventually leading to robotic manufacturing. Institute controls to prevent it becoming a Saberhagen Berserker threat.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2022
- Messages
- 462
- Reaction score
- 326
These comparisons to Falcon Heavy... are we comparing apples to oranges? So far the Falcon Heavy has not been used for manned flight.
Would a Falcon Heavy's acceleration kill or injure the crew?
Would that 25% capacity that it lacks compared to SLS make the difference on supplies and life support?
Could a Falcon Heavy get to the moon and back?
It sounds really hard to me to design a vehicle with enough thrust to a) lift a payload, b) do it slowly enough to not destroy the payload in the process, and c) still achieve escape velocity. That just sounds really freaking challenging to me. OpenRocket sims have given me a new appreciation of the tradeoffs involved.
NASA is a joke, I'll agree on that. Just wondering if we're comparing apples to oranges. Even so, I'd trust Elon more than NASA to come up with a solution.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
- Reaction score
- 7,949
Not to be a jerk about it, but SLS hasn't been used for manned flight either. Nor any flight for that matter. FH has three flights, and could likely be certified for human flight.
I would be surprised if FH can't be throttled down enough to keep astronauts on board healthy. Regardless, TTW at liftoff is 1.5 for SLS and 1.6 for FH, so not much difference.
Based on some very limited googling, it looks like FH is on the hairy edge of being able to launch Orion to the moon, probably on the not-quite-making-it side of the edge. That said, I would hazard a guess that if you asked SpaceX to come up with a way to launch Orion on FH, they'd be able to manage something. Oddly, it's hard to find apples-to-apples comparisons on lift capacity except to low earth orbit. SLS lists LEO, trans-lunar injection, and "deep space". FH lists LEO, Mars, and Pluto.
MidOH
Well-Known Member
We could fund NASA a hundred times over, if we drop the "Green New Deal''. Not to mention the pork for the Paris Accord and Ukraine.
But at this point, I'd rather drop NASA as well. Too slow and expensive.
But at this point, I'd rather drop NASA as well. Too slow and expensive.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
You guys are blaming the wrong people. It's not the engineers at NASA that are at fault. It's Congress and Bill Nelson specifically. Have you *read* the bill that made the SLS possible? It's laden down with all kinds of cruft that guarantees that this turkey would be a jobs program that never flies. Kinda like the F-35 and the F-22 before that. There's a reason we took the F-15 out of retirement, because the Pentagon is now admitting that the F-22 and 35 were failures.
Obama wanted to take NASA out of the rocket building business and have them concentrate on R&D. But Bill Nelson, who wanted to stick it to Obama and was on the right congressional committee at the time, started to push through a bill for the SLS. So of course, every single senator in the country had to put their hands in the pie, to get money from this turd, and it basically became a must-pass bill because it guaranteed jobs for every state.
And Bill just happened to become Nasa chief administrator, go figure! Amazing how someone so unqualified can get a job like that.
Anyhow, the point is: The SLS was designed and built by bean-counters, not engineers. That's why it won't fly. Just look at what happened to Boeing after the paper pushers took over and the company stopped being about great engineering, and instead became about stock price.
Obama wanted to take NASA out of the rocket building business and have them concentrate on R&D. But Bill Nelson, who wanted to stick it to Obama and was on the right congressional committee at the time, started to push through a bill for the SLS. So of course, every single senator in the country had to put their hands in the pie, to get money from this turd, and it basically became a must-pass bill because it guaranteed jobs for every state.
And Bill just happened to become Nasa chief administrator, go figure! Amazing how someone so unqualified can get a job like that.
Anyhow, the point is: The SLS was designed and built by bean-counters, not engineers. That's why it won't fly. Just look at what happened to Boeing after the paper pushers took over and the company stopped being about great engineering, and instead became about stock price.
"Dropping NASA" isn't something I'm on board with. I'm critical of SLS and "send humans to Mars within a decade" type programs, but I greatly value the R&D and exploratory / science value of NASA. Just, not so much as a booster development program. I'd rather see industry take that over fully.
The Artemis/SLS program is not the whole of NASA.
Hardly.
