This will mean another $16 billion will spent until 2022. There has been about $30 billion spent on SLS and Orion up until the end of 2018. A test launch of obsolete hardware will be the purpose of the additional spending. The EM-1 mission will finally test the SLS and the Orion capsule together. It will also launch some cubesats. It will be the first test and it will cost at least another $12 billion to get to that test.
The follow-up EM-2 mission would occur sometime in 2023 or 2024. The EM-2 mission will possibly have the first crewed mission of NASA’s Orion spacecraft. It will be a lunar free return mission.
Previous Deputy NASA administrator have called for the cancellation of the SLS. In 2014, Lori Garver called for the cancellation of the SLS.
The SpaceX crew Dragon should be certified to launch human crews in 2019. SpaceX should have regular launches of the Falcon Heavy starting in 2019. SpaceX will be launching the Falcon Heavy two to four times per year from 2020 onwards.
In 2020 or 2021, a fully integrated version of BFR could be launched into orbit around Earth. Around 2021, Blue Origin is planning to use New Glenn plans to deliver a lander to the surface of the moon to scout for water ice.
About $4 billion per year for SLS and Orion from 2018-2022, then $5 billion per year from 2023+
Space Launch System (SLS)has spent $14 billion from 2011 to 2018. It will spend another $6.8 billion from 2019 to 2021. There is about $2.3 billion per year being spent on SLS.
SLS and Orion might be launched in 2021 with the EM-1 mission.
SLS EM-1 was scheduled for December 2017. Auditors do not believe the SLS Block 1 will not launch by June 2020. Even if teams could technically meet that deadline, NASA would need to put in another $1.2 billion. $800 million to secure first stage delivery by December 2019 and an another $400 million to make sure EM-1 launches by June 2020.
This does not include $4.8 billion spent on Ares 1 – Constellation program.
Exclude costs to assemble, integrate, prepare and launch the SLS and its payloads such as Orion (funded under the NASA Ground Operations Project, currently about $400 million per year.
Exclude costs of the Upper Stage for the SLS, the EUS.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
I support SLS. I want hydrogen infrastructure
“After around 1975, NASA has become nothing but a JOKE! The shuttle should never had been built…”
And where would we be, instead?
At that time, Apollo was done. Over. Apollo-Soyuuz, farewell, and thank you.
The choice after that, was honestly the Shuttle or…nothing manned at all.
(Okay, there was some talk about a ‘Big Gemini,’ but I don’t think that’s what you want.)
Actually, NASA is full of engineers of all stripes. They are good people, poorly led.
“Just for fun. What if China or Germany builds a crew ship and “buys” a Falcon heavy launch to get back to the moon first before USA? Could save them time and money. ;-)”
1. ITAR rules would never allow China to buy a US launch.
2. Chinese pride would never allow them to try it, especially for a manned launch.
“It would become a PR nightmare for NASA to justify a dime spent on this system…”
Grab your popcorn, and watch.
“But, try to imagine how much NASA’s scientists and engineers could do if set to the task of energy planning.”
These are mostly aerospace people, you know.
Besides, there was no one already on the Moon, lobbying against NASA coming. There *is* an existing energy infrastructure that will lobby to protect the status quo…
“The Shuttle should have been built in its original much more downscaled form…”
??
You mean the two-stage, fully reusable, no external tank orbiter, with a flyback booster? That was the ‘original’ form.
What questionable space projects has Mexico had?
“I don’t think anyone is going to build in nuclear propulsion before testing a chemical super heavy lift launcher first.”
1. There’s no clear reason for that to follow, and…
2. There’s not likely to be private development of nuclear-thermal rocket engines, anyway.
When SLS started… what 15 years ago? (ugh) there was no private modern rockets. Their competition was Soyuz and Proton and Atlas V and D4H none of which are heavy lift.
You forgot to mention that government is good at spending other people’s money.
You’ve just restated Pournelle’s iron rule of bureaucracy. +1 for you!
