NASA has finally acknowledged the elephant in the room regarding its troubled Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a behemoth of a vehicle that's been plagued by delays and expensive setbacks. The SLS program is now over 15 years old and still struggling to overcome two major issues: it's incredibly expensive, with costs exceeding $30 billion so far, and it's painfully slow.
The latest attempt at launching the Artemis II mission on the SLS rocket ended in failure when a liquid hydrogen leak developed during a wet-dress rehearsal test. The issue is not new, as similar problems arose during the Artemis I mission three years ago. Despite developing various mitigation strategies, including slowing down the flow of hydrogen and temporarily shutting off its supply, NASA was unable to prevent the leak.
The SLS rocket's design is inherently flawed due to its extremely low flight rate, making every fueling and launch attempt an experimental procedure rather than a routine operation. This has resulted in high operating costs and ongoing safety concerns. The lack of frequent flights also means that the rocket's performance can only be truly characterized through real-world testing.
On Monday, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman acknowledged the SLS rocket's low flight rate issue for the first time, stating that it should be a topic of discussion. He recognized that the rocket is "dead hardware walking" and that Congress has mandated additional launches, including a fourth and fifth attempt, which will push the vehicle to its limits.
However, experts argue that there are options available to mitigate these issues without resorting to more expensive and complex testing procedures. For example, building one or more "test" tanks to stress the hardware and ensure compatibility with ground systems could have been explored earlier in the program.
The outcome of this battle between NASA's SLS rocket and its critics remains uncertain. The fate of the Artemis II mission hangs in the balance, and it will depend on how quickly SpaceX's Starship and Blue Origin's New Glenn vehicles make advancements toward reliability.
The latest attempt at launching the Artemis II mission on the SLS rocket ended in failure when a liquid hydrogen leak developed during a wet-dress rehearsal test. The issue is not new, as similar problems arose during the Artemis I mission three years ago. Despite developing various mitigation strategies, including slowing down the flow of hydrogen and temporarily shutting off its supply, NASA was unable to prevent the leak.
The SLS rocket's design is inherently flawed due to its extremely low flight rate, making every fueling and launch attempt an experimental procedure rather than a routine operation. This has resulted in high operating costs and ongoing safety concerns. The lack of frequent flights also means that the rocket's performance can only be truly characterized through real-world testing.
On Monday, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman acknowledged the SLS rocket's low flight rate issue for the first time, stating that it should be a topic of discussion. He recognized that the rocket is "dead hardware walking" and that Congress has mandated additional launches, including a fourth and fifth attempt, which will push the vehicle to its limits.
However, experts argue that there are options available to mitigate these issues without resorting to more expensive and complex testing procedures. For example, building one or more "test" tanks to stress the hardware and ensure compatibility with ground systems could have been explored earlier in the program.
The outcome of this battle between NASA's SLS rocket and its critics remains uncertain. The fate of the Artemis II mission hangs in the balance, and it will depend on how quickly SpaceX's Starship and Blue Origin's New Glenn vehicles make advancements toward reliability.
that can't even launch consistently... like come on NASA! You guys are basically throwing money out the window 
. And those test tanks experts mentioned earlier? Genius idea, dude. That would've saved so much cash and stress. Now it's all about whether SpaceX and Blue Origin can catch up with their own tech 
. Fingers crossed for the Artemis II mission, but I'm not holding my breath 
.
I feel like NASA is being super honest about their SLS rocket issues, but still gotta wonder why they didn't catch these problems earlier... 
The design just seems so flawed, all because of that low flight rate thingy... it's gonna be a tough road to recover from this 
seriously though, $30 billion is a lot of cash, nasa needs to get its act together, this sls thing is like a giant teenager who just won't listen 
. and yeah, it's crazy that they're still using liquid hydrogen, like who uses that stuff? 
anyway, let's hope spacex's starship can be the adult in the room and show nasa how to launch rockets efficiently 
it's about time they recognized that this thing needs a serious overhaul 
I mean, 15 years of delays and over $30 billion in costs? 
that's just crazy! 
like, have you heard about those test tanks that experts are talking about? 
that could be a game-changer for the SLS program 
and who knows, maybe SpaceX's Starship and Blue Origin's New Glenn will end up being the ones to save the day 
. I mean, come on, 15 years is just way too long to be struggling with something as simple as a liquid hydrogen leak 
.
.
. Anything less would be a waste of taxpayer dollars 
. And let's be real, if SpaceX and Blue Origin can get their Starship and New Glenn rockets off the ground faster and cheaper, why can't NASA just scale up its own production? I mean, it's not like they're breaking new ground here (pun intended) - they're just trying to fix the same issues that SpaceX is already tackling. It's time for some real change at NASA, not just more band-aids on an old program 
.
. but yeah, experts are saying there are other ways to fix these issues without breaking the bank 
. if spacers starship and blue origin new glenn can make it reliable then maybe nasa will have to rethink their approach 
.
. in this case, it seems like nasa is still figuring that out 
And to make matters worse, they're still trying to push through with even more expensive and complex testing procedures... like what's next, just throwing money at it until something works?! 
.
I mean come on, $30 billion for a rocket that can't even get off the ground consistently? That's just crazy talk! They need to rethink the whole design from scratch, or at least find some better materials that don't cause all these leaks and whatnot. And I'm not saying they should just throw more money at it either, I think they need to look into those "test" tanks you mentioned, that could've saved them a ton of time and cash. The thing is, SpaceX's Starship is already showing some serious promise 
I don't get why they're still trying to push through with this SLS rocket. $30 billion is insane! 
I'm all for pushing the boundaries of space exploration, but let's not sacrifice safety and sanity in the process. We need more robust testing procedures and realistic timelines, not just wishful thinking and prayers 
. Can someone pls provide some credible sources on this? 
️. It's time to face the music – this rocket's design just isn't cutting it 
. Slowing down the launch rate could be a good start, but it's not a magic solution 
. The question is, will NASA listen and make some adjustments, or are we stuck with this slow and expensive rocket forever?