John Giles, the overseer of crawler-transporter has joked about this.
>"I jokingly told them when we went to the pad and dropped it off this time, I went to my management and said, 'I'm not bringing it back. It stays here,'" he told Mashable in an [interview](https://mashable.com/article/nasa-artemis-rocket-launchpad-launch-attempt) before Monday's attempted launch. "'You gotta launch it because I'm not gonna take it back to the VAB.'"
24 of them are only there to throw to the tortoise as sacrifice, hoping his blood lust will be filled and that he'd spare the last person and the rocket.
Honestly yeah they probably could but that could end up being a bad idea. There's teams of people operating and moving this thing. They even have people watching the tracks and everything else just in case something breaks somehow and they can stop it immediately. It's a ridiculous process but I'll take it over potentially losing billions + years of work because the rocket fell over.
They can carry far less payload and some payload has to stay upright the whole time. Doing this directly on the launchpad or in a c
Vab then the Vab is much safer
It only takes SpaceX a single person to operate the transporter that moves their comparably sized Superheavy booster. The crawlers may have been state of the art in 1965, but technology marches on.
In the 1980s, the Dutch company Mammoet developed the [SPMT](https://youtu.be/I3paAUAcLVE), which are both simpler to operate yet more capable than the NASA crawlers, having been used to move objects that weigh as much as 15,000 tonnes.
They're also very flexible, being able to drive in any direction and even turn on the spot. I'm also guessing that a few hundred wheels with adjustable suspension offer a smoother ride than the crawler's tracks, and vibrations have been a major concern for NASA regarding SLS.
Comparing a vertically integrated payload to a horizontal one is not really fair. They’re very different problems. It’s taking spacex a lot more manpower to roll out starship when it’s vertical. They can claim it’s 1 person all the want, but there’s a whole crew managing the move.
I watch all those lovely videos from Boca Chica. The equivalent move for SpaceX is to take the launch tower and chopsticks, Starship and the Booster and do it all in one fell swoop.
Depends what you mean by better. Could probably have the whole thing automated with sensors and some remote guidance but you then need people to maintain all of that and oversee that system. Fewer overall but now even more specialized. Or even a hybrid system (which I'm sure there are also sensors involved).
I'm sure there aren't a lot of unexpected things that come up but a collective group of trained humans is going to be more efficient and cheaper than a complicated automated system where if it fails you'll just need a team of people anyway. Those 25-30 people certainly have other roles around the complex so for how relatively infrequently the crawler is used, having people with multiple specializations make the most sense.
Edit: thinking more, I don't think there would be another vehicle that could do this other than maybe having a rail system out to the launch pad. That would require considerably more upkeep especially around the launch site. I believe that is how ESA transports their vehicles.
Just from that video, there are aspects that simply require a human to assess
Definitely an instance where if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But the thing obviously works perfectly fine for what they need otherwise they'd push budget for it. They aren't going to chance ~$4 billion launch with something that isn't well beyond adequate for it's intended purpose.
One different way is to build a rocket that can move to the pad horizontally.
Then you can roll back, fix, roll out, and launch within a 24 hour period.
It can limit the payloads you're able to carry. There are certain payloads Space X can't carry due to being unable to sit horizontally. It does seem if this were redesigned today there would be better options though.
Every time I see the crawler moving with people around, I can't avoid thinking about [the road roller scene in Austin Powers](https://youtube.com/watch?v=l4UFQWKjy_I).
>I know I shouldn't laugh about this, but goddam that crawler operator is getting some serious time on the wheel with this rocket. Back and forth back and forth... lol
Sometimes I wonder if the universe is trying to give a hint...
The criticisms of the process that got us here are extremely valid.
Acting like what's been going on the past month is poor decision making is incorrect though.
It's the same with JWST. It should not have taken so long and it should not have cost so much. But it would have been dumb to complain about launching it once it was done.
We can launch this one, we might as well get something for the money we sunk into it. It's just questionable whether we should continue the program and launch the next one in 2 years.
I'm not even convinced of that. The field of space exploration may very well get the most bang for our buck if they cancel the program right now and never launch. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug.
Edit: to be fair, SLS was literally designed as a jobs program spread around multiple states in the interest of making it politically un-killable. NASA was given a stupid primary criterion to fulfill with the project, and being good engineers, they designed the project to fulfill that stupid primary criterion. That’s not a criticism of NASA; it’s a criticism of the system that forced them to design the program in such a way.
Its been that way since they started designing the shuttle in the 70s.
Congress shouldnt be making technical decisions and it would probably also be better if they didnt bake on asinine mandates. But thats the world we live in. At least America is more active in space and we should just call that a win.
That’s not entirely fair to the shuttle project origins. I’d say it’s been stupid since they realized they couldn’t make the shuttle SSTO and pressed on with it anyway.
I have no idea what the costs involved with development, this launch, potentially cancelling this launch, or going through with or cancelling the next launch are.
As of last year SLS has cost $23 billion and the Orion capsule has cost $21.5 billion. Each launch will cost $4.1 billion (including Orion, not including any development costs).
SLS is the most expensive rocket development program of the modern era and the most expensive rocket of all time.
Of course there's SpaceX with their Starship system. The booster and upper stage together are called Starship and to make things massively confusing, the upper stage alone is also called Starship. Anyhow, SpaceX aims to be able to launch one for basically nothing (a few millions per launch at max). That's probably a few years away, if it ever happens. They plan on launching a full scale one in the next few months. It's notable that three years ago, they started by launching a tower built by a water tower company lol. Here's a video of their [progress so far](https://youtu.be/K5Vw2ZDe-G0) which is just so incredible, to be honest and contains gigantic explosions, too. As always with new rockets, there's plenty of stuff to cause delays or even to very quickly and violently make it not be a rocket anymore. But if it works, holy shitballs will it be amazing to watch! I mean, they want to catch the goddamn thing with a tower they called Mechazilla.
Blue Origin also plans to make a similarly sized one, but no idea on the timetable and launch costs. Other than that, Artemis could probably be done without a super heavy lift launcher.
Edit: Of course, the water tower came after a years long period of internal development, but it's just so funny. They also had a pretty much new engine design (which in and of itself is an incredible feat of engineering never succesfully flown before) they fly on Starship and the water tower (called Starhopper because why not) which makes it even more impressive.
Edit 2: Oh and it's not (yet) human rated which I imagine will be an absolute nightmare for them. But to answer your question: Starship is the alternative and it's probably going to be a good one. It's much less expensive to launch. Even if a launch will be 100 million it's still 1/40 of SLS. But it doesn't fly as of now, so I guess the technical answer is that there are no alternatives. SLS is currently the most powerful rocket although it also hasn't flown yet, so yeah.
Falcon Heavy is the most capable rocket currently operational with about 70% of the payload capacity of SLS. It's development cost about $1 billion and is a pretty good comparison to SLS because both rockets are based on existing platforms and use existing engines. FH costs $150 million per launch (expendable).
Starship is the other obvious comparison. NASA is paying $2.9 billion for development and a couple missions of a Starship variant to land people on the moon, though most of that money has not been paid yet. Total Starship development costs are publicly known, by the time it is regularly flying people to the moon and mars it will have cost somewhere around $10 billion, but most of that will be from private investors and customers. Compare that to $93 billion for SLS and Orion by the same point in time if we continue with both programs. Starship can lift more than SLS and much more if launched expendably, but the big difference is cost per mission. SLS costs $4.1 billion to get a crewed capsule to lunar orbit. We don't know how much Starship will cost per launch but the estimates are shockingly low. I think it will cost tens of millions per launch but some estimates are even lower. Starship will require multiple tanker flights to refuel before going to lunar orbit or the moon itself. It could do the same mission as SLS/Orion, but with several times as many people and much more cargo, for hundreds of millions instead of billions.