SLS is so bad and so late that it makes everything else look *amazing*.
While NASA might someday abandon the SLS, its difficult to see Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Aerojet Rocketdyne and even Lockheed Martin giving up on their contributions to SLS technology. In fact, Lockheed Martin’s notional reusable Mars landing vehicle will depend on SLS deployment into space. And its probable that Lockheed Martin’s notional reusable lunar crew landing will also require an SLS launch within a payload fairing that could probably accommodate two such vehicles.
But its difficult to see how NASA’s meager launch demands for beyond LEO missions in the future could keep any private space launch company in business. Space tourism for the super wealthy and Space Lotto winners will probably be the driving force for crewed spaceflight during the 2020s, IMO.
Once the first SLS vehicle is launched, NASA should immediately think about allowing the SLS to be privatized in a fashion similar to that of the Space Shuttle but without the competition restrictions the Space Shuttle had.
No one really knows how expensive the SLS will be since NASA doesn’t seem to know how frequently that want to use it.
Because of its enormous lift advantages and larger fairing size diamter (9.1 meters to 10 meters), private utilization of the SLS would have enormous advantages over its competition– especially if LOX/LH2 depots are deployed within cis-lunar space.
Two or three large prefabricated SLS propellant tank derived microgravity habitats (with more internal volume than Skylab) could be deployed to LEO with a single Block 1 SLS launch for NASA, the Space Force, and for private space companies and foreign space agencies.
A single SLS launch could also deploy large rotating habitats with expandable booms that could be capable of producing simulated gravity. Such rotating habitats producing 0.5 g of simulated gravity could allow astronauts to remain healthy in orbital space within cis-lunar space for several years without the need to return to Earth within a few weeks or a few months– dramatically reducing the cost of keeping humans in space.
A single SLS launch could deploy large reusable SLS propellant tank derived– orbital transfer vehicles– that could deploy such microgravity and artificial gravity habitats anywhere within cis-lunar space and in orbit around Mars, Venus, or a large NEO asteroid. Such reusable SLS derived spacecraft could also transport humans to the orbits of Mars, Venus, or near large NEO asteroids.
Without the twin solid rocket boosters, the SLS with the EUS could also be used as an orbital– crew launch vehicle– using Boeing’s CST-100 for the crew capsule while also being able to carry an additional 10 tonnes of payload to LEO.
Marcel
Would be heavier than an engine that just does one or the other.
SLS Block I will be able to deploy 95 tonnes to LEO. Falcon Heavy will only be able to deploy 64 tonnes to LEO and the New Glenn, 45 tonnes to LEO.
Marcel
It has to be the most stupidest way of going about it delivering pork. The pork is more bone than meat.
To be fair the pork in terms of money for space and military r&d sent to these southern states plays an important part in the health of the USA economy overall.
Provide incentives like Commercial Crew and COTS with mandates to build the pork in those states. Over the long term that will be much better for the economic development of those states.
Elon has talked about plans to make a nuclear version of BFR before and NASA have revisited nuclear propulsion testing very recently. No reason this can’t be the next step after BFR. I don’t think anyone is going to build in nuclear propulsion before testing a chemical super heavy lift launcher first.
But what will deliver the pork?
Redundant systems have a cost & a benefit
nasa needs to stop wasting tax payer money investing in old aerospace company’s like boeing and lockheed martin who have no real interest in space exploration and are only concerned about the bottom line and the congressmen and congresswomen who represent their districts keeping their “jobs programs” and invest in new aerospace company’s like blue origin and spacex who have a real interest in space exploration
nasa should be a better steward of the tax payers money and invest in private company’s like blue origin and spacex instead of investing money in boeing and lockheed martin who have no real intention in exploring space they are just concerned abut their bottom line and the congressmen and congresswomen who represent their districts to keep the money coming to continue “the jobs program”
It’s hard to find a more embarrassing pork project than SLS.
nothing but a boondoggle.
