What do you think of the SLS?

[SargeRho]

The Shuttle program also failed nearly all of its mission goals, duxwing. And killed more people than all other crewed launch systems.

[Red Fang]

SLS has been started to late. Instead of going for the DIRECT proposal and working on from the, there was the Constellation program that was both a conceptual failiure, and a political one. Had the SLS/DIRECT been started instead, US would have a heavy launcher now/very soon, and NASA would have been able to start preparing for missions years ago. With such a delay, even though the program is not over budget, it got expencive. ... though, Delta IV heavy is not much cheaper, either.

The advantage of such a heavy launcher, if it flies is obvious. Bigger payload, means less time in development and/or fewer flights for certain mission types, such as building space station to replace ISS. It is necessary for launching manned BEO missions, though, SLS will probably beu nable to pull it of in a single launch, with projected 70-75 LEO capacity. It will proably see the fate of Energia or linger on for a decade or two, with few missions. Maybe, just maybe, the next US administration might try to score some political points by giving SLS propper missions/payloads.

[check]

It's an awesome rocket to nowhere. Spend a decade developing the rocket and then what? Another decade developing a payload? The two should have been developed in concert.

[Duxwing]

The Shuttle program also failed nearly all of its mission goals, duxwing. And killed more people than all other crewed launch systems.

What mission goals did it fail? The Shuttle also lifted more people than all other crew launch systems, making its two failures of normal proportion; moreover, at such low failure rates as 1.5%, noise becomes indistinguishable from signal.

-Duxwing

[KASASpace]

I say it's too idiotic.

Let's look at it:

It has taken a decade for the "finalized design" (counting Constellation, which is the disabled brother of the SLS) to even come out of hiding.

And one launch every couple of years? Even the Saturn C-5 beat that, and it's payload was smaller, but it did a similar job.

It took a few years for the Saturn 1 to take off, albeit with a dummy second stage. But it was there soon.

Plus, we don't have the S-V anymore, no one knows how to build it. All the papers were lost. That's why they had to look at an old F-1 to do a study for F-1As.

Now, this is a big waste of time building one huge rocket like this. Especially with an LH2 core stage. SERIOUSLY! That rocket alone could probably wipe out a decently sized town!

And what if on the first launch (if it launches at all, I think it's going to get cancelled) it explodes. All the funding evaporates.

[ScallopPotato]

Currently, only the two test flights EM-1 in 2017 and EM-2 in 2021 are manifested. After that, NASA plans on a maximum flight rate of one launch per year. Only two Orion service modules have been ordered from ESA. There are no missions for the SLS, no payloads, and no money to develop any until SLS is operational. It takes time to develop payloads and mission modules, which means that there will be a gap of several years between EM-2 and any future missions. It is unlikely that it will survive that gap.

I would add that the SLS is a possible launcher for the Mars Sample Return Mission and the Europa Clipper, but that's still only 4 launches total. There is a lot of missions to be done, technologies developed and SCIENCE collected in order to prepare for a mars mission.

I stated this earlier, but I think that a commercial heavy launch vehicle competition (SDHLV vs SpaceX BFRs vs ULA phase II) would've been a better idea than going straight for a SDHLV,

Technologies like cryofuel storage, solar electric tugs, NERVAs, etc are needed for a Manned Mars Mission but they are absolutely required for BLEO payloads when using the ever so popular Falcon Heavy or the fuel depot strategy. The logic seems to be that the cheaper Falcon Heavy will free up money to develop fuel depots and VASIMR tugs and various other payloads. Personally, I think that fuel depots need to be developed anyway as they are a win-win for both manned and unmanned spaceflight.

[Duxwing]

I say it's too idiotic.

Let's look at it:

It has taken a decade for the "finalized design" (counting Constellation, which is the disabled brother of the SLS) to even come out of hiding.

And one launch every couple of years? Even the Saturn C-5 beat that, and it's payload was smaller, but it did a similar job.

It took a few years for the Saturn 1 to take off, albeit with a dummy second stage. But it was there soon.

I did the same thing in Kerbal Space Program, and I am happy with my results. My similarly-developed universal interplanetary tug system can put 6 Kerbals or ten tons anywhere in the Kerbolar system.

Plus, we don't have the S-V anymore, no one knows how to build it. All the papers were lost. That's why they had to look at an old F-1 to do a study for F-1As.

