Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space

NASA's SLS Heavy-Lift Moon Rocket Core Leaves For Testing (bbc.com) 98

Posted by EditorDavid from the race-to-space dept.
"The first core stage for the Space Launch System, intended to get us back to the moon by 2024, has left Boeing's manufacturing center in New Orleans for launch readiness test," writes long-time Slashdot reader Excelcia: This is very good news for the troubled project which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. Back when it was thought the system would launch in 2017, the cost estimate was $19-$22 billion for the program. But now the race is on in earnest to see who can get super-heavy lift into orbit, and it looks like NASA is finally out of the starting gate. The next step is a full-power burn of the four Space Shuttle RS-25 engines.
"Some in the space community believe it would be better to launch deep space missions on commercial rockets," reports the BBC. "But supporters of the programme say that NASA needs its own heavy-lift launch capability... The SLS was designed to re-use technology originally developed for the space shuttle programme, which ran from 1981-2011."

All I know is that's an amazing photo of the enormous core stage -- the largest one ever built in NASA's Louisiana factory -- heading down a Louisiana highway.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's SLS Heavy-Lift Moon Rocket Core Leaves For Testing More

NASA's SLS Heavy-Lift Moon Rocket Core Leaves For Testing

Comments Filter:

  • That's an awesome name for a rocket. Why just limit it to "pies" and "cheese"?

  • Back when it was thought the system would launch in 2017, the cost estimate was $19-$22 billion for the program.

    How much did Elon Musk did spend to toss a Tesla off into the Asteroid Belt?

    As much $190 to 220 million?

    And NASA didn't even bother to create a new design?

    They're recycling 1970s rocket technology from the frigging Space Shuttle?

    WTF is it with these numbers?

    Hello Fiat Shekels [invented right out of thin air].

    Jesus. H. Christ.
    • $22 Billion / $150 Million = 147, which would have just about doubled our fleet of F22 Raptors.

      Jesus H Christ, I hate the Deep State, to include those God-damned parasitic bureaucrats at NASA.
      • And Boeing - cutting corners & outsourcing software development on the 737-MAX to friggin streetshit-istan bangalorian inbred retards [God bless their little street-shitting hearts] all while feasting on $19 to $22 BILLION worth of champagne & caviar from NASA in order to recycle some blueprints from the friggin Nixon Administration?!?!?!?!?

        Where are the Guantanamo Bay firing squads when you need them?

        SRSLY.

      • Great! Your students are literally starving! Your veterans don't even get their health care. Your infrqstructure is rotting away And you want to invest in *even more* pointless weapons of mass-murder?

        This, right there, is *precisely* why the USA is going under right now. Not Trump. Not RussiaChina. ... This.

        No enemy ever did as much damage to America, as people like you.

    • >How much did Elon Musk did spend to toss a Tesla off into the Asteroid Belt? As much $190 to 220 million?

      Far, far more than that. You're comparing apples to waterfalls. A single Falcon Heavy launch only costs about $90 million, or about $150 million for a maximum delta-V fully expendable configuration. But the comparable *program* sunk costs includes all the research that went into developing the Falcon 9 itself, as well as the Falcon Heavy interlink system. Pretty much everything they've spent on

      • But the comparable *program* sunk costs includes all the research that went into developing the Falcon 9 itself, as well as the Falcon Heavy interlink system.

        Uh, no. Otherwise you'd have to count the development of the Space Shuttle as part of the SLS program too, which they're clearly not doing.

        If you want to compare apples to apples you'd be looking at all the money spent on FH development, not including any of the costs that went into just the F9. Which is still far, far lower than the total cost of the SLS development program, and provably lower than even a single SLS flight.

        But even if you did include all the money spent by Spacex to develop the F

  • Supporters (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Sunday January 12, 2020 @11:59AM (#59612514)

    > "But supporters of the programme say that NASA needs its own heavy-lift launch capability...

    One might be tempted to ask just how many of those supporters either work for Boeing, or live in regions where Boeing is doing the work. The argument that NASA needs their own heavy-launch capability is ridiculous. They're not going to have it either way - either they buy a disposable rocket from Boeing and operate the launch themselves, or they buy launch services from SpaceX or eventually one of their up-and-coming competitors. No matter what they choose, NASA isn't going to have any heavy launch capability themselves.