Full article here: https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...tions_for_allied_interoperability_855374.html
I am going to add my 1/2 billion cents (inflation, dont'cha know!) The reason that the shuttle missions ended up costing what they did was due to one man alone: the late George Shultz who was in charge of the Office of Management and Budget at the time that the Shuttle was being planned! He said that it would cost too much to design and build a manned Shuttle Booster that could fly back to earth. THAT, my friends, is why instead of being the "DC-3" of Space, it was a DC-1.5. I, personally feel that is also why we lost two shuttle crews. Shultz didn't and wouldn't allow NASA to spend a lot more money up front so that the Shuttle would save even MORE money down the line!!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,460
- Reaction score
- 1,971
My opinion (and we all have those along with a particular orifice. . . ) is that NASA has been legislated into the jobs program that it is and also, since it is (or should be) a huge pride for the US, when things go wrong, there is lots of oversight. Somehow during the early days of NASA (NACA, Air Force development etc.) it was fine for the Gus Grissoms and Chuck Yeagers (and many others) to put their life on the line each time they were doing development to move the ball forward. In reality, I think the Shuttle program was realistically the same, but somehow it was supposed to be safer and when people lost their lives, it was a tragedy for sure, but the risks were very real.
I don't mean to sound callous, but if a person is going to fly into space, to the moon or to Mars, they are very aware of the risks and the population of our country should also be aware and when things go wrong, good people die. Politics, oversight by committees who know nothing about the technical challenges and budgets made by people who are focused on their own agenda vs. the good of the national benefits of space have ruined NASA and will eventually ruin commercial manned space travel as well. The first time SpaceX or Blue Origin or any other player that can fly humans has a catastrophe that results in lives lost, there will be oversight that cripples further progress, IMO. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I truly believe that will happen and it is bad, as there are people who choose to take unreasonable risks to move the ball forward. By hamstringing programs with too much oversight by unqualified people making decisions based on politics or their own agenda, all of the sacrifices of the good men and women who have taken the risks and paid the price are diminished. To truely honor those who have lost their lives in advancing the space program, we need qualified people guiding the ship with qualified people performing the work, both with a passion for success and safety, but not worried about covering their orifice or getting re-elected.
As far as SLS goes, I doubt many of the people involved would have suggested it was the right path forward, but they were likely doing their best when given bad direction. The problem starts at the top, not the bottom.
Sandy.
I don't mean to sound callous, but if a person is going to fly into space, to the moon or to Mars, they are very aware of the risks and the population of our country should also be aware and when things go wrong, good people die. Politics, oversight by committees who know nothing about the technical challenges and budgets made by people who are focused on their own agenda vs. the good of the national benefits of space have ruined NASA and will eventually ruin commercial manned space travel as well. The first time SpaceX or Blue Origin or any other player that can fly humans has a catastrophe that results in lives lost, there will be oversight that cripples further progress, IMO. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I truly believe that will happen and it is bad, as there are people who choose to take unreasonable risks to move the ball forward. By hamstringing programs with too much oversight by unqualified people making decisions based on politics or their own agenda, all of the sacrifices of the good men and women who have taken the risks and paid the price are diminished. To truely honor those who have lost their lives in advancing the space program, we need qualified people guiding the ship with qualified people performing the work, both with a passion for success and safety, but not worried about covering their orifice or getting re-elected.
As far as SLS goes, I doubt many of the people involved would have suggested it was the right path forward, but they were likely doing their best when given bad direction. The problem starts at the top, not the bottom.
Sandy.
I totally agree with Sandy!!!!!!! In the late 50's on one of my all-time favorite shows (it still is), Men into Space, Astronauts died on the show! When every new skyscraper is planned, the number of construction workers who might die whilst on the job is figured into it! The death of Gus Grissom and the crew of Apollo 1 just made us MORE determined to see it through! The "Ivory Tower" PSYCHIATRISTS are some of ones who convinced us a a nation to "PULEEEASSSSEEEE don't let them die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" We'd have NEVER won the 2nd world War if we had taken that attitude, People are going to die even after things are worked out. We don't see our nation start screaming to stop commercial flights after an accident, do We????? HECK NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Grow up America and let's get our collective heads out of the sand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well said.
I believe Musk is on record as saying that the first people to Mars are probably taking a one way trip.
Are you capable of posting without trying to derail into politics?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
And I know plenty of folks (including myself), who absolutely would risk that. I'd be willing to die on Mars if I could get there.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 251
Another snakebite for Artemis/SLS, it seems that NASA is reporting this morning that a couple hours after they buttoned up the VAB for the storm they had a fire somewhere in the building. They are saying there was no danger to the Artemis/SLS and that everything is secure. So here comes another fact finding investigation and probably more delays. You have to wonder if maybe some hydrogen got loose and they had a little flash?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
It's Florida... the humidity alone can flash if you've got electricity around. Remember their air is salt-water, which is highly conductive, one of the reasons Florida is the lightning capital of the world.