Why were the papers not kept? O_O

Now, this is a big waste of time building one huge rocket like this. Especially with an LH2 core stage. SERIOUSLY! That rocket alone could probably wipe out a decently sized town!

The same could be said of Delta-IV.

And what if on the first launch (if it launches at all, I think it's going to get cancelled) it explodes. All the funding evaporates.

The funding of exploding craft does not necessarily evaporate: Apollo 1 killed its crew, and Apollo 11 walked on the Moon.

-Duxwing

[architeuthis]

I say it's too idiotic.

Let's look at it:

It has taken a decade for the "finalized design" (counting Constellation, which is the disabled brother of the SLS) to even come out of hiding.

And one launch every couple of years? Even the Saturn C-5 beat that, and it's payload was smaller, but it did a similar job.

It took a few years for the Saturn 1 to take off, albeit with a dummy second stage. But it was there soon.

Plus, we don't have the S-V anymore, no one knows how to build it. All the papers were lost. That's why they had to look at an old F-1 to do a study for F-1As.

Now, this is a big waste of time building one huge rocket like this. Especially with an LH2 core stage. SERIOUSLY! That rocket alone could probably wipe out a decently sized town!

And what if on the first launch (if it launches at all, I think it's going to get cancelled) it explodes. All the funding evaporates.

It is a silly urban legend that NASA lost the Saturn V blueprints (wake up sheeple! lol). On the contrary NASA put in a pretty unprecedented amount of effort to document everything when they shut down the Saturn V production line (at the time NASA administrator Thomas Paine assumed the shutdown would be temporary and wanted to retain the ability to reproduce the factory tooling as rapidly as possible). They still have all of that stuff. Blueprints are only a piece of the manufacturing puzzle at any rate. The thing is the engineering has progressed since the 1970's and SLS will have roughly Saturn V like performance, but at a fraction of the cost. The difference between now and then is during the Space Race NASA's budget was proportionally 10 times higher than it is now (literally). Nobody wants to build the old F-1s, as impressive as they were, we can do alot better these days in terms of performance and cost.

Also, why are you worried about hydrogen? Cryogenic upper stages are common in many launch vehicles. The Saturn V's second and third stages were cryogenic for instance, as is the upper stage of the Atlas 5 and of the Delta 4, as well as the core stages of the Space Shuttle and the Ariane 5. Frankly I'd be alot more concerned about the nitrogen tetraoxide/UDMH/red fuming nitric acid used by Russian launch vehicles.

Edited April 25, 2014 by architeuthis

[jwenting]

The shuttle, however expensive, did its job and killed only two crews during one-hundred-thirty-five flights.

---

On topic, I regret my vote. NASA had few alternatives: aspargus-staging Common Booster Cores provides too many failure points, and rebuilding the Saturn V is impossible. Whereas a single-core, two-and-a-half stage lifter is sufficient and simple, and its SRBs are not inherently dangerous. In my limited KSP experience, SLS parts have made lifting enormous payloads almost trivial and could greatly accelerate my LKO development. This rocket is to nowhere but the future.

-Duxwing

you show your ignorance.

Concorde "only killed 1 crew and load of passengers". That was considered enough to order the type retired.

Why? Because there were so few of them.

2 hull losses out of 6 or so built is a lot, it's 1/3 of the fleet.

If 1/3 of all Soyuz craft built had been lost...

Or 1/3 of all Gemini or Apollo craft...

Your limited KSP experience means nothing. The KSP SLS parts are game modified versions of theoretical parts that have never been ground tested let alone flown.

There's also, as already pointed out, no mission for it.

It's too expensive, too unreliable by design, just another NASA prestige project with no real goal but to show that "we can still do it".

If NASA wants to launch something that size they can far cheaper contract for a Falcon Heavy or Atlas V, both of which would be cheaper to design, construct, and build, cheaper and more reliable to operate.

Which is why NASA isn't going to get any contracts for payloads for the SLS. Why pay more just for an increased chance of your billion dollar satellite ending up as fireworks over the Florida coast?

It's just another money sink to buy some politicians some votes in the next election cycle.

[tychochallenge]

That was back in the 1960's when space was on the front headlines of the papers. Now its just gay marriage and abortion. The SLS has been posted on the Congress wiki site as 'unimportant'. It may as well be a miracle if SLS is tested at all, or it will turn out like Energia; 1 or 2 unmanned test flights, and its cancelled.