The Shuttle should have been built in its original much more downscaled form with a lunar transfer vehicle to transfer between low earth orbit and the moon. That was sensible considering the tech of the time.
As discussed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja4ZlswGvpE&t=246s
Why wait for BFR / New Glenn to cancel SLS when Falcon Heavy almost matches SLS Block 1 and Dragon 2 has been tested uncrewed.
Why not just fly both on EM-1 in early 2019 and cancel SLS now?
Don’t forget the military!
Making large numbers of people stand around, doing nothing, for long periods of time, since 1775.
The major purpose of SLS, at this stage, whether planned or not,
is to provide the USA with multiple launch options. When the SLS
started there was no Falcon Heavy or BFR. Cancelling the program
now is risky because SpaceX or Blue Origin could disappear – and
leave America with no heavy lift capacity at all.
Eventually the truth comes out. They had to know that when the costs were added up and comparisons made, SLS would be revealed to be the expensive dinosaur that it is when compared to modern rockets. It is good that NASA is getting out in front of this instead of dragging it’s feet and living in denial. NASA can still be the first back to the Moon and Mars, on a SpaceX vehicle.
Generally speaking, private businesses must show profit and working items. Not so much for governments. We humans are each tempted by kickbacks and bribes. Governments are made up of humans. So are private busnesses. Hard to get rid of waste and much spending; but it is a good goal. Perhaps more good could be done?
Just for fun. What if China or Germany builds a crew ship and “buys” a Falcon heavy launch to get back to the moon first before USA? Could save them time and money. 😉
I generally say that the only thing government is good at is hurting people, and taking their property. I suppose wasting the property they took should be added to the list.
Payoffs and kickbacks. They have now reached the final stage of draining the money bucket.
PPTs don’t write themselves son. Takes years of focus group testing to pick the right font and color palette.
I for one welcome the Russians making a reusable nuclear launch vehicle. Very Fallout of them.
Even NASA realized that you can’t throw away 4 SSME’s per flight. They have different engines.
They are running on NASA time. Its like “Island time” and “French lunch time”.
“Will you then harp for BFR to be dropped? ”
If BO can beat BFR then I won’t need to “harp” for BFR to be dropped because the market will drop it.
Sheesh.
“It’s good to have back up rockets and not put all your eggs in one basket,”
Well NASA was fine with putting all our eggs in the SLS basket…
It is fine to have all your eggs in one basket if the second basket costs $4 billion per year to have available and can’t compete on costs.
Well, the Falcon 1 was dropped, and now the Falcon 9, and the Falcon Heavy is in the cards. There’s no reason to expect that the BFR won’t be dropped for a future replacement by SpaceX themselves, without us harping about it to anyone.
That being said, I personally think Elon is more interested in his Martian colonisation project than cornering the space launch market, and if someone else does it cheaper than he can, then he’ll gladly use _that_ with money from some other company of his. Right now, these prospects are unlikely, though.
On an unrelated note, when I first tried to post this comment, my network connection hiccuped and it failed to post. When I restored it and tried to post it again, Vuukle complains that it’s “almost the same” as my last post, and refuses to post it (in spite of the fact that the previous post wasn’t posted). So I’m writing this unrelated paragraph hoping the comment system will deem it different enough to deign publishing it. Oof.
When you’re laundering the taxpayers’ money, you don’t have to be efficient, it’s somebody else’s money you’re wasting.
our president recently made the claim southers where dumb people
Imagine you could have had 5 different “F35’s” from 5 different manufacturers with a commercial crew / cots style approach.
yes a “non competitive” private enterprise project will die – unless it has shareholders backing it
a government project can feed off tax payers
Bad as the F35 program has been, it’s not over 5 times as expensive as a comparable 5th-gen fighter.
SLS is at *least* five times as expensive as BFR, both in terms of development costs and launch costs.
Whats really needed is a new paradigm for mega project management – at some point this will emerge
What happens if Musk succeeds with BFR – NASA drops SLS for BFR
Then Russia developes a superior relandable nuclear system, China rips BFR off & does it better, Blue Origin comes up with something new & better?