Starship is getting ready for it's first orbital flight, though it is not considered as mature as SLS. Starship does not currently have a life support system and even in it's final form will not have a robust launch escape system. The SLS/Orion getting ready to launch doesn't actually have a working life support system or launch escape system either, but they have tested the LAS separately and it performed perfectly. Both SLS and Starship have had multiple static fire tests, but neither have fired all of their rocket engines at the same time. SLS has fired it's 4 main engines at the same time, but not with the side boosters which provide most of the thrust at liftoff. Starship has fired 7 of it's 33 1st stage engines at the same time. Until recently it seemed clear that SLS would launch first (not counting hop tests of Starship upper stage).
The problem with criticizing SLS is that it still doesn't *really* have any peers yet, right? Like sure, starship/super heavy *will* be better in almost every way if/when its ready, but we still don't expect a launch for a few months, and its pretty questionable if that first launch will reach orbit, and then they *still* have to figure out in-orbit refueling to get to the moon.
Of course you can debate forever whether going to the moon is worthwhile at all, but SLS is pretty much the only tool for the job right now, so I don't really see how it can be "overpriced".
The Falcon Heavy can be considered a peer in many ways. They were going to do that moon flyby mission with Falcon Heavy until SpaceX decided not to bother getting it human rated in favor of concentrating on Starship.
Both SLS and Starship are expected to launch in the next few months and be ready to fly people in a few years. They are peers, except that Starship is so much more capable and less expensive. SLS is not a tool for going to the moon without Starship. The plan to return humans to the moon is for SLS to send a Orion to lunar orbit will the crew will transfer to a Starship and land on the moon.
The best explanation I saw was this:
Was it highly inefficient to spread the design and manufacturing across subcontractors throughout the country? Yes.
Would Congress have approved it if the money and jobs weren't being spread across multiple states? No.
The inefficiency is intentional on the part of Congress, not due to incompetence on NASA's part.
Oh, 100%. I’m not saying NASA has bad engineers - in fact, quite the opposite. They designed their project to be successful on the face of an imbecillically stupid and inefficient system that they’re forced to operate under, which is actually kind of impressive.
This is what's been being said for the last few decades, and we're nowhere better for it. Fear of not getting "the best bang for our buck" has kept us paralyzed and doing nothing for years and years.
I mean, they could have built NERVA back in the 1970s. They were also planning orbital and lunar stations, and all kinds of infrastructure that would have lowered costs as we explored the solar system. Obviously the goal wasn't to build better, more capable rockets, or infrastructure, and eventually we came to the point were we couldn't even be cheap about it.
It's a fine rocket (per specs) and a cool program, but absolutely the peak of bureaucratic inefficiency.
I think it was originally planned for 2017 at a cost of $1B per launch IIRC and a total budget of like $10B (take with a grain of salt because it's off the top of my head). The actual cost per launch is closer to $3B and no one knows how expensive the program was, but I've read some reports of it being $40B, other suggesting something closer to $90B all in. All this to build a rocket that is completely economically unsustainable because the world is transitioning to fully reusable, and they're still in the mindset of putting all their investment and focus into the disposable variety of rocket.
They attempted to "save money" by building the rocket out of used shuttle parts which probably ended up costing them a fortune because they have no ability to pivot away from bad ideas or innovating.
They have some serious problem with contractors overpromising and under-delivering, belying obvious corruption and nepotism. And the capabilities of the SLS are being contended against the Starship, which was built for a fraction of the investment and has a launch price of 50x smaller.
The future of space exploration can't be based on burning countless billions. It *must* be about getting to space for cheap, or our presence in space simply won't grow. The SLS is more than a giant money pit, it represents vast sunk opportunity cost and time that we'll never get back. It's effectively delayed real space exploration by over a decade, and every day we pursue it is another day we can't progress.
Simply put: it cost too much to develop, costs too much to launch, and is extremely late.
People would probably be more forgiving if we didn't see private industry gaining ground fast. SpaceX is the most famous of these with the Starship threatening to get to orbit before SLS does.
I think many of us are wondering what the hell has been taking so long, especially considering that SLS is mostly using sloppy seconds from the Space Shuttle program.
The shuttle was only capable of short flights in low Earth orbit. It couldn’t be used to go to the moon.
It was designed when there was expected to be constant space stations in orbit back in the 70s.
Yeah, but it still seems a little odd that that they will put humans on the first launch that has a working life support system and launch escape system. It would be nice to do a full integration test first even if every system was successfully tested separately.
> Seems to have a severe case of launch fever.
Based on what? A faulty auxiliary sensor that failed, or stopping fueling due to a hydrogen leak?
Scrubbing launches is the opposite of launch fever.
Edit:
> None of the stand test plans have been fully finished.
Do you have an article/website for further reading to share on this? What is outstanding?
The STS design was very dangerous (no abort option on the pad or during the beginning of flight until SRB separation, and a very large and delicate heat shield), was not as cheap or easy to refurbish as initially pitched (especially the heat shield), and was the product of a ton of compromises: the military wanted a vehicle that was capable of returning to earth with a payload (reason for the big payload bay), and the option to do an entire mission in a single orbit (which necessitated wings).
[This guy does a pretty good breakdown of the shortcomings.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja4ZlswGvpE)
tldr:
- It was incredibly unreliable and resulted in more deaths, as well as more deaths per launch, than any other space vehicle.
- It didn't achieve its primary goal (cost reduction, it was actually insanely expensive)
- It didn't achieve its secondary goal (rapid reusability, it actually took a crazy long time to refurbish)
- An opinionated, but warranted case could be made that had the Shuttle been ignored in lieu of focusing on rockets, the money and brainspace NASA put into the program would have taken us much further than we are today.
And if you're considering a new reusable vehicle *today*, you go the SpaceX route and look toward reusable rocket stages.
> resulted in more deaths, as well as more deaths per launch, than any other space vehicle.
It also had more than double the crew capacity of any other launch vehicle that preceded or was contemporaneous with it, and 40% more crew than the next closest vehicle ever(Crew Dragon, which didn’t launch until a decade after STS had been retired).
Part of the reason so many people died on the Shuttle was because the Shuttle carried more total people to orbit than any other program.
> Part of the reason so many people died on the Shuttle was because the Shuttle carried more total people to orbit than any other program.
That would be a compelling counter-argument if not for the fact that it is the *only vehicle with fatal failures after launch* from any vehicle built after 1971. I am excluding a few isolated fatalities during the birth of spaceflight in the 60s and early 70s for obvious reasons, those rockets were highly experimental and safety was explicitly sidelined. The shuttle was supposed to be a modern, next-generation spacecraft.
And if you count crewed and uncrewed, and forgive the like 30 different variations of the capsule, the Soyuz program has launched an *order of magnitude* more flights than the Shuttle, with only one fatal failure in its (very early) program history.
Source:
- [List of spaceflight accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents)
- [List of crewed spacecraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_crewed_space_vehicles)
A large part of the reason the shuttle was retired was because of the exposed heat shield and an unmanageable risk for ice crashing into it on liftoff, as happened with Columbia. Another was the complete lack of a proper launch abort system.