[Klingon Admiral]

It's just another money sink to buy some politicians some votes in the next election cycle.

Democracy, it just doesn't work.

[Mitchz95]

Waste of time, effort, and money. I think NASA should just contract private companies like SpaceX to design heavy launchers, and use them to build ships like the Nautilus-X. That would go a long way to revive enthusiasm for space exploration.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Mitchz95

[Dodgey]

you show your ignorance.

Concorde "only killed 1 crew and load of passengers". That was considered enough to order the type retired.

Why? Because there were so few of them.

2 hull losses out of 6 or so built is a lot, it's 1/3 of the fleet.

If 1/3 of all Soyuz craft built had been lost...

Or 1/3 of all Gemini or Apollo craft...

-snip-

The Concorde was already on the way out due to multiple issues, including out dated hardware, maintaince costs, the low popularity of it and the limitations of supersonic flight due to noise complaints, it was a inefficent and noisy aircraft, the crash was just the straw that broke the camels back. It doesn't matter that a third of the fleet was destroyed, fractions mean nothing without context. A group with 1 000 000 members could have a 5% increase in membership where as I could make a group with 3 people and have a 200% increase in memebership, which is more impressive? What matters is the actual safety record of the craft and the reasons why it was destroyed, which by the way was mostly beurocacy. If a flaw is discovered in an aircrash after an accident and there're 7835 ish aircraft flying (Boeing 737) it doesn't matter that it was only a tiny fraction of the aircraft that crashed. My point is that to say look, one third of the fleet has crashed, that means the craft is horrible because so many of them have crashed, is just fundamentally flawed. Yes the Space Shuttle was inefficient and poorly designed, but it wasn't the death trap you are making it out to be.

[shynung]

I REALLY wish they didn't repeat the N1 explosion...

[Duxwing]

you show your ignorance.

Concorde "only killed 1 crew and load of passengers". That was considered enough to order the type retired.

Why? Because there were so few of them.

2 hull losses out of 6 or so built is a lot, it's 1/3 of the fleet.

If 1/3 of all Soyuz craft built had been lost...

Or 1/3 of all Gemini or Apollo craft...

What Dodgey said, and the same could be said for cars. You're also ignoring that the Shuttle flew 135 times: spaceflight is so dangerous that, however safe your ship, you will lose a hull or two.

Your limited KSP experience means nothing. The KSP SLS parts are game modified versions of theoretical parts that have never been ground tested let alone flown.

If you want me to state it directly:

Ceteris paribus, simpler is safer.

SLS is simpler.

Therefore, ceteris paribus, SLS is safer.

There's also, as already pointed out, no mission for it.

There's plenty of missions; e.g., lunar exploration, heavy lifting.

It's too expensive, too unreliable by design, just another NASA prestige project with no real goal but to show that "we can still do it".

Where is your evidence for these claims? Especially considering that you necessarily doubt speculation, which would include such claims as "too unreliable by design".

If NASA wants to launch something that size they can far cheaper contract for a Falcon Heavy or Atlas V, both of which would be cheaper to design, construct, and build, cheaper and more reliable to operate.

No, they couldn't. SLS is bigger than both Falcon Heavy and Atlas V, and retrofitting those designs with extra boosters would incur huge maintenance or parts costs and be so Kerbal as to be dangerous.

Which is why NASA isn't going to get any contracts for payloads for the SLS. Why pay more just for an increased chance of your billion dollar satellite ending up as fireworks over the Florida coast?

Where is your evidence?

It's just another money sink to buy some politicians some votes in the next election cycle.

Your outlook seems all sad, all the time. You OK?

-Duxwing

[Seret]

There's plenty of missions; e.g., lunar exploration, heavy lifting.

Not a lot that's actually planned or budgeted though. It's does look in serious risk of becoming a white elephant.

[Duxwing]

Not a lot that's actually planned or budgeted though. It's does look in serious risk of becoming a white elephant.

That risk might change once SLS lifts off: perhaps Congress worries about putting the payload before the lifter.

-Duxwing

[Seret]

That risk might change once SLS lifts off: perhaps Congress worries about putting the payload before the lifter.

Or it might not, that's my point. As I said up at the top: "if you build it, they will come" is not a sensible way to do business.

The only reason they should even be building a giant lifter is if they had some giant payloads they absolutely had to launch. That's why we built the Saturn V, because it was an integrated part of a programme that required it. I'm not quite sure what SLS is being built for.

