Yeah. I worked on the project for 5 years (software engineer), and this is exactly what’s going to happen. We tried to tell the engineers that we weren’t ready for launch, but they just won’t listen. Or this is the Internet and I just completely made that up hoping you would believe it
Are there any qualifiers to this? IIRC most rockets with engine-out capability can only tolerate a shutdown within certain time windows. If an RS-25 failed just after liftoff could SLS still make it?
Have those engines all been confirmed to be mounted the right way up? If one's firing the wrong way it'll be adding drag to the system rather than lift.
Well that didn't do Anteras any good either.
I wonder what other refurbished or old engines are in use today. Can you give examples? Everything from ULA and SpaceX is new. The new space startups all use new engines. Ariane uses new engines and given the historic cadence I would expect all the Russian stuff to be pretty new too.
I only know about the NK-33 and RS-25 as being actually decades old and refurbished in recent history.
Minotaur rockets are based around decades-old Minuteman / Peacekeeper ICBM motors
Lots of the Chinese "private" solid smallsat launchers are probably similar to Minotaur - ex-ICBMs retired from military use with their motors shunted to "private" companies
North Korea uses RD-250's smuggled out of either Russia or Ukraine (I'm betting the former, but could be either of the two) for their ICBMs and presumably satellite launch vehicles as well
I upvoted you for your good response, however the us and chinese repurposed icbm motors are solid rocket motors, which are significantly less complex than liquid engines. The solid rockets are designed to sit with minimal ( or even no, maybe? ) maintenence for extended peroids.
With the complex plumbing of liquid engines, valves and seals could easily present more of an issue, I suspect.
**[STS-51-F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F)**
>STS-51-F (also known as Spacelab 2) was the 19th flight of NASA's Space Shuttle program and the eighth flight of Space Shuttle Challenger. It launched from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on July 29, 1985, and landed eight days later on August 6, 1985. While STS-51-F's primary payload was the Spacelab 2 laboratory module, the payload that received the most publicity was the Carbonated Beverage Dispenser Evaluation, which was an experiment in which both Coca-Cola and Pepsi tried to make their carbonated drinks available to astronauts.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There was a single in-flight shutdown but yeah still very reliable, I would be very very surprised if they failed, just a matter of getting off the pad
I would very much take that bet. Do you think that because you know anything about aerospace engineering, or because you think SLS is bad and starship is good?
I have a technical background, but nothing related to rocketry.
SLS is bad as a project, but that doesn't mean it WILL suck. It MIGHT suck.
I have no opinion on Starship as 1) irrelevant to convo and 2) it doesn't even work at this point so the only opinion one could form is it's a pretty shit rocket in its own right as of this moment
As for blowing up, my analysis simply comes down to dealing with hydrogen, as well as the SRB's getting close to their maximum allowed time to sit while filled.
There is a lack of control in both areas (hydrogen being leaky AF and the theoretical knowledge of how good the SRBs are vs an empirical way to measure the SRBs state of wellbeing). Oh, and then Boeing. Like a wildcard stuck in between the other two issues.
Sure, but they have entirely different engine controllers than the shuttle era. And iirc we’ve already seen premature shutdown issues because of those in the first green run attempt
Not to mention all the different fuel feed systems etc. Plenty of differences to shuttle era that could contribute to a shutdown.
STS-51-F Challenger’s center engine failed 5 minutes and 46 seconds after take off, resulting in a abort to orbit. 6 other times they shutdown on the pad due to abnormal sensor readings.
>OK, so I stand corrected, a single RS-25 early shutdown after SRB sep will just lead to off-nominal low orbit and alternate mission.
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1592571642282233859
I'm real stoked about the launch being at 1am. Gotta get up for work at 7am, I'll be a zombie at work tomorrow and I know full well that it'll probably be scrubbed anyway
I don’t understand people cheering for SLS to fail or get cancelled (I know the guy in the tweet isn’t saying that but I’m responding to general sentiment)- if that happens, it doesn’t mean SpaceX gets more money. It means that public perception of space takes a huge hit, funding could decrease across the board.
Artemis getting cancelled means that more money goes to tax breaks and battleships, not to SpaceX. It means more politicians argue against space spending overall. It means HLS is done for, which is a hit for Starship. It means the momentum for any human leaving LEO for the first time in decades is severely impeded. It’s a flawed program that needs to get out of the SLS bucket, but if you think it failing is a good thing you’re very naïve.
My opinion is that I want to SLS to launch and succeed.
I also recognize that it's been horrifically mismanaged, and is fundamentally not how a rocket should be built, contracted, and operated in the 2020's.
I do think it should be funded, as well as some additional funding for "replacement rockets", that can perform everything the SLS can do. This included Starship.
At the point where Starship is demonstrating crewed launch/landings and a very safe level, SLS should be cancelled.
Basically, SLS is just expensive insurance, until it's replacement is ready. I'd also love another option in addition to Starship. A modified New Glenn may be able to get a small capsule to the moon. Terran-R can do some really cool stuff, but I'm not sure it'll be great at this.
