NASA To Waste $150 Million On SLS Engine That Will Be Used Once 141
schwit1 writes: NASA's safety panel has noticed that NASA's SLS program either plans to spend $150 million human-rating a rocket engine it will only use once, or will fly a manned mission without human-rating that engine.
"The Block 1 SLS is the 'basic model,' sporting a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS), renamed the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System (ICPS) for SLS. The current plan calls for this [interim] stage to be used on [the unmanned] Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) and [manned] Exploration Mission -2 (EM-2), prior to moving to the [Exploration Upper Stage] — also to be built by Boeing — that will become the workhorse for SLS. However, using the [interim upper stage] on a crewed mission will require it to be human rated. It is likely NASA will also need to fly the [Exploration Upper Stage] on an unmanned mission to validate the new stage ahead of human missions. This has been presenting NASA with a headache for some time, although it took the recent ASAP meeting to finally confirm those concerns to the public."
NASA doesn't have the funds to human-rate it, and even if they get those funds, human-rating it will likely cause SLS's schedule to slip even more, something NASA fears because they expect the commercial manned ships to be flying sooner and with increasing capability. The contrast — a delayed and unflown and very expensive SLS vs a flying and inexpensive commercial effort — will not do SLS good politically. However, if they are going to insist (properly I think) that SpaceX and Boeing human-rate their capsules and rockets, then NASA is going to have to hold the SLS to the same standard.
"The Block 1 SLS is the 'basic model,' sporting a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS), renamed the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System (ICPS) for SLS. The current plan calls for this [interim] stage to be used on [the unmanned] Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) and [manned] Exploration Mission -2 (EM-2), prior to moving to the [Exploration Upper Stage] — also to be built by Boeing — that will become the workhorse for SLS. However, using the [interim upper stage] on a crewed mission will require it to be human rated. It is likely NASA will also need to fly the [Exploration Upper Stage] on an unmanned mission to validate the new stage ahead of human missions. This has been presenting NASA with a headache for some time, although it took the recent ASAP meeting to finally confirm those concerns to the public."
NASA doesn't have the funds to human-rate it, and even if they get those funds, human-rating it will likely cause SLS's schedule to slip even more, something NASA fears because they expect the commercial manned ships to be flying sooner and with increasing capability. The contrast — a delayed and unflown and very expensive SLS vs a flying and inexpensive commercial effort — will not do SLS good politically. However, if they are going to insist (properly I think) that SpaceX and Boeing human-rate their capsules and rockets, then NASA is going to have to hold the SLS to the same standard.
Once Again (Score:2, Insightful)
Your (our) tax dollars at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Your (our) tax dollars at work.
Considering how much the Pentagon has lost, this isn't that much money.
Re: (Score:3)
Because that should definetly be the benchmark, right?
Re:Once Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in the way you meant it, but yes, it should!
If it disgusts us to hear about $150M wasted on an endeavor that enriches all of humanity, how much more disgust should we feel over F-35s that cost twice as much and don't even work? How much more disgust should we feel over spending trillions on a never-ending war on terrorism? How much more disgust should we feel about paying 250 times that much to oppress our own citizens in a show of Security Theatre?
Yes, NASA wasting $150M disgusts me - Because of all the complete bullshit our taxes go toward, NASA shouldn't even need to blink at the cost to human-rate this thing.
Doesn't disgust me (Score:3)
Eisenhower talked about it in his memoirs. He and a bunch of progressives created the Military Industrial Complex as a way of redistributing
Re: (Score:2)
Your propaganda is mind boggling false https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]. He was a part of it, he did not create it and he warned about it. Socialism wants to spend money on hospitals and schools and social welfare. The right wingers want military for the main reason, if they can not get want they want via diplomacy and espionage, they will invade kill all who protest and take it. Infrastructure spending is socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
Human Rated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Seriously only idiot conservatives could call a full test prior to using a human crew a waste. I'll bet the conservative response to the test was, just stick a bunch of liberal scientists as crew in an untested (full in flight test) and if it blows up, who cares, just fewer atheist scientists so a good thing.
