Why is it taking so long to build the SLS?

[Kryten]

You're assuming there was a central body to make those kind of decisions. There wasn't.

[Camacha]

You're assuming there was a central body to make those kind of decisions. There wasn't.

That still does not mean they were a bunch of rampant simpletons running around a launch pad. They were smart people.

[Kryten]

There is no single 'they', you're looking at this the wrong way. TsENKI was responsible for launchpads and other ground infrastructure, OKB-1 for vehicle structure and vehicle operation, OKB-276 for engines and engine testing; all with separate budget allocations, priorites relative to other projects, and amounts of political clout relative to competitors like Cholemei's OKB-52.

[Camacha]

There is no single 'they', you're looking at this the wrong way. TsENKI was responsible for launchpads and other ground infrastructure, OKB-1 for vehicle structure and vehicle operation, OKB-276 for engines and engine testing; all with separate budget allocations, priorites relative to other projects, and amounts of political clout relative to competitors like Cholemei's OKB-52.

This set of groups is not a they? Not composed of intelligent people that can make reasonable predictions based on facts? I find that hard to believe.

[basic.syntax]

Phil Plait, writing the many-years long-running "bad astronomy" blog now featured on Slate, has written quite a bit on the SLS. Check it out at this link. He points out the funding problem, and regrets feeling the need to say negative things about SLS. Top picture in the article is a wallpaper-worthy artist concept rendering of an SLS launch.

[Kryten]

This set of groups is not a they? Not composed of intelligent people that can make reasonable predictions based on facts? I find that hard to believe.

It's composed of people that individually cannot work on those predictions for a number of different factors. TsENKI needed a specific budget allocation for that whole-stage test stands; some politburo members disapproved because they supported Cholemoi's effort, some disapproved because the cost seemed relatively high and they couldn't understand the potential costs involved without it, some disapproved of large space projects in general, et.c. et.c.

[Nibb31]

This set of groups is not a they? Not composed of intelligent people that can make reasonable predictions based on facts? I find that hard to believe.

Nobody is saying that Russian scientists were idiots. They are saying that the space program was disorganized and under contradictory political pressure. That sort of environment makes you do stupid things, even when you have the smartest people.

Case in point: SLS.

[Moar Boosters]

Another reason for the way the Soviets worked was due to how closely linked their space and military programs were.

They were racing with the USA to develop long range missiles so the military had different parameters for success. If you're developing a long range missile, and do a series of tests which each in turn is more successful than the next; that's going to make the military confident you're actually going to deliver what they want.

If NASA blow up test vehicles of something that's designed to carry people, that's going to make the government lose confidence in them.

[KSK]

There was a lot of in-fighting in the Soviet programme. Different designers at different bureaus each having their own ideas on the best way forward and each (to a greater or lesser extent) vying for approval from the political leadership. Said leadership being rather volatile (to put it kindly), with unrealistic expectations and more inclined to regard failure as deliberate sabotage rather than an inevitable part of testing a complex experimental technology.

So, yeah - what Nibb31 said.

Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Soviet-Space-Race-Apollo/dp/0813026288, an excellent, if somewhat dry book, which I highly recommend.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Exactly. Witness the response to the last SpaceX launch. Main mission accomplished, secondary test goals (landing the booster) darn nearly accomplished, with failure anticipated from the outset (because, you know - it was a test.) And yet, all the stories in the media were about the failure to land the booster. The Space Review had an interesting article on it (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2676/1), TL: DR - people don't get testing, the media least of all.

[basic.syntax]

This is an awesome space rescue story: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/the-little-known-soviet-mission-to-rescue-a-dead-space-station/

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

While a certain amount of red tape is useful and can help reduce risks, it can also go too far the other way and bog a project down until it is no longer functional.

[cantab]

While I don't think Nibb's comments on the engineering and bureaucracy are wrong, it's a pretty damning state of affairs to be honest.

[kujuman]

It'd be interesting to compare the dev time of the SLS to other engineering projects. Say F9/F9H, new jetliners (787, 350), and the like. Clearly engineering takes more time now than in the past. Now, we might need to adjust for funding/effort to compare these contemporary projects, but if the SLS is same ballpark then we can say the SLS isn't taking so long: It's just average.

Another factor contributing to perceived longness of the SLS is that we found out about it before very much engineering work or budget allocation occured. Let's say SLS and F9H take the same duration of engineering work. We didn't find out about the F9H until at least some preliminary engineering work was done AND SpaceX had committed itself to the project. We knew about the SLS before that work had ever occurred: Not so with the SLS.