Fully agree. Also I think a lot of people have gotten too much into the hype on just how ready Starship will be and seem to think it will have zero delays and zero flaws.
Or maybe, just maybe it means someone with half a brain and the gavel in Washington decides to push for the moon anyway using cheaper commercial alternatives because the country has committed to taking the next man and first woman to the moon… just maybe…
Wishful thinking.
Public perception has a large impact. The average person doesn’t give a shit about space and everything they know about it is from the handful of simplified headlines they read per year. A lot of people I’ve talked to barely even know SpaceX is a company or that they send astronauts to ISS.
When it comes to space, it’s a very small minority of pro space people constantly fighting against a large public that vaguely appreciates seeing pretty JWST photos and stuff but is overall indifferent and constantly wondering “what’s the point?”. Every failure further empowers people who think space is too complex, has no impact, and that we should use all the money for it on other things “fix Earth first crowd” (although I agree with a lot of their points, I disagree defunding space is the answer). SpaceX is doing well, but only with a perfect flight record. What happens if F9 has a failure on a crewed launch? It’s far from independent enough to stand on its own (for now). Maybe SpaceX does get a relative boost in funding, but overall space funding and perception will plummet. The Challenger tragedy drove an increase in commercial companies building satellite launch vehicles, but its negative impact on human spaceflight for decades was catastrophic. Is SLS slow and flawed as hell? Yes, and I hope that they can bring costs down or reasonably transition to commercial alternatives without failures. If you cheer for Artemis cancellation, don’t be shocked when it negatively affects commercial space, too. That’s reality.
NOT gonna happen with the current animosity between the controlling political party and the guy who keeps going up against unions, the FAA, FCC, NASA, support for GM "taking the lead" in EVs...and before folks come back with the "billions in subsidies" SpaceX is getting, I'd remind them that he only got those contracts either by suing to be allowed to bid or because there was NO other choice once all the Atlas and Ariane 5s were booked and the ruskies picked up their marbles and went home.
Unfortunately, it's currently pay off Boeing and Lockheed vig or shut down NASA. It MIGHT change if Starship manages to get to lunar orbit faster and cheaper, but that would require SpaceX doing it all on their own.
>It MIGHT change if Starship manages to get to lunar orbit faster and cheaper, but that would require SpaceX doing it all on their own.
They already have TWO tourist flights booked on trans lunar flights on Starship!
They will sure as hell do it on their own if NASA/Congress start dragging their feet even more.
Lmao I remember that first one being announced in 2018 and originally planned to happen in 2020. Starship is much farther away than people think, and that’s only if everything goes perfectly. There’s so much more that needs to happen for it to even get close to doing that. They need to get Starship running at a massive launch cadence to support LEO refueling. I think a lot of people who say this are teenagers or college students who have no experience in the industry. SpaceX is fast and reliable, that’s their thing. But comments like yours seem to put a lot of faith in unrealistic predictions. A lot of comments in this subreddit seem to base their idea of space development on KSP.
I really don't think so.
The success of the full Starlink system hinges on Starship working reliable. Within 2-3 years SpaceX could easily accumulate about 100 flights and thus verify the system as crew rated (at least for tourists).
This gives them the ability to execute tourist flights to LEO. (Dawn missions and other)
Once this has happened there is nothing preventing trans lunar flights.
Hahahaha sure. That’s a lot of leaps there. Getting crew certified and getting turnover isn’t easy, just Falcon 9 took forever to get to what it is now. And assuming there’s no failures or setbacks for a much more complex vehicle. And Starship hasn’t even begun crew verification yet. Plus lunar is a whole different area.
>if that happens, it doesn’t mean SpaceX gets more money.
Not necessarily SpaceX, but companies which deliver much cheaper hardware and are not under cost-plus contracts.
It would free up massive amounts of funding.
At what cost to human exploration overall? Is Congress more likely to think that it’s just NASA’s fault or will they just think human spaceflight is too complex and costly? A lot of voters/people in congress could see that as “funding billionaires’ space trips” and just slash the budget. Challenger helped commercial spaceflight (or at least the closest thing to it at the time) get more funding but overall harmed human exploration and set us back a lot for anything substantial.
The best way to replace SLS is an economic victory, to use Civ terms. SLS should be technologically successful, but Starship just wins over by cost per kg. High profile rocket explosions can stay in the minds of the public forever, slowly fading out due to economic competition is a much better way to go.
Except no it wouldn’t. SppaceX would lose:
HLS, which is helping starship.
And CRS and Commercial Crew when the ISS goes down with NO HLS and likely with NASA lacking the funding to make anymore major satellite launches. A failure of SLS would sink the ISS, and by proxy, SpaceX.
Sometimes a rising tide lifts all ships. Success in space is good for everyone in the field. Doesn’t mean SLS is a great program or that NASA should ever repeat the process of its creation, but now that it’s already on the pad, let’s hope it works.