A full test is not a waste, if it fails at least it fails without killing anyone. They could adjust the test to add a science package and thus get some
Re: (Score:2)
It's cute the way you image how people different than you think.
Re: (Score:1)
No kidding! Conservatives would never condone running such tests with atheist scientists!
Conservatives would just toss a few hamburgers into the capsule and let the homeless dive for 'em. So much cheaper!
Re: (Score:2)
We should be alarmed that NASA is spending such a large fraction of one thousandth of a percent of the budget on such a useless thing like advancing scientific understanding in space travel. Who do they think they are, rocket scientists?
Re:Once Again (Score:4, Insightful)
I see on wikpedia that the cost of an F-35a is $115M USD. Cancel the production of two of those pointless, massively overpriced and underperforming POS, and you've got a more than $50M to spare....
mark
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the F-35a that's problematic, it's the F-35b STOVL variant that's costing a lot of the money.
Also, as retired USAF, I can tell you that there's reasons WHY we really need new planes. Seriously, we're still flying planes that the pilot's grandfather flew when HE was in.
That's not to say that the current system for acquiring new planes isn't messed up beyond belief. Just the process for new refuelers has been horrifying beyond imagination.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the compromises made to make the B share the same frame as the other planes that cases the problems.
Relatively speaking, the A version is 'great' compared to the B, but note that I didn't say that the F-35 is a suitable replacement, merely that we need new planes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know whats worse than todays pilots flying ancient airplanes, a brand new extravegantly expensive F-35 that cant match an F-16 or F-15E built in the 80s, planes built for a fraction of the price.
The F-35 might be an OK successor to the F-117 as a mostly stealth small bomber, but all indications are its completely worthless in a close in dogfight, you just have to read the leaked report [medium.com] from a recent test against an ancient F-16.
The F-35 simply doesnt have enough power, cant turn fast enough and bleeds
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the per-unit cost, or the cost of the program spread over the number purchased? Often the R&D costs, which are typically massive with a new warplane, are amortized over the fleet. If so, the individual F-35A may cost significantly less.
Re: Once Again (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Once Again (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Fund the government at zero cost through the Fed. Inflation is eliminated by indexation of all incomes: if your income to prices ratio is 3/2 today and 6/4 tomorrow and 12/8 the day after, it still reduces to a constant 3/2. Purchasing power does not change. Simple math.
Re:Once Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, someone who still believes in magic! And fairies. And probably ponies.
That peculiar notion of yours works right up until someone decides to save a bit of money. Because last year's dollars are worth much less than this year's dollars.
Which means saving up for a down-payment on a house becomes pretty much impossible. And setting money aside for retirement is a waste of the time filling out the paperwork.
So, proper behaviour becomes "as the end of the fiscal year approaches (and your new raise comes due), spend every penny you have, because prices are going to jump to match the new payscales".
Re: (Score:3)
It works just if you removed taxes on work and income and replaced them completely with taxes on property. It is logical that this will cause people to behave in ways that are suboptimal for society as a whole.
Just be aware that income taxes ALSO cause people to behave in ways that are suboptimal for society as a whole. The proper solution is to try to spread the tax load over income/consumption/pollution/property/inheritance/... in such a way that overall harm is minimized. Most governments do so but obvio
Re: (Score:2)
It works just if you removed taxes on work and income and replaced them completely with taxes on property. It is logical that this will cause people to behave in ways that are suboptimal for society as a whole.
So you're telling me that it's optimal for society as a whole for my roommate to pay no taxes because he doesn't own property? That doesn't make sense...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I in fact have empirical evidence that ponies do in fact exist. Check your sources!
Don't know where you live (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which means saving up for a down-payment on a house becomes pretty much impossible. And setting money aside for retirement is a waste of the time filling out the paperwork.