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,054
I don't think that's necessay. If it takes decades more to garantee a 2-way trip for anyone involved, I'd rather see that. Robots can be made smart enough to do whatever one way trips are required (like producing and loading methane for a return trip). Whoever goes there should have the option to come back. I understand Starship, as a system of many methane rockets with periodic launches, would allow that. It think the vision is to make many of them run as a 2-way shuttle (or a series of 2 way shuttles).
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 251
That's true.......and that building has more electric than some small towns.
Last edited:
I'd like to see Nasa and JPL handle the stuff they've proven they're best at, probes to various planets and hitting asteroids. And let Space X and Elon handle everything else. We can also fund other commercial space ventures as well. Although right now I'd put my money on Musk.
The F22 was expensive but was and remains the best air superiority fighter.
The F35 had -massive- development issues, but we've produced over 800 of them at this point and it's been successful everywhere it's been used. Now that production rates are up, its cost has come back down to 'normal' levels by jet fighter standards. There is no failure there either. Multiple countries are placing orders for them because it's one of the best options available.
The F15 has been one of the best programs yet, but the current version is a long way from where it started. And it's hardly cheap. IIRC the F15EX is more expensive per unit than the F35 by a decent margin. They also fil different roles, so both are necessary.
MidOH
Well-Known Member
I get that, but the red tape and MOP's at NASA are getting a bit cumbersome. If that ''culture'' is making it all the way to the rocket program, I can see why every little thing is a CF there.
30 trillion dollars of debt. Is that political, or just bad budgeting? NASA would have all the money in the world, to waste on anything they want to, if this country cuts wasteful pork spending. You can go to Mars, or you can fund gender studies classes in Pakistan. Not both. Your call. Get that debt down to zero, and we can build colonies on mars. If you want NASA to survive, chop off worthless spending. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to support billion dollar programs to fly around collecting rocks, when we have $75,000 debt per person.
Zero debt, and I can't complain about them making as many giant useless rockets and flying telescopes as they want to. Make dozens. We can't act like the money isn't there, it's there. Buts it's being spent on stupidity that feeds kick backs.
The F15ex is an excellent missile truck for the F35's. Team those two machines up, with half way decent strategics, and you got an excellent fighting platform. There's still plenty of missions where stealth is compromised. So building every fighter to have every single bit of RAM and stealth technology, isn't wise. The F35 is still getting bashed in the news, because it gets clicks. The program is as fine as any cutting edge new tech program can get. The F14/15/16's were a disaster to, a generation ago.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
Alternate argument: Do you know when NASA was strongest? Do you remember when the Military was able to do R&D into hypersonic aircraft? The reason we got to the moon was that at the time, we were taxing the multi-millionaires at 90%. If you were obscenely rich, a lot of your money either went back into your business as capital investments, or it got taxed.
That all changed under Saint Ronnie, and the obscenely rich became obscenely richer, and the government started going into debt. We stopped taxing the rich, almost entirely now (Trump famously paid only $750 in taxes one year, even less than you did and he claims to be a billionaire). And businesses no longer invest in themselves, nor pay pensions, hell, they barely pay for T/P in the washrooms, assuming you even get a bathroom break (see Amazon). And why is that? Because the wealthy decided that they wanted to keep every dime, and changed the American system so you subsidize them, not the other way around.
And that's why we have 30 trillion dollars of debt. If you want to cut pork, start with the Pentagon, that builds tanks that get sent into a field to rust. That builds aircraft carriers we don't need (we have more than the rest of the world combined). That continues to make defense contractors obscenely rich, so they don't have to pay taxes. But you do.
What would it take to focus on the SLS program and not back on forth on unrelated programs, politicians, etc?
MidOH
Well-Known Member
Agreed a bit. Corporations get breaks to reduce their taxes. And the owners often get incentives that cut their taxes down to near zilch. I'm not sure if cutting those incentives to own and operate huge companies is going to help long term. The companies I deal with, pay a startling amount of taxes.
Well, the tanks are cheap. And we're stuck with the shipyards producing navy ships. It's the only way to secure that industry, and keep it from dying off. If you want to have the ability to produce the absolute greatest navy in the world, then you have to practice building the greatest navy in the world. Shut down those ship yards, and they won't be coming back. (or at least won't be coming back any better than russian junk)
Well, the tanks are cheap. And we're stuck with the shipyards producing navy ships. It's the only way to secure that industry, and keep it from dying off. If you want to have the ability to produce the absolute greatest navy in the world, then you have to practice building the greatest navy in the world. Shut down those ship yards, and they won't be coming back. (or at least won't be coming back any better than russian junk)
Similar threads