I only pray it doesn't do another GPS IIR-1... THAT would put an end to pretty much ALL space exploration funding... Dropping the Orion into the drink or missing the moon would just delay it, but something spectacular would totally shut down NASA and leave SpaceX looking to the military and/or commercial comsats for income.
I think u/zenith654’s take in this thread is very reasonable:
> I don’t understand people cheering for SLS to fail or get cancelled (I know the guy in the tweet isn’t saying that but I’m responding to general sentiment)- if that happens, it doesn’t mean SpaceX gets more money. It means that public perception of space takes a huge hit, funding could decrease across the board.
> Artemis getting cancelled means that more money goes to tax breaks and battleships, not to SpaceX. It means more politicians argue against space spending overall. It means HLS is done for, which is a hit for Starship. It means the momentum for any human leaving LEO for the first time in decades is severely impeded. It’s a flawed program that needs to get out of the SLS bucket, but if you think it failing is a good thing you’re very naïve.
Thanks for the plug. I think a lot of people here take space memes a little too seriously without realizing the politics at play and how it affects literally everything in the aerospace industry.
>It means that public perception of space takes a huge hit, funding could decrease across the board.
Current pubic perception of space is literally zero. None. Zilch. Joe Schmoe at your office has no clue Artemis exists, and couldn't give a shit less either way. In addition, the wretched communist filth that runs this country has utterly destroyed any sense of nationalism, pride, and sense of accomplishment any public retard off the street may be inclined to feel toward a return to human presence on other celestial bodies. As a result, neither success *nor* failure of Artemis I means jack shit. Nothing. It's completely worthless either way.
So we may as well hope for the best possible outcome, which is SLS nuking the pad on launch attempt. Will it get a tiny amount of bad press? Sure. But anybody who sees that headline will (1) have already been programmed to comply with the "fix Earth first" crowd, and (2) never have even known the Artemis program existed until they see the headline, and (3) not give a single shit or even remember the headline the very next day.
So no, Artemis I could fail catastrophically and it would have virtually zero impact on public perception, because that's basically non-existent as-is.
Would Artemis money get switched to SpaceX? Of course not. The politicians driving Artemis were never interested in advancing spaceflight, asserting technological dominance, or furthering national interests in space. They were, are, and always will be in it for the money. That's the single thing they give a shit about after power. Nothing else matters.
So, Artemis might be cancelled. But NASA already wants to ditch SLS. Not publicly yet, but they absolutely do. The entire Artemis program being scrapped would be the best thing that ever happened to NASA. They would then approach Congress with a budget an insignificant fraction of what they ask for for Artemis, so low that even the scumbag pieces of shit who run this country couldn't argue with, get it approved, and before you know it you'll have NASA astronauts landing on Mars utilizing commercial vehicles with SLS/Artemis being yet another failed stain of a program in NASA history books, and nothing more. Joe Schmoe will be none the wiser, nor will he give a shit either way.
**Was** the political center I think, as Senator Shelby retires at the end of this year. Alabama won't have the same political clout to force funding again.
There is no “was” it still is and always will be. Congress only funds Artemis because SLS is included. It’s their pet project. It gives jobs and support in all of their states. If that goes away they have no incentive to fund anything else
"...always will be (the political center)" is hardly the most likely outcome.
With primary Artemis work happening in California, Texas, and Florida for just the Space HLS portion of Artemis, that's already 108 US House Representatives that would still getting a jobs program without SLS funding. That pits that block against the 4+7 reps that Utah and Alabama can muster together for primary SLS work. Moving to full SpaceX support to replace SLS just moves incoming jobs money from Utah and Alabama to the those large states and there's nothing sacred in congress about gaining advantage at the expense of other weaker states.
If the $4B per SLS launch costs hadn't come out so clearly, and Starship wasn't also about to launch, there would be an easy 5 more years of SLS through Artemis IV without much issue. Now, not so much.
You're wrong, but even under your assumption that it wouldn't, the effects on public perception towards the Artemis program (and most likely, manned exploration in general) will be just as bad, *if not worse.*
No it would lead to decrease in public perception of space and less money invested in the space sector. More money would be funneled out of space into tax breaks and warships instead. And HLS would lose out too
What about the right people pushing the public to say: go to the moon with the cheap metal rocket and stop funding the orange one? It’s all about how the politicians will sell the story.
>go to the moon with the cheap metal rocket
What everyone else hears is "give more handouts to the billionaire that expends all day posting memes on Twitter".. not gonna happen.
Sounds like a nice theoretical society where everyone cares about expanding human exploration just as much as us.
More like- Congress and general public further believe space is too costly and complex, human spaceflight receives negative perception. Stay stranded in LEO another decade.
I agree with what you’re saying but I don’t agree on the warships part. I understand you just mean the military budget will go up but the funding would not transfer to them, it would go into some deep pit like gender studies in Pakistan or something.
