SLS and Orion

[Voyager275]

Do you think that NASA is just wasting their time building these. Personally I am excited for the Falcon Heavy from Spacex.

[Frozen_Heart]

Yes and no. Though I don't think highly of the SLS Orion system due to the fact it is no more advanced than the Saturn V in the 60s (apart from the electronics), I think starting from scratch yet again would be even worse.

Nasa has decided to commit to this course and wiping it and then spending another 20 or more years developing something would make the organisation loose all purpose in the publics eyes.

I also question the ability of Nasa to make anything better... they are so bogged down in red tape that innovation is very difficult for them due to how long it would take them and how much it would cost them.

[Budgie]

I don't see it as a waste of time, because having a heavy lift rocket is better than not having one. But I agree with critics that a cheaper solution could probably have been found. But I will always support Nasa, etc. rockets and missions. Private companies will have a very important role in our future in space, but I hope government agencies will lead the push to spread ourselves across the solar system, through probes and landers

[Dkmdlb]

I don't see it as a waste of time, because having a heavy lift rocket is better than not having one.

Yes, if you ignore the cost of building a heavy lifter, it definitely is. If you consider the actual cost of building it, as well as the opportunity cost... well, then the answer is 'it depends.'

[tater]

It is pork, plain and simple. Since the Washington administration we've seen the same model of spending, and SLS/Orion are no different. NASA had to sign off on it to get a budget, and the people funding secured pork in the right districts.

[Linear]

Cost per launch is absolutely horrifically large, falcon heavy would be much cheaper.

Looks cool and has a lot of power.

10/10 would buy again.

[Sampa]

I don't see it as a waste of time, because having a heavy lift rocket is better than not having one. But I agree with critics that a cheaper solution could probably have been found. But I will always support Nasa, etc. rockets and missions. Private companies will have a very important role in our future in space, but I hope government agencies will lead the push to spread ourselves across the solar system, through probes and landers

I agree. I always have a firm belief that NASA should be able to explore a world/moon we are thinking of eventually colonizing BEFORE we begin building the colony.

[Cirocco]

Hmmm... I'm not the biggest fan of the SLS, but I don't know all the details about it or its construction/design process so I withold judgement on it.

As for Orion, well I don't think that's a waste of time. Mostly because it should allow for human transportation beyond LEO once fully tested, which I believe no-one in the world is really capable of right now (I could very much be wrong about that one). Even if possibly it isn't the best way, at least there's some research going into space travel beyond our own planet, and that's a good thing in my book.

[Nibb31]

The problem isn't that SLS or Orion exist. The problem is that there are no missions for them.

Orion was originally designed to return to the Moon. When Constellation was canned, its mission profile became exploration with 21-day life support. There aren't that many places you can go BEO in 21 days except the Moon. To do anything else than a lunar flyby, Orion is going to need either a mission module (a lander or a hab) or an artificial destination (the ARM asteroid or a deep space station). Those would need a development lead time of at least 10 years, and there will be no development funds available until SLS is finished and the ISS program ends.

After EM-1 and EM-2, Orion is probably going to be mothballed until its cancelled. Nobody can afford to pay for the infrastructure of a heavy-lift rocket and manned spacecraft that sitting in a hangar waiting for a mission.

Falcon Heavy suffers the same problem as SLS by the way: the lack of payloads. There are no 50-ton payloads in the pipeline. It might find a market for the 20-ton category (competitor to Ariane and Proton) with a comfortable margin for the flyback boosters, but it remains to be seen if that will be competitive.

[Bill Phil]

The problem is that this is old stuff. We should have had a replacement for shuttle before it was retired.

Let alone the shuttle itself. A vehicle that has about the payload of a Saturn Ib, with the complexity and aize of a Saturn V.

At least SLS is a rocket. We should be focusing on making rockets cheaper. Let's over engineer the crap out of them!

[Nibb31]

Yeah but NASA couldn't afford to develop a new vehicle while it still had to keep paying for both the shuttle and the ISS. They had to cancel the shuttle to fund SLS.

Now NASA can't afford to develop mission hardware for SLS while still paying for both SLS and the ISS. They will have to wait until they cancel the ISS to fund SLS missions.

[Frozen_Heart]

Edit: No I derped and didn't finish reading the thing I was quoting and criticising...

Sorry, :/

[Reddragon]

SLS and Orion will only really be picked up when NASA either gets more funding or ends the ISS program 2024. I don't know what the launch cost will be for SLS itself but I'm sure they can't afford it for now and there won't be any serious budget raise in the near future (which is a shame).

[sp1989]

My feeling is that the more space vehicles the better.

[tater]

It's important to remember that what NASA would prefer to spend money on has little bearing on what they are required to spend money on. Any decision involves which districts need to be bought off. That's the reality of spending other people's money, and always has been. It's why the first 6 frigates of the USN were all built in different shipyards in different states, using wood and parts from yet more states.

