Slashdot Mirror
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.
Out of curiosity, which era of history or presidential legacy are you comparing those 8 years to? I'm kinda old and I don't recall any president in my lifetime not fucking up the economy. Clinton balanced the budget, but left GWB with a huge cleanup bill which Clinton should have been spending money on the whole time, Reagan, Bush and Bush all spent money like a whore who found a rich customer's credit card on the floor after he left.
You seem to think the grass used to be greener... it was always brown and we were convinced by our leaders it just needs more water. The only real difference is Obama was Internet era and we saw what he was doing. Before that it was much easier to keep you from seeing the yard.
SRBs are a pain-in-the-ass to "refuel"... it takes weeks of meticulous work. Liquid H2 is a "pernicious molecule" according to Elon Musk. It's so tiny it's hard to contain; it's colorless and odorless, and burns with an invisible flame. Yes, it gives you a higher ISP than RP-1, but not so much higher as to make it worth the trouble. (H2 is mostly used in upper-stages, where the higher performance has a better pay-off.)
Note: IANA rocket scientist, the above is just what I've gathered over the years as an armchair space enthusiast.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
True. I hadn't thought of that. But I'd note that Ariane-5 was developed in the mid-90s, and was based on the Ariane-4, which also had SRBs. I wonder if they would make the same design choices today?
Perhaps not but sometimes the best path forward is to not try to relive the past. Perfect can be the enemy of good. Something can be very useful without being optimal. The computer you are typing this on has a lot of historical cruft in it but removing that cruft is generally more expensive than simply building around it. If it is economically not viable in the face of some new technology then eventually it will get replaced (see SpaceX) but if it is "good enough" compared with the available alternatives then there is no point in reinventing the wheel. SRBs may not be perfect but they demonstrably have been economically useful.
I'm not arguing for or against SRBs but merely pointing out that if the expensive work of development has already been done then it makes sense to keep using them until something truly better comes along to replace them in the market. Whatever replaces them has to provide a substantial cost/performance savings or there is little point.
SLS has always been a make-work program to preserve legacy jobs at Space Shuttle contractors.
Perhaps in part but it also serves a few other purposes. Probably the most important one is that it gives NASA a path to getting heavy lift capabilities in the event that the private enterprises working on the problem fail. It's a hedge of a sort, albeit an expensive one. Let's say hypothetically that SpaceX cannot get their Falcon Heavy to work for some reason. If NASA put all their eggs in that basket they could reasonably end up with no heavy launch vehicle. With SLS in the works NASA won't find themselves without options no matter what the private sector does.
Remember that as recently as a few years ago it wasn't at all clear that private companies like SpaceX would be as successful as they have been so far. It was uncharted territory and when you go into uncharted territory it's sensible to have a backup plan in place just in case things go wrong. Things are looking better by the day for private launch companies but there is still time for things to go tits up before SLS is operational.
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.
I think it will depend heavily on how successful companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin turn out to be. You may very well be right but I would regard that as a best possible scenario. If SLS ends up seeing a lot of use it means that SpaceX and the rest failed.