The Continuing Waste Of SLS

Eric Berger has the latest.

12 comments on this post.
  1. David Spain:

    If they ever decide to award participation trophies for Science, SLS wins hands down.

  2. David Spain:

    I mean the SLS AS the trophy… How you display it is your problem.

  3. ken anthony:

    It’ interesting that some would question how SpaceX could fully develop BFR when they’re frame of reference is a project with essentially no cap on costs like SLS.

    You would think that Boeing would be a better analogy, but not even competition with Airbus keeps their costs down where they should be. I knew one of their many cad guys (they had an army of them using very specialized s/w) each got paid a ridiculous rate for what they did.

    It’s no surprise that others are so expensive since controlling cost just isn’t one of their priorities.

  4. magpie:

    Easy! Play the CGI file of the SLS thundering into orbit on any convenient big screen TV…. Stop, were you actually saying that a real life working example was going to be built?

  5. Bill Hensley:

    I liked the comment from the guy over at Ars Technica suggesting they should save money by just constructing a cardboard cutout of the rocket instead.

  6. Leland:

    Natch, NASA’s better than that. They’ll just make a CGI image of SLS overlaying a real picture of Pad-39B, and tell everyone they’re ready for launch! You’ll never notice Tarkin SLS isn’t real.

  7. Larry J:

    Congress and the NASA bureaucracy have different measures of success than the rest of us. For the politicians, what matters is the money funneled into their districts and to their cronies, the amount of campaign contributions that flow back to them as their results, and the number of votes bought. For the bureaucrats, more money means more power and growth of the agency. By those measures, the SLS has been an outstanding success. As a successful, cost-effective rocket, not so much.

  8. MfK:

    Every single aspect of this monstrosity is driven by the use of the solid propellant boosters, which are horrific from any possible point of view: cost of propellant =$25/lb minimum for a booster, the place that uses the most propellant; Q-D standoff for actual explosives (as opposed to liquids, none of which are actual explosives); restrictions on VAB occupancy during stacking, due to the solids; and the horrific mass of the loaded boosters, each of which exceeds the total empty weight of a Saturn V.

    Is anyone surprised?

  9. Leland:

    Hush! NASA needs those Utah votes.

  10. wodun:

    SpaceX: We aren’t throwing away rockets anymore.

    NASA: We are going to throw away our rockets AND our launch infrastructure.

  11. Richard M:

    Post of the week.

  12. Agent J:

    The John Henry legend comes to mind. SLS might get in the air first, in unfinished form (no EUS) but in the end, unless SpaceX folds, BFR is going to render it obsolete soon after.