> a date for a return to the pad for another dress rehearsal has yet to be set.

ISTM that the FCC approvals for SpaceX to launch their Artemis killer, sorry: Starship, from Texas will be delayed until such a time that NASA get a successful launch in, first.

Given that SpaceX are also building a launch facility for this monster in Florida and seem to be amassing more Starships as the days go by, it would be highly amusing to see them have two flight-ready vehicles (one in Tx the other in Fl) on the pad, waiting for someone to light the blue touch paper, the day after Artemis fiiiiinaly lifts off.

Come on, that was a bit harsh.

NASA has had plenty of successes, some of them downright awesome. Wasn't there this thing with the telescope last year where NASA learned to maneuver it using solar wind ? Is that not a bloody awesome success ? Don't its rovers regularly exceed their life expectations by years at a time (um, when they land successfully, that is) ?

It's called rocket science. It's difficult.

I think we can cut them some slack.

It seems to me that all new Rovers are going to exceed life expectation by living most of it here on traditional terra firma!

By the time that the SLS actually works properly, we'll have all had a visit from the genuine 'Vulcans' and 'Klingons'.

Indeed. It's probably worth bearing in mind that NASA is being held, somewhat unfairly IMO, to a rather different set of standards here compared to SpaceX thanks to the rather different ways in which the two organisations are funded - no-one really bats an eyelid if the latter suffer yet another RUD event whilst testing their latest designs (and let's not forget just how many Falcons were "sacrificed" whilst getting the whole land-n-reuse concept finessed to the point where it's now not even newsworthy when a Falcon returns safely to terra firma), yet if NASA so much as sneeze at the wrong point during a test it leads to media responses like the one you've just highlighted here.

The reason there is a difference is down to the use of different development methodologies. NASA use design with modelling and simulation with the aim of producing a product that works "first time" (after some extended integration testing). SpaceX design a feature, build and test (without the long, drawn out modelling and simulation phase) - with the expectation that there will be failures leading to design iteration.

SpaceX used this for Falcon and doing the same for Starship (none of the test plans for the flights to date where required to land in one piece).

NASA's method should give a reliable, fully-functional vehicle on first launch, but the contract structure that's been used does not give any really priority to this being "on time" or "on budget"; SpaceX are working to a fixed price.

Each SLS launch is going to come in at something like $7.8B (vehicle and amortised project costs), and there are only enough parts for 5 (I think). Each flight dumps four engines in the sea that could easily have been reused something like 16 times.

Starship costs are not yet publicly available, but Elon has mentioned $2M per launch; even if they is off by two orders of magnitude, it will still make SLS a very expensive launch vehicle.

Agree.

I felt that the comment "NASA opted to change what success meant and "modified" the dress rehearsal" was also a little unfair. If I were them, I wouldn't wheel the thing back to the VAB to replace one check valve and then wheel it out again, just to find another issue. I'd continue testing as much as I could while it was there and set up, find as many bugs or issues as I could. Then wheel it back in for repairs. Which is exactly what happened. Seems like common sense.

Now, if they choose not to do another WDR and just assume that the stuff they couldn't test because of the discovered errors was all fine... well, if they didn't have a damn good reason I'd think a lot less of them.

Generally, I think that the SLS project is a huge waste (from an engineering / space exploration perspective), but there's plenty of good reasons to rag on it. We don't need to resort to bad ones.

Is it NASAs fault - or is it Boeing? I thought that the rocket was a Boeing product.

If I buy a car and my car doesn’t work then that isn’t my fault - it’s the fault of the manufacturer or the dealer (well, as long as I didn’t break it through my own stupidity).

NASA takes the credit when an aerospace company built rover or telescope works

From Boeing's point of view, this is a spectacular success.

SLS is a "cost plus" contract for up to 10 of these beasts so the faster / better the rocket works, the less profitable it is for Boeing.

First two places on the list of shame should be the US Senate and Congress. Two of the last three presidents (briefly) proposed ending SLS because it is a huge waste of money but quickly abandoned the idea when they found out the extent of the push-back they would get from the rest of government if they tried. AFAIK Biden has not even tried to cancel SLS (if I am being generous that could be because he knows he would have no chance at all). The previous administrator of NASA fired some of the NASA employees who were working for Boeing. As replacement administrator, Biden selected one of the senators for Boeing (again if I am being generous there was a worse option available).

Third place is harder to pick:

A) US voters not informing their representatives that they are unhappy about they money wasted on SLS (when the money could genuinely be wasted on something slightly less embarrassing instead).

B) Journalists blaming NASA when there are better places to aim a blame thrower.

C) NASA for not drawing attention to the US government requirements that made sure SLS would be a jobs program instead of a launch program. They have also failed at honestly communicating a sane schedule. The OIG pointed out the schedule was fantasy but NASA filled the boosters with propellant. As expected, delays have push the boosters beyond their sell by date. Their condition is closely monitored and can still fly on a waiver but at some point they are going to crack and need to be replaced.

You can blame Boeing if you like, but as lead contractor they have worked tirelessly on what they were required to do: They have stretched the program out for years, driven up the costs and even dropped the main tank.

Of course, trundling a big, complex machine like that back and forwards isn't without risk of breaking stuff either...

Maybe the simpler is better approach is onto something?

Lets face it, the only reason SLS isn't dead yet is because it's a money printing machine for certain electoral battlegrounds. On any rational basis; Starship plus a Dragon can do everything that SLS can do a hell of a lot cheaper, better and quicker with a hell of a lot less unknowns.

Like the Ares programme; the money-printing aspect will eventually catch SLS out; it is only a question of when.

Neither have flown a successful mission yet. Yes, Starship has climbed to 10km and did land, but the booster hasn't benn off of the pad yet. Of course neither has the SLS..

At least neither Starship or SLS are Vapourware, unlike the New Glenn...

You have a point technically that the SpaceX booster hasn't got off the pad yet.

I do however, as many others, have full confidence that Musk-produced kit will get off the pad successfully way quicker than the SLS kit even if the his tuff has an aberration or two beforehand.

After all what's wrong with a few R.U.D.s between friends.

SpaceX could blow up their next 10 prototypes and still get to orbit cheaper than each and every SLS launch will cost.

Rocket science is easy... it's rocket engineering that's hard!