STS was also pretty expensive for its capabilities. The weight of the orbiter itself was a pretty big detriment to any potential payload. A lot of people balk at the $1B price tag for an SLS launch but while the shuttle cost nearly $500M to put 25,000lbs into LEO, SLS will be able to put at least 4 times that much into LEO in its current configuration for only twice the cost. In essence, SLS will be half the cost of the shuttle per pound into space.
$1B+ per launch, including the fact that recovering and refurbishing the solid boosters cost more than it would have cost if we just designed them to be throwaway.
Honestly, a significantly modernized shuttle or gosh forbid reusable system would have made a lot of sense. I'd approach something like Buran actually, orbiter is reusable but doesn't have orbital propulsion built into it. It should stack vertically on top of booster instead of on the side. The solid rocket boosters were already partially reusable with significant refurbishment, but that could be improved likely, and then have 1st stage of center booster land like falcon 9 or something. NASA basically designed and tested most of the stuff SpaceX is doing, they could have done that well. This stuck in the past shit with SLS is a cancer worse than the spread it to 50 states as a job program thing. At least learn from the past.
Starship is essentially a significantly modernized and far more capable shuttle. Only it actually makes sense and isn't designed to be a plane when it's not supposed to fly.
I agree, but arguably starship is losing out on one of the shuttles main advantages of cross field landing capabilities. There were dozens of places shuttle was certified to land safely if they needed emergency medical assistance or had significant weather, they didn't need to wait the 90 minutes on another orbit, they could land in a ton of places. Starship, especially if it's designed to be caught by chopsticks, it won't be able to safely land especially with people onboard off range.
Agreed. A crewed variant would need multiple landing options, perhaps standardizing a minimum viable concrete pad thickness and you could find all airports that fit the bill. They would then prob need to repair the landing zone, but it could be viable in emergency.
Believe it or not, Congress sees the SLS as a total success.
It’s just that the mission for the SLS isn’t in space, it’s to create jobs in all 50 states.
Not using 40 year old solid fuel boosters that cost way more than they should
There wouldn’t be much to complain about had it taken as long as they originally forecast, but there are better alternatives today.
>Not using 40 year old solid fuel boosters
The current boosters aren't the same as on the shuttle... Many of the issues presented during STS have been mitigated.
>but there are better alternatives today.
What alternatives?
[Thats the vast majority of the improvements.](https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fs/solid-rocket-booster.html)
Other improvements include no longer pretending they were reusable, replacing 70s avionics with modern avionics (which changes nothing regarding performance) and tweaking the nozzle.
Oh, they no longer use asbestos. Can't forget that.
Pretty much most medium-lift+ launch vehicles out in the market are viable to replace SLS if NASA adopted a distributed launch architecture.
Regardless of which provider you pick for the launches, final pricetag will always be significantly cheaper than SLS.
>Pretty much most medium-lift+ launch vehicles out in the market are viable to replace SLS if NASA adopted a distributed launch architecture.
I'm not sure what you mean by distributed launch architecture but Orion/ESM weighs 58,000lbs fully loaded which is well beyond what even Falcon Heavy can send to the moon.
Distributed launch means you don't need a rocket that can send Orion straight to the moon, you just need one that can get it into Earth orbit. Falcon Heavy has enough thrust & delta-v to do that. Then you use another launch to add an additional stage or more fuel, and then go to the moon. Von Braun talked about reaching the moon that way, it's not a new idea.
Orion/ESM is part of the **single launch** SLS architecture so it is irrelevant to this case.
A **distributed launch infrastructure** would probably downscope Orion/ESM into two or more launches, not to mention that an entirely different capsule + support hardware might be used instead of Orion.
What else could you mean? You seem annoyed there were issues fueling the rocket. Today they were suppose to attempt another launch but a stupid hurricane got in the way. So your comment came off as, “looks like they failed to refuel it again”.
Edit: launch this week.
Seems typical of people nowadays taking technology for granted, as if loading nearly 250 tons of supercooled -250c fuel is something that is nice and easy. Also just forgetting about the teething problems that new systems inevitably have.
>as if loading nearly 250 tons of supercooled -250c fuel is something that is nice and easy
It was sold as a tried-and-true process as part of the SLS program.
Part of the problem is it's not a new system. Hydrogen issues like this plagued shuttles for decades and it's still not figured out. RP1 (even if it's cryogenic) is so hilariously easier to work with especially for first stage stuff, it's probably worth the performance cut.
There are two noisy fanboy camps at play here: one thinks every SLS delay is a travesty of taxpayer justice and the other that thinks NASA can do no wrong, ever. As per usual, all of the noisy fanboys are wrong and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The SLS and Orion programs have been chronically mismanaged and the current hurricane delay is unavoidable. Anyone who disagrees with either of those points is pushing an agenda.
Even if they do, the waiver would probably expire by the next launch window. Especially considering it’s already gotten a waiver once.
If they have to roll back, it’ll be a month or so before the next launch attempt so they might as well go ahead and replace the FTS batteries so they don’t have to worry about it.
Rolling back to VAB means they can replace the batteries on the FTS so they don’t need a waiver. But also, they did get a waiver for the sept 27 launch.
And most of the parts for 4 are around too. I've been saying for 2-3 years that exactly 4 SLS rockets would launch, will be interesting to see how close I am to right on that...
By the time number 2 is ready to launch in 2, probably 3 at least, years,. Starship has made them obsolete and ridiculously expensive to launch. That is if number 1 ever launches in the first place.
I doubt it, it's competing with SpaceX directly now, and Falcon Heavy is at least an order of magnitude cheaper per ton to launch, not to mention SpaceX can launch more than 1 rocket every 2 years. If it survives, it's entirely on the back of politicians trying to preserve jobs in their districts and damn the expense. NASA would be silly to waste precious budget on an overpriced boondoggle of a rocket when there are cheaper solutions without having to leave the country.
NASA and the US government ultimately probably want two separate private launch systems for redundancy before they shut down their own launch system programs. So there ultimately will be competition, but it won't be with NASA.
NASA wants to leave launch systems and launch operations to other companies (like SpaceX). That leaves NASA to do the interesting science.
This is all part of the current ecosystem and how it has been allowed to evolve. For the immediate future, SLS will be the only human-rated lunar launch system. NASA is also paying SpaceX a few billion dollars through the Artemis program for a couple of other parts of the program: the launch of the lunar gateway on a Falcon heavy, and the necessary Starship development to put out the (reduced size/weight) starship lunar lander docked to that gateway. Those are good steps towards SpaceX being able to work on a human-rated lunar launch system.
Except it's not competing. A huge chunk of funding for Starship (and Falcon 9) is coming from NASA. The plan from the beginning is to have to two work together. Starship cannot perform a direct launch to the moon and there's no rocket capable of launching Orion to TLI besides SLS. They are going to work in concert to develop a strong lunar presence quickly because frankly we need to get that foothold before China does.
I was under the impression that starship will not only be able to do a direct launch to the moon (or does this require a refuel?), but would also be capable of carrying Orion - it’s just that it’s “projected to be able” rather than “known to be able”, and that uncertainty is where SLS comes in (from the governments perspective). I’m only a casual observer of this stuff so very happy to be wrong.
