Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA's Space Launch System Searches For a Mission

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the attack-titan-for-its-oil dept.

Space 53

schwit1 writes: Managers of NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) are searching for a mission that they can propose and convince Congress to fund. "Once SLS is into the 2020s, the launch rate should see the rocket launching at least once per year, ramping up to a projected three times per year for the eventual Mars missions. However, the latter won’t be until the 2030s. With no missions manifested past the EM-2 flight, the undesirable question of just how 'slow' a launch rate would be viable for SLS and her workforce has now been asked." Meanwhile, two more Russian rocket engines were delivered yesterday, the first time that's happened since a Russian official threatened to cut off the supply. Another shipment of three engines is expected later this year. In Europe, Arianespace and the European Space Agency signed a contract today for the Ariane 5 rocket to launch 12 more of Europe’s Galileo GPS satellites on three launches. This situation really reminds me of the U.S. launch market in the 1990s, when Boeing and Lockheed Martin decided that, rather than compete with Russia and ESA for the launch market, they instead decided to rely entirely on U.S. government contracts, since those contracts didn’t really demand that they reduce their costs significantly to compete.

cancel ×

53 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ooh I Got One! (3, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | about a month ago | (#47724047)

Can we use it to shoot Congress into Space? We could call it an "Emergency preparedness for giant asteroid strike" or something! Of course once IN space, they might have to stay there for a while. Giant asteroid and all that. Earth might not be habitable again for decades!

Re:Ooh I Got One! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724077)

Can we use it to shoot Congress into Space? We could call it an "Emergency preparedness for giant asteroid strike" or something! Of course once IN space, they might have to stay there for a while. Giant asteroid and all that. Earth might not be habitable again for decades!

Only if we send King Putt with 'em

Wanna cut cost ? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724395)

If you guys truly want to cut cost to the bone why don't you guys outsource your space program to India?

I mean, the cost of the Indian rocket launch system is literally peanuts compare to what NASA pays for its rockets

Re:Ooh I Got One! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724117)

Mod parent up! Honestly, shooting Congress into space ought to be the first step of any successful space program -- did Congress tell NASA which contractors to pick for the Saturn V?

Re:Ooh I Got One! (3, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a month ago | (#47724401)

did Congress tell NASA which contractors to pick for the Saturn V?

Yes. The Saturn V project contained immense amounts of pork. Almost every congressional district benefited in some way, with congressional leaders grabbing the biggest pieces. The biggest prize (the Houston Space Center) went to LBJ's home state, and former congressional district.

Re:Ooh I Got One! (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month ago | (#47724181)

Congress is kinda like the weather ...

Re:Ooh I Got One! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724323)

It's mostly just large masses of hot air?

Re:Ooh I Got One! (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a month ago | (#47724345)

Can we use it to shoot Congress into Space?

That sounds like a waste of a perfectly good payload. If we could use them as reaction mass, on the other hand...

Re:Ooh I Got One! (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a month ago | (#47724939)

Nobody said anything about bringing them back

Re:Ooh I Got One! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47725605)

Reminds me of the plot of 'The Marching Morons' and Congress resembles the suckers that got launched
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

Problems with SLS (3, Informative)

catchblue22 (1004569) | about a month ago | (#47724351)

Aside from the horrific cost of the SLS (18 billion dollars) it is worth considering the fundamental flaws of it. If you use it to launch astronauts with the Orion spacecraft, you are using somewhere around a quarter of the SLS's lift capacity. If you want to use it to send things to Mars, you will need to add another stage, which is non-trivial. Overall, this seems like a giant corporate welfare program for NASA's contractors.

The same phony accounting that plagued the (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47725693)

Space Shuttle. For decades, people complained about the high costs of operating the shuttles - with the "obvious" implication that cutting the shuttles would free-up lots of money for something better. After the shuttles stopped flying, however, two things became clear: [1] much of the cost was simply the fixed-costs of the agency (which by the screwed-up methodology politicians like, was assigned to the shuttles) and [2] each shuttle flight was actually remarkably cheap... cheaper per ton to orbit than Apollo or Gemini and cheap enough that the program cost was essentially the same per year whether we flew 6 missions or no missions (the bulk of the costs were fixed NASA costs, NOT the actual costs of the missions).