NASA would likely prefer to buy spacecraft developed without using ANY of their own budget, for example, but that doesn't mean the people controlling their budget want that when they have powerful contributors and interests that are with Lockmart, or Boeing.

[Moon Goddess]

It's important to remember that what NASA would prefer to spend money on has little bearing on what they are required to spend money on. Any decision involves which districts need to be bought off. That's the reality of spending other people's money, and always has been. It's why the first 6 frigates of the USN were all built in different shipyards in different states, using wood and parts from yet more states.

NASA would likely prefer to buy spacecraft developed without using ANY of their own budget, for example, but that doesn't mean the people controlling their budget want that when they have powerful contributors and interests that are with Lockmart, or Boeing.

Which is why we're stuck with the SLS, Shuttle was sourced all over the country so that it would be politically untenable to cancel, it worked but also meant the only option we have for replacement is the SLS that is adapted from Shuttle parts thus sourced all over the country, So if you ask if the SLS is a waste of time and want to replace it with the Falcon Heavy, you're mistaking what the purpose of the SLS is. It's not about heavy lift capacity, it's about reelection. Falcon Heavy isn't going to get anyone reelected.

[DunaRocketeer]

Are we stuck with SLS? While it's true that SLS is a political rocket (no adequately funded payloads or well defined missions), I can't help but feel that it doesn't have that much political sway compared to the shuttle. Spaceflight is so low down the list of political priorities, and the number of senators and congressmen that are notable spaceflight supporters is dwindling, that if Falcon Heavy ends up being a success, I don't see what future the SLS has. It still doesn't address the issue of payloads and missions, of course.

To be honest, it's all a waste; unless a government is willing to put up the cash for a proper human spaceflight program, it shouldn't be attempted at all. We sure as hell aren't going anywhere if things continue with the status quo.

[Kamik423]

After EM-1 and EM-2, Orion is probably going to be mothballed until its cancelled. Nobody can afford to pay for the infrastructure of a heavy-lift rocket and manned spacecraft that sitting in a hangar waiting for a mission.

I don't think so, It is about having the hardware, and the possibilities. When the Space Shuttle was built they did not have 135 missions in Stock either. NASA's journey to Mars may be massively underfunded, but at some point a mission will happen, and then they can rely on Orion, a vehicle that has capabilities to withstand those stresses and radiation in deep space.

As of SLS: the ISS won't exist forever, and when the time comes we will have a vehicle that could launch 10 Destiny laboratories in one single launch. Or the whole ISS in just above three missions. (If you have a big enough fairing )

[Nibb31]

"having" hardware means maintaining the infrastructure, the production facilities, the trained personnel, the logistic channels, and so on. It costs billions of dollars per year in fixed costs whether you fly or not. The SLS program is based on 1 flight every two years, yet there are only two flights that are currently planned, EM-1 in 2017 and EM-2 in 2021.

It takes approximately a decade to develop and build a spacecraft. To fly another mission on SLS in 2023, the hardware should already be in development, but it isn't. No payload means no flights. No administration can justify the infrastructure expense just to maintain a hypothetical capability without actually using it.

[peadar1987]

It takes approximately a decade to develop and build a spacecraft. To fly another mission on SLS in 2023, the hardware should already be in development, but it isn't. No payload means no flights. No administration can justify the infrastructure expense just to maintain a hypothetical capability without actually using it.

Two words: Nuclear deterrent.

(Although I do actually agree with you on the prospects of SLS)

[Nibb31]

Well, yeah, no administration except the DoD

[FishInferno]

The problem is that NASA is doing this the wrong way. You cannot say "we will make SLS, SEP, habitats, Orion, and hope that a Mars mission is possible with all of that." you have to say "Ok, we need to get to Mars. Now what do we need to get there?"

[Frida Space]

Bill Nye just said an intelligent thing. "I was under a lot of pressure to criticize the SLS but the people doing it know what they're doing." I agree with people above me, NASA probably hasn't planned out things as it should have, but I think we're being overcritical, we should support and encourage NASA. I mean, they're already halfway in building it, there's no going back now, so we might as well cheer for them.

[Budgie]

Bill Nye just said an intelligent thing. "I was under a lot of pressure to criticize the SLS but the people doing it know what they're doing." I agree with people above me, NASA probably hasn't planned out things as it should have, but I think we're being overcritical, we should support and encourage NASA. I mean, they're already halfway in building it, there's no going back now, so we might as well cheer for them.

Agree with this 100%

[Reddragon]

Bill Nye just said an intelligent thing. "I was under a lot of pressure to criticize the SLS but the people doing it know what they're doing." I agree with people above me, NASA probably hasn't planned out things as it should have, but I think we're being overcritical, we should support and encourage NASA. I mean, they're already halfway in building it, there's no going back now, so we might as well cheer for them.

I don't think most of us are critical about NASA in respect of SLS and Orion but the politics behind it and how nobody in decisive positions wants to raise the budget for the agency yet everybody waits for miracles to happen. I'm 100% behind the idea that NASA could get a lot more. And by that I mean even two times the budget they receive annually.