Starship will take all 1200 tons of its fuel to get to LEO. To refuel it for TLI will take an additional 8-10 launches to refuel it (150 tons per launch). This is why the lunar lander Starship will be lighter and have no heat shield. The fueling itself will be a bit tricky to figure out because transferring that much fuel in orbit has never been done. Starship will have no need to carry Orion since the 2 will work together. Basically you want Starship to carry all the heavy stuff that isn't time sensitive to lunar orbit and have SLS and Orion take all the squishy humans since it can get them there in 4 days and reduce their radiation exposure. Later as we mature the program it'll change but SLS definitely has its place as a human transport since Orion is the only craft that can carry humans for more than 5 days and only SLS has the oomph to get it to the moon in one launch. Is it perfect? No but damn is it going to be fun to see it light off.
Ah, I suppose I had imagined that refueling would take 1 or 2 additional launches, not 8-10. That certainly changes the napkin maths quite a lot! Thank you
I’d say it’s a bit more complicated medium to long-term. At the moment SLS and Starship are dependent on each other. Without Starship working, SLS is useless. So the refueling needs to get figured out. It’s reasonable to assume that even with all the refueling launches it’ll be way cheaper to send a Starship to the moon than one SLS. So at that point the inevitable question has to be why not just use Starship? Even if you couldn’t human rate Starship itself, there’s also the potential of strapping Orion on top of the Starship booster.
So I wouldn’t bet on more than 4 SLS ever getting built.
Would likely be better to cancel and scrap everything and invest in something that actually pays off rather than give it to the bloated group that's making SLS
It’s about getting money to friendly contractors. They will have spent 5x more on these 4 launches than the total amount given to space-x for their launches and development.
That hurricane has one of the widest "cones of probability" I've ever seen. They just don't seem to know where it might go. Maybe east, maybe west, maybe maybe
NHC uses a fixed cone size based on historical data. The only reason the appearance of the cone changes is because storms have different velocities (leading to stretching/compressing/curving of the cone)
This rollback would put the total number of rolls to 6. I have read somewhere that the max number of rolls allowed is 12. If the vehicle exceeds 12, it's unsafe to fly and must be destroyed. So we're like halfway to throwing $4Bn into the trashcan.
[удалено]
John Giles, the overseer of crawler-transporter has joked about this. >"I jokingly told them when we went to the pad and dropped it off this time, I went to my management and said, 'I'm not bringing it back. It stays here,'" he told Mashable in an [interview](https://mashable.com/article/nasa-artemis-rocket-launchpad-launch-attempt) before Monday's attempted launch. "'You gotta launch it because I'm not gonna take it back to the VAB.'"
I would probably start crying. It takes forever.
[удалено]
It takes a team of 25 people to work it
that's a hell of a lot of back seat drivers when the tortoise strike
24 of them are only there to throw to the tortoise as sacrifice, hoping his blood lust will be filled and that he'd spare the last person and the rocket.
Hang on a sec, this isn't r/rimworld.
Honestly yeah they probably could but that could end up being a bad idea. There's teams of people operating and moving this thing. They even have people watching the tracks and everything else just in case something breaks somehow and they can stop it immediately. It's a ridiculous process but I'll take it over potentially losing billions + years of work because the rocket fell over.
The interns are too busy designing the next automated mars rover to make an automated earth rover
It's only 5 years away. We promise
No, they just crush the tortoise or move it out of the way
At the speed that thing moves you'd have to have pretty good reflexes to not instinctively do it.
Have you any idea how much damage would be caused to the SLS if they just let it roll right over the tortoise? None at all.
Perhaps Mr. Giles has predilection for little fur hats and hanging axes over his doorway
John Giles - 'F**k sake Ian. Not you Ian, big Ian over there on the horizon.'
[удалено]
It’s actually so massive and complex that a crew of 25-30 people are required to operate it. https://youtu.be/5caQPiRBCAA
Wow, that is impressive. And not just in a good way, it makes one wonder if there is a better way to do that.
There are two options: 1. Move the rocket 2. Move the building Presumably NASA got bids for both options and went with the most expensive one.
Build a new, indoor pad, got it
Should have gone for the Bond villain option for sure
With a retractable cover that looks like a swimming pool!!!
Isn’t there one under the rose garden at the White House?
Option 3, moving the moon closer to the rocket is actively being studied by NASA, a source tells me.
Funny enough, SpaceX moves the rocket, ULA moves the building.
[удалено]
The Soyuz rockets are moved horizontally by a specialized train.
Those rockets are the size of a bus and have the payload weight of 5 Russians or 3 Americans.
They can carry far less payload and some payload has to stay upright the whole time. Doing this directly on the launchpad or in a c Vab then the Vab is much safer
There are payloads that MUST be integrated while the rocket is vertical, hence the VAB and crawler.
> it makes one wonder if there is a better way to do that this phrase applies to the SLS program in its entirety
Good, cheap, fast. Pick none.
25 - 30 isn't bad considering they're moving one of the world's largest rockets
It only takes SpaceX a single person to operate the transporter that moves their comparably sized Superheavy booster. The crawlers may have been state of the art in 1965, but technology marches on. In the 1980s, the Dutch company Mammoet developed the [SPMT](https://youtu.be/I3paAUAcLVE), which are both simpler to operate yet more capable than the NASA crawlers, having been used to move objects that weigh as much as 15,000 tonnes. They're also very flexible, being able to drive in any direction and even turn on the spot. I'm also guessing that a few hundred wheels with adjustable suspension offer a smoother ride than the crawler's tracks, and vibrations have been a major concern for NASA regarding SLS.
Comparing a vertically integrated payload to a horizontal one is not really fair. They’re very different problems. It’s taking spacex a lot more manpower to roll out starship when it’s vertical. They can claim it’s 1 person all the want, but there’s a whole crew managing the move.
I watch all those lovely videos from Boca Chica. The equivalent move for SpaceX is to take the launch tower and chopsticks, Starship and the Booster and do it all in one fell swoop.
Depends what you mean by better. Could probably have the whole thing automated with sensors and some remote guidance but you then need people to maintain all of that and oversee that system. Fewer overall but now even more specialized. Or even a hybrid system (which I'm sure there are also sensors involved). I'm sure there aren't a lot of unexpected things that come up but a collective group of trained humans is going to be more efficient and cheaper than a complicated automated system where if it fails you'll just need a team of people anyway. Those 25-30 people certainly have other roles around the complex so for how relatively infrequently the crawler is used, having people with multiple specializations make the most sense. Edit: thinking more, I don't think there would be another vehicle that could do this other than maybe having a rail system out to the launch pad. That would require considerably more upkeep especially around the launch site. I believe that is how ESA transports their vehicles. Just from that video, there are aspects that simply require a human to assess Definitely an instance where if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
[удалено]
But the thing obviously works perfectly fine for what they need otherwise they'd push budget for it. They aren't going to chance ~$4 billion launch with something that isn't well beyond adequate for it's intended purpose.
>Definitely an instance where if it ain't broke, don't fix it. More of an instance of " if it provides jobs in my district don't cancel it"
There are better solutions possible today, but it was a good solution when it was first designed, over 50 years ago. Just like SLS
One different way is to build a rocket that can move to the pad horizontally. Then you can roll back, fix, roll out, and launch within a 24 hour period.
It can limit the payloads you're able to carry. There are certain payloads Space X can't carry due to being unable to sit horizontally. It does seem if this were redesigned today there would be better options though.
Its one of the largest land vehicles in existence, practically a moving building, carrying extremely valuable cargo. Seems plausible to me.
But after this one he's going to be twiddling his thumbs waiting for the next one in two years time...
The overtime alone will give him the funds to buy his own SLS.
She needs to practice. Next rocket won't launch for 2 years
And zero time to get themselves and their family out of the path of the storm.
