What will happen if the 1st SLS fails...

[Robotengineer]

If SLS 1 fails, we should move to the Falcon heavy. I find it ridiculous that NASA will spend millions building a launcher, rather than developing new technologies.

[Comrade Jenkens]

If SLS 1 fails, we should move to the Falcon heavy. I find it ridiculous that NASA will spend millions building a launcher, rather than developing new technologies.

Falcon heavy can't carry even close to the same payload as the SLS. Also its not being built by NASA so you don't have to worry about it being cancelled.

[Drunkrobot]

If SLS 1 fails, we should move to the Falcon heavy. I find it ridiculous that NASA will spend millions building a launcher, rather than developing new technologies.

No. NASA is NOT going to scrap the rocket it spent the greater part of a decade building, moving their entire heavy launch capabilities to a smaller, privately-owned rocket that is still on frickin paper right now, just because the unmanned test flight ended in a explosion.

Test flight: noun, A flight during which the performance of an air/spacecraft or its equipment is tested.

It would be fantastic if the flight ended with a critical error, because it would mean we've found an error, and that's the point of test flights.

If SLS-1 fails, NASA fishes out the wreakage from the Atlantic, finds out what went wrong, corrects the mistake, and launches again.

[R0cketC0der]

If SLS 1 fails, we should move to the Falcon heavy. I find it ridiculous that NASA will spend millions building a launcher, rather than developing new technologies.

SLS is quite a lot higher payload capacity that FH. 130 tons for SLS block II vs 53 tons for FH. Also, SLS is more optimized for high-energy orbits than FH. FH is a rocket to put heavy things to LEO, SLS is a rocket to put heavy things to the moon or beyond.

[deadshot462]

Even if the SLS fails, the government won't shut down the program. Like others said, it'll be closed for a few years to investigate the issue and reopened. There is no way senators would allow funding to be cut to their states' companies.

[78stonewobble]

It was the largest ever European built rocket, and had a lot of prestige on its back, being our ONLY way to independent space (Ariane 4 was programed to stop), and that's why they didn't stop the program.

We needed that rocket, for political, image and economic reasons

When the space shuttle exploded, NASA kept using it. When it exploded a second time, they still kept using it for some time.

The first SLS will be, by definition, a prototype, and prototypes can fail, it's expected, that's why you make them, and that's why they won't put a manned Orion capsule on top of it.

If it explodes, they will spend time ( a few months I imagine) figuring out why it exploded, how to correct that, and how much it will cost. If it's a "small" thing, like the computer code of Ariane 5 or Challenger's O-ring, and the senate is slightly more competent than a herd of brain damaged manatees, the program will go on.

If the fault requires serious re-engineering, as with Columbia, they might pull the plug. But still, between the sunken costs and the prestige, they might keep it alive, the way they kept the Shuttle alive for decades when they knew it would never deliver the cheap spaceflight it promised. Especially if Russia and China do well with their manned program.

Agreed...

If people want to cancel something for failing during testing, rather than actual concept problems, my faith in humanity will fall even more.

[Javster]

Rename it the "Space Launch Missile" and get more funding! Say the explosion was actually a test of the latest non-nuclear missile!

America should also realise that the SLS is pretty much their only hope for an American way of getting Kerbals humans into space. They shouldn't cancel it.

Plus, as has been said before, a test flight should point out the problems so they can be fixed. It's 100 times better if the main engines fail now than when they do get people on it.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Javster

[Noah_Blade]

Congress decides NASA is useless and kills basically whatever crumbs they still have to be sent to the military for 1 million dollar tanks that will never be used.

- - - Updated - - -

Congress can be pretty crazy...

*cough cough* military spending *cough cough*

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah but I was thinking more along the lines of NASA shutting down for investigation and possible redesign' date=' like they did with Columbia and Challenger. Congress nixing the budget altogether is a whole other bag of worms.

If SLS fails (and Congress isn't fazed) it'll just be similar to when they were testing the first rockets. It'll blow up, they'll try again after they fix the problem(s).[/quote']

yeah congress isnt in the least bit interested in space that is why testing and development is taking forever NASA has the capability just no one cares for space its all about the terrorists, and stupid things that should not matter. personally we should have ended the wars in the middle east ,then *blabbers on about world politics*

Edited June 9, 2015 by Noah_Blade

[wumpus]

Isn't the answer to this thred "absolutely nothing"? Congress isn't spending money on SLS to get anything in space. Congress is spending money on SLS to keep the pork from the Shuttle going. The whole point of using shuttle parts isn't "cost saving" but "cost prolonging". Since it is more politically painful to lose money you have been getting for thirty years than to miss money you never had, SLS always goes for shuttle parts without looking at costs.

SLS plans a single launch in the "near future". It basically lets them prove some progress, then lets them keep the gravy train going for plenty of more years (on government schedules, so expect ever more prolongation). An explosion would be bad in the sense that the worst thing you can do in government is to embarass your bosses, but with an unmanned craft most of the danger is gone.

[78stonewobble]

If SLS 1 fails, we should move to the Falcon heavy. I find it ridiculous that NASA will spend millions building a launcher, rather than developing new technologies.

And if that one fails?

[lajoswinkler]

To add to that - The Saturn-V, if it exploded, had the same magnitude a 1kt Atomic bomb. The SLS will be around the same, I would think.

Throw enough bricks from the first floor and you get 1 kT of energy released. It's the way the energy is released what matters, not the total amount.

[Kryten]

Check the dates, guys.

[clivman]

Check the dates, guys.

This was 2014 June not 2015 June people!

[randomness5555]

Imagine this though-What if it DOES launch successfully-what happens then? Mars. A manned Mars landing would probably do endless wonders for interest in space, not to mention probably also helping space funding too.

[Bill Phil]

This was 2014 June not 2015 June people!

Is that important?

[Motokid600]

Until the second mars landing which you'll have to watch as a midnight rerun because a celebrity will have another ... change. STOP THE PRESSES!!

[Javster]

Check the dates, guys.

Don't care, got rep