Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space

NASA's Megarocket, the Space Launch System, Rolls Out To Its Launchpad 83

Posted by BeauHD from the eye-candy dept.
On Thursday, NASA's new giant rocket, the Space Launch System, emerged out into the Florida air, embarking on a torturously slow 11-hour journey to its primary launchpad at Kennedy Space Center. The Verge reports: It was a big moment for NASA, having spent more than a decade on the development of this rocket, with the goal of using the vehicle to send cargo and people into deep space. The rollout of the SLS was just a taste of what's to come. The rocket will undergo what is known as a wet dress rehearsal in April, going through all the operations and procedures it will go through during a typical launch, including filling up its tanks with propellant. If that goes well, then the rocket will be rolled back to NASA's Vehicle Assembly Building, the giant cavernous building where the SLS was pieced together. Following a few more tests, the rocket will be rolled back out to the launchpad ahead of its first flight, scheduled for sometime this summer at the earliest. You can view photos from the SLS's big debut embedded in The Verge's article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's Megarocket, the Space Launch System, Rolls Out To Its Launchpad More

NASA's Megarocket, the Space Launch System, Rolls Out To Its Launchpad

Comments Filter:

  • Looking closely at a couple of the pictures (Score:4, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday March 19, 2022 @02:17AM (#62371047)

    I'm pretty sure there's a guy up high on the gantry, messing with the rocket. Looks like there might be a black cat on his shoulders.

  • What a waste to spend money on disposable rockets. Transfer all non-executive workers to SpaceX and give them the funds. Flushing money down a non-reusable toilet is wasteful. There is no credible non-contrived logic to it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      Fuck that. SpaceX is already getting plenty of our tax dollars, and doing just fine. There's plenty of other things that actually need funding.

      • sure just wait for a private corporation to figure it out for us. that's always what works. right?. crypto, cloud, broadcast media, news, water rights, human rights....

      • Yep - let's ditch the SLS, which was already made mostly obsolete by Falcon Heavy, and will be rendered completely irrelevant by Starship. Get NASA out of the rocket business, which they haven't *really* been in since what, the Saturn V? And cast their cost-plus contractors adrift to prove themselves in the market, if they can.

        Instead NASA could spend those billions on, I don't know, getting serious about developing a lunar outpost. Maybe throw some more money in SpinLaunch's direction as well - that tech

    • Re:Dismantle and give cash to SpaceX (Score:4, Informative)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Saturday March 19, 2022 @10:03AM (#62371575) Homepage Journal

      It wouldn't have been a waste if they'd been able to deliver on time. In 2011, reusing shuttle-derived components to build a super-heavy launch vehicle in five years was plausible.

      Remember, Block 1 of this thing was supposed to be delivered in 2016, and lift 95 tons to LEO; that's 50% more than Falcon Heavy in *expendable* mode, and more than any other operational system *as of today*.

      The concept was almost sound, but had one fatal flaw: all the shuttle-derived bits were sourced non-competitively. Congress *mandated* SLS as a jobs program.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Also the little problem that they're using engines designed in the 70s, with money no object, to be reusable, and dumping them in the ocean with each launch.

        SLS was always destined to be super expensive, regardless of the usual US military-industrial complex shenanigans. It was a reasonable stopgap until something better could be made post-shuttle, or as a flagship project to the moon or Mars. Until was more than a decade late and SpaceX happened.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          Sure, it's a shame that they're throwing away those magnificent engines, but that's not what's driving the cost of the SLS up. It was supposed to be a half billion dollars per launch, even with throwing the engines away. Now it's 8x that much.

          I agree that *on paper* i t was a reasonable stopgap; the problem is that the paper didn't include the lack of incentives to keep on schedule and within budget. If the reward for failure is more money, you get failure.

          • Sure, it's a shame that they're throwing away those magnificent engines, but that's not what's driving the cost of the SLS up. It was supposed to be a half billion dollars per launch, even with throwing the engines away.

            I don't see how that would ever have been achievable, with the four first stage engines costing 400 million dollars alone: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-future-artemis-missions-with-more-sls-rocket-engines [nasa.gov]

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by torkus ( 1133985 )

              Sure, it's a shame that they're throwing away those magnificent engines, but that's not what's driving the cost of the SLS up. It was supposed to be a half billion dollars per launch, even with throwing the engines away.

