Why is it taking so long to build the SLS?

[FishInferno]

So, this is kind of a stupid question, but one that i want answered.

From my understanding, the SLS is just the shuttle ET and boosters with the SSMEs on the bottom rather than on the shuttle, with a Delta IV upper stage on top. We have all of the needed components, so why is it so dang hard o build the SLS? It isn't like there is any new technology that we need to invent.

[*Aqua*]

Simulations, tests, analyses. There are a lot of them. And for each you'll need weeks or months to prepare, execute and evaluate.

It's not like you can weld some parts together, fill them with fuel and say "ready to go".

There's a video on YouTube where they test the SSMEs because they never tested them at the needed thrust for SLS.

[Alshain]

It's not like you can weld some parts together, fill them with fuel and say "ready to go".

Sure you can... just as long as I'm not anywhere near the pad when it launches.

And because it's obligatory at this point...

...it works in Kerbal Space Program.

[Bill Phil]

SLS is much more than a shuttle external tank with a DIV upper stage slapped onto it. It needs new everything. New software, new interstates, new engines ( at least modified) and new tanks. That and new SRBs. So it takes forever.

[Denks]

The SLS is more powerful than the Saturn V, a lot can go wrong and I don't necessarily think that the government wants to lose $10 billion plus whatever it is carrying. It's also meant to carry humans to space, there are more rigorous standards for human space flight than unmanned. Almost everything about it is different than what we have done/built in the past.

[hugix]

And there is also the politics. SLS is also a "trick" to keep the people involved in the Shuttle program working.

[Warduk]

Interesting article about SLS: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/12/08/orion_and_sls_time_to_rethink_nasa_s_direction.html

[Moar Boosters]

.

It's not like you can weld some parts together, fill them with fuel and say "ready to go".

I have to disagree. That's exactly how the soviets operated when developing many of their rockets/missles.

Baikonur started off as their test range. Dozens of launchpads ready to launch prototype rockets. Weld them together, put monitoring equipment everywhere and then say "ready to go".

If it doesn't work, the monitoring equipment told them why, so they'd fix that particular problem and see if the next prototype exploded.

Obviously NASA never really operated like that, and it was a different era. Blowing up rockets always looks bad even if it is semi on purpose.The soviets were able to operate with secrecy. It wouldn't be good for any space program's PR if they blew up a bunch of giant rockets before making something usable.

[*Aqua*]

You compare today's multi-billion dollar space programs with what they did 60 years ago? Oh come on...

[Moar Boosters]

Hey we're on the KSP forums here. Many of us have very conflicting emotions when it comes to unmanned rockets with unimportant payloads going kaboom.

[Camacha]

You compare today's multi-billion dollar space programs with what they did 60 years ago? Oh come on...

We should not pretend that the current approach is the only approach. There is a lot to be said for the old Soviet approach, it is just that westerners really do not like that way of handling things. The careful deliberated method is very much in line with the one-shot-one-kill approach of building weapons. That usually works great, but the AK-47 seems to hold its own, does it not?

[Kryten]

The Soviets went for the 'old soviet approach' because they weren't given enough money for proper testing equipment, it wasn't a deliberate choice. They lost more in rockets, payloads, and pads than they would have gained from skimping on testing.

[Camacha]

The Soviets went for the 'old soviet approach' because they weren't given enough money for proper testing equipment, it wasn't a deliberate choice. They lost more in rockets, payloads, and pads than they would have gained from skimping on testing.

Source please.

[Jovus]

Truthfully? According to friends working on the project, speaking in a completely unofficial capacity over a few beers?

The SLS will never be finished, and is never intended to be finished. The engineering problems are vast and expensive, operation would be vast and expensive, and we have no need for it, nor will we in the foreseeable future. It's a porkbelly tossed to NASA to keep people employed and so that politicians have a sop to the science demographic.

Source please.

It's fairly well-established (read: speculative history) that a lot of the work on the Soviet Space Program took place in sharashkas, which wouldn't exactly have a lot of money for actual development. I feel fairly comfortable suggesting you read Solzhenitsyn's First Circle for a view inside what the sharashkas were like. It's a very good book in its own right, as well, and linked from the same page.

(Actually, now that I'm looking over the See Also sections, there are a lot of rocket and aircraft folks listed just right there...)

Edited January 22, 2015 by Jovus

[Camacha]

It's fairly well-established (read: speculative history) that a lot of the work on the Soviet Space Program took place in sharashkas, which wouldn't exactly have a lot of money for actual development.

It is not the suggestion that money might have been tight that bothers me, but that the Soviets could not do basic calculations and ended up with projects that were more expensive because of the lack of money.

[Jovus]

You assume their goal was to save money while finishing the project in an expedient fashion. No. Their goal was to save their own necks by kissing ass, looking politically favorable, shifting the blame elsewhere, and hoping the Man with the Moustache didn't notice.