Will you then harp for BFR to be dropped?
All big modern tech is white elephant & obsolete – thats the nature or rapid technological acceleration
Decisions & deadlines still have to be met. Projects must be committed to.
F35 …
nasa should stop investing tax payer money in old aerospace company’s like boeing and lockheed martin who have no real interest in space exploration and are only concerned about the bottom line and congressmen and congresswomen who view it as a “jobs program” and start investing tax payer money in new aerospace company’s like blue origin and spacex who have real interest in space exploration and increasing safety and decreasing costs
the sls (space launch system) and the mpcv (multi purpose crew vehicle) are the definition of pork barrel spending
nasa should kill the sls (space launch system) and mpcv (multi purpose crew vehicle) programs because they are a total waste of tax payer dollars when company’s like blue origin and spacex (who are the future of space exploration) can do the same thing at a considerably lower pp (price point)
It is called readiness.
Before WWII, our oceans gave us protection and time to build up a force, if needed.
After 1945, a large standing army was necessary.
Having said that, I sincerely hope we kill the SLS, also known as the Senate Launch System.
Nothing but a waste of money that could be used for ALOT of other things that NEED to be addressed.
usa is becoming the new Mexico…
Because it makes perfect sense thats why.
Also PORK for congress.
Cancellation of SLS shouldn’t be contingent on the success or failure of BFR and New Glenn. Instead, we should change the architecture to support distributed launch.
The big innovation of the BFS isn’t how big it is; it’s that it takes on-orbit refueling seriously. With that technology, you can build out a perfectly credible lunar or even martian program with existing heavy lift vehicles.
That’s why SLS should be cancelled immediately: its architecture if fundamentally flawed. Beyond that, if BFR works as advertised, it’ll simply provide a bigger platform to support an even cheaper version of distributed launch.
if BFR pulls off the Hopper tests next year successfully – SLS should be shut down immediately after that. It would become a PR nightmare for NASA to justify a dime spent on this system esp considering SpaceX went from fully reusable first stage to Falcon Heavy Reusable to BFR within 3-4 years at a fraction of the cost of Space Ludicrous System
Some of the Orion Crew Module technology should be useful.
This. It’s ironic that this same mechanism, which was originally implemented to help keep NASA afloat and for this very reason, is now the thing that is preventing it from becoming something so much more.
Well, one thing, anyways.
The purpose of the SLS is not to be a successful launcher. It’s to make as many components in as many congressional districts as possible. That is the one and only goal and they are doing it admirably. That is the problem with NASA. They depend on support from congress, not on successful programs.
After around 1975, NASA has become nothing but a JOKE! The shuttle should never had been built, and the waste on the SLS is just amazing. As with any other government agency, all they know how to do is WASTE money.
what’s taking so long sticking a fuel tank to the Shuttle engines?
SLS vs BFS in terms of price makes even attempts at the sunk cost fallacy completely useless.
“After around 1975, NASA has become nothing but a JOKE! The shuttle should never had been built…”
And where would we be, instead?
At that time, Apollo was done. Over. Apollo-Soyuuz, farewell, and thank you.
The choice after that, was honestly the Shuttle or…nothing manned at all.
(Okay, there was some talk about a ‘Big Gemini,’ but I don’t think that’s what you want.)
Actually, NASA is full of engineers of all stripes. They are good people, poorly led.
“Just for fun. What if China or Germany builds a crew ship and “buys” a Falcon heavy launch to get back to the moon first before USA? Could save them time and money. ;-)”
1. ITAR rules would never allow China to buy a US launch.
2. Chinese pride would never allow them to try it, especially for a manned launch.
“It would become a PR nightmare for NASA to justify a dime spent on this system…”
Grab your popcorn, and watch.
“But, try to imagine how much NASA’s scientists and engineers could do if set to the task of energy planning.”
