NASA Delays First Flight of New SLS Rocket Until 2019 (arstechnica.com)
schwit1 writes: Despite spending almost $19 billion and more than thirteen years of development, NASA today admitted that it will have to delay the first test flight of the SLS rocket from late 2018 to sometime in 2019. "We agree with the GAO that maintaining a November 2018 launch readiness date is not in the best interest of the program, and we are in the process of establishing a new target in 2019," wrote William Gerstenmaier, chief of NASA's human spaceflight program. "Caution should be used in referencing the report on the specific technical issues, but the overall conclusions are valid." The competition between the big government SLS/Orion program and private commercial space is downright embarrassing to the government. While SLS continues to be delayed, even after more than a decade of work and billions of wasted dollars, SpaceX is gearing up for the first flight of Falcon Heavy this year. And they will be doing it despite the fact that Congress took money from the commercial private space effort, delaying its progress, in order to throw more money at SLS/Orion.
SLS has always been a make-work program to preserve legacy jobs at Space Shuttle contractors. If NASA (or anyone else) has set out to design the best possible heavy-lifter with today's technology, they wouldn't use strap-on SRBs, and probably wouldn't bother with H2/LOX in the first stage either. (Just look at the two private companies that are developing heavies -- SpaceX and Blue Origin.)
I have a running bet with some friends on how many times the SLS will fly (if ever). My money's on two flights before it gets the axe.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
This is why you set goals and let the scientists & engineers figure it out. When Apollo was built we didn't have Congress constantly dictating to NASA how it should be built, where it should be built or making design decisions. Fast forward to the 21st Century, we have endless committees getting nowhere with a constant tug of war on where components should be built and by whom.We've laid off the core of NASA who knew how to make the shuttle work and yes, regrettably we've had to spend tax dollars on busy work to keep ATK and others from going out of business.
In the meantime, ISS manned missions will be handled by the Russians who are our sometimes on again/off again friends. Now, because of these relationship issues, do any of us believe that the costs of doing business with the Russians won't significantly increase over the next few years? The ISS will be shuttered before it's end of life in 2024, another multi-billion dollar boondoggle that now the US can't fully support yet we provided most of the funding for. Bravo!
After billions spent on Orion/SLS, we still have no way to get our astronauts into LEO much less beyond. Didn't we win the race to the moon?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Which is better: promising 3 years and launching in 8, or promising 7 years and launching in 8?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1