So, proper behaviour becomes "as the end of the fiscal year approaches (and your new raise comes due), spend every penny you have, because prices are going to jump to match the new payscales"
Pardon me, but isn't that the case now? If I would have saved 1 million dollars for my retirement starting in the 70s, it would be enough to pay for a doctor's visit in 2030 (I hope!). A million dollars in the 70s was a LOT of money. You could buy a nice house in San Diego for fifty thousand. You could buy a nice car for ten thousand... now, that million will buy you a nice car and nice house.
Oh wait, I am not supposed to have nice things. It is wasteful and decadent. I should be happy buying dog food and l
Re: (Score:2)
The government can only print dollars. It can't print goods and services, so you're still diverting those goods and services (whatever the government is buying) away from the people. Also, there is a high "frictional" cost to an unstable currency - it's just an inefficient waste, so, again, less goods and services for the people.
Re: (Score:2)
are saying that taxing people diverts spending away from non gov't goods and services, you are wrong
No, I'm saying that government spending does that, regardless of whether the revenue comes from taxes, borrowing, or glowing presses. Collectively we make what we make (goods and services), and whatever portion of that GDP is diverted into government hands is just that much less for the people (except for the remarkably tiny percentage of government spending that actually goes to needed infrastructure, perhaps, but that's almost a rounding error in recent budgets).
the economy is in a slump; in that case, gov.t spending is good
Oh, yes, it worked so well for the Greeks,
Re: (Score:2)
3:2, 6:4, 12:8, 24:16, 48:32
in dollars:
$3, $6, $12, $24, $48
In five years a $3 candy bar will cost $48. While the purchasing power would theoretically remain the same, the government has no way to ensure that ratio remains constant. The result is that the denominator (cost)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stuff at NASA tends be over budget and behind schedule because Congress mandates that they fund certain projects (even when NASA knows, and informs Congress, that the project in question is dead), while withholding funds for other projects. The projects where funding is withheld get delayed (due to a lack of funds), and eventually cost *more* when eventually funded because of factors such as inflation, and accumulated storage/maintenance costs incurred during said delays.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Once Again (Score:2, Interesting)
NASA is fighting a losing battle. They work to put people in space because that's what gets the public willing to spend money on space. But the public also thinks it should be done without danger of death. This is endemic of how Americans have become risk averse. They are so afraid of losing their money that they have become risk averse in every way -- losing the very qualities that made the country rise in the first place. Traditionally it was the conservatives who took risks to start businesses. Now
For the unfamiliar and the confused (Score:3)
So what is the article objectively stating?
Propaganda against NASA?
For free libre whatever for something?
Mismanagement of funds?
The normal forgetting of that 150 millions is a drop in a bucket for a large enough corp?
I am just curious.
Also:
>plans to spend $150 million human-rating a rocket engine it will only use once
Why is this a bad thing? Its how prototyping works. Some years down the line, they might want a version 2 for something else.
Re:For the unfamiliar and the confused (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hypocrisy nothing.
Boeing and SpaceX signed a contract with those terms and those are the terms they have to live up to. If NASA decides that it wants to handle other contracts or programs differently, that's their decision to make.
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary:
NASA requires the private companies to certify their spaceships are okay for humans to fly in (even if they're only for cargo). Thus SpaceX and other private companies have to pass the certification that their rockets are theoretically safe for humans.
NASA plans to build an spaceship (that is only going to fly cargo) and actually is only a practice run for another mission -- but since it holds the private companies to this higher standard -- it feels obligated to certify it's own unmanned
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I don't see how this is different from the Saturn 1-B launch vehicle that was only used to launch a manned capsule once (Apollo 7) until the rest of the Saturn V launches were cancelled, and they used the surplus 1-Bs for Skylab crew launches.