These are mostly aerospace people, you know.
Besides, there was no one already on the Moon, lobbying against NASA coming. There *is* an existing energy infrastructure that will lobby to protect the status quo…
“The Shuttle should have been built in its original much more downscaled form…”
??
You mean the two-stage, fully reusable, no external tank orbiter, with a flyback booster? That was the ‘original’ form.
What questionable space projects has Mexico had?
“I don’t think anyone is going to build in nuclear propulsion before testing a chemical super heavy lift launcher first.”
1. There’s no clear reason for that to follow, and…
2. There’s not likely to be private development of nuclear-thermal rocket engines, anyway.
PPTs don’t write themselves son. Takes years of focus group testing to pick the right font and color palette.
I for one welcome the Russians making a reusable nuclear launch vehicle. Very Fallout of them.
When SLS started… what 15 years ago? (ugh) there was no private modern rockets. Their competition was Soyuz and Proton and Atlas V and D4H none of which are heavy lift.
Even NASA realized that you can’t throw away 4 SSME’s per flight. They have different engines.
They are running on NASA time. Its like “Island time” and “French lunch time”.
You forgot to mention that government is good at spending other people’s money.
You’ve just restated Pournelle’s iron rule of bureaucracy. +1 for you!
SLS is so bad and so late that it makes everything else look *amazing*.
“Will you then harp for BFR to be dropped? ”
If BO can beat BFR then I won’t need to “harp” for BFR to be dropped because the market will drop it.
Sheesh.
“It’s good to have back up rockets and not put all your eggs in one basket,”
Well NASA was fine with putting all our eggs in the SLS basket…
It is fine to have all your eggs in one basket if the second basket costs $4 billion per year to have available and can’t compete on costs.
Well, the Falcon 1 was dropped, and now the Falcon 9, and the Falcon Heavy is in the cards. There’s no reason to expect that the BFR won’t be dropped for a future replacement by SpaceX themselves, without us harping about it to anyone.
That being said, I personally think Elon is more interested in his Martian colonisation project than cornering the space launch market, and if someone else does it cheaper than he can, then he’ll gladly use _that_ with money from some other company of his. Right now, these prospects are unlikely, though.
On an unrelated note, when I first tried to post this comment, my network connection hiccuped and it failed to post. When I restored it and tried to post it again, Vuukle complains that it’s “almost the same” as my last post, and refuses to post it (in spite of the fact that the previous post wasn’t posted). So I’m writing this unrelated paragraph hoping the comment system will deem it different enough to deign publishing it. Oof.
While NASA might someday abandon the SLS, its difficult to see Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Aerojet Rocketdyne and even Lockheed Martin giving up on their contributions to SLS technology. In fact, Lockheed Martin’s notional reusable Mars landing vehicle will depend on SLS deployment into space. And its probable that Lockheed Martin’s notional reusable lunar crew landing will also require an SLS launch within a payload fairing that could probably accommodate two such vehicles.
But its difficult to see how NASA’s meager launch demands for beyond LEO missions in the future could keep any private space launch company in business. Space tourism for the super wealthy and Space Lotto winners will probably be the driving force for crewed spaceflight during the 2020s, IMO.
Once the first SLS vehicle is launched, NASA should immediately think about allowing the SLS to be privatized in a fashion similar to that of the Space Shuttle but without the competition restrictions the Space Shuttle had.
No one really knows how expensive the SLS will be since NASA doesn’t seem to know how frequently that want to use it.
Because of its enormous lift advantages and larger fairing size diamter (9.1 meters to 10 meters), private utilization of the SLS would have enormous advantages over its competition– especially if LOX/LH2 depots are deployed within cis-lunar space.
Two or three large prefabricated SLS propellant tank derived microgravity habitats (with more internal volume than Skylab) could be deployed to LEO with a single Block 1 SLS launch for NASA, the Space Force, and for private space companies and foreign space agencies.
