You must log in or register to comment.

bsr9090 t1_it9ti6o wrote

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


mango-vitc t1_ita2tp3 wrote

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


Nickolicious t1_itabzz4 wrote

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.


sumelar t1_itai2o7 wrote

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.


pyrophoenix14 t1_itb59ar wrote

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...


ReddBert t1_itb8882 wrote

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.


atjones111 t1_itbig4u wrote

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


WarOnTheShore t1_itbj2o7 wrote

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


Decronym t1_itbj2si wrote

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])


SelfMadeSoul t1_itbncnz wrote

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.


Dapper_Expression914 t1_itbpoc0 wrote

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


skexzies t1_itbtv77 wrote

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!


Illustrious-Soup4080 t1_itc64np wrote

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.


SelfMadeSoul t1_itc8wwd wrote

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.


Illustrious-Soup4080 t1_itccctv wrote

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.


TrippedBreaker t1_itcf381 wrote

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.


sumelar t1_itchi1w wrote

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.


TheOldGuy59 t1_itcovwx wrote

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.


Lordkingthe1 t1_itd5eqe wrote

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


seanflyon t1_itd7xa3 wrote

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.