              I don't see how that would ever have been achievable, with the four first stage engines costing 400 million dollars alone: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-future-artemis-missions-with-more-sls-rocket-engines [nasa.gov]

              Because you're not looking at engine cost, you're looking at the contract cost for 18 of them which includes R&D for things like new controllers and restarting a production line. If by some miracle SLS launches more times than they have engines for the per-engine cost will likely be lower. I'm putting my money on there being fewer SLS launches than the Saturn V.

              Don't get me wrong - I 100% agree the cost is both ridiculous and unsustainable unless you want to consider it a jobs program (or more realisti

              • This is a contract *modification* adding engines to an existing contract. R&D and production line startup were in the original contract along with 6 engines. The modification adds 18 more engines at ~$100M each, or $400M for a full SLS core's set of engines.

      • > that's 50% more than Falcon Heavy in *expendable* mode

        At many times the cost of two Falcon Heavy launches. Even in 2011 they had to pretend doing multiple launches was unacceptably risky to justify SLS over Falcon 9 or even the EELV launchers.

        And they of course then designed an architecture composed of 10 t components assembled over multiple launches, because that's what can be co-manifested on a launch to NRHO along with an Orion. The cost of doing things this way has resulted in a single Falcon Heav

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by torkus ( 1133985 )

          In 2011 the regular landing and easy, repeated re-use of first stages was an unproven concept and the F9 had only 2 successful launches. FH didn't exist. F9 FT with 23T to LEO didn't exist. Block 1.0 had ~10% of the SLS's (10T vs 95T) planned payload to LEO ... and SLS was based largely on proven hardware.

          Then you have orbital docking with bulk refueling (still unproven), needing multiple successive launches, etc. etc. etc.

          As far as I'm aware, the F9 was never candidate for lunar missions but did get it's

          • Never mind that it was clear long ago that F9/Heavy would be successful and your "proven" SLS still hasn't launched, the original proposals for distributed launch architectures used EELVs: Atlas V and Delta IV. Reuse and orbital propellant transfer are not necessary, orbital assembly is proven, and the old "multiple launches" excuse, really? SLS payload to LEO is a fiction. SLS payload to NRHO, co-manifested with the Orion/ESM that are required to actually deliver the payloads there, is...guess what...the s

    • My goodness, what a stupid discussion, even for today's Slashdot. No insult intended, but you do seem to be right in the middle of the stupidity, so I'll try to explain. Boy, trying to explain something in today's Internet climate? Now I sound stupid.

      It's the weight thing. The more weight, the more fuel you need. That includes the weight added for "reusable" features, but mostly the cost explosion comes from the weight for the extra fuel needed to soft land the reusable features. Various factors make the en

      • ...no. Even for the Falcon 9, propellant costs are about half a percent of the total. Reusing the first stage just once saves enough money to pay propellant costs for about 100 Falcon 9 launches. Even Starship's propellant costs will be less than 10% of the total. Propellant is cheap, aerospace hardware is not. Neither are gigantic hypersonic maglev launch tracks.

        SpaceX put about 335 t of payload into orbit last year, more than anyone else by a wide margin: next up was China at 180 t. They did that with 31

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          Do you even have a link for that claim about propellant costs? On its surface, your wording strikes me as close to absurd, but maybe you copied it from somewhere. Or are you perhaps confusing R&D costs with manufacturing costs and operational costs? Or maybe you're confused by the mixture of cheap and expensive hardware?

          • What's absurd is the notion that a bunch of bulk hydrocarbons and liquid oxygen would cost anything close to the high-performance aerospace hardware containing them. The propellants are mostly LOX by mass, and that's literally cheaper than dirt. The remainder is RP-1, a kerosene blend similar in cost to jet fuel, or liquid methane, easily separated from natural gas. There's no shortage of references out there showing the Falcon 9 propellant costs are about $200k-400k per launch. For Starship, it'll be less

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by torkus ( 1133985 )

        Now I sound stupid.

        Honestly? That's the only correct part of your reply.

