[removed]

What for? They can't even complete a single launch. How many times was the launch delayed? 16? 17?

[removed]

Maybe they’re optimistic?

People are so damn impatient. The JWST was also delayed quite a bit, and now it's giving us mountains of new science and insights.

The good news is the people building the capsules can take their own sweet time.

The JWST is a masterpiece of human engineering. While the SLS is a money swallowing behemoth piece of average technology...

[removed]

[removed]

"average technology" you do it then

[removed]

[removed]

The SLS is completely different. The tech was ALREADY available, half the parts were already available, launch site already done, infrastructure already mostly done. JWST had to be developed from scratch with tech that didn't exist yet.

Bad analogy.

The SLS was supposed to launch 6 years ago.

Hold a place in the museum

What kind of bozo calls RS-25s average?

First time going to the Moon?

Someone who wants to one time use them and throw them in the ocean?

JWST is cutting edge technology and doing a mission nothing else does.

SLS was obsolete before it was even built, and is going to do a job other vehicles can already do better.

Absolute BULLSHIT comparison.

NASA is like that spoiled kid at McDonald that wants 4 Happy meal instead of eating his first one and go for a second one if he's still hungry...

Launch one so we know what can be improved then add more...

I’d say you’re right but it would only work if they would move at SpaceX speed. Otherwise it could take another decade for NASA to receive the second one, not to mention the third and fourth one.

[deleted]

At this point I’m pretty certain there will be people working on this project who aren’t even born yet. Which is kind of a crazy thought.

Me? SLS was developed by a huge team, not by one man. You must be fun at parties.

[removed]

Dang this just made me remember SLS still hasn’t launched, how about they get that off the ground first before ordering more capsules for it

Can I skip in line? I just want a single cheeseburger.

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |JWST|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |SSME|Space Shuttle Main Engine|

^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 18 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8177 for this sub, first seen 22nd Oct 2022, 11:29]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

For those saying this was a wasteful purchase because of SLS issues, then my reply to that is that the purchases ARE the goal, not the launches.

[removed]

Why when they haven’t even lunched sls yet. I hate Boeing and all the government cost plus contractors.

What other vehicles?

If it were me, I'd probably verify that they worked as advertised before ordering more. But tax payer money isn't going to spend itself!

[removed]

Falcon Heavy can lift 80% the payload at something like 1/8 the cost. Is it crew rated? No. But it could be. Falcon Heavy first flew and landed over 4 years ago.

[removed]

[removed]

That’s not good , sounds like they are expecting 3 catastrophic failures , would hate to be the first 3 crews, going to end up like those guys on the space shuttle challenger.

So there is nothing currently flying that could replace SLS. Until Falcon Heavy is man rated or Starship shows it can do the deed, SLS is the only game in town, assuming that it can fly.

so the goal is to create museum pieces?

The goal is to write checks from taxpayer money. If SLS never launches, that’s even better because NASA will need to spend more for ground support while it’s contractors have to accomplish even less.

“This spaceship can do everything but fly” is not a huge selling point.

Or they plan to go to the moon more often in the future and need more capsules to achieve that.....

Do you work for the SLS contractors or something? Holy shit stop.

My moneys on the first attempt results in a catastrophic failure and a crash and burn, it’s good to set realistic and low expectations in the rare case they successfully pull of a moon trip first try, that way it will feel that much more special if it happens. The chances are looking slim , if I where them I’d send a chimp first. Just look at ham the Astro chimp, monkeys love space.

Yup. The congressional goal for the Artemis program is to bring jobs to swing states. Moon landings are secondary.

There's no game in town at all. SLS has yet to move under it's own power.

I'm not trying to sell it. It is what it is. Currently nothing is man rated for the Moon. Even SLS. I'll take whoever can get there and call it good. SpaceX, Boeing or whoever. I'm agnostic as to who. I want to see us go back.

I don't see this as a zero sum game where to succeed SLS must fail.

[removed]

I think that’s pretty funny actually. The fact NASA will spend so much time and money on old technology, while the rest of the world flies by.

But by God if it’s not going to tripple it’s estimated service life or fail spectacularly at launch. It’s like there is no in between.

SLS is not in town yet.

Falcon Heavy could do the job tomorrow if it came down to it. SLS would get put on the pad, hydrogen would cause another leak, and it wouldn't go anywhere.

[removed]

Well that's one way of looking at it. Like most races we'll see who crosses the finish line first.

Here you go, Lockheed! Another big shovel full of sweet sweet taxpayer dollars!! Enjoy!

​

Have these things even put a person in LEO yet?? I can't find where they've done anything but ONE (count 'em, ONE) test launch and re-entry. And yet here you go, Lockheed - here's some more billions of dollars invested in something we're not sure will even work. Seventeen years and counting since the initial project started, and for at least $23.7 Billion dollars we've gotten 1 test flight, a capsule that's supposed to be ready for another test flight, and... nope, that's it. Oh sure they're honking on about development but if you go back 17 years they claim they're building on info they already had - so why does it cost so much to just update Apollo era stuff?

​

We've gotten far more out of SpaceX for less money in that time. I really wish Uncle Sam could stop feeding Boeing and Lockheed obscene amounts of money.

Falcon Heavy flew and landed over 4 years ago. Nasa chose to save shuttle contractors.

Since Elon Musk decided to not man rate it the point is moot.

[removed]

Why would he? Nasa didn't pursue it. Stop making excuses for SLS.

The current Artemis hasn’t even taken off yet even after years of planning.

Falcon Heavy is a lot less than 1/8th the cost of an SLS launch. The number you hear most for SLS launch cost is $4.1 billion, but that includes Orion. SLS without a payload costs $2.8 billion to launch. Falcon Heavy is listed as $150 million for a fully expendable launch and that is an old number so it could have gone up since then.

Comparing those number (even if we assume a higher price for FH) looks bad enough for SLS, but remember that SLS launch cost does not include development costs. Development costs are tens of billions and counting, paid separately. Falcon Heavy was developed with private money, the launch price includes both the actual cost to launch and a operating profit so that they can recoup development costs. If you include a portion of development costs in the price of an SLS launch it would be billions more.

We don't know how big a portion of development costs to include in the price of each launch, but it is safe to say that SLS costs at least 20 times as much as FH.

[removed]

[removed]