Oh, I'm aware. Anyone who wants to see what a boondoggle this is just needs to take one part of it and look closely and the plans, what's gone wrong and the cost overruns. Could be the engines, could be the SRBs - but my personal favorite is the tower. It makes my wife, who has to deal with government contracts in an industry that's got a lot of oversight, just start sputtering.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
The SRB's might be the most "cost-effective" part of the whole deal. It's an STS SRB with 5 segments instead of 4. They got the idea waaaayyy back in the "Constellation" days when they launched a single SRB with a capsule on top (the Ares I-X where the 5th segment was a weighted dud).
And how far are they past their "use before" date? Multi-segment SRBs weren't exactly trouble free during the STS days. IIRC there was also a high profile payload (Europa Clipper?) got switched to FH because of the vibration from the solids.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I didn't say they were good. Being the least worst on the SLS is a low bar to trip over...
So honest question here from a space enthusiast. On a scale of 1-10, how much of the inefficiency in these high profile nasa missions is caused purely by bureaucracy?
I get that there is huge pressure, publicly and politically. I understand that at any scale a new project is almost always over budget. It just seems like so many of the issues are caused by the bean counters and political pressure. Way more so than engineering ineptitude or inability.
In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :
Honestly, 11. SLS is a jobs program, not a space program. NASA without bureaucracy doesn't exist, but when there's the least amount of congressional influence you get Saturn V in a couple years. This boondoggle is 11 years in the making and there's a really good chance that it only flies once.
NASA didn't have a lot of say in SLS, it's actually required to build it by law by Congress, I think. It's also been used as a bargaining chip for other programs. The biggest problem, though, is that it's a cost-plus contract, which means the private industry building it is actually penalized for spending less money and taking less time. There is no motivation to get it finished, it's just a big money milking machine. If it launches, the money stops.
NASA isn't blameless, they're not holding the contractors responsible for ludicrous cost overruns and schedule slips and are handing out performance bonuses. But the biggest decisions aren't theirs to make.
Keith Tanner said:NASA didn't have a lot of say in SLS, it's actually required to build it by law by Congress.
Objectively, there's no reason for NASA to be in the rocket design/building business any more. AFAIK, SLS is the only one they're driving, everything else is just a commercial contract. And yeah, I suspect they probably wouldn't be doing it if Congress weren't requiring it.
NASA is best at doing the science-y things that private industry hasn't figured out how to make money at yet. JPL things, like rovers on Mars, probes to Jupiter, space telescopes, etc.
The parts for Artemis probably come from congressional districts in all 50 states...
Purple Frog (Forum Supporter) said:The parts for Artemis probably come from congressional districts in all 50 states...
Got it in one. This is a tweet from the Vice President a few years back bragging on this feature. This is just for the rocket, not the Orion capsule on top.
"I've got the change order on that design, big improvement"
"Uhm.... OK, I will start contacting the 16,000 suppliers....."
"Or... we just go with the old design...."
Get this - they are going to try and build an enclosure for it at the pad and replace both leaking seals (4" and 8"). Then they are going to fill the tank and pre-chill the engines again in a test. If they can get all that done and a pass on the batteries they don't have to roll back to the VAB and can launch in October. They are worried about the stress of traveling that thing back and forth so much.
That's fairly aggressive, not normal for old space. Let's see if it works!
Bummed to see it scrubbed but totally understand. We're ready to watch but also want to see a good launch.
Suboptimal photo from Sunday evening's launch.
Dragging this back up.
Apparently we are go for takeoff tomorrow am. We shall see.
They're at the point where launching it is less risky than carting it around much more, and those solid boosters are getting well past their best-by date. They've gotta get that thing off the pad.
Keith Tanner said:...They've gotta get that thing off the pad.
I understand what you are saying, and am not trying to attack you for it, but the last time that attitude came to the front, this happened (different issues of course):
Not quite. First, there were people on that flight. NASA has already signed off on waivers that they wouldn't if there were humans on board. There's a problem with the redundant life support in the Orion capsule, for example, and NASA has said it's not worth fixing - although in retrospect, they would have had time given the delays with the launch vehicle. It's very clear that if there were people on this flight, it would be treated differently.
In the case of Challenger, there weren't the same technical pressures. NASA had chosen to ignore obvious problems with the booster design and ignored recommendations from the engineers not to launch a cold-soaked rocket. It could easily have waited, but it was getting politically embarrassing because it was so high-profile. There was no technical need why the launch had to go when it did.
In the case of SLS, it's a matter of the probability of failure. Every time they roll it back to the VAB, it takes damage and the probability of a successful launch goes down. Even the crawler is suffering. Every time it's fueled and emptied, it gets closer to the number of allowable cycles on the tankage and plumbing. The boosters had a rated lifespan of 12 months which was extended to 24 months after inspection, but that expires in December. The whole thing hangs off the boosters, so if they have to change those it's a matter of totally tearing the stack down and putting it back together.
Basically, it's getting to the point where they either have to launch it or scrap it, and if you're going to scrap it anyway then you're willing to accept a higher possibility of failure. You get to the point where the numbers say it's safer to launch it than to roll it back. I think that was a factor in the decision to leave it out in the weather for Nicole instead of retreating to the VAB. The odds of hurricane damage were lower than the odds of damage during transport, which was not the case with the previous storm.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Damn, you need to start writing NASA's press releases! Concise, simple to follow with all the pertinent details.
Still on for tonight, right?
David S. Wallens said:Still on for tonight, right?
The two-hour launch window is scheduled to open at 1:04 AM EST on Wednesday, November 16th.
Well.... fireworks displays are always best at night. 
I am debating if I want to go down to the beach to photograph this or just try and shoot it from my driveway.
Leaning towards going to the beach if we have a clear sky.
Either way it should be a really cool sight to see.
You'll need to log in to post.