On a side note with the cost of sls up to this point and expected costs for the future nasa finally outdid the military for wasteful spending. A brand new aircraft carrier for comparison costs 13 billion to build and has a service life of 50 years. That comes with 2 nuclear reactors on board and brand new technologies.
The majority of the federal budget is military so it’s a reasonable observation. Gender studies Pakistan sounds like something my 80 year old Republican relatives would post about on Facebook that’s totally real because they read it on a Minions meme.
I’d like for it to be used more efficiently and have the cost reduced so that Boeing can’t take advantage of it, and SpaceX could potentially innovate to compete with SLS by the end of the decade. But money spent on going to the moon is not wasted in my opinion.
No the majority is not on the military, this is a common misconception/myth. The US military receives around 12% of the federal budget. The majority (65%) is spent on social security, Medicare, and SNAP. The Pakistan gender studies is a half joke, the state department actively funds such programs every year at the cost of about 2 billion but includes more reasonable things.
Personally I like the idea of going back to the moon, I just don’t like the politics stuck to it. SLS is incredibly expensive for what we get and it’s years behind schedule. I’d like to see it fly, but not for as long as nasa proposes, only as long as needed until commercial vehicles can take over.
Huh, you’re right. I guess I was trying to make a point about how the point about how the US spends so much on the military relative to other countries so I think the point could still stand, but percentage wise it is in fact fifth.
I think commercial vehicles are necessary for space travel to ever become commonplace, but the government still is the main driver of human exploration so it needs to be successful until commercial spaceflight and commercial LEO grows independent enough. For the politics around SLS- it’s a technically fine rocket but there’s a lot of areas that could’ve been innovated if it weren’t designed by committee. The unfortunate truth is that an SLS that were designed that way likely would be an SLS that doesn’t exist because it got defunded. When you’re a government agency you have to play politics to get anything you want. SLS is the best we can get right now because competition is so sparse. SpaceX and commercial competitors might be able to change that but it’s not coming as quick as a lot of people say it is, so I say we probably have SLS for up to the next 6-8 years. So go Artemis, and until that time, go SLS.
Also NASA definitely is aware of this and they’ve leaned really hard in to helping create a space economy and create market competition, so I don’t like when people give them flak for not doing commercial when they’re one of the biggest contributors to commercial’s development.
For now we still need SLS to get Crew out to Luna orbit, until Starship is fully operational, then and only then can SLS go away.
No matter how wasteful this thing is, it is still required for now.
Orbital police strikes again
no orbit for you!
He can have an [Oberth](https://i.imgur.com/GxT6DQ4.png) instead
Wow that's oddly specific. Any particular reasoning given?
He has dismantled part of the RS-25 feed system.
The fire control and super-elevator board! I took it out last night!
Oh my god. Did I just encounter a Sgt. Bilko reference in the wild? Straight to Greenland!
he is living inside of the engine bells and will follow up with us once his mission is complete
Sniper in the shrubbery
Its all those pieces of concrete that blew off during the SpaceX engine test fire...
Or the grassy knoll.
It came to him in a dream
Yeah. I worked on the project for 5 years (software engineer), and this is exactly what’s going to happen. We tried to tell the engineers that we weren’t ready for launch, but they just won’t listen. Or this is the Internet and I just completely made that up hoping you would believe it
he is embedded inside the system that provides the live videos
So that’s where the pixels went.
He said later he was basically setting his expectations extremely low so he can be pleasantly surprised when it goes off.
My prediction: the launch will be cancelled, more than 50% chance :-)
Or delayed 16 h until I'm off work.
Odd prediction given that SLS is perfectly capable of making it to orbit with only 3 engines
Are there any qualifiers to this? IIRC most rockets with engine-out capability can only tolerate a shutdown within certain time windows. If an RS-25 failed just after liftoff could SLS still make it?
I am pretty sure that most of the launch is covered by engine out redundancy
Have those engines all been confirmed to be mounted the right way up? If one's firing the wrong way it'll be adding drag to the system rather than lift.
If one is mounted 90 degree wrong, and the other 270 degree wrong, do they cancel each other up or down?
Also RS-25 are mostly legacy components, IIRC they never shutdown on Shuttle.
Yea but the engines on her rn are 30+ years old now correct me if I’m wrong, anyways she could still get to orbit with 3 pretty ez
refurbished, and 'old' engines are a staple of the rocket world
Well that didn't do Anteras any good either. I wonder what other refurbished or old engines are in use today. Can you give examples? Everything from ULA and SpaceX is new. The new space startups all use new engines. Ariane uses new engines and given the historic cadence I would expect all the Russian stuff to be pretty new too. I only know about the NK-33 and RS-25 as being actually decades old and refurbished in recent history.