Sometimes it's perfectly fine to have a purpose-specific launcher for early flights needed to test stuff. Would we have the same people grousing about using too big of a rocket to just fly crew modules in orbit if they skipped the smaller SLS variant? "Ermahg
If they cut that $150 mil (Score:2)
How much?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's enough to buy half an F-35C!
Well, we need to buy something to replace aging airframes, so it might be better to say "we could save that just by building a one new F-15 instead of a new F-35". (Seriously, I'm as hawkish as they come, but the F-35 isn't the answer, and fortunately we haven't shut down F-15 production).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The one that's not on fire.
Re: (Score:1)
Is "waste" the right word to use here? (Score:2)
.
Re: (Score:2)
It's bad planning, to have a "human rated" design that will only be used once. If the engine would find other human carrying missions in the future, it wouldn't be so bad, but that does not seem to be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's incredibly unlikely to ever have a nice design ready to go for future plans when Congress cuts funding. *cough* (Saturn I-B / Skylab)
Re: (Score:2)
What's bad planning is to design and build the engine at all if you're only planning to use it once.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the engine will be used for other missions, just none of them manned.
Re:Is "waste" the right word to use here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is certifying an engine that will carry humans to be safe for carrying humans a "waste"?
.
And for comparison, how much money have we (all) spent on food we've only eaten once?
Not all money spent, even for something immediately disposed/destroyed, is a waste.
Re: Is "waste" the right word to use here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering alternatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...if the commercial rockets were rated for manned missions, but the recent launch failures are a reminder that rocket science is right at the edge of what humans can engineer.
Although, even man-rated engines can fail...
No Waste; It Can Be Recycled (Score:1)
In this case, just let it be jettisoned into the sea.
The mermaids and the Rhine Maidens will use the rocket to rocket around in their oceanic world!
What is the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
We know "we" can go to Mars. We can send whatever instruments we want to do whatever science we want. We can send whatever robots we want to operate those instruments. What do we get from sending a meat robot to mars, other than the sort of daredevil glory? We may as well load up the rocket with 1000 lbs of solid gold to raise the stakes even more and make it extra suspenseful.
I am all for NASA, and $150 Million is a drop on the bucket, but I just don't see the utility of sending human beings to mars. We won't learn anything new. We are just risking killing people and making the mission more expensive by trying to mitigate that risk.
One day it will be important for people to go to mars (e.g. like when we run out of space on earth). Until then, there is really no reason a machine can't do the job a human can do more safely and cheaper.
Re:What is the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
What do we get from sending a meat robot to mars, other than the sort of daredevil glory? ... but I just don't see the utility of sending human beings to mars. We won't learn anything new.
We'll learn how to live on Mars.
We are just risking killing people and making the mission more expensive by trying to mitigate that risk.
That risk and the need to mitigate it will always be there no matter when we go.
One day it will be important for people to go to mars (e.g. like when we run out of space on earth). Until then, there is really no reason a machine can't do the job a human can do more safely and cheaper.
Okay. When will that day be? Are there other reasons we might want to leave Earth, other than running out of space - like perhaps some sort of extinction-level-event - that cannot be foreseen that far in advanced? That day could be tomorrow (in which case we're fucked). Machines alone cannot help us learn all the things humans need to know to survive on Mars. We cannot know when we will *need* to live on Mars. Chance favors the prepared.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll learn how to live on Mars.
Humans can live pretty much anywhere if you give them food and water, and a pod to keep in all the good stuff (like oxygen and air pressure, and keep out all the bad stuff, like radiation).
That risk and the need to mitigate it will always be there no matter when we go.
We don't risk human lives when we send only robots.
Okay. When will that day be?
I don't know.
Are there other reasons we might want to leave Earth, other than running out of space - like perhaps some sort of extinction-level-event - that cannot be foreseen that far in advanced? That day could be tomorrow (in which case we're fucked).