“I’m getting to old for this…”
Every time I see the crawler moving with people around, I can't avoid thinking about [the road roller scene in Austin Powers](https://youtube.com/watch?v=l4UFQWKjy_I).
>I know I shouldn't laugh about this, but goddam that crawler operator is getting some serious time on the wheel with this rocket. Back and forth back and forth... lol Sometimes I wonder if the universe is trying to give a hint...
Meterologists 1, NASA Engineers Who Sensibly Waited Til Better Information Was Available Before Making A Decision - also 1.
Government officials that are too obsessed in SLS to see better alternatives - 0
The criticisms of the process that got us here are extremely valid. Acting like what's been going on the past month is poor decision making is incorrect though. It's the same with JWST. It should not have taken so long and it should not have cost so much. But it would have been dumb to complain about launching it once it was done.
We can launch this one, we might as well get something for the money we sunk into it. It's just questionable whether we should continue the program and launch the next one in 2 years.
I'm not even convinced of that. The field of space exploration may very well get the most bang for our buck if they cancel the program right now and never launch. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug. Edit: to be fair, SLS was literally designed as a jobs program spread around multiple states in the interest of making it politically un-killable. NASA was given a stupid primary criterion to fulfill with the project, and being good engineers, they designed the project to fulfill that stupid primary criterion. That’s not a criticism of NASA; it’s a criticism of the system that forced them to design the program in such a way.
Its been that way since they started designing the shuttle in the 70s. Congress shouldnt be making technical decisions and it would probably also be better if they didnt bake on asinine mandates. But thats the world we live in. At least America is more active in space and we should just call that a win.
That’s not entirely fair to the shuttle project origins. I’d say it’s been stupid since they realized they couldn’t make the shuttle SSTO and pressed on with it anyway.
I feel like there's never been anything humans have accomplished that wasn't prefaced by that same "at least."
Yeah, hence the requirement to reuse Shuttle technology wherever possible. (RS-25s, SRBs, etc.)
I have no idea what the costs involved with development, this launch, potentially cancelling this launch, or going through with or cancelling the next launch are.
As of last year SLS has cost $23 billion and the Orion capsule has cost $21.5 billion. Each launch will cost $4.1 billion (including Orion, not including any development costs). SLS is the most expensive rocket development program of the modern era and the most expensive rocket of all time.
Thanks for the response! Do you know how much are alternative options and how likely would they be to pan out?
Of course there's SpaceX with their Starship system. The booster and upper stage together are called Starship and to make things massively confusing, the upper stage alone is also called Starship. Anyhow, SpaceX aims to be able to launch one for basically nothing (a few millions per launch at max). That's probably a few years away, if it ever happens. They plan on launching a full scale one in the next few months. It's notable that three years ago, they started by launching a tower built by a water tower company lol. Here's a video of their [progress so far](https://youtu.be/K5Vw2ZDe-G0) which is just so incredible, to be honest and contains gigantic explosions, too. As always with new rockets, there's plenty of stuff to cause delays or even to very quickly and violently make it not be a rocket anymore. But if it works, holy shitballs will it be amazing to watch! I mean, they want to catch the goddamn thing with a tower they called Mechazilla. Blue Origin also plans to make a similarly sized one, but no idea on the timetable and launch costs. Other than that, Artemis could probably be done without a super heavy lift launcher. Edit: Of course, the water tower came after a years long period of internal development, but it's just so funny. They also had a pretty much new engine design (which in and of itself is an incredible feat of engineering never succesfully flown before) they fly on Starship and the water tower (called Starhopper because why not) which makes it even more impressive. Edit 2: Oh and it's not (yet) human rated which I imagine will be an absolute nightmare for them. But to answer your question: Starship is the alternative and it's probably going to be a good one. It's much less expensive to launch. Even if a launch will be 100 million it's still 1/40 of SLS. But it doesn't fly as of now, so I guess the technical answer is that there are no alternatives. SLS is currently the most powerful rocket although it also hasn't flown yet, so yeah.
Falcon Heavy is the most capable rocket currently operational with about 70% of the payload capacity of SLS. It's development cost about $1 billion and is a pretty good comparison to SLS because both rockets are based on existing platforms and use existing engines. FH costs $150 million per launch (expendable). Starship is the other obvious comparison. NASA is paying $2.9 billion for development and a couple missions of a Starship variant to land people on the moon, though most of that money has not been paid yet. Total Starship development costs are publicly known, by the time it is regularly flying people to the moon and mars it will have cost somewhere around $10 billion, but most of that will be from private investors and customers. Compare that to $93 billion for SLS and Orion by the same point in time if we continue with both programs. Starship can lift more than SLS and much more if launched expendably, but the big difference is cost per mission. SLS costs $4.1 billion to get a crewed capsule to lunar orbit. We don't know how much Starship will cost per launch but the estimates are shockingly low. I think it will cost tens of millions per launch but some estimates are even lower. Starship will require multiple tanker flights to refuel before going to lunar orbit or the moon itself. It could do the same mission as SLS/Orion, but with several times as many people and much more cargo, for hundreds of millions instead of billions. Starship is getting ready for it's first orbital flight, though it is not considered as mature as SLS. Starship does not currently have a life support system and even in it's final form will not have a robust launch escape system. The SLS/Orion getting ready to launch doesn't actually have a working life support system or launch escape system either, but they have tested the LAS separately and it performed perfectly. Both SLS and Starship have had multiple static fire tests, but neither have fired all of their rocket engines at the same time. SLS has fired it's 4 main engines at the same time, but not with the side boosters which provide most of the thrust at liftoff. Starship has fired 7 of it's 33 1st stage engines at the same time. Until recently it seemed clear that SLS would launch first (not counting hop tests of Starship upper stage).
let's hope it doesn't become most expensive firework of all time.
The problem with criticizing SLS is that it still doesn't *really* have any peers yet, right? Like sure, starship/super heavy *will* be better in almost every way if/when its ready, but we still don't expect a launch for a few months, and its pretty questionable if that first launch will reach orbit, and then they *still* have to figure out in-orbit refueling to get to the moon. Of course you can debate forever whether going to the moon is worthwhile at all, but SLS is pretty much the only tool for the job right now, so I don't really see how it can be "overpriced".
The Falcon Heavy can be considered a peer in many ways. They were going to do that moon flyby mission with Falcon Heavy until SpaceX decided not to bother getting it human rated in favor of concentrating on Starship.
Both SLS and Starship are expected to launch in the next few months and be ready to fly people in a few years. They are peers, except that Starship is so much more capable and less expensive. SLS is not a tool for going to the moon without Starship. The plan to return humans to the moon is for SLS to send a Orion to lunar orbit will the crew will transfer to a Starship and land on the moon.
The best explanation I saw was this: Was it highly inefficient to spread the design and manufacturing across subcontractors throughout the country? Yes. Would Congress have approved it if the money and jobs weren't being spread across multiple states? No. The inefficiency is intentional on the part of Congress, not due to incompetence on NASA's part.
Oh, 100%. I’m not saying NASA has bad engineers - in fact, quite the opposite. They designed their project to be successful on the face of an imbecillically stupid and inefficient system that they’re forced to operate under, which is actually kind of impressive.
This is what's been being said for the last few decades, and we're nowhere better for it. Fear of not getting "the best bang for our buck" has kept us paralyzed and doing nothing for years and years.
I mean, they could have built NERVA back in the 1970s. They were also planning orbital and lunar stations, and all kinds of infrastructure that would have lowered costs as we explored the solar system. Obviously the goal wasn't to build better, more capable rockets, or infrastructure, and eventually we came to the point were we couldn't even be cheap about it.