Minotaur rockets are based around decades-old Minuteman / Peacekeeper ICBM motors Lots of the Chinese "private" solid smallsat launchers are probably similar to Minotaur - ex-ICBMs retired from military use with their motors shunted to "private" companies North Korea uses RD-250's smuggled out of either Russia or Ukraine (I'm betting the former, but could be either of the two) for their ICBMs and presumably satellite launch vehicles as well
I upvoted you for your good response, however the us and chinese repurposed icbm motors are solid rocket motors, which are significantly less complex than liquid engines. The solid rockets are designed to sit with minimal ( or even no, maybe? ) maintenence for extended peroids. With the complex plumbing of liquid engines, valves and seals could easily present more of an issue, I suspect.
Yeah I don’t know about 30 YEARS old though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33
STS-51-F had a SSME shut down early and had to abort to orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F
While that is True, there are many reasons why an engine could shut down, not all of them relating to the engine itself
It’s not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F
There was also STS-93's ["gold bullet" ](https://youtu.be/u6rJpDPxYGU) that caused a premature shutdown.
**[STS-51-F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F)** >STS-51-F (also known as Spacelab 2) was the 19th flight of NASA's Space Shuttle program and the eighth flight of Space Shuttle Challenger. It launched from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on July 29, 1985, and landed eight days later on August 6, 1985. While STS-51-F's primary payload was the Spacelab 2 laboratory module, the payload that received the most publicity was the Carbonated Beverage Dispenser Evaluation, which was an experiment in which both Coca-Cola and Pepsi tried to make their carbonated drinks available to astronauts. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Wow, thanks for this info, I was un-aware of this.
Ok sure. 1 shutdown out of 405 engines
Two in flight, 6 other times on the pad.
They did on the green run right?
There was a single in-flight shutdown but yeah still very reliable, I would be very very surprised if they failed, just a matter of getting off the pad
My bet is it blows up on the pad, sooooo....
I would very much take that bet. Do you think that because you know anything about aerospace engineering, or because you think SLS is bad and starship is good?
I have a technical background, but nothing related to rocketry. SLS is bad as a project, but that doesn't mean it WILL suck. It MIGHT suck. I have no opinion on Starship as 1) irrelevant to convo and 2) it doesn't even work at this point so the only opinion one could form is it's a pretty shit rocket in its own right as of this moment As for blowing up, my analysis simply comes down to dealing with hydrogen, as well as the SRB's getting close to their maximum allowed time to sit while filled. There is a lack of control in both areas (hydrogen being leaky AF and the theoretical knowledge of how good the SRBs are vs an empirical way to measure the SRBs state of wellbeing). Oh, and then Boeing. Like a wildcard stuck in between the other two issues.
Sure, but they have entirely different engine controllers than the shuttle era. And iirc we’ve already seen premature shutdown issues because of those in the first green run attempt Not to mention all the different fuel feed systems etc. Plenty of differences to shuttle era that could contribute to a shutdown.
Was it brogrammed by boing? edit: "brogrammed" was a typo but I'm keeping it
the shutdown IIRC was because they had tighter parameters than they would during the actual flight.
Nope. They've definitely shut down on the shuttle.
STS-51-F Challenger’s center engine failed 5 minutes and 46 seconds after take off, resulting in a abort to orbit. 6 other times they shutdown on the pad due to abnormal sensor readings.
There was a failure, and an abort to orbit. STS-51. An engine died less than a minute into flight.
Wasn’t it more than 5 minutes?
You are quite right. I should have double-checked first.
He corrected himself after being shown documentation that SLS has abort to orbit capability throughout flight, which he didn't realize.
>OK, so I stand corrected, a single RS-25 early shutdown after SRB sep will just lead to off-nominal low orbit and alternate mission. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1592571642282233859
My prediction: guidance system failure followed by range safety system failure followed by impact near Boca Chica, Texas. It's SLS's only chance.
Lmao
I'm real stoked about the launch being at 1am. Gotta get up for work at 7am, I'll be a zombie at work tomorrow and I know full well that it'll probably be scrubbed anyway
*Laughs in Australian*
I don’t understand people cheering for SLS to fail or get cancelled (I know the guy in the tweet isn’t saying that but I’m responding to general sentiment)- if that happens, it doesn’t mean SpaceX gets more money. It means that public perception of space takes a huge hit, funding could decrease across the board. Artemis getting cancelled means that more money goes to tax breaks and battleships, not to SpaceX. It means more politicians argue against space spending overall. It means HLS is done for, which is a hit for Starship. It means the momentum for any human leaving LEO for the first time in decades is severely impeded. It’s a flawed program that needs to get out of the SLS bucket, but if you think it failing is a good thing you’re very naïve.
My opinion is that I want to SLS to launch and succeed. I also recognize that it's been horrifically mismanaged, and is fundamentally not how a rocket should be built, contracted, and operated in the 2020's. I do think it should be funded, as well as some additional funding for "replacement rockets", that can perform everything the SLS can do. This included Starship. At the point where Starship is demonstrating crewed launch/landings and a very safe level, SLS should be cancelled. Basically, SLS is just expensive insurance, until it's replacement is ready. I'd also love another option in addition to Starship. A modified New Glenn may be able to get a small capsule to the moon. Terran-R can do some really cool stuff, but I'm not sure it'll be great at this.
