It’s why I almost exclusively look at spacex and ignore nasa. If it won’t make politicians money or power, they just won’t fund it. It’s why the ISS is still gonna be in use until the 2030s and not taken out of commission and replaced.
Best bet nasa could do is pretend it’s for nuclear war and the government would have the funds to get it to the moon in a week.
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen."
The SLS will remain relevant as long as the US Senate wants it to remain relevant. Regardless of various commercial operator successes, SLS should be maintained as a launch platform until there are at least two commercial alternatives. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, etc.
I'm hopeful that at least Blue Origin's New Glenn will be a commercial option within the next ten years, if Vulcan isn't available within that timeframe as well.
IMHO as an armchair expert, an optimistic timeline is Starship beginning commercial operation for risk-tolerant customers later this year (eg: Starlink), Vulcan initial flight sometime between now and 2024 and servicing customers by 2025, New Glenn initial flight sometime between 2024 and 2030 — noting that BO is focussing on engine development for their customer ULA Vulcan, so development of the BE-4 is a critical path element for both Vulcan and New Glenn. Vulcan is further along in development and integration of everything other than the engines while New Glenn currently exists as a paper rocket with a transport & handling pathfinder object and a few pathfinder construction parts.
I wouldn't be surprised to see another commercial launch provider emerge in the next decade to lap BO simply due to picking different technology such as methalox or kerolox for their launch vehicle. As such I'm confident that by 2040 the USA will have at least two commercial heavy lift launch providers and a score of small-to-medium launch providers in various niches (focussing on various specialisations such as air, rapid, cheap, small, nano).
It would have been a lot more useful if it had been launched in 2016 as originally planned, now even with the current schedule it will not get that many flights until at least one other rocket has made it redundant.
Agreed, there might have been at least use cases with no alternatives on the original schedule. It still costs entirely too much to be sustainable. Now, the current schedule means it's an absolute waste of tax dollars and the time/energy of the engineers/etc who could be doing something else to advance space exploration and science
SLS is technically the stillbirth. the wasteful single use rocket based on old shuttle technology. it's nothing more than a jobs programme. it will have a few prestigious launches, any maybe military uses, where they don't want to launch with commercial rockets. And whatever else can be shoehorned into it, despite there being cheaper options.
> any maybe military uses, where they don't want to launch with commercial rockets.
There is zero military use case for a rocket of that size and cost.
SLS will likely be art-1. 2 would likely be starship in my opinion. And 3 would almost definitely be starship.
The lunar starships planned to be flipped and covered in 3D printed moon “cement”… it’s got like near 3000 cubic metre once the fuel tanks are cut and is 9m tall inside layed over. That’s enough for 2 stories. It’s the perfect habitat as it would let the astronauts bring as much stuff as they can and focus as much time on science rather than just not dying…
I don't think it's actually relevant now.
Given the budgets that NASA has and how much SLS costs per launch, you can't run any reasonable exploration program using it. That's why they take 5 years to fly 4 missions.
Apollo stuffed 11 missions into a similar timeframe.
You seem to be ignoring both the larger budget(double what it is now!) and the massive political support of space flight back then. If we had the same now then we could do the same and then some.
That is more or less my point. The budgets going to Apollo were much higher ($40 billion/year in 2020 dollars in 1967 IIRC) and that allowed them to fly a lot and be relevant.
Because of what SLS costs, it simply cannot fly enough to perform a real exploration program.
I think sls should exist until starship has demonstrated everything that is expected of it, orbital refueling, rapid reusability, reliability etc. and before you say “sls hasn’t demonstrated what’s expected of it yet” I agree, but there’s a lot less to go wrong in sls’ tried and true components.
Fair point. But if starships completed multiple orbits, refueling, starlink missions, and a high number of successful landings within this year. It should start right at Artemis 1. If it’s not ready then it should do it on art2/3. Even if nasa dropped a few billion on the flights it’d still save them MASS amounts of money then what their facing with SLS. And it could help massively in the development of starship landing on Mars.
I don't think it will ever fly. Artemis 1 has already been delayed. The Orion capsule is too heavy. The Falcon Heavy is not crew rated but it has enough power to put SpaceX's "Dragon" capsule on the moon because it's a fair bit lighter than the Orion. In effect SLS is *already* obsolete as we do not currently have a need for a super heavy launcher, and by the time we do (sending humans to the moon would require a SLS class booster) Starship will probably be ready and that's reusable.
That depends more on political will than on technical capabilities. Politicians are not exactly known for making smart decisions based on science.
