Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

SLS

9 Comments

NASA doesn’t plan to use it very much. This isn’t really news, but it’s nice to see them point out the implications:

Given the SLS Block 1 launch processing manifest (4-5 years with little to no activities), there is a potential of not having sufficiently trained personnel. Issue – Yellow (May require personnel with advanced skills not readily available).

As I write in the book, even ignoring the cost implications:

From a safety standpoint, it means that its operating tempo will be far too slow, and its flights too infrequent, to safely and reliably operate the system. The launch crews will be sitting around for months with little to do, and by the time the next launch occurs they’ll have forgotten how to do it, if they haven’t left from sheer boredom to seek another job.

What a mess.

9 thoughts on “SLS”

  1. If you actually dig in to the program documents, you’ll find that the SLS is production-limited to one unit every two years. They can salvo-launch them up to three times in any one year, since some reference missions require three launches, but they can only build them one every other year.

  2. “We have no experience with a human-rated flight system that only flies every two or three or four years.” – Steven Squyres, Chairman of the NASA Advisory Council

    1. If this abomination continues, we may have to consult with the Chinese on how they manage with so much time between manned missions.

    1. Perhaps SpaceX holds the key. If they can successfully launch their Falcon Heavy and manned Dragon, get someone in Congress to call hearings on how SpaceX was able to do so much so quickly for so little money compared to NASA. For example, several billion dollars has been spent on the Orion capsule alone and it’s getting another billion this year. Some of the costs were due to changing requirements but it’s still hard to justify why Orion is so expensive and taking so long.

      1. Some of the consequences of the differences between the US and NZ democratic systems is dramatic.

        Pork just doesn’t happen down here, and a right wing politician who was trying to support a government program within his electorate against a competing private enterprise initiative outside his electorate, would get crucified by the media for the hypocrisy of a blatant example of power before principle, what with right wing politicians supposedly preferring the efficiency of the market over a state monopoly.

        I think you’re right that SpaceX could be the key, and that a strategy needs to be built around that key, either to offer those porky politicians a carrot or stick – or both, to accept the death of the SLS, the carrot, I guess, would be in the form of jobs supporting other NASA initiatives that would become possible with the money saved on the SLS and the cheaper space access SpaceX could provide.

        Maybe building the in-space hardware for the next step?
        (Yeah, I know that’s nothing original, I’m just spit-balling here)

        1. Take the Falcon Heavy as a starting point. If it works as advertised, it’ll be able to launch about 55 tons to LEO for about $110 million. For the money NASA is spending on SLS R&D alone each year, they could buy several Falcon Heavy launches. Or, they could actually have some money to develop payloads and then launch them. What a concept! SLS is such a money-sink that the only funded payload in the foreseeable future is the massively overpriced Orion capsule.

          Let SpaceX launch the Falcon Heavy, perhaps a few times. Get someone to hold congressional hearings into the SLS on why its costing so much for so little. Do the same thing for Orion when the manned Dragon flies. NASA’s funding is unlikely to increase anytime soon, if ever. They need to make that funding go as far as possible which means looking for more for the money. NASA doesn’t buy custom airliners and operate their own airline when they need to transport personnel around the world. They buy tickets like everyone else. It’s time to do the same for space. They already do that for unmanned launch services and in fact are buying seats on Soyuz. Imagine what they could do if the money currently being spent on SLS and Orion were dedicated to missions and payloads.

  4. It’s their baby, congress would rather take out spacex, or anyone else, than have someone completing angised sls.

  5. Short of actually building a symbolic bonfire of a papier mache SLS, NASA is doing about everything it can to let Congress know that SLS is a really stupid idea. There’s no shortage of evidence for it.

    But you can’t tell someone something they don’t want to hear.

Comments are closed.