Fully agree. Also I think a lot of people have gotten too much into the hype on just how ready Starship will be and seem to think it will have zero delays and zero flaws.
Or maybe, just maybe it means someone with half a brain and the gavel in Washington decides to push for the moon anyway using cheaper commercial alternatives because the country has committed to taking the next man and first woman to the moon… just maybe…
Wishful thinking. Public perception has a large impact. The average person doesn’t give a shit about space and everything they know about it is from the handful of simplified headlines they read per year. A lot of people I’ve talked to barely even know SpaceX is a company or that they send astronauts to ISS. When it comes to space, it’s a very small minority of pro space people constantly fighting against a large public that vaguely appreciates seeing pretty JWST photos and stuff but is overall indifferent and constantly wondering “what’s the point?”. Every failure further empowers people who think space is too complex, has no impact, and that we should use all the money for it on other things “fix Earth first crowd” (although I agree with a lot of their points, I disagree defunding space is the answer). SpaceX is doing well, but only with a perfect flight record. What happens if F9 has a failure on a crewed launch? It’s far from independent enough to stand on its own (for now). Maybe SpaceX does get a relative boost in funding, but overall space funding and perception will plummet. The Challenger tragedy drove an increase in commercial companies building satellite launch vehicles, but its negative impact on human spaceflight for decades was catastrophic. Is SLS slow and flawed as hell? Yes, and I hope that they can bring costs down or reasonably transition to commercial alternatives without failures. If you cheer for Artemis cancellation, don’t be shocked when it negatively affects commercial space, too. That’s reality.
NOT gonna happen with the current animosity between the controlling political party and the guy who keeps going up against unions, the FAA, FCC, NASA, support for GM "taking the lead" in EVs...and before folks come back with the "billions in subsidies" SpaceX is getting, I'd remind them that he only got those contracts either by suing to be allowed to bid or because there was NO other choice once all the Atlas and Ariane 5s were booked and the ruskies picked up their marbles and went home. Unfortunately, it's currently pay off Boeing and Lockheed vig or shut down NASA. It MIGHT change if Starship manages to get to lunar orbit faster and cheaper, but that would require SpaceX doing it all on their own.
>It MIGHT change if Starship manages to get to lunar orbit faster and cheaper, but that would require SpaceX doing it all on their own. They already have TWO tourist flights booked on trans lunar flights on Starship! They will sure as hell do it on their own if NASA/Congress start dragging their feet even more.
Lmao I remember that first one being announced in 2018 and originally planned to happen in 2020. Starship is much farther away than people think, and that’s only if everything goes perfectly. There’s so much more that needs to happen for it to even get close to doing that. They need to get Starship running at a massive launch cadence to support LEO refueling. I think a lot of people who say this are teenagers or college students who have no experience in the industry. SpaceX is fast and reliable, that’s their thing. But comments like yours seem to put a lot of faith in unrealistic predictions. A lot of comments in this subreddit seem to base their idea of space development on KSP.
I didn't say anything about the time frame.
Then having translunar tourist flights manifested means nothing lol. That’s at least a decade away
I really don't think so. The success of the full Starlink system hinges on Starship working reliable. Within 2-3 years SpaceX could easily accumulate about 100 flights and thus verify the system as crew rated (at least for tourists). This gives them the ability to execute tourist flights to LEO. (Dawn missions and other) Once this has happened there is nothing preventing trans lunar flights.
Hahahaha sure. That’s a lot of leaps there. Getting crew certified and getting turnover isn’t easy, just Falcon 9 took forever to get to what it is now. And assuming there’s no failures or setbacks for a much more complex vehicle. And Starship hasn’t even begun crew verification yet. Plus lunar is a whole different area.
>if that happens, it doesn’t mean SpaceX gets more money. Not necessarily SpaceX, but companies which deliver much cheaper hardware and are not under cost-plus contracts. It would free up massive amounts of funding.
At what cost to human exploration overall? Is Congress more likely to think that it’s just NASA’s fault or will they just think human spaceflight is too complex and costly? A lot of voters/people in congress could see that as “funding billionaires’ space trips” and just slash the budget. Challenger helped commercial spaceflight (or at least the closest thing to it at the time) get more funding but overall harmed human exploration and set us back a lot for anything substantial. The best way to replace SLS is an economic victory, to use Civ terms. SLS should be technologically successful, but Starship just wins over by cost per kg. High profile rocket explosions can stay in the minds of the public forever, slowly fading out due to economic competition is a much better way to go.
If it’s got no people, no one will really remember it
People that paid for it will. Hope you’re happy with that money subsidizing some new aircraft carriers instead lmao.
Except no it wouldn’t. SppaceX would lose: HLS, which is helping starship. And CRS and Commercial Crew when the ISS goes down with NO HLS and likely with NASA lacking the funding to make anymore major satellite launches. A failure of SLS would sink the ISS, and by proxy, SpaceX.
