Hacker News Reader

Comment by rbanffy | Hacker News Reader

> Ares, SLS are basically just warmed up shuttle concepts

Not really. They were started before SpaceX proved the idea of reusable boosters. They are a safe Plan-B, using engines and concepts that were already available. It’s a shame they decided to improve upon the existing hardware and took much longer than initially expected, but that’s what life with rockets used to be before SpaceX showed rapid iteration is a better path.

Also, Congress would be very upset with a bunch of failed launches, but that’s also how iterative development works.

View on HN

> They are a safe Plan-B

I was the Plan-A back then during Constellation. And SLS was also Plan-A.

> Not really.

I would argue the forced existing hardware into those project to continue to employ the same contractors.

Using a single stick solid rocket booster for your human launcher might be one of the worst ideas in the last 2 decades of rocket history.

Not surprisingly the congress person from that state was heavily involved funding Constellation.

> It’s a shame they decided to improve upon the existing hardware and took much longer than initially expected, but that’s what life with rockets used to be before SpaceX showed rapid iteration is a better path.

There were other viable paths even back then. Not to the level of SpaceX but there were others.

NASA did a whole bunch of studies and these studies pretty much universally showed that the current SLS designs was flawed and a booster that looked like a modern Saturn V was the far better solution.

There were even considerations of having it be privately developed.

Turns out NASA can make as many studies as they want, congress basically over-ruled them and forced them to use all the existing contractors and facilities and thus they were forced into current SLS.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/kt1vlf/r...

> I was the Plan-A back then during Constellation. And SLS was also Plan-A.

It makes sense for it to use the well known approach as Plan-A when the options don’t exist.

> NASA did a whole bunch of studies and these studies pretty much universally showed that the current SLS designs was flawed and a booster that looked like a modern Saturn V was the far better solution.

New developments based on new components, however Saturn V-like, are a risk. I have read a couple studies back then and, while I am not overly enthusiastic about the approach adopted, it offered minimal development risk.

The only novel idea of Ares was putting people on top of an SRB, which was cheap, but abandoned when they realised the vibrations would kill the crew.

Back then, SpaceX was science fiction.

> It makes sense for it to use the well known approach as Plan-A when the options don’t exist.

Not when Plan A has well known well document problems.

> New developments based on new components, however Saturn V-like, are a risk.

Restarting production for RS-25 has risk. Using solids boosters for human space flight has risk.

The idea that magically the picked design has no are significantly less risk is questionable.

In terms of risk to human on the rockets the other designs out-performed the current design and they were cheaper.

> The only novel idea of Ares was putting people on top of an SRB, which was cheap,

I recommend you go back and check out how much Ares 1 cost. It was literally the opposite of cheap. It was a gigantic money pit for a non-commercially competitive rocket that was incredibly risky for human.

> but abandoned when they realised the vibrations would kill the crew.

Maybe the single worst rocket design ever. Despite the issues there were others metnioned.

However the whole Constellation program got canceled because it was horrifyingly badly executed and a bad plan in the first place.

> Back then, SpaceX was science fiction.

By the time SLS was designed they were not. And just because SpaceX doesn't exist, doesn't mean you couldn't do much better then Ares or SLS.

Uhm, I think you're simultaneously doing a discredit to past rocket development and giving an easy pass to the mess that is SLS with this statement.

It's just shoddy project management and prioritizing collaboration with as many big donar aerospace companies as possible as opposed to what works. There is playing it safe and then there is just being complacent. The SLS is complacency personified.

> Uhm, I think you're simultaneously doing a discredit to past rocket development and giving an easy pass to the mess that is SLS with this statement.

Not at all what I intended. Congress is to blame for some of the mess, NASA for the rest. They had shuttle parts and tools and the SLS is certainly not the best that could be done with those.

But, remember, NASA can’t really do much unless Congress gives them the money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com