[sgt_flyer]

well, for the moment, we have nothing that would be able to put into orbit complex industrial style machinery - maybe that would be the occasion to try to set up Orbital facilites capable of building things

[Nibb31]

Congress won't come up with a huge magical budget for NASA the moment SLS comes online. That's not how things work. Besides, the infrastructure budget for SLS will keep NASA bogged down.

First of all, aerospace projects rarely take less than a decade to be developed. That means that if Congress suddenly approves Skylab II or DSH or a Mars mission in 2017, it won't fly before 2027, meaning that SLS will be sitting around gathering dust during all that time. In fact it won't, because Congress won't allow the infrastructure expense and will cancel it well before any payloads are ready.

[78stonewobble]

I think that the SLS, will probably be the "best" rocket to see light of day in a loooong time. By best I mean highly efficient at putting it's designed payload mass in orbit and any competitors will take multiple launches to do the same. That I'm relatively sure of...

What I am unsure of is whether it'll be used enough... Or maybe rather whether it'll become so expensive that it will not get used much.

I also think that if there isn't room in the budget for the SLS, then there isn't alot of room for subsiding commercial heavy lift development either. Or for missions for those vehicles.

...

I might also be completely mistaken and the SLS will turn out to be a complete lemon.

However, if it does turn out to be a good, efficient heavy launch vehicle and it's just the budget getting in the way of sensible production or missions for it. For the love of god... open up to teaming up with ESA (or anyone else) or even some production by Airbus (or anywhere else)... Anything to get others into help paying for it, so we don't loose it, the way we did the saturn V and it's capabilities for yet another 40 effin years.

PS: God no ... at shuttle updates... There's no need, room, argument or money for them unless we need to return something large to earth and how often do we really need that?

PPS: Also we don't have the Saturn V anywhere...

Edited April 25, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Comrade Jenkens]

I think that the upsized Falcon rocket powered by the new Raptor engines will do the same job a lot more effectively and cheaply than the SLS.

In theory the SLS is a good rocket but with a government organisation running it with pretty much no budget it won't be going anywhere

[Nibb31]

The Falcon XX is run by a private organisation with no budget either. It's a paper rocket.

You only build a rocket, especially a big one like that, if you have customers. There are zero customers for a super heavy lift rocket.

[Wahgineer]

The SLS is not a purpose built rocket. It wasn't designed to carry a specific payload, it wasn't designed for a specific mission. It was designed to except payloads of any kind to any destination beyond LKO. It is an economical failure if used for the ISS, which is what NASA is trying to shy away from. NASA is done wasting it's time, money and resources on repeating experiments in LKO and sending countless rovers* to Mars. It's ready to start picking up where it left off nearly 50 years before, on the threshold of Man's greatest dream to date: a manned mission to Mars and beyond. The SLS is a step in that direction. Also, NASA didn't want to back itself into a corner with an overly specialized launcher (like the shuttle).

*I'm not saying that the Mars rovers are useless, just that they can only do so much before it becomes impractical to use them.

[Nibb31]

The SLS is not a purpose built rocket. It wasn't designed to carry a specific payload, it wasn't designed for a specific mission. It was designed to except payloads of any kind to any destination beyond LKO.

I don't think anyone is seriously thinking about sending one to LKO ;-)

It is an economical failure if used for the ISS, which is what NASA is trying to shy away from.

Nobody is advocating using it to go to the ISS. That requirement was removed years ago and won't be needed because the CCDev program is on track.

NASA is done wasting it's time, money and resources on repeating experiments in LKO and sending countless rovers* to Mars. It's ready to start picking up where it left off nearly 50 years before, on the threshold of Man's greatest dream to date: a manned mission to Mars and beyond. The SLS is a step in that direction.

If congress wants to send men to Mars, then they'd better start allocating a budget. It would take at least 10 years to develop the technology and another 10 years to develop the vehicles to go there, and that's if they started allocated funds right now, which they aren't.

SLS can't sit around for 20 years waiting for a payload, and any interim mission hardware requires even more funds, which only pushes Mars back another 10 years.

Also, NASA didn't want to back itself into a corner with an overly specialized launcher (like the shuttle).

It is an overly specialized launcher. It's specialized in 60 to 130 ton payloads which don't exist. You don't get more overly specialized than that really.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Nibb31