[tater]

Pork. The longer it takes, the more money will be spent, period.

[Rakaydos]

If SpaceX gets the MCT online before SLS, SLS is definitely taking too long.

[Nibb31]

If SpaceX gets the MCT online before SLS, SLS is definitely taking too long.

The MCT is at least a decade away, and only if somebody wants to pay for it.

The SLS will fly in 2018. It probably won't fly much before it's cancelled (they only have enough refurbished SSMEs for 3 or 4 launches anyway, and only EM-1 and EM-2 are manifested), but I'm pretty sure at this point that it will fly.

[Frozen_Heart]

If SpaceX gets the MCT online before SLS, SLS is definitely taking too long.

The SLS will fly before the MCT. SpaceX works fast but they are well behind in terms of development of their super heavy lift vehicle.

[Rakaydos]

The MCT is at least a decade away, and only if somebody wants to pay for it.

The SLS will fly in 2018. It probably won't fly much before it's cancelled (they only have enough refurbished SSMEs for 3 or 4 launches anyway, and only EM-1 and EM-2 are manifested), but I'm pretty sure at this point that it will fly.

The SLS will fly before the MCT. SpaceX works fast but they are well behind in terms of development of their super heavy lift vehicle.

My point stands.

And as for the MCT not flying without a manifest, I'm certian SpaceX would use it a few times for publicity stunts even without a paying customer. Launching, say, a methane refinery to mars and saying "Look, there's even a gas station there! you should totally send things there!"

Edited January 24, 2015 by Rakaydos

[Tristonwilson12]

there testing the new engines in march!!!!

[magnemoe]

It'd be interesting to compare the dev time of the SLS to other engineering projects. Say F9/F9H, new jetliners (787, 350), and the like. Clearly engineering takes more time now than in the past. Now, we might need to adjust for funding/effort to compare these contemporary projects, but if the SLS is same ballpark then we can say the SLS isn't taking so long: It's just average.

Another factor contributing to perceived longness of the SLS is that we found out about it before very much engineering work or budget allocation occured. Let's say SLS and F9H take the same duration of engineering work. We didn't find out about the F9H until at least some preliminary engineering work was done AND SpaceX had committed itself to the project. We knew about the SLS before that work had ever occurred: Not so with the SLS.

Things are more complex, easy to make simple stuff, we also tend to do more work up front to make sure it works.

In business its plenty of examples of quick and dirty solutions who did not work out well.

This is the good side, the bad is more gold-plating, this was an issue with space probes, they became so expensive you could only launch one every 10 year, this looks like is under control now.

Part of the reason for gold platting is twofold, first everybody want to add their pet feature, you also want to make it 100% safe regardless of cost as an fail is bad for your career, worse than an canceled mission actually.

[KerikBalm]

Why is it taking so long?

Maybe its because there is no rush, because there is no purpose in building it....

[78stonewobble]

Why is it taking so long?

Maybe its because there is no rush, because there is no purpose in building it....

You could equally ask, whats the public satellite demand, for the falcon heavy?

[Camacha]

Exactly. Witness the response to the last SpaceX launch. Main mission accomplished, secondary test goals (landing the booster) darn nearly accomplished, with failure anticipated from the outset (because, you know - it was a test.) And yet, all the stories in the media were about the failure to land the booster. The Space Review had an interesting article on it (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2676/1), TL: DR - people don't get testing, the media least of all.

If you haven't tested and failed you have not really tested at all.

Case in point: SLS.

Pointing to the SLS when discussion the Soviet space program and vice versa feels like circular reasoning.

[FishInferno]

If SpaceX gets the MCT online before SLS, SLS is definitely taking too long.

SLS will fly before the MCT, but SpaceX will get to Mars first.

Reasoning: SpaceX has oe goal and one goal only: Get to Mars. NASA has to maintain several other projects that eat up the funds for their Mars effort. Plus, who knows what the next president has in mind for NASA.

EDIT: Also, in 2018, Mars One wants to send a lander to prove their worth. NASA is getting beaten at their own game.

[Rakaydos]

SLS will fly before the MCT, but SpaceX will get to Mars first.

Reasoning: SpaceX has oe goal and one goal only: Get to Mars. NASA has to maintain several other projects that eat up the funds for their Mars effort. Plus, who knows what the next president has in mind for NASA.

EDIT: Also, in 2018, Mars One wants to send a lander to prove their worth. NASA is getting beaten at their own game.

Just goes to show why capitalisim won the cold war.