A single SLS launch could also deploy large rotating habitats with expandable booms that could be capable of producing simulated gravity. Such rotating habitats producing 0.5 g of simulated gravity could allow astronauts to remain healthy in orbital space within cis-lunar space for several years without the need to return to Earth within a few weeks or a few months– dramatically reducing the cost of keeping humans in space.
A single SLS launch could deploy large reusable SLS propellant tank derived– orbital transfer vehicles– that could deploy such microgravity and artificial gravity habitats anywhere within cis-lunar space and in orbit around Mars, Venus, or a large NEO asteroid. Such reusable SLS derived spacecraft could also transport humans to the orbits of Mars, Venus, or near large NEO asteroids.
Without the twin solid rocket boosters, the SLS with the EUS could also be used as an orbital– crew launch vehicle– using Boeing’s CST-100 for the crew capsule while also being able to carry an additional 10 tonnes of payload to LEO.
Marcel
Would be heavier than an engine that just does one or the other.
When you’re laundering the taxpayers’ money, you don’t have to be efficient, it’s somebody else’s money you’re wasting.
SLS Block I will be able to deploy 95 tonnes to LEO. Falcon Heavy will only be able to deploy 64 tonnes to LEO and the New Glenn, 45 tonnes to LEO.
Marcel
our president recently made the claim southers where dumb people
Imagine you could have had 5 different “F35’s” from 5 different manufacturers with a commercial crew / cots style approach.
yes a “non competitive” private enterprise project will die – unless it has shareholders backing it
a government project can feed off tax payers
It has to be the most stupidest way of going about it delivering pork. The pork is more bone than meat.
To be fair the pork in terms of money for space and military r&d sent to these southern states plays an important part in the health of the USA economy overall.
Provide incentives like Commercial Crew and COTS with mandates to build the pork in those states. Over the long term that will be much better for the economic development of those states.
Elon has talked about plans to make a nuclear version of BFR before and NASA have revisited nuclear propulsion testing very recently. No reason this can’t be the next step after BFR. I don’t think anyone is going to build in nuclear propulsion before testing a chemical super heavy lift launcher first.
Bad as the F35 program has been, it’s not over 5 times as expensive as a comparable 5th-gen fighter.
SLS is at *least* five times as expensive as BFR, both in terms of development costs and launch costs.
But what will deliver the pork?
Whats really needed is a new paradigm for mega project management – at some point this will emerge
What happens if Musk succeeds with BFR – NASA drops SLS for BFR
Then Russia developes a superior relandable nuclear system, China rips BFR off & does it better, Blue Origin comes up with something new & better?
Will you then harp for BFR to be dropped?
All big modern tech is white elephant & obsolete – thats the nature or rapid technological acceleration
Decisions & deadlines still have to be met. Projects must be committed to.
Redundant systems have a cost & a benefit
F35 …
nasa should stop investing tax payer money in old aerospace company’s like boeing and lockheed martin who have no real interest in space exploration and are only concerned about the bottom line and congressmen and congresswomen who view it as a “jobs program” and start investing tax payer money in new aerospace company’s like blue origin and spacex who have real interest in space exploration and increasing safety and decreasing costs
the sls (space launch system) and the mpcv (multi purpose crew vehicle) are the definition of pork barrel spending
nasa needs to stop wasting tax payer money investing in old aerospace company’s like boeing and lockheed martin who have no real interest in space exploration and are only concerned about the bottom line and the congressmen and congresswomen who represent their districts keeping their “jobs programs” and invest in new aerospace company’s like blue origin and spacex who have a real interest in space exploration
nasa should be a better steward of the tax payers money and invest in private company’s like blue origin and spacex instead of investing money in boeing and lockheed martin who have no real intention in exploring space they are just concerned abut their bottom line and the congressmen and congresswomen who represent their districts to keep the money coming to continue “the jobs program”
nasa should kill the sls (space launch system) and mpcv (multi purpose crew vehicle) programs because they are a total waste of tax payer dollars when company’s like blue origin and spacex (who are the future of space exploration) can do the same thing at a considerably lower pp (price point)
It’s hard to find a more embarrassing pork project than SLS.
