Hacker News Reader

Comment by perihelions | Hacker News Reader

Likely no next attempt until October, per Eric Berger (Ars Technica):

- "Hearing a rollback to the VAB of the SLS rocket is likely, but I don't have confirmation. If that happens, it is very likely that Artemis I does not launch before October 17, at the earliest."

- "I'm told that Space Launch System program officials will recommend a rollback to the VAB to investigate the hydrogen leak. The Artemis I mission management team will consider this recommendation at their afternoon meeting, and publicly announce a decision at 4pm ET."

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1566088891395883009

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1566104350635835393

View on HN

I have my doubts that it will ever launch - the way things are proceeding, they’ll miss October, push to ‘23, and will then end up with parts and systems ageing out due to wear and duty cycles - the rollback to the VAB alone incurs significant wear.

Meanwhile, starship will see its first orbital flight (likely not before a few RUDs) while SLS just grows mould.

That said, the whole purpose of SLS was to provide jobs and to retain technical expertise in the US, which it has achieved - actually launching the thing is almost besides the point.

Think about all the work done by people that you are discounting...

A lot of work is put into making porn, facebook games, prayer, cigarette manufacturing, the gambling industry etc. I'm not saying these are all useless things, but most people wouldn't bat an eye at someone "discounting" their work. If the work going into SLS doesn't achieve anything, then they discounted the work themselves, no need for a 3rd party.

Since the rocket gets thrown in the ocean at the end of this, this is literally the sunk cost fallacy at play.

NASA TV loves to show a great infographic of how many parts have flown to space before and have been reusable... can't help but yell in my mind.. and that's the last time they'll be reusable.

Those engines belong in a museum.

Maybe we should just park the turkey in the VAB and turn the VAB into a museum.

It's not entirely sunk cost - there's reputational effects for a lot of people involved. Politicians who supported it look much worse if all this work (and money) has gone into it, only to have it not launch. How bad they will look is proportional to how much money was spent/work was done, so the work put in does matter to the outcome, at least for them.

That probably shouldn't be the case, but when it comes to politics, perception is very much reality in that people's perceptions translate directly to votes.

Those politicians are retiring, or already retired (except the one that is currently running NASA).

Still the sink cost fallacy though.

What is the point that you're trying to make here?

I'm sure we've all experienced situations where we realize that the work we're being paid to do is futile and will never reach achieve it's intended purpose. It's really demoralizing but the thing to remember in that situation is that you're still getting paid.

Would you rather be an aeronautical engineer who gets paid and doesn't launch of a rocket, or an aeronautical engineer who doesn't get paid and doesn't launch a rocket?

I would rather NOT be the engineer who pays taxes so that another engineer makes something that will never fly.

> ... the thing to remember in that situation is that you're still getting paid.

That's the spirit.

I’d rather just be the aeronautical engineer who gets paid to do nothing except stay in the U.S.

The work is shit, despite being done with forty year old, thoroughly understood and matured technology?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/new-report-finds-nas...

Cost overruns would have put NASA 33% over budget a few years ago, but they committed accounting fraud to cover it up.

The SLS is nothing more than a welfare check to Georgia and Florida.

When is that first starship orbital launch again?

Starship doesn't even exist yet.

Note: neither Booster 7, nor Booster 8, or Ship 20 and 24 for that matter, are even close to being anything that could be considered "Starship" by even the most generous observer.

Even if B7/S24 do launch in a test flight they are so far removed from anything that could potentially be in the far future an operational and usable spacecraft that they resemble "starship" the same way a wooden mockup of an airplane resembles an actual airplane.

An object being the same general shape and dimensions of something doesn't make that object the "something".

At least SLS exists and has problems that can be, perhaps, probably at tremendous expense, fixed.

In 20 years, I've seen SpaceX start from scratch and develop and launch the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy, and nail propulsive landings on Earth.

Since it's members joined forces to form ULA 15 years ago, I've watched them launch the same machines they've been using since 2002.

I have a lot more faith that SpaceX will launch something new than that ULA will get anything done.

How much is B7/S24 missing compared to an operational vehicle?

Artemis 1 doesn't have the configuration of a fully operational vehicle either. Artemis 1's Orion doesn't have a fully functioning life support system, launch abort system, or docking system – and probably is missing other components too.

To compare apples to apples – SLS (without Orion), to just the components of Starship/SuperHeavy which form part of launch vehicle proper (as opposed to payload) – what is Starship/SuperHeavy actually missing?

Musk said he was going to Mars by 2018.

Back in 2016, Musk was talking about landing a Crew Dragon capsule on Mars, albeit with no crew on it.

His original 2018 timeline was likely over ambitious, but SpaceX probably could have achieved it by now – if they'd stuck with their plan to do it. By all accounts, it was abandoned, not because of any technical or financial obstacles, but simply because they decided to redirect their resources towards a far more ambitious alternative (Starship).

I think landing an uncrewed Starship on Mars has a fair likelihood of actually happening, before this decade is over.

SpaceX could absolutely launch a mars mission with their existing rocket platforms and launch infrastructure.

It would be tedious launching little pieces of a larger ship and assembling them in orbit but it could absolutely be done.

Instead of doing that they're choosing to build better, bigger rockets, and more infrastructure to make the eventual launches to mars more cost-effective and substantial.

> SpaceX could absolutely launch a mars mission with their existing rocket platforms and launch infrastructure.

Which highlights the major difference between public and private sector exploration. SpaceX killing everyone on their first attempt is a tragedy and they quickly move on, NASA doing it is a 10 year halt to any further work until a full public investigation takes place.

> SpaceX killing everyone on their first attempt is a tragedy and they quickly move on

I think you're confusing Virgin Galactic with SpaceX here.

>Musk said he was going to Mars by 2018.

>SpaceX could absolutely launch a mars mission with their existing rocket platforms and launch infrastructure.

If they launched today they’d be 4 years late

It’s a big, complex project and it’s failed two tests. I’m happy to take the bet that it will launch successfully

It's a big complex project that legislators decreed should re-use ancient engines and structural components from the shuttle - a project that was the world's first space-faring barrel of pork, infamous for its operating expenditures.

One of the arguments for doing so was that the engines were "proven."

checks news story

Oh hey, it's the engines that are causing these delays.

NASA has been so over-budget on the project, they had to commit accounting fraud to try and cover it up.

> Oh hey, it's the engines that are causing these delays.

??? Last scrub was because of a problem with providing bleed cooling to cold soak everything.

This scrub appears to be a problem with a quick disconnect used in fueling operations or the piping just inside it.

Neither are the "engines".

I'm skeptical of Artemis, but come on.

Outright wrong.

"Multiple troubleshooting efforts to address the area of the leak by reseating a seal in the quick disconnect where liquid hydrogen is fed into the rocket did not fix the issue"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com