        The hardware and fuel that allows for reusability (no quotes - 100+ landings is obvious proof of viability) does come with a weight penalty of ~28% but the cost to refurbish and re-use a rocket is ~90% cheaper. The shuttle re-used their engines for the whole program and F9 B1051 has already been re-flown 10 times (for a total of 11 launches) so clearly the rocket engines are not wearing out after one use.

        You do realize that Boeing and Aerojet Rocketdyne

    • far better to give the SLS to the companies that built it, and then allow them to bid on launch service.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      The only reason this thing exists is to give factories that used to make Space Shuttle parts something new to make in order to keep the powerful congressmen and senators who's districts and states include said factories and who are concerned about losing votes if those factories (and the jobs they provide) go away.

  • And it will roll back again! (Score:5, Funny)

    by thesjaakspoiler ( 4782965 ) on Saturday March 19, 2022 @03:20AM (#62371101)

    Isn't this amazing!
    Spending billions of tax dollars on moving a heavy object horizontally back and forth!
    I can't wait until they decide to move it vertically.

    • Spending billions of tax dollars on moving a heavy object horizontally back and forth!

      You're saying it like blowing government money on prostitutes isn't an ancient tradition in many parts of the world.

    • In the time it takes for this thing to roll back and forth between the construction hall and launch pad, SpaceX can launch, crash, redesign, and modify 3 Starships. Fail fast...

      • In the time it takes for this thing to roll back and forth between the construction hall and launch pad, SpaceX can launch, crash, redesign, and modify 3 Starships. Fail fast...

        The more relevant thing is that for the money it takes for this thing to roll back and forth, SpaceX can launch, crash, redesign, and modify multiple Starships... Letting these entrenched assholes even have any money represents a real theft from the American people, because it's money wasted. There's simply no need for this project at all.

        • The more relevant thing is that for the money it takes for this thing to roll back and forth

          Don't forget this launch, when it finally happens, will be the only one to ever use that $1 billion mobile launch platform.

      • If the launch is this summer or even this year, no way. If the schedule slips again to a summer in some year, I'd bet on Starship being first.

        • Heh - conspiracy theory of the day: the FAA's hesitancy to approve Boca Chica for even a handful of orbital test flights is actually a ploy to let SLS look somewhat relevant on its big day.

          I mean, if SLS is already a remote second best before it ever leaves the ground, what was all that congressional pork for? Could look rather bad for a few key Senators.

    • Actually except for the first few kilometres, moving horizontally is the way to go. Getting to parking orbit is horizontal, translunar injection is horizontal, moon capture is horizontal, moon departure is horizontal.

  • Is it just me or does this thing look like some badly aged (hopefully flying) rust bucket? Is the budget THIS tight, or did NASA run out of paint?

    • If Walmart had a space station, this thing would look right at home parked in orbit.

      "Just stopped in for some space beer, a bag of space dog food, and Kanye's greatest hits on vinyl." - future space Walmart shopper

    • Is it just me or does this thing look like some badly aged (hopefully flying) rust bucket? Is the budget THIS tight, or did NASA run out of paint?

      The budget *is* "THIS tight". The mass budget on the rocket that is. The red "rusty" part (it's not actually rust, it's spray-on insulation layer) is basically a repurposed Space Shuttle External tank. They used to paint them white during early Space Shuttle missions (like on this photo: click [wikipedia.org]), but they stopped after realizing that the paint itself weighs about 0.5t IIRC, and that's a 0.5t you have to carry into space instead of payload. Pretty hefty price to pay just to look cool.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        I'd have to assume OP was referring to photos like this one: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbo... [vox-cdn.com] Obviously that's not the rocket, but I can agree that wheeling your billion dollar vehicle out on something that looks like it was rescued from a scrap yard isn't a good look.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gmby ( 205626 )

        Yes but maybe if the foam was painted it might not have come loose as easy and damaged the wing on the shuttle. Just a possibility.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Paint is heavy, and not terribly useful on something you're only going to use once and then throw away.

  • You misspelled Senate Launch System [competitivespace.org] ...

  • I still can't see this phrase without hearing the original "Mortal Combat" theme song play in my head.

  • Surely someone is taking bets on this.

    • Surely someone is taking bets on this.