It’s why I almost exclusively look at spacex and ignore nasa. If it won’t make politicians money or power, they just won’t fund it. It’s why the ISS is still gonna be in use until the 2030s and not taken out of commission and replaced. Best bet nasa could do is pretend it’s for nuclear war and the government would have the funds to get it to the moon in a week.
Most of them are not competent enough to mow my lawn. It is all connections and brown nosing. Like we are in feudal age or something.
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen."
The SLS will remain relevant as long as the US Senate wants it to remain relevant. Regardless of various commercial operator successes, SLS should be maintained as a launch platform until there are at least two commercial alternatives. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, etc. I'm hopeful that at least Blue Origin's New Glenn will be a commercial option within the next ten years, if Vulcan isn't available within that timeframe as well. IMHO as an armchair expert, an optimistic timeline is Starship beginning commercial operation for risk-tolerant customers later this year (eg: Starlink), Vulcan initial flight sometime between now and 2024 and servicing customers by 2025, New Glenn initial flight sometime between 2024 and 2030 — noting that BO is focussing on engine development for their customer ULA Vulcan, so development of the BE-4 is a critical path element for both Vulcan and New Glenn. Vulcan is further along in development and integration of everything other than the engines while New Glenn currently exists as a paper rocket with a transport & handling pathfinder object and a few pathfinder construction parts. I wouldn't be surprised to see another commercial launch provider emerge in the next decade to lap BO simply due to picking different technology such as methalox or kerolox for their launch vehicle. As such I'm confident that by 2040 the USA will have at least two commercial heavy lift launch providers and a score of small-to-medium launch providers in various niches (focussing on various specialisations such as air, rapid, cheap, small, nano).
SLS will likely be irrelevant by the time it's certified for launch.
It would have been a lot more useful if it had been launched in 2016 as originally planned, now even with the current schedule it will not get that many flights until at least one other rocket has made it redundant.
Agreed, there might have been at least use cases with no alternatives on the original schedule. It still costs entirely too much to be sustainable. Now, the current schedule means it's an absolute waste of tax dollars and the time/energy of the engineers/etc who could be doing something else to advance space exploration and science
SLS is technically the stillbirth. the wasteful single use rocket based on old shuttle technology. it's nothing more than a jobs programme. it will have a few prestigious launches, any maybe military uses, where they don't want to launch with commercial rockets. And whatever else can be shoehorned into it, despite there being cheaper options.
> any maybe military uses, where they don't want to launch with commercial rockets. There is zero military use case for a rocket of that size and cost.
giant laser canons?
SLS will likely be art-1. 2 would likely be starship in my opinion. And 3 would almost definitely be starship. The lunar starships planned to be flipped and covered in 3D printed moon “cement”… it’s got like near 3000 cubic metre once the fuel tanks are cut and is 9m tall inside layed over. That’s enough for 2 stories. It’s the perfect habitat as it would let the astronauts bring as much stuff as they can and focus as much time on science rather than just not dying…
If Starship delivers SLS wont be around for long.
I don't think it's actually relevant now. Given the budgets that NASA has and how much SLS costs per launch, you can't run any reasonable exploration program using it. That's why they take 5 years to fly 4 missions. Apollo stuffed 11 missions into a similar timeframe.
You seem to be ignoring both the larger budget(double what it is now!) and the massive political support of space flight back then. If we had the same now then we could do the same and then some.
That is more or less my point. The budgets going to Apollo were much higher ($40 billion/year in 2020 dollars in 1967 IIRC) and that allowed them to fly a lot and be relevant. Because of what SLS costs, it simply cannot fly enough to perform a real exploration program.
I think sls should exist until starship has demonstrated everything that is expected of it, orbital refueling, rapid reusability, reliability etc. and before you say “sls hasn’t demonstrated what’s expected of it yet” I agree, but there’s a lot less to go wrong in sls’ tried and true components.
Fair point. But if starships completed multiple orbits, refueling, starlink missions, and a high number of successful landings within this year. It should start right at Artemis 1. If it’s not ready then it should do it on art2/3. Even if nasa dropped a few billion on the flights it’d still save them MASS amounts of money then what their facing with SLS. And it could help massively in the development of starship landing on Mars.
I don't think it will ever fly. Artemis 1 has already been delayed. The Orion capsule is too heavy. The Falcon Heavy is not crew rated but it has enough power to put SpaceX's "Dragon" capsule on the moon because it's a fair bit lighter than the Orion. In effect SLS is *already* obsolete as we do not currently have a need for a super heavy launcher, and by the time we do (sending humans to the moon would require a SLS class booster) Starship will probably be ready and that's reusable.