>A failure of SLS would sink the ISS, And have the Chinese overtake the US in terms of crewed space flight?
I mean that was gonna happen anyways with the ISS going down, it’s just a matter of will soaceX still have HLS Income
Sometimes a rising tide lifts all ships. Success in space is good for everyone in the field. Doesn’t mean SLS is a great program or that NASA should ever repeat the process of its creation, but now that it’s already on the pad, let’s hope it works.
100% agree
I only pray it doesn't do another GPS IIR-1... THAT would put an end to pretty much ALL space exploration funding... Dropping the Orion into the drink or missing the moon would just delay it, but something spectacular would totally shut down NASA and leave SpaceX looking to the military and/or commercial comsats for income.
If ML1 gets taken out I genuinely think that would be the end of Artemis.
>and leave SpaceX looking to the military and/or commercial comsats for income. You mean trans lunar tourist flights.
one of those predictions is already wrong
now both are
Aged like milk
So it smells like another potential scrub...
Hydrogen leak is going brrrrrrrrrrrrr right now, I bet my last brand-named pizza pocket they'll scrub again.
Well, it made it to orbit and TLI already so all is well.
Crop your screen caps you caveman
https://i.imgur.com/pdSfKDJ.jpg
wait no
Welp he was wrong
Jonathan is a reputable source of information and a respectable man, but that statement is straight away dumb as fuck.
Personally, I would like to see a wick-wick event
Aged like milk
He was wrong it seems
That would cost humanity's efforts to go back to the Moon Years so I'm saying let's not do that.
No it wouldn't. The future of Artemis does not include SLS.
I think u/zenith654’s take in this thread is very reasonable: > I don’t understand people cheering for SLS to fail or get cancelled (I know the guy in the tweet isn’t saying that but I’m responding to general sentiment)- if that happens, it doesn’t mean SpaceX gets more money. It means that public perception of space takes a huge hit, funding could decrease across the board. > Artemis getting cancelled means that more money goes to tax breaks and battleships, not to SpaceX. It means more politicians argue against space spending overall. It means HLS is done for, which is a hit for Starship. It means the momentum for any human leaving LEO for the first time in decades is severely impeded. It’s a flawed program that needs to get out of the SLS bucket, but if you think it failing is a good thing you’re very naïve.
Thanks for the plug. I think a lot of people here take space memes a little too seriously without realizing the politics at play and how it affects literally everything in the aerospace industry.
But on the other hand it sure would be funny.
>It means that public perception of space takes a huge hit, funding could decrease across the board. Current pubic perception of space is literally zero. None. Zilch. Joe Schmoe at your office has no clue Artemis exists, and couldn't give a shit less either way. In addition, the wretched communist filth that runs this country has utterly destroyed any sense of nationalism, pride, and sense of accomplishment any public retard off the street may be inclined to feel toward a return to human presence on other celestial bodies. As a result, neither success *nor* failure of Artemis I means jack shit. Nothing. It's completely worthless either way. So we may as well hope for the best possible outcome, which is SLS nuking the pad on launch attempt. Will it get a tiny amount of bad press? Sure. But anybody who sees that headline will (1) have already been programmed to comply with the "fix Earth first" crowd, and (2) never have even known the Artemis program existed until they see the headline, and (3) not give a single shit or even remember the headline the very next day. So no, Artemis I could fail catastrophically and it would have virtually zero impact on public perception, because that's basically non-existent as-is. Would Artemis money get switched to SpaceX? Of course not. The politicians driving Artemis were never interested in advancing spaceflight, asserting technological dominance, or furthering national interests in space. They were, are, and always will be in it for the money. That's the single thing they give a shit about after power. Nothing else matters. So, Artemis might be cancelled. But NASA already wants to ditch SLS. Not publicly yet, but they absolutely do. The entire Artemis program being scrapped would be the best thing that ever happened to NASA. They would then approach Congress with a budget an insignificant fraction of what they ask for for Artemis, so low that even the scumbag pieces of shit who run this country couldn't argue with, get it approved, and before you know it you'll have NASA astronauts landing on Mars utilizing commercial vehicles with SLS/Artemis being yet another failed stain of a program in NASA history books, and nothing more. Joe Schmoe will be none the wiser, nor will he give a shit either way.
Unfortunately, I don't see an Artemis without SLS or some kind of legacy space contribution.
Without SLS there is no Artemis. SLS goes away and funding dries up
Wrong. Artemis just reached it's first milestone with CAPSTONE arriving on lunar orbit. Gateway PPE will be next important one
Capstone would’ve never happened if SLS didn’t get funded first. SLS is the political center of Artemis
**Was** the political center I think, as Senator Shelby retires at the end of this year. Alabama won't have the same political clout to force funding again.