Now that SLS is NASA's big project, all the big costs of the agency are getting assigned to (blamed on) SLS and so it appears that SLS will be the most expensive rocket ever (even though it is essentially a shuttle stack minus the orbiter). NEWS FLASH: WHATEVER program NASA does will become the most-expensive program! If NASA cancelled SLS and flew all future missions on Dragons atop Falcons, suddenly all NASA overhead costs would be assigned to THAT program and IT would become too expensive to be sustained... ALL the fixed costs for the Kennedy Space Center, the Johnson Space Center, etc would get assigned to the "Dragon Exploration Program" or whatever it would be called. That's how the accountants in DC handle programs like NASA, the pentagon, etc.... they need to assign every expense of an agency to some program as part of getting congress to fund it.

Re: The same phony accounting that plagued the (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47730905)

You aren't doing much to rebut the fact the Space Shuttle was enormously expensive. Comparing it to other boondoggle launch systems loaded with pork isn't helping, and claiming it is all over head has multiple problems. One is the that NASA missed every launch projection, the system that was going to do 50 launches a year did a handful instead, meaning facilities costs had to be amortized over far fewer launches. Secondly, Building, fueling, transporting shuttles and building replacement shuttles was fantastically expensive, just not more expensive than massively expensive overhead.

It's insane to think how much of the solar system could already have been far better explored by cheap robot probes launched on competitive bid. NASA can never build cost efficient launch systems, everything it does has to be spread over most of the congressional districts in the US to get votes. The SLS will be just as big a boondoggle as the Shuttle, and miss just as badly on its forecasted performance.

NASA has actually been one of the biggest impediments to space travel. Spending immense amounts to hire the best and brightest engineers, then locking them into a labyrinth directed solely by dumb political decisions that restart every change of power. NASAs PR machine has it backwards, we shouldn't be happy that occasionally one of their inventions trickles out to benefit us. Instead we should be angry their immense talents have been sequestered into a bureaucratic nightmare, and aren't being used far more productively in a competitive organizations building better and cheaper launch systems and commercializing far more of their inventions.

Re:Ooh I Got One! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724563)

How about this:

      "We need to be Competitive in our Asteroid Shield or else Terrorists could threaten our Safety with Ebola in the Public Schools!"

I'd suggest my Buzzword-to-Word ratio is approaching 30%. You try it!

Re:Ooh I Got One! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724609)

I propose a manned mission to the surface of the sun.

so... your preference is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47725627)

that we get rid of the representatives of the people and go dictatorship?

Congress is doing what the public wants. Oh, I know, there's a study that shows they really are not and that its the agendas of the rich that are being implemented... but THAT is what the public is currently demanding. A RICH MAN VOTES ONLY ONCE, just like a poor man. If "the 1%" are always getting what they want, it is because the poor and middle class are voting for that. If you hate all the importation of cheap foreign workers and you hate the telcoms having so much control over the net and you hate the massive security state, then STOP VOTING FOR IT. The key, of course, is that super-rich guys like Zuckerberg and Soros and Gates, and Buffet are all going to use money to directly or indirectly fund campaign ads to help you see that the politicians who's policies you hate on all these issues are "pro-choice" or "pro marriage equality" (or some other divisive thing) and so you will elevate THOSE positions to the top and vote for those candidates - that's fine, but then you HAVE also voted for all those other things you claim to hate. If you voted for Barney Frank because you liked his positions on homosecuality that's fine, BUT you also voted for the 2008 banking meltdown (Frank specifically blocked the Bush administration from trying to prevent it in 2007). If you voted for Henry Wasman because he was pro-gay, and pro-choice, that's fine and it's your right BUT you also voted to give power to the MPAA and you voted for the DMCA. The reason all this bundling of issues works so well for the politicians is that government is now so big and so involved in everything that any "bad" politician can get enough people to vote for him over their objections to certain of his policies by playing up some OTHER policies he also has. I cite the gay and abortion issues here because they are the most-divisive social issues and politicians of both sides routinely use them to get their supporters to vote for them even though they are doing the bidding of lobbyists on EVERYTHING ELSE.