[B787_300]

This is a warning that I am looking at this thread and that it is AGAINST the community rules to talk about politics which this subject is intrinsically related.

When Discussing SLS please stick to documented facts and verifiable, reliable sources. A couple of you have mentioned that it is a lot of politics, which it is, but PLEASE try to stay out of the nitty gritty and political parties.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that being said,

It is taking forever because the real world is NOT like KSP. Just because an engine works one one rocket does not mean it will work on another without a lot of testing and redesign. A couple of issues that are running into,

1. Acoustics

2. the 5 segment SRBs (Space Shuttle was only 4 segment)

3. The tanks are much larger and require new tooling equipment to be built

4. the rocket is HUGE and in rockets mid size is easier to do than small or large

5. funding

6. goal uncertainty

[Bill Phil]

It is not the suggestion that money might have been tight that bothers me, but that the Soviets could not do basic calculations and ended up with projects that were more expensive because of the lack of money.

The soviets used more basic calculations then NASA did, with computers much less powerful.

[Camacha]

The soviets used more basic calculations then NASA did, with computers much less powerful.

Even for the budgeting I was talking about?

[Bill Phil]

Even for the budgeting I was talking about?

They didn't need the complicated equations. It worked, so why fix it? When easily accessible powerful computers came about, they began to use more complex calculations. They also built the first in-space glass cockpit. ( it's not actually made of glass...)

[Camacha]

They didn't need the complicated equations. It worked, so why fix it?

I think we are talking about two different matters altogether What I was talking about is the basic ability to do budget calculations, which have nothing to do with space flight - except that it is funded with those calculations.

Orbitals mechanics and whatnot are a whole 'nother ball game.

[megatiger78]

NASA new test procedure: strap boosters to ANYTHING that needs orbit testing.

[Nibb31]

Back to the OP's question, there are several reasons why SLS takes so long to build is because of the lack of money.

First of all, the lack of money: Resources are spread much thinner than during the days of Apollo. During Apollo, the Saturn program had nearly unlimited funds, so to solve a problem, you would just throw more people and resources at it.

Secondly, contrary to what many people think, engineering tasks today take longer than they did in the 60's. Today, we have computers, CAD/CAM, fast prototyping and all sorts of technological aids, but on the other hand, everything is much more complex. We have a much deeper understanding of how things work, and as our systems become more complex, a lot of design work has to go into the interfaces and interactions between various systems.

An example is computers. In the 60's, the Apollo CM computer was very basic. It only had a keypad input system and a few interfaces with various other systems. It had a tiny processor and the software was only a few kilobytes of assembler code. It probably took a small team a couple of years to build it from scratch. Testing was easy, because it was so simple. By comparison, the computer system on Orion will be a network of several specialized calculators connected together through several layers of networking protocols, built on decades of experience in computer networks. Each sensor will have it's own interface controlled by hardware and firmware. Software is written in object-oriented languages, running on a real-time operating system, with specialized libraries, and all built on several layers of abstraction before you get down to adressing the actual hardware registers. It's several of orders of magnitude more complex than old systems.

There is also the decision making process. During the Saturn V design, if a team had a question, they would go see Von Braun, run the numbers with him, and they would have their answer the same day. No single person is in charge of a design any more. Each design decision has to go through meetings, reviews, approvals with teams from various systems. Nowadays, everything is "designed by committee" and has to follow "quality control principle". The result is, in principle, a more rational design. The main aim of quality control is to create accountability and traceability to ensure that procedures are followed. The role of quality procedures is to ensure "customer satisfaction", which means adherence to requirement specifications. So yes, a lot of the testing is done by computers nowadays, but designing those tests typically takes as much effort as designing the system under test. The test systems need to go through their own reviews and validation processes to make sure that they are testing the proper parameters.

So yes, people will complain about bureaucracy and red-tape, but most of that overhead is a simple necessity. If you cut the red-tape, you start introducing risks that can be very expensive to fix later.

[Kryten]

It is not the suggestion that money might have been tight that bothers me, but that the Soviets could not do basic calculations and ended up with projects that were more expensive because of the lack of money.

I never said anything about 'calculations', I said testing and test equipment. A good example is the N-1 programme; the reason every test was an all-up test with a complete launcher is they weren't allocated money for full-stage test stands. Given the complete destruction of a launch pad, four giant rockets, and a good amount of prototype LOK hardware, it should be pretty obvious which option would have been cheaper.

[Camacha]

I never said anything about 'calculations', I said testing and test equipment. A good example is the N-1 programme; the reason every test was an all-up test with a complete launcher is they weren't allocated money for full-stage test stands. Given the complete destruction of a launch pad, four giant rockets, and a good amount of prototype LOK hardware, it should be pretty obvious which option would have been cheaper.

That is why I brought calculations into play. Soviets were not stupid, so I assume they were capable of doing basic cost-reward calculations.