Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NASA has decided to not wait around for Boeing to perhaps one day have enough SLS rockets built (or, indeed, any SLS rockets) and have instead given SpaceX the contract for launching the flagship mission to Europa.
Congress - who normally just love the SLS for all the pork it puts in the right districts - provided a bit of wiggle room in their appropriations bill last summer, and NASA moved with lightning speed (for NASA) to seize the opportunity to get their probe into space. Also, there were "compatibility issues" all of a sudden. Turns out that the solid boosters used for SLS (Thank you SO MUCH, Thiokol lobbyists) may cause "torsional load values" that would damage the probe. In plain English: The SLS shakes too much to launch delicate payloads.
The contract awards SpaceX $178 million, which sounds like a lot - until you recall that an SLS launch would have been $1.5 billion more expensive. And the mission profile had to be changed to a gravity-assist trajectory, which means it will take longer for the probe to arrive. But NASA finally had the nerve to say "Let's use a rocket that exists", which is a sad thing to have to celebrate.
The mission package is fairly pricey as well, currently at $4.25 billion. But at least that is going to scientific discovery, rather than just getting it into orbit.
Give it time. Congress will realize SLS is being pushed aside, pitch a fit and magically Europa will be riding on one again after they spend years trying to figure out how to not break it.
I want to see SLS fly as much as anyone, but at this point it's redundant. I'd bet the only reason it's still in development is so much money has been spent already it's stupid to not finish it. Once Starship flies, forget it. SLS will exist only to keep the government rocket industry alive because they'd never survive in private sector.
Give it time. Congress will realize SLS is being pushed aside, pitch a fit and magically Europa will be riding on one again after they spend years trying to figure out how to not break it.
I hope you're wrong, but it wouldn't be the dumbest stunt Congress has pulled when it comes to micromanaging NASA. OTOH, we're shoveling money into Boeing's coffers as fast as we can - they simply can't build them any faster. One per year.
Quote:
I want to see SLS fly as much as anyone, but at this point it's redundant. I'd bet the only reason it's still in development is so much money has been spent already it's stupid to not finish it. Once Starship flies, forget it. SLS will exist only to keep the government rocket industry alive because they'd never survive in private sector.
(Thank you SO MUCH, Thiokol lobbyists) may cause "torsional load values" that would damage the probe. In plain English: The SLS shakes too much to launch delicate payloads.
Not sure how Thiokol lobbyists sleep at night, considering the SRB's are directly responsible for every astronaut death in the US space program since Apollo 1.
They blew up the Challenger and they shook loose the insulation that doomed Columbia. GEM's and humans (or clearly anything fragile) simply don't mix.
I bet the only reason the 5-segment boosters on the SLS don't produce lethal accelerations is because of the giant mass of LH2 and LOX they're strapped to. Anybody remember Constellation? When we shot a really big brick into the Atlantic? That's pretty much all that SRB's are good for.
Solid rockets are great for killing people (adversaries with Air-to-Air missiles, cities with ICBM's, and Astronauts by accident) and not much else.
Anybody remember Constellation? When we shot a really big brick into the Atlantic? That's pretty much all that SRB's are good for.
And proved - in the process - that yes, they shook too much for the astronauts to actually be able to read displays or do anything useful. Work was underway to engineer a "tuned mass damper" - because if you really want to make a great rocket, adding some mass to keep it from shaking the astronauts apart is a sign of clever engineering. Then Constellation was mercifully canceled.
Fun fact: The program director for that part of Constellation - Scott Horowitz - popped back and forth between working for ATK (Thiokol's name then), then NASA, then lobbying for ATK. Because apparently that's legal. And what do you know? He found that ATK's boosters were ideal for manned launches.
He also hated the commercial programs, particularly SpaceX.
Not sure how Thiokol lobbyists sleep at night, considering the SRB's are directly responsible for every astronaut death in the US space program since Apollo 1.
They blew up the Challenger and they shook loose the insulation that doomed Columbia. GEM's and humans (or clearly anything fragile) simply don't mix.
I bet the only reason the 5-segment boosters on the SLS don't produce lethal accelerations is because of the giant mass of LH2 and LOX they're strapped to. Anybody remember Constellation? When we shot a really big brick into the Atlantic? That's pretty much all that SRB's are good for.
Solid rockets are great for killing people (adversaries with Air-to-Air missiles, cities with ICBM's, and Astronauts by accident) and not much else.
In all fairness, Thiokol tried to tell NASA not to fly Challenger. They reversed that decision, and I'm willing to bet NASA forced their hand there to get the shuttle off the ground, but the initial recommendation was to not fly until it warmed up.
As far as Columbia, yeah. That was a bad design decision through and through. Surprising what foam will do at high speeds though.
Also, Challenger itself didn't blow up - it broke up due to the stress on the orbiter and the fireball from the fuel. The "actual" explosion seen was from the fuel mixing as the tanks came apart. Still a bad way to go though.
In all fairness, Thiokol tried to tell NASA not to fly Challenger. They reversed that decision, and I'm willing to bet NASA forced their hand there to get the shuttle off the ground, but the initial recommendation was to not fly until it warmed up.
As far as Columbia, yeah. That was a bad design decision through and through. Surprising what foam will do at high speeds though.
Also, Challenger itself didn't blow up - it broke up due to the stress on the orbiter and the fireball from the fuel. The "actual" explosion seen was from the fuel mixing as the tanks came apart. Still a bad way to go though.
Somebody should have told NASA not to fly any STS with SRB's, ever.
The design would have been fine if those had been liquid boosters.
The SRB's blew up the fuel tank which blew up most of the orbiter necessary for controlled flight. That counts as blowing up the shuttle. Yeah, they didn't detonate like the sticks of dynamite that they are (and sometimes did on test stands when a big chunk of fuel spalled off and plugged the nozzle), but that's really picking nits.
Hey, I love solids as much as the next Kerbal, but they should never be used under or near a non-simulated life form. Especially not humans.
Hey, I love solids as much as the next Kerbal, but they should never be used under or near a non-simulated life form.
Poor Jeb.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