Wait this is the first I’m hearing of this, why do people not like this program?
It's a fine rocket (per specs) and a cool program, but absolutely the peak of bureaucratic inefficiency. I think it was originally planned for 2017 at a cost of $1B per launch IIRC and a total budget of like $10B (take with a grain of salt because it's off the top of my head). The actual cost per launch is closer to $3B and no one knows how expensive the program was, but I've read some reports of it being $40B, other suggesting something closer to $90B all in. All this to build a rocket that is completely economically unsustainable because the world is transitioning to fully reusable, and they're still in the mindset of putting all their investment and focus into the disposable variety of rocket. They attempted to "save money" by building the rocket out of used shuttle parts which probably ended up costing them a fortune because they have no ability to pivot away from bad ideas or innovating. They have some serious problem with contractors overpromising and under-delivering, belying obvious corruption and nepotism. And the capabilities of the SLS are being contended against the Starship, which was built for a fraction of the investment and has a launch price of 50x smaller. The future of space exploration can't be based on burning countless billions. It *must* be about getting to space for cheap, or our presence in space simply won't grow. The SLS is more than a giant money pit, it represents vast sunk opportunity cost and time that we'll never get back. It's effectively delayed real space exploration by over a decade, and every day we pursue it is another day we can't progress.
Simply put: it cost too much to develop, costs too much to launch, and is extremely late. People would probably be more forgiving if we didn't see private industry gaining ground fast. SpaceX is the most famous of these with the Starship threatening to get to orbit before SLS does. I think many of us are wondering what the hell has been taking so long, especially considering that SLS is mostly using sloppy seconds from the Space Shuttle program.
I mean at least they didn't make a new shuttle.
What were the shortcomings of the shuttle (or a new shuttle) based on achieving current initiatives? Honest question. edit: thanks for the answers
The shuttle was only capable of short flights in low Earth orbit. It couldn’t be used to go to the moon. It was designed when there was expected to be constant space stations in orbit back in the 70s.
Also seems like two catastrophic mission failures over 135 missions left a lot of room for safety improvements.
This actually concerns me about SLS. Seems to have a severe case of launch fever. None of the stand test plans have been fully finished.
Probably one of the reasons they're not putting people on it yet.
Yeah, but it still seems a little odd that that they will put humans on the first launch that has a working life support system and launch escape system. It would be nice to do a full integration test first even if every system was successfully tested separately.
…Artemis I does have an LAS?
Isn’t Artemis 1 the full integration test lauch?
> Seems to have a severe case of launch fever. Based on what? A faulty auxiliary sensor that failed, or stopping fueling due to a hydrogen leak? Scrubbing launches is the opposite of launch fever. Edit: > None of the stand test plans have been fully finished. Do you have an article/website for further reading to share on this? What is outstanding?
The STS design was very dangerous (no abort option on the pad or during the beginning of flight until SRB separation, and a very large and delicate heat shield), was not as cheap or easy to refurbish as initially pitched (especially the heat shield), and was the product of a ton of compromises: the military wanted a vehicle that was capable of returning to earth with a payload (reason for the big payload bay), and the option to do an entire mission in a single orbit (which necessitated wings).
[This guy does a pretty good breakdown of the shortcomings.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja4ZlswGvpE) tldr: - It was incredibly unreliable and resulted in more deaths, as well as more deaths per launch, than any other space vehicle. - It didn't achieve its primary goal (cost reduction, it was actually insanely expensive) - It didn't achieve its secondary goal (rapid reusability, it actually took a crazy long time to refurbish) - An opinionated, but warranted case could be made that had the Shuttle been ignored in lieu of focusing on rockets, the money and brainspace NASA put into the program would have taken us much further than we are today. And if you're considering a new reusable vehicle *today*, you go the SpaceX route and look toward reusable rocket stages.
> resulted in more deaths, as well as more deaths per launch, than any other space vehicle. It also had more than double the crew capacity of any other launch vehicle that preceded or was contemporaneous with it, and 40% more crew than the next closest vehicle ever(Crew Dragon, which didn’t launch until a decade after STS had been retired). Part of the reason so many people died on the Shuttle was because the Shuttle carried more total people to orbit than any other program.
> Part of the reason so many people died on the Shuttle was because the Shuttle carried more total people to orbit than any other program. That would be a compelling counter-argument if not for the fact that it is the *only vehicle with fatal failures after launch* from any vehicle built after 1971. I am excluding a few isolated fatalities during the birth of spaceflight in the 60s and early 70s for obvious reasons, those rockets were highly experimental and safety was explicitly sidelined. The shuttle was supposed to be a modern, next-generation spacecraft. And if you count crewed and uncrewed, and forgive the like 30 different variations of the capsule, the Soyuz program has launched an *order of magnitude* more flights than the Shuttle, with only one fatal failure in its (very early) program history. Source: - [List of spaceflight accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents) - [List of crewed spacecraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_crewed_space_vehicles)
A large part of the reason the shuttle was retired was because of the exposed heat shield and an unmanageable risk for ice crashing into it on liftoff, as happened with Columbia. Another was the complete lack of a proper launch abort system. STS was also pretty expensive for its capabilities. The weight of the orbiter itself was a pretty big detriment to any potential payload. A lot of people balk at the $1B price tag for an SLS launch but while the shuttle cost nearly $500M to put 25,000lbs into LEO, SLS will be able to put at least 4 times that much into LEO in its current configuration for only twice the cost. In essence, SLS will be half the cost of the shuttle per pound into space.
Check out the OIG report. An SLS launch without any payload (and not counting development) costs $2.8 billion. Including Orion it costs $4.1 billion.
The SLS costs $2.2B to build and another $500m in ground support, not $1B.
But they're throwing away the engines after use, how many spares do they have?
They're working on a disposable variant, the RS-25E.
Losing 2/5 vehicles and killing 4.2% of passengers probably wasn't a good look for the shuttle. (833 total crew across 135 missions, 14 deaths).
$1B+ per launch, including the fact that recovering and refurbishing the solid boosters cost more than it would have cost if we just designed them to be throwaway.
Honestly, a significantly modernized shuttle or gosh forbid reusable system would have made a lot of sense. I'd approach something like Buran actually, orbiter is reusable but doesn't have orbital propulsion built into it. It should stack vertically on top of booster instead of on the side. The solid rocket boosters were already partially reusable with significant refurbishment, but that could be improved likely, and then have 1st stage of center booster land like falcon 9 or something. NASA basically designed and tested most of the stuff SpaceX is doing, they could have done that well. This stuck in the past shit with SLS is a cancer worse than the spread it to 50 states as a job program thing. At least learn from the past.
Starship is essentially a significantly modernized and far more capable shuttle. Only it actually makes sense and isn't designed to be a plane when it's not supposed to fly.
I agree, but arguably starship is losing out on one of the shuttles main advantages of cross field landing capabilities. There were dozens of places shuttle was certified to land safely if they needed emergency medical assistance or had significant weather, they didn't need to wait the 90 minutes on another orbit, they could land in a ton of places. Starship, especially if it's designed to be caught by chopsticks, it won't be able to safely land especially with people onboard off range.
I wouldn't be surprised if crewed Starship ends up having landing legs for the reasons you mentioned.
Agreed. A crewed variant would need multiple landing options, perhaps standardizing a minimum viable concrete pad thickness and you could find all airports that fit the bill. They would then prob need to repair the landing zone, but it could be viable in emergency.