Your problem is NOT with congress... it is with the voters (including possibly yourself) who keep voting OTHER priorities on OTHER issues with the result that you are unhappy with what those ELECTED representatives are doing on this policy.

Re:so... your preference is (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 1 month ago | (#47726233)

How about Congress sticks to its constitutional powers? That would eliminate 90% of Federal spending, including NASA, and they could play golf most of the year because they'd have nothing better to do.

Re:Ooh I Got One! (1)

CaptnZilog (33073) | about 1 month ago | (#47725885)

They definitely need it for the Denarius V spacecraft... follow-on to the Denarius IV [theonion.com] , only with $700billion this time.

It can launch some pork barrels into space... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724067)

...to join the ISS

Screwed up Congress (4, Insightful)

surfdaddy (930829) | about a month ago | (#47724091)

NASA has a lot of problems and bureaucracy. While I like the IDEA of NASA, unfortunately the current REALITY is quite different. NASA is full of bureacracy, it's horribly inefficient and risk-averse. Congress is micromanaging the tasks and budget. So when we criticize NASA for no mission, part of that is because they really can't do anything with any consistency. And Congress is mostly interested in preserving pork jobs in their own districts. So we get the SLS, a huge rocket that is costing billions, without a decent mission, and a low flight rate that will make it horrendously expensive....forever... Meanwile, an efficient upstart called SpaceX is actually DOING THINGS and being BOLD, and certain senators are trying to make sure they don't succeed because SpaceX is disruptive and endangers their districts' jobs. So the US is basically fucked - we aren't leading, we aren't spending our money wisely, and NASA has become an expensive shell of its former self. And our newest hope, SpaceX, is only there because of the vision of Elon Musk... and even he is having to play politics to make sure his company isn't shut out of future NASA business. Thank our corrupt Congress, where local district money is more important than the health and leadership of the entire country.

Re:Screwed up Congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724473)

Government has a lot of problems and bureaucracy. While I like the IDEA of Government, unfortunately the current REALITY is quite different. Government is full of bureacracy, it's horribly inefficient and risk-averse. Congress is micromanaging the tasks and budget. So when we criticize Government for no mission, part of that is because they really can't do anything with any consistency. And Congress is mostly interested in preserving pork jobs in their own districts.

FTFY.

Re:Screwed up Congress (2)

trout007 (975317) | about a month ago | (#47724867)

NASA doesn't build much. The only reason their employees do any engineering at all is so they stay somewhat competent enough to write requirements and evaluate contracts. Most of the money and work has been, is done, and will continue to be done by contractors.
Take Apollo. North American made the command and service module and second state, Grumman made the LM. The Saturn V first stage was built by Boeing with Rockedyne Engines. The third stage was built by Douglass, The avionics by IBM.The escape system by Lockheed.

Now since most of the integration work can be done by industry NASA has started to even back out of the integration role. Let the contractors build the whole thing. This doesn't mean NASA doesn't do anything. SpaceX, Orbital, etc uses NASA technology and experts all of the time. The difference is these companies go to NASA to ask for help where in the past the contractor had to pass NASA design reviews which slowed things down and made everything cost more.

I for one like this direciton. Launching rockets is proven technology. It's time for business to figure out how to make it economical. With these savings NASA can spend more on more payloads. If launch costs go down significantly then the spacecraft costs will drop as well. You don't launch a $10M spacecraft when you have to pay $200M for the rocket. But if the rocket costs $10M then you just might. 20 times the missions even if a bunch fail is still quite a bit of science.

