Comments by "C S ~ \x5bDuke of Ramble\x5d" (@DUKE_of_RAMBLE) on "" video.
-
3
-
@RogerM88 Over the years, I have seen many many SpaceX enthusiasts who have openly expressed on many occasions, that they do NOT much care for Musk. I think Shotwell is, and I may be alone in this sentiment, an even more important figure at SpaceX than Musk is!
Either way, I feel like perhaps you, too, have colored lenses on, and are perhaps acting in just as toxic a manner as some of those admittedly-toxic SpaceX fans can act...
Myself? I define myself as a "Realist SpaceX fan".
Yes, I very much root for them and want them to succeed.
Yes, I want SLS to fail, as harsh as that may sound.
However, the latter is fueled by the facts: far far too much money has been poured into it, and for what?
Development of new, innovative tech or methods? Reusablility? Some otherwise-unattainable capability?
No, no again, and "... eeehhh". It's recycled tech, where money has to be dumped into recreating things needed to make the old engines (because the industry moved on). No, because even though the main engine were technically reusable, everything (AFAIK) is scrapped every launch. And "eehh" because, others will be able to meet and exceed its lifting capability which congress claims is reason SLS is needed, but yes, in that those other capable rockets won't be able to offer the same level of "jobs program" that SLS has and will offer.
The one legacy I hope that comes from SLS, will be the lesson that Cost-Plus contacts are an incredible waste of money and should never be used again (not on this scale of project). Also, that letting congress decide how and on what NASA spends is funds, is pretty close to criminal, as it takes the experts out of the decision making loop.
Admittedly, that's just my opinion. I could very well not be correct on any of my points, but I will stand behind that what I've said is not wrong. 🥴
3
-
@RogerM88 Yes, that's indeed the reasoning the pro-SLS camp has given all this time.... It's just not based on reality, unfortunately. (sincerely, that's not a dig at you, or anyone)
EDIT: My bad, I mixed up Orion and Starliner. So this part isn't completely accurate. Credit to Steve's comment above, for jogging my memory!
It's our senate that dictated all of these things. That Artemis/Lunar Gateway had to ride on SLS, and I think originally it was that Starliner capsule also was required to... though I think that had gotten changed for OFT after the umpteenth SLS delay, so that it could move forward? 🤔
(admittedly my attention to SLS has greatly waned over the last 12mos)
Alas, that was only because they wanted this grand rocket to loft it all in one go, a prestige symbol for America, despite the fact everything COULD have been divided and sent up across multiple smaller rockets (and competitors, if necessary). All despite there becoming more and cheaper alternatives as the years went on, but by then it fell under the sunk-cost-fallacy where congress didn't want to abandon it and would rather see it through....... even though doing so would mean multiple OTHER SLS-based programs, costing us the absurd $2 BILLION minimum each! Which let's not forget that Block 2 SLS, a taller variant that would enter service after only 2 or 3 launches, would REQUIRE the launch tower see yet another multi-million dollar upgrade.... after having just had a multi-million dollar refurbishment/upgrade so that it could accommodate SLS to begin with... 😣
But you're not wrong. In the beginning there would've been no mom mission without SLS. However, that was back when there hadn't been over a decade of delays, and billions in cost overruns, nor anywhere near the competition the rocket industry has today. Which while, granted, that competition still isn't ready yet, neither is SLS technically, but they'll be cheaper and more capable when (not if) they DO become ready.
Remember, Starship is now tied to the moon mission as well, and realistically, Dragon+FHeavy could replace Starliner, negating SLS for that element.
(I'll still concede that without SLS, we probably wouldn't have quite the same competition as we do, or at least in terms of the huge contrast in prices. So we owe thanks to that much!)
1
-
@steveaustin2686 You make good points.
I suppose my question then becomes, with SLS currently planning to be a long-term workhorse whose price for various components has already been agreed upon... does everything you've mentioned actually matter enough to make up the difference in what everything will actually cost?
To put it another way, if SLS had at least gone about things like Falcon 9, with reusability of some major components being a goal they're at least aiming to accomplish, would that once-or-twice a year cadence still be as much of an issue?
Sure, we have some hindsight on our side now, and that certainly helps. Also, yes, at the time of SLS inception, reusability was still considered ""impossible"" by the Old Space players... But with what we have seen be possible, and now know to be at least viable solutions, it just feels wasteful and/or ignorant (naive?) to still want to commit to SLS for so long into the foreseeable future (if I'm remembering correctly, based on the contract for SRBs, it indicates a commitment to something like 18 or more SLS launches; roughly 20 years, at the 1/yr cadence!)
1