Giving one example (e.g.) is not meant to imply that it is the only example. Furthermore, if we find out the extinction event is tomorrow, even if we knew how to survive on Mars, there is no way we are going to be able to move 7 billion people to mars, so we
Re: (Score:2)
Any extinction-level event like one we've got traces of would leave the Earth far more habitable than Mars, and keeping the species alive and thriving would require more concentration on what was happening to Earth.
Assuming Earth was eaten by a giant mutant space goat, consider what the species would need to survive on Mars. It's not possible to live on Mars without an advanced civilization and economy, and for species survival this would have to be completely supportable and expandable on Mars. My gut
Re: (Score:2)
Why would waiting an extra year result n ten years' delay? Part of the delay is developing technology, and part of it is sending everything slowly enough so we can afford it. We're still going to be advancing science and technology through the process, so I'd expect a delay in starting to result in an eventual delay that's less.
Why not send out best tool which is people? (Score:4, Interesting)
What do we get from sending a meat robot to mars, other than the sort of daredevil glory?
You get the most sophisticated tool we possess on Mars. One that can make discoveries orders of magnitude faster than any other tool we possess. You also learn a TON along the way about human physiology, botany, medicine, shielding, agriculture, and countless other subjects not relevant to mechanical robots that you would not otherwise discover. You'll also inspire a lot of people to get into science and engineering - far more than any robot mission ever could.
If you want to talk spinoff technology [wikipedia.org] from manned spaceflight, so far we have infrared ear thermometers, ventricular assist devices, artificial limb enhancements, "invisible" braces, scratch resistant lenses, memory foam, enriched baby food, cordless tools, freeze drying techniques, water purification, pollution remediation technologies, food safety tech, and quite a bit more just from NASA alone. That is many billions of dollars worth of technological achievement that is directly attributable to manned spaceflight. The spinoff technologies alone have easily repaid the entire budget of NASA many times over.
There is nothing wrong with sending robots. We can and we should send more than we already are. But the notion that you gain nothing by sending people is demonstrably nonsense. The dumb thing to do would be to not send people. We don't have to do it tomorrow - I think it legitimately will take another 30-50 years at least to develop the technology to do it properly for an Apollo style mission to Mars. But if there is an investment with better bang for the buck in the long run I'm not sure what it is.
Re:Why not send out best tool which is people? (Score:4, Insightful)
You get the most sophisticated tool we possess on Mars. One that can make discoveries orders of magnitude faster than any other tool we possess.
The most sophisticated tool we possess, discovered a way to make discoveries without leaving earth.
What can a human being learn about botany in space that a human can't learn on earth by controlling a robot botanist?
and countless other subjects not relevant to mechanical robots
Nothing is relevant to robots. They are robots. Everything they do is something that is relevant to humans. Artificial sensors are better at detecting things than human beings (even the things that are only relevant to humans). A robot will know the CO2 level in a room better than a human ever will. That's we we use instruments to measure CO2 levels and don't just ask people how much it feels like there is.
You'll also inspire a lot of people to get into science and engineering - far more than any robot mission ever could.
As an engineer, (and not an astronaut), I think I am far more interested in making the thing that actually goes to mars and does the work, rather than making something that is so deficient that it requires a human being to be in close physical proximity to operate it.
I think we will invent good spinoff technology regardless of whether we send humans or robots. In fact I would say the *best* spinoff technology to come from the space race were the advances in automation.
You know there used to be a time when we planned (and the russians actually did) send manned spy satellites into space. The job of the person on board was to point the spy camera at interesting things to spy on, and also use the on-board weapon systems to shoot downl other spy satellites. Before we actually finished ours, someone (very smart) realized that the future was to send unmanned spy satellites. "How will the machine possibly do as good of a job as a human?" people said. It turns out that those people just failed to understand what was possible through automation.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have people on mars. We should when it benefits us. Automation removes the *need* to put humans on mars to actually do things on mars. We should go when there is a tangible benefit to going.