Screwed up Congress, not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724915)

First, you misunderstand how the US government is supposed to work. The congress (effectively a corporate board) is supposed to decide things like "shall we go to war?" or "shall we go to the moon?" etc, and THEY are the ones who provide the funding. The congress has the constitutional duty and authority to specify precisely where every dollar is spent. Congresses that have a good relationship with the CEO (the president) can CHOOSE to write very basic and vague language in their budgets, leaving the executive wide lattitude in how he carries out their priorities but when relations are bad they can choose to narrowly-tailor those budgets and laws to constrain the CEO. This is why JFK went to congress and said he thought we should commit to a moon mission; he was there to persuade them to authorize and fund what he wanted to do. Try reading the Kennedy moon speech - he says to them, in effect, "here's what I think we should do, and why, and it'll be really expensive and risky and if you choose not to fully-fund this then let's not even try because underfunding the effort would lead to failure". Kennedy was a good president and was able to convince congress to authorize the plan, fully fund it, and give him very wide lattitude in the program. Nixon, on the other hand, had poor relations with congress and after they found him not running the country in the way they wanted they passed a new law requiring all presidents to spend all the money congress provides (previously presidents like nixon had sometimes not done what congress wanted by simply not spending the allocated funds on things they did not like). Reagan faced a hostile congress run by a large majority of Democrats and yet he was able to easily get authorization to build a shuttle to replace Challenger; he regularly met, dined with and had a social drink with Tip O'Neil, the Democrat speaker of the house who HATED his policies.

The current problems at NASA are entirely traceable to a president with horrific relations with congress (he even rarely talks with his own Democrats). He tried to kill the manned program and congress (both parties) pushed back with alarm. They are demanding a NASA with an internal ability to put people in space on rockets that can be used to go to the moon and mars and he keeps trying to shift those funds to earth-studying satellites and to "commercial" spcaeflight to and from lowe earth orbit. President Obama could have solved all this by not continually picking unnecessary fights over a tiny pool of NASA funds - he could have simply asked for NASA's budget to rise a few hundred million per year for "commercial" (a rounding error in budget terms) but instead he has proposed to cut NASA even further.

Pork? (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about a month ago | (#47724101)

Isn't keeping production and the money flow to various Congressmen's states the mission of the SLS anyway? Or they want an official "excuse" before getting all the pork? In that case it could be anything. It doesn't even have to be science, security would work even better. E.g searching for Nazis in the dark (sic) side of the moooon. Oh, damn, I Godwin law'd myself right at the start of the discussion...

Re:Pork? (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about 1 month ago | (#47729081)

Definitely pork. The real science is the unmanned missions out of JPL/CalTech while the pork is with the SLS, ISS and the ridiculous asteroid capture mission.

Launching at least once per year, ramping up ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724201)

Didn't we hear this same lie with the last launch vehicle? Each Shuttle was supposed to fly fifty missions per yearyet it averaged approximately four flights a year.

Re:Launching at least once per year, ramping up .. (1)

khallow (566160) | about a month ago | (#47724289)

You mean Ares I? Three flights a year? Would this face lie to you?

Nazi's in space. (0)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a month ago | (#47724245)

I mean this has probably been pointed out before... but...

Nasa
Nasi

Arienespace

Uhhhh lol come on please? could we not be more blatant and hypocritical of we tried?

Re:Nazi's in space. (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a month ago | (#47724251)

Yes I know I misspelled Nazi

obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724411)

Lack of missions? Obviously they should sign on with Uber

Field of Dreams (1)

Desert Leap (2435444) | about a month ago | (#47724415)

I supported NASA's "If we build it, they will come." because we needed to establish heavy lift as a foundation to do any manned or heavy robotic exploration and exploitation of space. How about a space plane for low earth orbit and a mini space station for the Moon and Mars.

Re:Field of Dreams (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a month ago | (#47724549)

we needed to establish heavy lift as a foundation to do any manned or heavy robotic exploration and exploitation of space.

