Comments on: SLS dress rehearsal countdown set for June 20th with launch delayed again

By: wayne

wayne — Mon, 20 Jun 2022 11:59:29 +0000

For comparison…..the Feds spend $5 billion a month on SNAP ->food stamps.

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:20:59 +0000

Meade Lux Lewis wrote: "Will it 'go down well' when we’ve spent $50 billion with nothing to show for it?" That kicks the can down the road, when someone else might take the heat, and those people won't take much more heat than cancelling it today. In addition, those future people can always blame someone else, like NASA, for failure. If they cancel it today, then today's Congress takes all the heat. Welcome to politics, which does not do the intelligent thing.

By: Meade Lux Lewis

Meade Lux Lewis — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 14:25:23 +0000

“We spent $25 billion on it, and we’re cancelling the project without anything to show for it,” doesn’t seem as if it would go down well.
—
Will it “go down well” when we’ve spent $50 billion with nothing to show for it?

By: markedup2

markedup2 — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:31:40 +0000

all work on the project is supposed to stop.
That’s certainly not going to help the schedule.

I’m not sure the public understands that the Sunk Cost Fallacy is a fallacy. “We spent $25 billion on it, and we’re cancelling the project without anything to show for it,” doesn’t seem as if it would go down well.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 12:26:41 +0000

I know it doesn’t matter in today’s lawless USA, but if a program goes over 30% budget it’s supposed to require a reauthorization by Congress. An IG or OMB report already found 2 years ago that NASA used funny numbers to keep the SLS project just under the 30% threshold which certainly the 2 years since has pushed it over the line no matter what accounting gimmicks are employed.

At least legally the NASA administrator is required to notify Congress and all work on the project is supposed to stop.

By: Edward

Edward — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 03:37:27 +0000

Ray Van Dune asked: “How can NASA ignore something as historically sensitive as the SRB use-by-date? With [Starship] getting down to only a matter of weeks until flight, it is inevitable that such behavior would be seen as negligently ignoring safety for competitive reasons! Which of course is exactly what it would be.”

Without humans on board, it is not necessarily a human safety issue, only a mission safety issue. Do I recall correctly that they performed an inspection of the Solid Rocket Boosters?

During the Space Shuttle era, there were a couple of times when NASA had booster segments stored for long periods of time, yet they still stacked and operated properly. NASA’s “use-by” date has more to do with “derating” items so that they are not pushed to their limits (running the SSMEs at 105% of rated performance was poor form but still within the tested performance).

Other solid rocket motors have been stored for many years before use. The Minuteman rocket is an example, where several have been used for commercial launches after many years of storage. The problem NASA has is that the SRBs are somewhat larger than many other solid rockets, and the SRB characteristics and performance after long-term stacking is not well understood. These particular issues will undoubtedly be better understood after this launch. However, for a variety of reasons, I doubt that this issue will come up again any time soon.

By: Ray Van Dune

Ray Van Dune — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:16:31 +0000

How can NASA ignore something as historically sensitive as the SRB use-by-date? With Spaceship getting down to only a matter of weeks until flight, it is inevitable that such behavior would be seen as negligently ignoring safety for competitive reasons! Which of course is exactly what it would be.

By: Col Beausabre

Col Beausabre — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:02:54 +0000

“And yes, the solid rocket boosters will have been stacked almost two years in September, about 10 months past their use-by date.”

I hope I am wrong, but I am getting a “Chellenger” type feeling about this, ignoring prudence and NASA’s own rules to try to launch.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:08:43 +0000

In reply to Andi. Andi: Fixed, though I agree Biden might have made the error and not realize it was an error. And yes, the solid rocket boosters will have been stacked almost two years in September, about 10 months past their use-by date.

By: Andi

Andi — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:01:54 +0000

Minor edit in last sentence: “when you’re scheduling something important”. Although if Brandon had written it down he may have just used “your”.

Aren’t those boosters six months past their use-by date?

By: Ray Van Dune

Ray Van Dune — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:21:20 +0000

Haven’t heard anything about the likelihood of an extended waiver on the SLS solid rocket boosters. And by an extended waiver, I mean that (if I recall correctly) we are already in a waiver on the need to re-stack them. This doesn’t feel good.

By: Matt in AZ

Matt in AZ — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:14:19 +0000

Ironically, Trump set the 2024 date so a landing could happen before the end of his second term – he may still get that wish.