We shouldn't send people to mars to repair robots. Robots can repair robots. We shouldn't send people on mars to operate instruments. Robots can operate instruments. We shouldn't send people to mars to point cameras. We shouldn't send people to mars to lift heavy shit. We shouldn't send people to mars to push buttons on a computer. These are all reasons we used to send peopel to places they didn't want (but needed) to go.
We should send people to mars when it is better for those people to be on mars than on earth.
Re: (Score:3)
It is great to have the rovers on Mars, but a team of say 5 astronauts in 2 weeks could have accomplished at least as much as all the rovers did.
The rovers require large support teams on Earth. Is it really worth keeping personnel on for a decade to do what could be done in a few weeks?
Robots may be the answer, but right now they really suck when they are out of range of immediate control.
Re:Why not send out best tool which is people? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the price of having a team of scientists on mars, we could probably have hundreds of rovers and teams on earth supporting them. Or we could probably just make far better rovers.
What makes a human better than a rover? That a human can walk faster than a rover can roll? That he/she can climb over terrain better? Those are all things that rovers will can/will get better at (if we are willing to spend the money), where humans will never really improve.
Rovers are probably not going to be good at making high level decisions (e.g. how should I conduct this experiment?), but those sorts of decisions don't need low latency. The decisions that do need low latency (low level decisions (e.g. how should I avoid this rock), are already getting to the point to where the are close to being better than humans (especially in an environment that humans aren't used to).
There really is no reason that high level decisions need to be made on mars. And high level decision making is really the only thing that humans will do better than robots for the foreseeable future.
Obsession with robots (Score:2)
The most sophisticated tool we possess, discovered a way to make discoveries without leaving earth.
Some discoveries. Very slowly. With very limited flexibility and substantially reduced spinoff benefits. Robots are a great way to explore some things but they are not the preferred way to explore everything.
What can a human being learn about botany in space that a human can't learn on earth by controlling a robot botanist?
How digestible the plant is by people in space to start with. How the plant interacts with humans in a different environment for another. You cannot discover a lot of things that relate to humans without a human being present.
As an engineer, (and not an astronaut), I think I am far more interested in making the thing that actually goes to mars and does the work, rather than making something that is so deficient that it requires a human being to be in close physical proximity to operate it.
Who said anything about making something deficient? Strawman argument yo
Re: (Score:3)
And at a trivial fraction of the price-tag. If the Mars-mission roboticists had the same budget as it'd take for a good manned mission, things might look very different.
Re: (Score:2)
Some discoveries. Very slowly. With very limited flexibility and substantially reduced spinoff benefits. Robots are a great way to explore some things but they are not the preferred way to explore everything.
Preferred by who? The scientists? The tax payers? The explorers?
How digestible the plant is by people in space to start with. How the plant interacts with humans in a different environment for another. You cannot discover a lot of things that relate to humans without a human being present.
When it comes time to actually eat a plant grown on mars, then sure we will need a person to do that, but even then it will first be analyzed by machines to make sure it has only safe chemical compounds.
Who said anything about making something deficient? Strawman argument you have there my friend. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
A robot that can't do something is deficient of that ability. By having a mission where humans rather than machines have the responsibility to accomplish certain tasks, you are intentionally making those machines deficient of those abilities
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Automation removes the *need* to put humans on mars to actually do things on mars.
Automation removed the *need* for humans.
If you disagree, you're just not thinking far enough ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Automation removed the need of humans for humans to perform work on mars.
If you are going to say that automation removed the need for humans (to exist), then I would ask whose need you are referring to? The removal of the need of humans for themselves to exist? The removal of the need of robots for humans to exist? The removal of the need of the universe for humans to exist?
Re: (Score:2)
ROTFLMAO (Score:2)
ROTFLMAO. I just love it when the cargo cultists quote NASA on how wonderful NASA is.
Damm few of those come f
Re: (Score:2)
We get something on the scene that's able to adapt to the situation, take advantage of the unexpected and do things on its own initiative. I don't know about you, but I find the Risk [wikipedia.org] well worth the potential benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. A human can only do what it's programming allows as well, even if that includes noticing novel phenomena.