Why does robotic exploration have to be "heavy"? I have some friends working on the Lunar X Prize [wikipedia.org] . Their lander is the size of a carton of cigarettes, and weighs less than a kilogram. The $18B spent on the SLS would have been better spent on mechanical miniaturization, which would have many applications here on Earth, as well as in space. If you want to accomplish great things, you need to stop thinking big and start thinking small.

Re:Field of Dreams (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about a month ago | (#47724765)

I think it would have been better spent just giving the money to SpaceX

Re:Field of Dreams (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725221)

Thinking small is just fine, we all know that has practical applications, but consider driving your cigarette carton all the way to Mt Sharp. Feasible? Also, you'll never find a human willing to fit into a launcher designed for a carton of cigarettes. SLS was and is a good idea, and I daresay this is not a question of mutual exclusivity.

Re:Field of Dreams (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 1 month ago | (#47725473)

consider driving your cigarette carton all the way to Mt Sharp. Feasible?

I doesn't need to be feasible, because for the cost of sending one big robot, you can send dozens or hundreds of small robots. The result will be covering a far greater range for the same cost.

Also, you'll never find a human willing to fit into a launcher designed for a carton of cigarettes.

That is not a reason to build a bigger spacecraft. It is a reason to build better robots.

Re:Field of Dreams (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 1 month ago | (#47725667)

I have some friends working on the Lunar X Prize [wikipedia.org]. Their lander is the size of a carton of cigarettes, and weighs less than a kilogram.

And what does it do? Drive 500 meters and send back high-def video? Does it have a spectrometer like Spirit and Opportunity? How about a soil mechanics testing unit like Lunakhod 2?

That's the problem, see. Real scientists like to try to figure stuff out and they need complicated instruments to do that--more than a high-def camera at least.

They could try putting a man on the moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725201)

They could try putting a man on the moon - seen as this hasn't been done before.

Privatize the profits, socialize the risk (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 1 month ago | (#47725633)

This is the down side of the great work done by the private launch outfits: they are free to NOT compete for certain missions. NASA still needs a craft for those missions so the traditional built-to-order model is still necessary but for fewer cases which could have amortized the fixed costs. Now you have either makework or are stopping and restarting the line, making the per-mission cost grow.

If it even gets off the ground (2)

Dereck1701 (1922824) | about 1 month ago | (#47725689)

So far SLS isn't setting itself far enough apart from the boondoggle which was Constellation for my tastes. Its budget has grown from 10 Billion to, by many estimates, $41 Billion by the time it has actually launched a few prototypes. And its per launch estimates are up in the air at the moment, NASA's "$500 Million" per launch is laughable. For the money we're burning on the development of SLS alone we could launch the mass of a Naval frigate into orbit on commercial launchers. Just think of what could be done with that kind of payload capacity.

"we've hit a critical desalinization point" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47725899)

Here is what Goddard Sci type should do.

1) kidnap Bolden.

2) transfere Bolden to Wallops Island Facility, and on the beach.

3) Strip Bolden naked.

4) While holding a naked Bolden apply a Roman Candle to his penis with duct tape.

5) Apply duct tape to Bolden's hands so to grasp penis and Roman Candle.

6) Use Bic Lighter to ignite Roman Candle.

7) Dance a Merry around naked Bolden and spent Roman Candle duct taped to his penis.

NASA Mission successful and accomplished. Shut NASA down.

Ha ha.

Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47726033)

If it's not an orbital shipyard, why even bother? ISS is babby's first space station. We need to start getting good at *real* space infrastructure projects.

Wrong way to do it... (3, Insightful)

Kittenman (971447) | about 1 month ago | (#47726117)

Aren't you supposed to have the problem before you have the solution?

Nasa: Hey, we have this great launch system
Everyone: Cool! What are you going to do with it?
Nasa: .....

No slight to Nasa (who've done amazing things) or to the States (ditto), but shouldn't you set a goal, and then go towards it with the right tools? (something like ....First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.)