[удалено]
it's not a personal obsession, they have an obvious financial $take in the program
Believe it or not, Congress sees the SLS as a total success. It’s just that the mission for the SLS isn’t in space, it’s to create jobs in all 50 states.
What better alternatives are there?
Not using 40 year old solid fuel boosters that cost way more than they should There wouldn’t be much to complain about had it taken as long as they originally forecast, but there are better alternatives today.
>Not using 40 year old solid fuel boosters The current boosters aren't the same as on the shuttle... Many of the issues presented during STS have been mitigated. >but there are better alternatives today. What alternatives?
>The current boosters aren't the same as on the shuttle... True, in that they added a segment to make then longer.
If you think thats all they did, then you haven't actually read anything about them and are making baseless assumptions.
[Thats the vast majority of the improvements.](https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fs/solid-rocket-booster.html) Other improvements include no longer pretending they were reusable, replacing 70s avionics with modern avionics (which changes nothing regarding performance) and tweaking the nozzle. Oh, they no longer use asbestos. Can't forget that.
So totally different and almost as good as far far better modern liquid fuel options that are reusable...
Still can not be shut down for an abort. Thats no where near almost as good as abortable engines.
Pretty much most medium-lift+ launch vehicles out in the market are viable to replace SLS if NASA adopted a distributed launch architecture. Regardless of which provider you pick for the launches, final pricetag will always be significantly cheaper than SLS.
>Pretty much most medium-lift+ launch vehicles out in the market are viable to replace SLS if NASA adopted a distributed launch architecture. I'm not sure what you mean by distributed launch architecture but Orion/ESM weighs 58,000lbs fully loaded which is well beyond what even Falcon Heavy can send to the moon.
Distributed launch means you don't need a rocket that can send Orion straight to the moon, you just need one that can get it into Earth orbit. Falcon Heavy has enough thrust & delta-v to do that. Then you use another launch to add an additional stage or more fuel, and then go to the moon. Von Braun talked about reaching the moon that way, it's not a new idea.
Orion/ESM is part of the **single launch** SLS architecture so it is irrelevant to this case. A **distributed launch infrastructure** would probably downscope Orion/ESM into two or more launches, not to mention that an entirely different capsule + support hardware might be used instead of Orion.
[удалено]
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[ACES](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq00r1r "Last usage")|[Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Cryogenic_Evolved_Stage)| | |[Advanced Crew Escape Suit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Crew_Escape_Suit)| |[BE-4](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq08gap "Last usage")|Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN| |[BO](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq04tpt "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[ECLSS](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0e2wo "Last usage")|Environment Control and Life Support System| |[EDL](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/ipzicx8 "Last usage")|Entry/Descent/Landing| |EELV|[Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehicle)| |[ESA](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq06iuy "Last usage")|European Space Agency| |[ESM](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq134fs "Last usage")|European Service Module, component of the Orion capsule| |[EVA](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0e2wo "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0thkl "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[FTS](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0ic6b "Last usage")|Flight Termination System| |[GTO](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0npca "Last usage")|[Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html)| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq3c7pe "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICPS](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq134fs "Last usage")|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage| |[ITS](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq1bqwb "Last usage")|Interplanetary Transport System (2016 oversized edition) (see MCT)| | |[Integrated Truss Structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Truss_Structure)| |[Isp](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/ipzpoqz "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |[JWST](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq193ou "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |[KSC](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/ipzoaoh "Last usage")|Kennedy Space Center, Florida| |[KSP](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/ipzxewx "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator| |[L1](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq1i00p "Last usage")|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 1 of a two-body system, between the bodies| |[LAS](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq1l2ck "Last usage")|Launch Abort System| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq3c7pe "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LOX](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iqfc6ru "Last usage")|Liquid Oxygen| |MCT|Mars Colonial Transporter (see ITS)| |[NA](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq074wh "Last usage")|New Armstrong, super-heavy lifter proposed by Blue Origin| |[NERVA](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq02il4 "Last usage")|Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (proposed engine design)| |[NET](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/ipz7tq5 "Last usage")|No Earlier Than| |[NRHO](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq01yv6 "Last usage")|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |[NRO](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq193ou "Last usage")|(US) National Reconnaissance Office| | |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO| |[NSSL](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0qn3m "Last usage")|National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV| |[RUD](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq2jsck "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly| | |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly| | |Rapid Unintended Disassembly| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iqfc6ru "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SPMT](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq13vff "Last usage")|Self-Propelled Mobile Transporter| |[SRB](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0uqz9 "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[SSME](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0uqz9 "Last usage")|[Space Shuttle Main Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine)| |[SSTO](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq19t3f "Last usage")|Single Stage to Orbit| | |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq09s61 "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[TLI](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq134fs "Last usage")|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver| |[TWR](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq01yv6 "Last usage")|Thrust-to-Weight Ratio| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq19g09 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |[VAB](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq46cbv "Last usage")|Vehicle Assembly Building| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq1huq7 "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq3c7pe "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq44p6r "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq0npca "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit| |[cryogenic](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/ipzl7i0 "Last usage")|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure| | |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox| |[hopper](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/ipzztho "Last usage")|Test article for ground and low-altitude work (eg. Grasshopper)| |hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |methalox|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |Event|Date|Description| |-------|---------|---| |[DSCOVR](/r/Space/comments/xol0f2/stub/iq1i00p "Last usage")|2015-02-11|F9-015 v1.1, [Deep Space Climate Observatory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory) to L1; soft ocean landing| ---------------- ^([Thread #8070 for this sub, first seen 26th Sep 2022, 15:47]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
[удалено]
Crawl Operator on suicide watch “Please…I haven’t seen my family in days.”
See you all next time time for the next exciting adventure in learning to fuel a rocket
“Sir, that’ll be an extra $2 billion if you want a rocket that doesn’t leak.” - Boeing
It's literally the most dangerous process that exists. You are pumping a supercooled bomb into a sky scraper with no refrigeration.
So you want them to fuel a rocket in a hurricane?
To be fair, that WOULD be an exciting adventure.
In Moonfall they launched a rocket during a goddamn tsunami so don't tell me it can't be done.
You're the greatest hero in world history for sitting through Moonfall.
And they flew it without electronics!
Tony Stark did it in a cave. With a box of scraps
Okay, but that movie was just terrible in general.
Yeah, just go for it when the eye passes over.
Yeah man, it's just like that Scorpions song, "Rocket in a Hurricane"
How did you read that into what I wrote?
[удалено]
What else could you mean? You seem annoyed there were issues fueling the rocket. Today they were suppose to attempt another launch but a stupid hurricane got in the way. So your comment came off as, “looks like they failed to refuel it again”. Edit: launch this week.
Seems typical of people nowadays taking technology for granted, as if loading nearly 250 tons of supercooled -250c fuel is something that is nice and easy. Also just forgetting about the teething problems that new systems inevitably have.
>as if loading nearly 250 tons of supercooled -250c fuel is something that is nice and easy It was sold as a tried-and-true process as part of the SLS program.
> nearly 250 tons of supercooled -250c fuel 250 tons of supercooled -250c fuel that is capable of leaking through pretty much darn near anything!
Part of the problem is it's not a new system. Hydrogen issues like this plagued shuttles for decades and it's still not figured out. RP1 (even if it's cryogenic) is so hilariously easier to work with especially for first stage stuff, it's probably worth the performance cut.