2. A human being is pretty good at multitasking. We almost always use machines when we need something that can keep it's focus on the task at hand without being distracted by other things. You can make a machine that can multitask as well, but often it makes more sense to just make 2 machines. We can have one machine doing the experiment with 100% concentration, and one just looking for novel pheno
Re: (Score:2)
If you find that the robot is deficient in some way, you build another robot and send it to Mars. The cost of sending a robot to Mars is trivial compared to the cost of sending a team of scientists, so you can repeat many, many times and still stay cheaper than a manned mission. Also, since you're launching hundreds of rovers, you're covering a lot more ground than the scientists can.
There are reasons to send people to Mars, but doing science isn't one of them.
Re:What is the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
We can send whatever instruments we want to do whatever science we want.
Nope, false. Absolutely and completely false to the point of dishonesty. The most advanced rover ever put down an another celestial body has traveled a grand total of 11.5 km over the last four years. Meanwhile a manned rover designed in the 60s had a range of 92km on a single charge and could cover that distance in a matter of hours. The manned moon landings covered more ground, gathered more material, and performed more science (relative to instruments available at the time anyway) than all the unmanned missions to all the other celestial planets combined.
Putting humans on Mars for a month, with the equipment to allow them to travel and investigate, would teach us more about Mars than decades of rovers and landers. And that's ignoring the sample return aspects which are defacto built into a manned mission.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How much more money did NASA spend on the Apollo missions than the mars rover missions? I find it ironic that in your example of a human doing more than a machine they are still doing it in a machine.
Sending a big rover that can drive longer ranges is just a matter of spending more money on bigger rockets and more fuel to deliver more cargo into space.
We couldn't go anywhere in space without the precision of computer control systems.
What is this team of scientists going to do on mars? Look at things with
Re: (Score:1)
What do we get from sending a meat robot to mars, other than the sort of daredevil glory?
You're point is well-taken: robotic missions make a lot more sense than manned ones.
However, I'd like to point out that glory is worth something too. It can inspire a generation of individuals to invest themselves in STEM, for instance. It can encourage people to look to the future, instead of staying mired in the past (and aren't a lot of us guilty of that?). Glory can re-frame how we see ourselves, our species, our capabilities and priorities. Symbolic acts have tremendous potency, and history can swin
Re: (Score:2)
I think inspiring people to go into STEM is a very noble and worthwhile goal. I just have a hard time believing that manned missions are necessarily better for this. I don't dispute that manned missions in the past have attracted more attention than unmanned missions, but they were also missions that spent much more money, and had the largest engines ever created by man, etc, etc.
There were more than enough things that needed to be engineered during the spaceflights during the 60's without removing humans
Re: (Score:2)
...and $150 Million is a drop on the bucket...
Can I have a drop please? Even half a drop would be pretty cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair Concern, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA is in a strange place right now. Commercial launch capability is growing quickly, but the recent SpaceX failure underlines the fact that they may not be ready for prime time just yet. So the question is - does NASA spend these dollars to develop a heavy launch capability, or do they wait, cross their fingers, and hope that there is a commercial capability in place during the desired timeline?
At best, they spend the money and have a redundant launch capability. At worst, they don't spend the money AND commercial launch capability dies on the vine, and we are then left with no heavy lift capability at all.
And for the anti-NASA crowd that will be chanting "Pork! Pork! Pork!" - note that NASA is also trying to slow a massive brain drain of experience and knowledge from the shuttle program (yeah, which happens to keep the district congress-critters happy). Not having a project to work will mean watching all that experience walking out the door, gutting NASA's capability to do anything in the future.
NASA has a lot of judgements to make, several of which in hindsight will be seen to be redundant and costly, but without a crystal ball they need to make the decisions based not on cost-efficiency, but what will leave them with a exploration lift capability. That sucks, but that is not NASA's fault; they have to ride the waves (with a period T of 4 years) of the political seas.