      Maybe, but the odds against SLS are so enormous, you'd never make any money.

    • The FAA is blocking SpaceX with its bogus and endless "environmental review." The FAA keeps postponing the report. It is now way overdue. They are still struggling to find a native turtle or reptile that gets scared by rocket engines.

  • And each flight will burn up $4B. Why don't they ditch it and just use the Falcon Heavy and eventually the Starship system? Oh that's right - politics.

    • Re:Like rolling out a huge stack of cash (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nevermindme ( 912672 ) on Saturday March 19, 2022 @07:56AM (#62371381)
      When the choice and spending was pending nearly a decade ago, the choice was to have at least 2 heavy lift options to orbit. We may be 6 months away from the united states 2 nearly heavy lift manufactures competing on price and delivery timelines. Currently the heavy lift options are none operational. Both consortiums need to do about 5 flights each rate each platform for human spaceflight. 100 tons to near earth orbit and 40 tons to translunar is a real sweet spot on cargo lift. Either system must get stuff to orbit 95% on parameters of the time. It is a 5 year testing program to see if there is a lighter, safer and more economical way to get humans in space with the gear to go to the moon than a 600 ton Saturn 5 Rocket.
       
      • Interesting. Do you happen to know if the Falcon Heavy has that lift capacity? The Starship is projected to have 100+ ton to orbit capacity.
        • The Falcon Heavy is quite a bit smaller than the Starship or SLS. It has about 2/3 the capability.
          It's just not in the same class.
          • Such a shame that the Saturn V was allowed to just fade away - to build that and then just let the design rot. It is really horrendous that NASA chose to create SLS - essentially the same capability as we created in the 60s - not reusable. I am glad that they have learned from SpaceX. Are you familiar with the COTS (Commerical Orbital Technology...?) program headed by Dan Rasky? It bridges NASA and commercical space startups.

            • Agreed. I don't think reusability was realistically on the table at that point since NASA's funding model makes them rather allergic to "try until we succeed" development, even for secondary objectives like landing. But why design a whole new rocket rather than resurrecting the old flight-proven design that's more capable than even the "end goal" version of the new one?

              I suppose it makes sense in the context of using existing shuttle part manufacturing to get something flying within only a few years, but

              • I think they just lack a charismatic visionary _technical_ leader - like Werner von Braun. Without that, it is "design by committee" like you say.

              • But why design a whole new rocket rather than resurrecting the old flight-proven design that's more capable than even the "end goal" version of the new one?

                The SLS isn't a "whole new rocket". It's just Space Shuttle parts rearranged.

        • It's important to note that while FH is not in quite the same class as SLS and Starship, there's currently very little demand for the extra capacity. At present I believe that all of the missions planned for SLS could actually be handled by a FH

          Payload comparison to LEO:
          Falcon 9 - 23t if expended (16t if landing booster)
          Falcon Heavy - 64t fully expended (57t center-expended, 30t if landing all three boosters)
          SLS - 95t Block 1, fully expended (105t Block 1B, 130t Block 2... both requiring further developmen

  • ... looking down from SpaceX and Amazon vehicles.

    • ... looking down from SpaceX and Amazon vehicles.

      If by Amazon you mean Blue Origin, then you're only looking down on the SLS for about 5 minutes at a time.

  • Does this test cost 1 billion?

  • why are we wasting time and money making space trucks to deliver cargo to deep space when we can barely make it into orbit

    • Umm... what are you smoking?

      We make it to orbit just fine, cheaper than ever thanks to Falcon 9.

      The primary purpose of SLS is to carry bigger things to orbit. One of those bigger things is eventually supposed to be a little space truck for deep space missions, but with luck that will be cancelled before it ever gets off the drawing board.

      Starship's primary goal is arguably to be "good enough" to haul large payloads into deep space and enable Elon's dream of a Mars colony... bbut its primary business goal is

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

        getting into obit "just fine" should have been a mundane thing like a train ride at this point, not a news event that it actually happened while everyone involved puckers their butt and holds their breath. If private companies want to take it up fine good for them, we need space exploration, fully agree, but just one launch of this government funded space truck, could fix a lot of low hanging fruit issues here in the states

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close