TLDR; SLS will get cancelled because they fucked up the mobile launch tower.
OR, they'll just throw more money at it.
It was already gonna be a long wait after the demo launch, but now, they have to completely rebuild this piece of shit.
A thing that was built in the 60s, so I imagine the tooling for it is pretty much gone.
SLS was supposed to save cost, by re-purposing existing hardware.
At the point we're at, they could have just designed a totally new heavy lift booster for the same cost.
>in competition with private enterprises for the first time
>pressured to prove they're not just a huge money sink
>fuck up pretty much everything they possibly could
>costs skyrocketing more successfully than the actual rockets
gg NASA, we'll miss you
Apparently they've decided to keep it for the other missions after EM-1 instead of building another one. It will be funny when the future astronauts trip up while walking down the crew acess arm because of the lean.
Meanwhile in the avionics software development that happens to be years behind schedule and millions above budget;
>"the SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
How is it even possible?
Did they not document their work/ comment their code?
Or are they using Shuttle code or something?
Seems that NASA uses multiple parts and probably legacy hardware and software, with most of the work being duct taping all the different things together. According to arse techica article from 2 years ago over 2 million lines of code were written at the time and about 200 million spent on it. If it's not done yet and people are actually quitting we can guess how things went.
>comment their code?
I've yet to meet a coder who does that other than myself. If you don't comment your code, a month down the road, it may as well be someone else's code. Thankfully, I don't fucking code anymore, I hated that shit.
>2 million lines of code were written at the time and about 200 million spent on it
Our tendency to make simple things complicated is probably the biggest thing holding back human progress at this point.
Similar story.
It's fine not commenting on home projects, but I once had to flesh out an app from someone that wasn't in the company anymore.
Just a few useless comments.
I ultimately came to understand the inner workings after a week of debugging it or so.
And it was not that complicated of a program.
Maybe I could have done something similar in 2 weeks, with fucking comments.
Anyways, coding is a slave job.
>Maybe I could have done something similar in 2 weeks, with fucking comments.
That is normally the case.
>Anyways, coding is a slave job.
Amen.
>NASA is spending $912 million on fixing the launch tower
That's ten FH launches.
>coding is a slave job
Really? then why are so many people eager to get into it
You feel smart because you use your head.
But unless you're doing cutting edge stuff, it's just about google searching someone that already did the same.
Honestly, I'm sure Coder jobs are very threatened by machine learning.
>Berger
What a fucking surprise this shill is shitting on the SLS. Here's an actual source that actually talks about it and doesn't just complain like a fucking faggot. Did he mention that it's the MOBILE launcher that's leaning? And that once it actually moves again it will be straight?
nasaspaceflight.com
>“NASA’s mobile launcher is structurally sound, built to specifications, and does not require a design change or modifications. As expected, the mobile launcher is not perfectly still,” a NASA spokesperson added.
>“There is no data that indicates a structural issue directly attributed to these imperfections (neither caused by the imperfections or causing the imperfections).”
>NASA added that the lean is understood and so far matches predictions. They will continue to monitor the deflections as more umbilicals are added via the use of laser survey measurements.
>“There are also several natural effects that can influence movement of this gigantic steel structure, including wind, temperature, and vibration during the move on the crawler transporter. NASA and its contractors have models that predict the amount of additional lean after parts are installed, and use laser survey data to confirm the data.
>“All our predictions and actual measured deflections have been in agreement, which indicates we have a solid understanding of how much the mobile launch tower naturally moves, and confirms no “corrective actions” are required.”
The same could be said about all wage slave jobs.
Back in the day, I flipped my shit because new programs were being released that allowed you to "program and script" your own websites. I actually lost a job to such software. Of course the website instantly became slower and more resource intensive for anyone wanting to use it. And, uglier and buggier. lol Not that the bosses cared. The same thing happens in every industry.
Now that Falcon Heavy has been confirmed, it is pointless to continue the SLS program. FH is cheaper and carries more cargo (not to mention that it is more advanced).
I doubt Falcon Heavy is suited for a manned mission to Mars considering its trajectory payload of a measily 12600 kg, less than the Apollo Lunar Module, unless you wanna do several launches to first assemble a multi-part craft in Earth orbit.
Neither is SLS.
Falcon Heavy has had all its manned missions cancelled. Everything is moving to the BFR now. That includes the space tourism thing that was set to launch on the FH this year to orbit the moon.
And even if you launch a few times, to assemble and refuel in orbit it still would be cheaper than nasa.
>Neither is SLS.