    Honestly, at this point I'm tentatively in favor of continuing work on SLS until Starship is proven, just because they're so close to the finish line that it's relatively cheap insurance against any major problems SpaceX might encounter. But once there's a proven, far cheaper alternative? Axe that waste-of-money boondoggle.

    • Of course NASA has its rockets built by contractors. But normally it manages the operations and programs.

      Starship's super heavy first stage booster doesn't even exist yet.

      • SpaceX is building the 2nd stage first, since it has more untried technology (bringing back a large stage from orbit). The first stage also needs a lot more engines, and they have only produced 12 Raptors so far.

        If Stalink starts bringing in internet revenue, the Superheavy booster should come along rather fast, as they will have more money to work with.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by torkus ( 1133985 )

          If Stalink starts bringing in internet revenue, the Superheavy booster should come along rather fast, as they will have more money to work with.

          Unless Starlink has some inherent but otherwise totally overlooked fundamental flaw, it's going to be the biggest cash cow ever imagined. Once implemented, Musk will have perpetual, literally unlimited money for basically forever in every country around the world. The bigger issue will be hiring enough literal rocket scientists to build and test things much faster than they're going today. ... and unlike Tesla's coming competition from automakers, no one has the launch capability (cadence and cost) anywhe

        • that's certainly a possible future, but the point is in the here and now there is only 1 heavy booster that physically exists.

      • My point being - what does NASA gain by buying rockets from Boeing? No more reliability than buying launches from SpaceX - Boeing going out of business, or just refusing to do further business with NASA would leave NASA not one iota better off than SpaceX doing the same.

        Having multiple launch options available is obviously a great thing - unless of course one of the options is so astoundingly expensive that keeping it alive as a backup cripples your ability to actually fund things worth launching.

        Meanwhile

    • Yeah, I don't quite get it either. If they were arguing about depending on Russia long-term for lift capability, then sure - I could see that. But most of these are American companies. It's not as if they have to worry about changing global alliances; and NASA can always write the contract saying "if the company goes under, NASA will be granted ownership of all existing materials and work generated to that point".

  • Does NASA have to buy carbon credits to test this badboy?

  • A time tested and proven design - for a very small fraction of the cost... And it had almost four times the thrust.

    • They're all dead!
      The knowledge is/was lost!
      That was the whole problem.

      Thanks, capitalists!

    • A time tested and proven design - for a very small fraction of the cost... And it had almost four times the thrust.

      The actual production cost of a Saturn V, adjusted for inflation would be $700 million for just the manufacture of the vehicle, with a launch cost of $1.25 billion. A total (in current dollars) of $42 billion was spend on development, manufacture and launching these rockets. There were 13 launches, which results in an average cost of $3.25 billion (current) per launch.

      The SLS is no bargain, but you are simply fantasizing about the Saturn V program.

      • Yes, but it's an *interesting* fantasy (IMO, ymmv). Recent launch cost estimates I've seen for the SLS range from $0.876B to $2B, which is not that far different from a Saturn V launch cost. The R&D has already been done (although as someone pointed out, a lot of that expertise has been lost since then), so saying that the average launch cost was $3.25B is comparing apples with pomegranates. I guess now that so much $ has been sunk in the SLS, that's a reason not to revive the Saturn V, but ten years

  • Until they realized we ourselves lost the ability to put people on the moon, when the old squad of NASA experts died.

    Glad to see humanity go a tiny bit in the right direction again.

    • It's also built on the same sort of rivalry with Pakistan (both nuclear powers) that the USA and the (then) USSR had. The military/industrial complex expressed in who's (insert requisite body part) can reach the moon.

  • I sure hope they didn't install MCAS on that bad boy - it might end up on Venus or Mercury ;-)

  • "The first core stage for the Space Launch System, intended to get us back to the moon by 2024, has left Boeing's manufacturing center .."

    Boeing? Oh crap!

  • "supporters of the programme say that NASA needs its own heavy-lift launch capability." What NASA needs is a good way to get from Earth orbit to Mars, and beyond. IMO they should concentrate on what's going to power that phase of the flight, not what's going to get you into Earth orbit. Sure, it's possible to coast all the way to Mars, but it would sure be a faster trip if there were powered flight. And while coasting to Mars might be feasible, a manned flight coasting to the asteroids, or Europa, or be

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close