Let's not get all chicken little (Score:5, Insightful)
Commercial launch capability is growing quickly, but the recent SpaceX failure underlines the fact that they may not be ready for prime time just yet.
NASA has blown up plenty of rockets before SpaceX. This rocket failure won't be the last. Let's not get all chicken little because one rocket blew up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's disappointing. It is going to slow Space-X down considerably for several years. Assuming Space-X doesn't go bankrupt, and I don't expect that, they'll be back and with better rockets. It'll just take longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Rockets are hard. No one that's informed or involved in the decision making processes (outside of congress anyway) is all that worried about a single failure.
NASA cannot compete (Score:2)
Now NASA is full of pork.. You cannot kill it because . . . pork. In every congressional district.
NASA is not and never has been efficient. At one time that was irrelevant because of the nature of what they did. Now is is more about letting bureaucrats CYA when something blows up. And to make sure money flows fr
Painful summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Does [anyone else] find that this [summary] is (a bit) hard to read? The (highly)-disjointed nature gives [me] a "headache" ((H)-DNGMAH).
As a LISP programmer (Score:2)
I (had (no (problem)) reading (this (summary)))
Title Edit Requested (Score:3, Insightful)
Please update the word "Waste" to "Spend" in the title:
Current: "NASA To Waste $150 Million On SLS Engine That Will Be Used Once"
Recommended: "NASA To Spend $150 Million On SLS Engine That Will Be Used Once"
Less biased.
Since when has following fairness been part of SLS (Score:1)
Come on NASA (Score:1)
You've solved much harder problems than this, think Apollo 13.
Pull your collective heads out of your ass and solve this one, after all, it's not rocket science..... oh wait!
Death via 10,000 acronyms (Score:1)
What the heck is ``SLS''? The first paragraph of the linked article helps to decrypt some of the unexpanded acronyms from this jargon-heavy newsworthy article:
NASA officials have admitted the interim Upper Stage for the Space Launch System [SLS] is at the top of their “worry list”, as the Agency’s key advisory group insists NASA should make a decision about bringing the more powerful Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) online sooner. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) fears NASA is at risk of wasting $150m on an Upper Stage they intend to “toss away”.
By the way, NASA is the United States' National Aeronautics and Space Administration, not to be confused with the National Security Agency [NSA]. ;-/
Re: (Score:2)
SLS is also called the "Senate Launch System", due to massive political interference and pork spreading. I have a lot less confidence in it than I do in Space-X, but having multiple programs has its own advantages.
Commercial Crew Program (Score:2)
NASA doesn't have the funds to human-rate it, and even if they get those funds, human-rating it will likely cause SLS's schedule to slip even more, something NASA fears because they expect the commercial manned ships to be flying sooner and with increasing capability. The contrast — a delayed and unflown and very expensive SLS vs a flying and inexpensive commercial effort — will not do SLS good politically.
This is the real reason why CCP had it's funding reduced.
This assumes Boeing can deliver on time the EUS (Score:1)
This problem comes about because it is assumed Boeing will deliver the EUS on time so that the ICPS will only be needed once for a manned mission. But seriously, what are the odds of that???
Chances are there will be delays and the ICPS will be needed for manned missions several times, in which case having it human-rated makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, just like we ended human flight when planes commonly crashed and killed bunches of people.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't exactly understand how decrying Federal budget largesse when it comes to NASA is "on topic" where decrying Federal budget largesse when it comes to defense spending or social spending is not.
The F-35 is wholly unnecessary and spectacularly expensive. That seems very on-topic to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Your airbag didn't cost $150,000,000.
2. We're not talking about something that will only be used once per flight. We're talking about something that will only ever be used once, because no similar stage will ever fly again. If you must have a car analogy, it's like designing a new car which you'll only make one of, and you'll set it on fire at the end of the first drive.