The Space Launch System (SLS) is an American Space Shuttle-derived heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle. It is part of NASA's deep space exploration plans[7][8] including a manned mission to Mars.[9][10][11]
>That includes the space tourism thing that was set to launch on the FH this year to orbit the moon.
"Set to launch" as in "another one of Musk's fairytales to boost his stock values and keep his ventures from completely imploding, was never intended to happen this year or ever". How come the manned missions were cancelled though? Unsatisfying safety rating?
SLS will not make single launch Mars mission, its planned after 11 launches.
It can do a Dragon 2 capsule lunar slingshot with only one launch (the exact same orbit the SLS EM-1 mission will do) but it could also be the backbone of multi-launch lunar landing mission, which would cost much less than a single launch SLS lunar mission. The Falcon Heavy will likely launch the propulsion module of NASA's DSG lunar space station because of it's smaller size that doesn't require the SLS; it may also launch NASA's 2025 Europa Clipper probe, which was previously only viable to be launched on an SLS but has recently been moved to a commercial rocket.
SLS is a welfare program. Unless you replace it with similar it's not getting canceled.
SLS can't do it too. Not to mention it's Orion capsule isn't even designed for reentry from Mars. There are no habs, no landers, nothing.
>How come the manned missions were cancelled though? Unsatisfying safety rating?
Because they are moving all focus to the BFR now and leaving the FH line for non-manned stuff.
>BFR
I'll believe it when I see it.
>Europa Clipper
>SLS won't be ready in time
>will have to use Atlas V backup
>payload won't be enough to include a lander
>will miss out on valuable research
>mfw
Don't forget the warp drives.
It is a pisa shit.
>I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm sure you'll be on the front line of, "Fake BFR launch video makes me angry and here's why you need to be angry too!"
>Did he mention that it's the MOBILE launcher that's leaning?
That has nothing to do with anything. It's a static structure built on the mobile launcher that's leaning. The mobile launcher is basically a big rolling launchpad that moves from a sheltered building to the flame trench.
>once it actually moves again it will be straight?
No it won't. It's not something that's built to lean, like SpaceX's strongback. The leaning is undesirable, and is not at a mobile joint, but from bending of the structure.
From your own linked article:
>a large delay to the installation timeline for the Crew Access Arm (CAA) came with notes of concern for the ML.
>The notes spoke of engineers being concerned about a lean towards the North – which would be towards the rocket when mated – with the angle of the leaning claimed to be seen as increasing when the Vertical Stabilizer porch was installed. It was also claimed the ML Tower is twisting and this issue increased when the porch was installed.
>This was cited as the reason additional arm installations onto the Tower were placed on hold, until the leaning-twisting issue is understood.
It surprised and worried the engineers. After it became a public embarassment, managers came out and said, "Everything's okay, and matches predictions." What predictions are those? The predictions of the model built to explain the problem that surprised and worried engineers!
>This mass would not be a showstopper for SLS, at least for the Block 1 rocket which is now currently set to debut in 2020.
>However, if this ML is further modified for Block 1B, the weight would be in the region of 2.5 million pounds over the desired roll out weight.
...and it's probably not usable for actual crew flights, just for the initial test flight.
>the second ML would cost around $300m
...so they're talking about replacing it. They project it will cost $300 million, but they projected this one would cost ~$50 million, and it's closing in on $1B.
it'll be a single launch spectacle hehehehe
>private
>$4.9 billion in government gibs a year
How do you think a 3rd party private company works? NASA is a government agency.
Nah, I've just grown wary of Musk's "I HAVE THIS MONUMENTAL IDEA AND I'LL MAKE IT WORK BY NEXT CHRISTMAS" announcements. Too many of those have either been heavily delayed or quietly dropped altogether.
You must be part of the older generation raised when news casts and announcements worthy of being seen on the news were actual events. Now everyone uses twitter for every half brained idea and a lot of people simply don't understand how it all works. This is especially true of new money.
>SpaceX wins fixed price contract to deliver certain launch capabilities in a set time frame
>SpaceX delivers on contract terms and gets paid
>"gibs"
fuck off
Where are they going to find a bunch of experienced Ada programmers? The few universities that used to teach it have dropped it in favor of Java. Very few outside of the military and aeronautical industries bother to learn it independently since it locks you into those areas.
>grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits
>"contracts"
fuck off
welcome to the real world, moron. This happens everywhere, everyday, in every part of the country.
That's what everyone from farmers to corporations do. That is where your tax dollars go. That's why companies lobby to take your tax dollars.
THIS
Everyone ignore OP. He's a cocksucker who couldn't even post the primary source.
BFR is billed as being the biggest rocket in human history. Building that can't just be done like building another rocket or another electric car.