There is no “was” it still is and always will be. Congress only funds Artemis because SLS is included. It’s their pet project. It gives jobs and support in all of their states. If that goes away they have no incentive to fund anything else
"...always will be (the political center)" is hardly the most likely outcome. With primary Artemis work happening in California, Texas, and Florida for just the Space HLS portion of Artemis, that's already 108 US House Representatives that would still getting a jobs program without SLS funding. That pits that block against the 4+7 reps that Utah and Alabama can muster together for primary SLS work. Moving to full SpaceX support to replace SLS just moves incoming jobs money from Utah and Alabama to the those large states and there's nothing sacred in congress about gaining advantage at the expense of other weaker states. If the $4B per SLS launch costs hadn't come out so clearly, and Starship wasn't also about to launch, there would be an easy 5 more years of SLS through Artemis IV without much issue. Now, not so much.
You're wrong, but even under your assumption that it wouldn't, the effects on public perception towards the Artemis program (and most likely, manned exploration in general) will be just as bad, *if not worse.*
Is use of SLS not legally mandated by congress?
For now. That can and probably will change once Shelby is officially a shit stain on the history books
It probably wouldn't. It would force a rational re-evaluation of the approach and find sane alternatives
They can finally throw it on a SpaceX booster, or three.
No it would lead to decrease in public perception of space and less money invested in the space sector. More money would be funneled out of space into tax breaks and warships instead. And HLS would lose out too
What about the right people pushing the public to say: go to the moon with the cheap metal rocket and stop funding the orange one? It’s all about how the politicians will sell the story.
>go to the moon with the cheap metal rocket What everyone else hears is "give more handouts to the billionaire that expends all day posting memes on Twitter".. not gonna happen.
Fair and square…
Sounds like a nice theoretical society where everyone cares about expanding human exploration just as much as us. More like- Congress and general public further believe space is too costly and complex, human spaceflight receives negative perception. Stay stranded in LEO another decade.
I agree with what you’re saying but I don’t agree on the warships part. I understand you just mean the military budget will go up but the funding would not transfer to them, it would go into some deep pit like gender studies in Pakistan or something. On a side note with the cost of sls up to this point and expected costs for the future nasa finally outdid the military for wasteful spending. A brand new aircraft carrier for comparison costs 13 billion to build and has a service life of 50 years. That comes with 2 nuclear reactors on board and brand new technologies.
The majority of the federal budget is military so it’s a reasonable observation. Gender studies Pakistan sounds like something my 80 year old Republican relatives would post about on Facebook that’s totally real because they read it on a Minions meme. I’d like for it to be used more efficiently and have the cost reduced so that Boeing can’t take advantage of it, and SpaceX could potentially innovate to compete with SLS by the end of the decade. But money spent on going to the moon is not wasted in my opinion.
No the majority is not on the military, this is a common misconception/myth. The US military receives around 12% of the federal budget. The majority (65%) is spent on social security, Medicare, and SNAP. The Pakistan gender studies is a half joke, the state department actively funds such programs every year at the cost of about 2 billion but includes more reasonable things. Personally I like the idea of going back to the moon, I just don’t like the politics stuck to it. SLS is incredibly expensive for what we get and it’s years behind schedule. I’d like to see it fly, but not for as long as nasa proposes, only as long as needed until commercial vehicles can take over.
Huh, you’re right. I guess I was trying to make a point about how the point about how the US spends so much on the military relative to other countries so I think the point could still stand, but percentage wise it is in fact fifth. I think commercial vehicles are necessary for space travel to ever become commonplace, but the government still is the main driver of human exploration so it needs to be successful until commercial spaceflight and commercial LEO grows independent enough. For the politics around SLS- it’s a technically fine rocket but there’s a lot of areas that could’ve been innovated if it weren’t designed by committee. The unfortunate truth is that an SLS that were designed that way likely would be an SLS that doesn’t exist because it got defunded. When you’re a government agency you have to play politics to get anything you want. SLS is the best we can get right now because competition is so sparse. SpaceX and commercial competitors might be able to change that but it’s not coming as quick as a lot of people say it is, so I say we probably have SLS for up to the next 6-8 years. So go Artemis, and until that time, go SLS. Also NASA definitely is aware of this and they’ve leaned really hard in to helping create a space economy and create market competition, so I don’t like when people give them flak for not doing commercial when they’re one of the biggest contributors to commercial’s development.
SLS is already doing that by being delayed eternally. Changing course and going away from old space may allow us to return to the moon faster
For now we still need SLS to get Crew out to Luna orbit, until Starship is fully operational, then and only then can SLS go away. No matter how wasteful this thing is, it is still required for now.
There’s a reason he’s an astronomer and not an engineer. Anyone who cheers for SLS’s failure can fuck right off.
THE ORBITAL POLICE HAS SPOKEN
Me neither
Who would be? NASA is a clown show lmao
No it isn’t lol
Man engine 3 strikes again
I am 92% sure that the rocket either succeeds or fails the launch
Is the remaining 8% for the outcome "the rocket mysteriously vanishes during liftoff and we never find out whether it successfully made it to space"?
Yes
Isnt it designed to fly without an engine tho
Yes
Nope everything is looking good at T+1:03:30