Re:Wrong way to do it... (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 1 month ago | (#47726297)

This is what doomed the Shuttle. It was designed for a totally different mission profile than it was used for. It had unused polar launch capability (from Vanderburg AFB) and large cross-range ability that was not necessary at all to reach the ISS. This caused the shuttle to be heavier, with less range and more expensive than it could have been for the missions it was used for.

I have no doubt that SLS will become the same disaster, as it is going to be designed to do "every mission" and end up doing them all for far more money than it could have.

Re:Wrong way to do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47733039)

This reminds me of an engineer I know who is working on the next RTG for NASA (he previously worked on the RTG powering mars curiosity rover). He said one of the difficulties is deciding on the specifications when you don't know the mission (will it be a lander, or a rover, will it be on Titan or Europa? they don't know). Whatever they come up with will have to be adapted for the actual mission (if it happens). This is a ridiculously wasteful way of doing things, but that's politics for you.

Mars Flyby in 2021 (1)

danomatika (1977210) | about 1 month ago | (#47726317)

The SLS could have a mission: an Apollo 8 style Mars flyby in 2021: http://www.space.com/19985-pri... [space.com]

That would actually fit within the current flight plan if it became EM-2. 580 days with a larger, livable service module could do it. That would be a mission worth a heavy lift vehicle and an actual date as opposed to "maybe we'll go to Mars in the 2030s" ...

Divorces are declared for more launches than that (1)

evilsofa (947078) | about 1 month ago | (#47727311)

We're going to pay how much for three times a year? This should be three times a month, ramping up to three times a week. What good is three launches a year?

So you're looking for a mission that can be accomplished with three launches a year. How about you launch a drawing board up into space, design yourself a pair of brass balls, and make something that will make them clack more than once a month? We'll have no trouble coming up with missions for you then!

Orbital Vehicle? (1)

whodunit (2851793) | about 1 month ago | (#47728153)

Why don't we bring back Big Gemeni? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]

The teal dear: essentially an American Soyouz capsule, with a recoverable "capsule" put into orbit by a fully disposable launch system. Nobody seems to know just what the hell the SLS's orbital vehicle will be, or look like - a brief perusal of the wiki articles makes it look more like a desperate attempt to keep as much of the old shuttle program infastructure and supply chain alive as possible (big suprise.) Be it porkbarreling or SpaceX that wins out on the boost vehicle, what will be the orbital vehicle?

There's wide consensus that the Shuttle program was a costly underperformer, but despite its failures it did give us tremendous amounts of data and experience with recoverable, re-usable spacecraft. If we combined a rather large vehicle meant to return with a shuttle-type profile (ceramic heat shield and glide control) with a fully disposable launch and orbital engine system (instead of keeping a costly chunk of it on the vehicle and having to lug it about, like the orbiter's main engine) you could get the best of both worlds - a vehicle larger than what parachute landings and albative heat shields allow for, but small enough to fit on top of a disposable booster (and inside a fairing) and allow for a true launch escape system rather than the very dicey launch setup the shuttles used.

Re:Orbital Vehicle? (1)

tsotha (720379) | about 1 month ago | (#47732865)

If we combined a rather large vehicle meant to return with a shuttle-type profile (ceramic heat shield and glide control)...

I'm not convinced the shuttle has much to teach us beyond "don't do it this way". Powered landing has all sorts of advantages over wings, and I think that's where we should be concentrating our efforts.

The Rocket to Nowhere (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about 1 month ago | (#47728375)

The SLS was built to funnel money to well-connected districts, not for any mission needs....

How about new probes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47728867)

I don't get why it hasn't even been proposed to send Cassini like probes to Uranus and Neptune.... The two planets least explored by far.

Re:How about new probes? (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about 1 month ago | (#47730867)

Actually the real scandal is not using the money for a Europa probe.

The real science is unmanned missions (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about 1 month ago | (#47729179)

Not the manned pork in things like SLS and the ISS.

Do we need this? (1)

tsotha (720379) | about 1 month ago | (#47732821)

Can anyone explain to me why we need the SLS when SpaceX is on track to provide the same functionality for a tiny fraction of the price?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>