Sure, and Congress looks at SpaceX's gibes against buying more bombers from Boeing and gibes'ing more jobs to Washington state. If there's ever a budget issue Congress then has to consider the value of SpaceX's jobs vs Boeing's jobs. NASA is there to mediate this discussion and lean it in SpaceX's favor, otherwise Congress would choose more bombers every time.
That is exactly what is happening though.
>of the country
Of the world. Every country in the world is now fighting for Tesla R&D centers and/or gigafactories. This means Musk will be able to chose the best options with tax cuts, cheap or outright "free" land and other benefits.
reminds me of Harsh Mistress and the loonies taking bids for a launch location on earth.
I think France offered up an old nuclear plant for their gigafactory bid. Cooling tower and al
It was well thought out on some aspects.
That twit didn't read the whole thing, or understand what he did read:
>government investing in a reliable payload delivery system and paying for payloads to be delivered is gibs
This is what bezosbots actually believe huh
>literally burning billions of taxpayer dollars to put inane shit in space instead of using them to further the education of millions of kids that could become the next steve jobs is investing
This is what molluskshits actually believe huh
>satellites are inane
I know you are baiting but still thats retarded
It's the same as any other government program, they don't have "costs", they just have annual budgets, and when things get dragged out, you have paychecks going to people who don't have any work to do anymore
heck, the shuttle program got the same amount per year regardless of how many times they launched.
And you have government contractors who always have their costs covered
So when the government makes a last minute decision that adds a year delay, the company doesn't care, its just more money for them
>"Everything's okay, and matches predictions." What predictions are those? The predictions of the model built to explain the problem that surprised and worried engineers!
Uhh, the predictions that the contractors made when they made a massive heavy object in Florida, a place known for weak ground?
>...and it's probably not usable for actual crew flights, just for the initial test flight.
The initial test flight is a one off designed to test the rocket. It's fully understandable for the tower to receive upgrades so that it can handle the Block 1B.
Explain why I'm wrong Mr. Berger. NASA themselves say that the lean was within predictions and that it won't require any modifications. OP is a faggot anyway for not posting the actual source and instead posting an article from one of the biggest SpaceX faggots imaginable.
nonetheless it's retarded that they have to spend a billion dollars on a fucking mobile transporter that was planned to be used FUCKING ONCE.
It probably won't be used once. One launcher is built to handle the Block 1 while the other handles the Block 1B. After EM-1 launches, the ML is modified to handle a Block 1B while the one that's already modified can launch Block 1Bs. It will improve launch cadence and they already have two crawlers sitting around, might as well make use of them.
>Late last year NASA managers spoke of their desire to have two MLs, avoiding a multi-year delay between EM-1 and EM-2 due to the vast amount of modifications required to redesign the ML to cater for the larger SLS Block 1B, along with the potential to continue to fly Block 1 SLS missions off the current ML.
>While the second ML would cost around $300m, it could be seen as “economically viable” based on the amount of money it would cost to revamp the SLS ML from Block 1 to Block 2, while also potentially increasing SLS mission options and launch cadence.
lol cadence
How many launches are "planned" before 2030?
How many of those launches have a PAYLOAD thats funded & being worked on?
...
Mark my words, all that SLS will ever do is fling two capsules of astronauts around the moon and back.
Europa Clipper.
No, that was designed to be launched on an Atlas V, and it's not going to be launched on an untested rocket.
I doubt it'll even do that
I expect it will be cancelled before its first launch, all they gotta do is tell their shill network to start criticizing it.
We should be building a shipyard in orbit tbqh.
It's designed to be launched on the SLS. If an SLS Block 1B is not ready, it will launch on an Atlas V. They want to launch on a SLS because it will shave 3 years off the travel time and allow for a lander to be included into the payload. Also, since when has it been that payloads can't be launched on untested rockets? Plus the SLS won't be untested since Block 1 goes up in 2020.
>Rocket quite literally being assembled and tested as we speak.
>Cancelled before the first launch.
SpaceX babbies never cease to entertain.
A very succinct and well-thought post, here is a (you)
Block 1 is not block 1B, they're redoing the entire second stage and modifying the rest of the rocket to handle it.
Up for commercial launch apparently.
Yeah, I'm so glad the private sector is finally getting invested in space travel and btfoing fucking beauracrats. While SpaceX may get some gibs, they actually deliver on their promises and if I had a button in front of me that said
>Divert all gibs, Israelbux and middle east clusterfuck funding to SpaceX
I would smash that shit so fucking fast.