The major purpose of SLS, at this stage, whether planned or not,
is to provide the USA with multiple launch options. When the SLS
started there was no Falcon Heavy or BFR. Cancelling the program
now is risky because SpaceX or Blue Origin could disappear – and
leave America with no heavy lift capacity at all.
It is called readiness.
Before WWII, our oceans gave us protection and time to build up a force, if needed.
After 1945, a large standing army was necessary.
Having said that, I sincerely hope we kill the SLS, also known as the Senate Launch System.
nothing but a boondoggle.
Nothing but a waste of money that could be used for ALOT of other things that NEED to be addressed.
usa is becoming the new Mexico…
Because it makes perfect sense thats why.
Also PORK for congress.
The Shuttle should have been built in its original much more downscaled form with a lunar transfer vehicle to transfer between low earth orbit and the moon. That was sensible considering the tech of the time.
As discussed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja4ZlswGvpE&t=246s
Why wait for BFR / New Glenn to cancel SLS when Falcon Heavy almost matches SLS Block 1 and Dragon 2 has been tested uncrewed.
Why not just fly both on EM-1 in early 2019 and cancel SLS now?
Cancellation of SLS shouldn’t be contingent on the success or failure of BFR and New Glenn. Instead, we should change the architecture to support distributed launch.
The big innovation of the BFS isn’t how big it is; it’s that it takes on-orbit refueling seriously. With that technology, you can build out a perfectly credible lunar or even martian program with existing heavy lift vehicles.
That’s why SLS should be cancelled immediately: its architecture if fundamentally flawed. Beyond that, if BFR works as advertised, it’ll simply provide a bigger platform to support an even cheaper version of distributed launch.
if BFR pulls off the Hopper tests next year successfully – SLS should be shut down immediately after that. It would become a PR nightmare for NASA to justify a dime spent on this system esp considering SpaceX went from fully reusable first stage to Falcon Heavy Reusable to BFR within 3-4 years at a fraction of the cost of Space Ludicrous System
Some of the Orion Crew Module technology should be useful.
Don’t forget the military!
Making large numbers of people stand around, doing nothing, for long periods of time, since 1775.
This. It’s ironic that this same mechanism, which was originally implemented to help keep NASA afloat and for this very reason, is now the thing that is preventing it from becoming something so much more.
Well, one thing, anyways.
The purpose of the SLS is not to be a successful launcher. It’s to make as many components in as many congressional districts as possible. That is the one and only goal and they are doing it admirably. That is the problem with NASA. They depend on support from congress, not on successful programs.
Eventually the truth comes out. They had to know that when the costs were added up and comparisons made, SLS would be revealed to be the expensive dinosaur that it is when compared to modern rockets. It is good that NASA is getting out in front of this instead of dragging it’s feet and living in denial. NASA can still be the first back to the Moon and Mars, on a SpaceX vehicle.
Generally speaking, private businesses must show profit and working items. Not so much for governments. We humans are each tempted by kickbacks and bribes. Governments are made up of humans. So are private busnesses. Hard to get rid of waste and much spending; but it is a good goal. Perhaps more good could be done?
Just for fun. What if China or Germany builds a crew ship and “buys” a Falcon heavy launch to get back to the moon first before USA? Could save them time and money. 😉
I generally say that the only thing government is good at is hurting people, and taking their property. I suppose wasting the property they took should be added to the list.
After around 1975, NASA has become nothing but a JOKE! The shuttle should never had been built, and the waste on the SLS is just amazing. As with any other government agency, all they know how to do is WASTE money.
Payoffs and kickbacks. They have now reached the final stage of draining the money bucket.
what’s taking so long sticking a fuel tank to the Shuttle engines?
SLS vs BFS in terms of price makes even attempts at the sunk cost fallacy completely useless.