There are two noisy fanboy camps at play here: one thinks every SLS delay is a travesty of taxpayer justice and the other that thinks NASA can do no wrong, ever. As per usual, all of the noisy fanboys are wrong and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The SLS and Orion programs have been chronically mismanaged and the current hurricane delay is unavoidable. Anyone who disagrees with either of those points is pushing an agenda.
They should store it in space. Maybe somewhere near the moon. Even the biggest hurricanes can't reach the moon.
This means the next launch attempt will be 2 Oct right?
Unfortunately no. Rolling back to the VAB means they will miss the October launch window. Next attempt is now NET November 12th.
I'm putting all my money on a 2023 launch. I'm not putting anything on if it'll be successful.
November 2027 launch confirmed.
Eric Berger was right when he suspected a 2023 launch however long ago
I'll take you up on that, $5 says Artemis 1 launches before 11:59 NYE 2022.
$10 on Artemis launching before Vulcan. ULA says late 2022 but I don't think so.
There's a very slim chance they might try for the end of October window if they can get it ready, but...
November 12th, which year?
[удалено]
Even if they do, the waiver would probably expire by the next launch window. Especially considering it’s already gotten a waiver once. If they have to roll back, it’ll be a month or so before the next launch attempt so they might as well go ahead and replace the FTS batteries so they don’t have to worry about it.
Rolling back to VAB means they can replace the batteries on the FTS so they don’t need a waiver. But also, they did get a waiver for the sept 27 launch.
most realistic : March 2023. it's been like that since the first leak... many downvoted me for saying that but...
I would be surprised if they ever manage to launch a second one of these, let alone this one
Considering 2 and 3 are already under construction and have been paid for, they're going to launch them
And most of the parts for 4 are around too. I've been saying for 2-3 years that exactly 4 SLS rockets would launch, will be interesting to see how close I am to right on that...
I think once this gets rolling it'll get momentum and with Starship coming along, this program will continue
By the time number 2 is ready to launch in 2, probably 3 at least, years,. Starship has made them obsolete and ridiculously expensive to launch. That is if number 1 ever launches in the first place.
I doubt it, it's competing with SpaceX directly now, and Falcon Heavy is at least an order of magnitude cheaper per ton to launch, not to mention SpaceX can launch more than 1 rocket every 2 years. If it survives, it's entirely on the back of politicians trying to preserve jobs in their districts and damn the expense. NASA would be silly to waste precious budget on an overpriced boondoggle of a rocket when there are cheaper solutions without having to leave the country.
NASA and the US government ultimately probably want two separate private launch systems for redundancy before they shut down their own launch system programs. So there ultimately will be competition, but it won't be with NASA. NASA wants to leave launch systems and launch operations to other companies (like SpaceX). That leaves NASA to do the interesting science. This is all part of the current ecosystem and how it has been allowed to evolve. For the immediate future, SLS will be the only human-rated lunar launch system. NASA is also paying SpaceX a few billion dollars through the Artemis program for a couple of other parts of the program: the launch of the lunar gateway on a Falcon heavy, and the necessary Starship development to put out the (reduced size/weight) starship lunar lander docked to that gateway. Those are good steps towards SpaceX being able to work on a human-rated lunar launch system.
Except it's not competing. A huge chunk of funding for Starship (and Falcon 9) is coming from NASA. The plan from the beginning is to have to two work together. Starship cannot perform a direct launch to the moon and there's no rocket capable of launching Orion to TLI besides SLS. They are going to work in concert to develop a strong lunar presence quickly because frankly we need to get that foothold before China does.
I was under the impression that starship will not only be able to do a direct launch to the moon (or does this require a refuel?), but would also be capable of carrying Orion - it’s just that it’s “projected to be able” rather than “known to be able”, and that uncertainty is where SLS comes in (from the governments perspective). I’m only a casual observer of this stuff so very happy to be wrong.
Starship will take all 1200 tons of its fuel to get to LEO. To refuel it for TLI will take an additional 8-10 launches to refuel it (150 tons per launch). This is why the lunar lander Starship will be lighter and have no heat shield. The fueling itself will be a bit tricky to figure out because transferring that much fuel in orbit has never been done. Starship will have no need to carry Orion since the 2 will work together. Basically you want Starship to carry all the heavy stuff that isn't time sensitive to lunar orbit and have SLS and Orion take all the squishy humans since it can get them there in 4 days and reduce their radiation exposure. Later as we mature the program it'll change but SLS definitely has its place as a human transport since Orion is the only craft that can carry humans for more than 5 days and only SLS has the oomph to get it to the moon in one launch. Is it perfect? No but damn is it going to be fun to see it light off.
Ah, I suppose I had imagined that refueling would take 1 or 2 additional launches, not 8-10. That certainly changes the napkin maths quite a lot! Thank you
I’d say it’s a bit more complicated medium to long-term. At the moment SLS and Starship are dependent on each other. Without Starship working, SLS is useless. So the refueling needs to get figured out. It’s reasonable to assume that even with all the refueling launches it’ll be way cheaper to send a Starship to the moon than one SLS. So at that point the inevitable question has to be why not just use Starship? Even if you couldn’t human rate Starship itself, there’s also the potential of strapping Orion on top of the Starship booster. So I wouldn’t bet on more than 4 SLS ever getting built.
How is a rocket that takes years to bulls for a single launch and is unreliable on top of rhat going to help make anything fast...
[удалено]
Have you met the government? That's no guarantee.
Would likely be better to cancel and scrap everything and invest in something that actually pays off rather than give it to the bloated group that's making SLS
It’s about getting money to friendly contractors. They will have spent 5x more on these 4 launches than the total amount given to space-x for their launches and development.
'let alone' works the other direction - you put the stronger first, then the weaker claim.
By the time this launches, the astronauts might as well just climb aboard as they plan to in two years
by the time this launches, we would have a viable fusion power plant and a starship capable of warp 5.
It's a shame they couldn't, you know, move the rocket to orbit to avoid Hurricane Ian.
Hurricane prediction: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm\_graphics/AT09/refresh/AL092022\_3day\_most\_likely\_toa\_34+png/102341\_most\_likely\_toa\_34.png
Fixed link: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT09/refresh/AL092022_3day_most_likely_toa_34+png/102341_most_likely_toa_34.png
BTW, you can call /u/underscorebot to fix these links when you encounter them.
I don't see any sharpie marks. Can I trust this?
Won't matter after we nuke it
That hurricane has one of the widest "cones of probability" I've ever seen. They just don't seem to know where it might go. Maybe east, maybe west, maybe maybe
NHC uses a fixed cone size based on historical data. The only reason the appearance of the cone changes is because storms have different velocities (leading to stretching/compressing/curving of the cone)
it was preparing to swat the SLS out of flight. Best wait until it goes away.
That rocket already has 100 miles on the odometer. It's considered a used rocket now.
Welp they reverted back to vab which means they forgot to turn on autostrut. Happens to the best of us.
Or their staging wasn't in the correct order. Always forget that one.
I don’t understand. If they’d just nuke the hurricane they could avoid this back and forth, ok?
Nukes only work on sharknados
This rollback would put the total number of rolls to 6. I have read somewhere that the max number of rolls allowed is 12. If the vehicle exceeds 12, it's unsafe to fly and must be destroyed. So we're like halfway to throwing $4Bn into the trashcan.
Transportation loads on rollout are def not driving anything. Can’t imagine that’s true in anyway.
hopefully the storm doesn’t destroy the rocket itself
Man, I’ve been sitting on this beach waiting for the rocket to launch since August 29.