If the SLS Block 1B isn't ready then it will launch on an Atlas 5. They would prefer to launch it on an SLS because it will shave 3 years off the travel time and allow for a Europa lander to be sent along with the orbiter.
There is no "europa lander"
>In January 2016 it was announced that including additional mass of a lander and detachable probes, meant the Europa Clipper will be launched with NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) heavy lift launch vehicle[7][4] that could arrive at Jupiter on a direct trajectory in less than three years.[2]
>A baseline profile for the mission involved launch aboard an Atlas V 551. By using a Venus-Earth-Earth gravity assist trajectory the transit time to Jupiter would be about six years. The current baseline design of Europa Clipper includes a launch with NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) heavy lift launch vehicle[7][4] that could arrive at Jupiter on a direct trajectory in less than three years.[2] Since the development and timing of the SLS may not match the mission's timing,[75] the spacecraft could be launched on an Atlas V backup rocket, but only if it remains within the Atlas' launch mass limit; that means to plan the exclusion of a lander.[8][73]
Yea a paper lander for a paper rocket, for a paper probe.
It's fitting.
>Everything I don't like is paper.
it is though
Yea, look at this totally paper interstage being moved around last week.
Or these totally paper tanks from last year.
So some test articles and prototypes exist, good for them & you.
They still don't have even a tentative launch date, nor are they working on flight hardware
It's been 13 years since they started.
Wow, you're really out of the loop aren't you? Quite literally everything you complained about are proven false if you do even the slightest research.
longer than that. It will be 18 years since bush started the program, and, oh, ~45 billion dollars later to the first manned launch.
It's an absolute travesty. A waste of money on an enormous scale. Pork politics are a fucking scourge on America.
anyone that honesty defends SLS is either directly financially benefiting from it's development, living under a rock, or is a mentally ill bootlicker who sees private industry as an evil force
If you had given me 45 billion fucking dollars I would have had a man on Mars by now, and I know nothing about rockets. What a fucking disgrace the SLS is.
>Complete design changes and project goal shifts won't drastically increase project cost.
Enjoy slobbering over that Musk cock soy boy.
>I-I could do better!
you are out of the loop. For starters, it will be a minimum of 33 months after EM-1 before EM-2.... if there is an EM-2. And EM-1 is now NET 2020.
So what if it isn't a paper rocket? It's an expensive mistake, and one that should result in the firing, or worse, of various politicians. Again: 45 billion dollars. For one manned launch. It's a disgrace
oh well, I actually thought that you were a SLS supporter. But you're a troll.
Should have known better, even ULA/BO supporters on this board know that SLS is a shit sandwich
I could certainly do better than taking 18 years to weld together existing parts for 45 billion dollars.
exactly. The issue is that there just isn't a good route to stopping this nonsense besides getting the population informed. You can't just ask the senators nicely because of >muh jobs in muh state and >muh securing access to space. If you ask me, SLS will just die a somewhat quiet death after EM-1. If there is an EM-1, I still give it a 50-50 chance.
just wait until you see how much NASA is spending on NEW RS-25's after they use up the "surplus ones". You'd better be sitting down.
Complain, bitch, whine, and moan all you want faggots. The SLS will be made and it will launch. Unlike the big distractory rocket BFR that has all the soyboys slobbering all over Musk's cock.
>SLS w-won't launch!
Nobody's going to read your cherrypicked phrases strung together with bits of glue and gum like some madman making drapes out of shit wrapped in toilet paper.
I need a picture of SpaceX pepe cucking SLS wojack.
>Something that doesn't exist cucking something that does.
Muskrats really are pathetic.
>Falcon Heavy launch great success
>Meanwhile at SLS headquarters
>W-well uh, w-we just need some more monies pls, SLS is great okay we are going to make space great again mr president, fund pls.
>Great success
>Only new part of the rocket smashes into the ocean.
>No launches listed on manifest to take advantage of its power.
Meanwhile at SLS.
>12 missions lined up including first Flagship class interplanetary mission.
>Will be the largest and most powerful rocket in history.
>Has the backing of the largest nation in the world behind it.
I wonder who is winning this fight. :^)
NASA is more at fault than the Senate/Congress, thousands of people at NASA need to be laid off. Look at the shitfest of the commercial crew program.
Meant to say astrobiology Flagship class probe.
2/10 almost replied seriously
Nasa missions on paper to justify the NASA rocket
Falcon Heavy with block 5 cores can fly the heavy and high missions that made the 9 expendable.
Cool, except it doesn't have any new flights on its manifest. Turns out satellite operators would rather fly the expendable single stick instead of the more chance for failure triple stick. Would've thunk?
