SLS: From Space Launch to Scrapyard?

Summary: NASA’s Space Launch System has become a boondoggle, a $30B hole in their budget that is inferior to SpaceX’s Super Heavy booster in nearly every way. We dive into why we believe it’s time to pull the plug on this 1960’s throwback and embrace the future of rapidly reusable rockets and spacecraft.

Transcript:

SLS: From Space Launch to Scrapyard?

Welcome to The Edge of Space.

I’m your host, Randall C. Kennedy, and today’s topic is what I consider one of the fugliest rockets ever produced.

I’m talking about NASA’s “Space Launch System.”

Now, be honest: Doesn’t this thing remind you a fat pigeon?

Or maybe a stuffed turkey?

Hell, I’ve even heard it referred to as the “Dan Quayle” rocket – because it looks sort of like a Quail, and its design makes about as much sense as that dumb box of rocks and his infamous misspelling of the word “Potato.”

Basically, SLS is what you call a boondoggle – a $30 billion hole in NASA’s budget that’s taken over a decade to develop and has, to date, flown exactly ONE time.

30 BILLION DOLLARS. ONE FLIGHT. Yeah…

Now, granted, that mission was an amazing success. I mean, it’s the first time the US has sent pretty much ANYTHING to the moon in a very, very long time.

And to send stuff to the moon, at least directly, you need a big, honkin’ rocket. The problem with SLS, besides its questionable aesthetics, is that it’s a one-and-done. You fire-up SLS, send it on its way, and forget about it.

Which is awesome – IF you’re living in friggin’ 1969! But this is 2025, and reusability is the new name of the game.

In fact, after several YEARS of watching SpaceX successfully launch, recover, and relaunch literally dozens of rocket boosters, the very IDEA of a non-reusable launch system isn’t just anachronistic – it’s REALLY, REALLY DUMB!

To quote our patron saint of obviousness, Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does.” Which, roughly translated, means NASA’s decision making around SLS has devolved to a level on par with spelling the word POTATO with an “E” at the end.

Now, SLS fanboys will argue that, despite its disposable nature, NASA’s deep space rocket is necessary since no other active launch system in the world can send SUPER HEAVY payloads into the kinds of high orbits required for, you guessed it, deep space missions.

Except, for that OTHER big honkin’ rocket that everybody keeps talking about – you know, the one literally called SUPER HEAVY.

Unlike SLS, which is based on a tired, old design that your grandfather might have worked on, SpaceX’s young new stud of a heavy-lift rocket is capable of flying again, and again, and again – with minimal downtime in between launches.

Make what you will THAT double-entendre.

Of course, to be fair Super Heavy – the rocket, not the payload size – is still just a prototype. But, man, WHAT a prototype! Not only can Super Heavy outlift SLS in terms of payload to orbit, its reusability lets it do so at a price point that no disposable rocket can touch.

Plus, it’s a real looker! Sort of like a giant Steely Dan – but with fins!

And thanks to SpaceX’s philosophy of rapid iteration, Super Heavy – and its companion upper stage, Starship – have flown no less than SEVEN times over the course of the program’s four years of active development.

Let me repeat that. Seven times in four years. Contrasted against ONE time over…A FRIGGIN’ DECADE!

But the real icing on the cake is the development cost: To reiterate, NASA has poured over $30 billion into the SLS program. Wanna guess how much SpaceX spent to accomplish literally 7x as many launches?

Around $5 billion. So, LESS than SLS by a factor of SIX.

Likewise, the projected operational costs for the Starship system are a fraction of those for SLS. We’re talking millions per launch vs. BILLIONS – with a B – every time NASA wants to launch their fugly one-shot candle.

Even poor Forrest can appreciate THAT kind of simple math.

Once again, to be fair, not ALL of Super Heavy’s launches have been successful. In fact, the rocket’s first Integrated Flight Test – IFT1 – was notable less for what it did in the sky than the damage it wrought on the ground. It literally dug a hole underneath the launch mount nearly big enough to fit Elon Musk’s inflated ego.

And even after the myriad missing Volkswagen-sized chunks of concrete were accounted for (sorry, all you unsuspecting sea creatures), the follow-on IFTs were mostly a mixed bag. In fact, it wasn’t until the fifth flight test that we saw both booster and ship complete their missions and return in relatively one piece.

By contrast, the first – and ONLY – flight of SLS went pretty much without a hitch – the advantage of building a disposable rocket using ancient Apollo-era wisdom and a bunch of flight-ready parts leftover from the Space Shuttle program.

Not a lot of “out of the box” thinking going on over at NASA – unless you count uncrating RS-25 shuttle engines that once graced the ass end of what NASA pilots affectionately dubbed the flying brick!

Maybe they thought reusability meant just taking lots of old stuff and reassembling it to create something…I don’t know…newish?

So, with SLS partying like it’s 1969, and with Super Heavy breathing down its fugly chicken neck, you really gotta wonder: Why the hell is this program still operational?

And, to answer that question, we’ve gotta go to the map:

Yes, folks, you are not seeing things. The SLS supply chain encompasses literally dozens of separate companies spanning over 40 US states.

In other words, SLS is not so much a “deep space” exploration program but rather a “terrestrial jobs” program.

Or in political parlance, it’s a friggin’ all you can eat pork barrel buffet!

Literally every region of the country has at least some ties to SLS, with their respective representatives all getting their constituent-courting beaks wet at the pig trough that is NASA’s Artemis program.

Now, I’m no idiot. I understand that NASA is a publicly funded agency, and to get support for massive projects, like returning mankind to the moon, you’ve gotta make the people who control the purse strings – i.e., the weasels in Congress – to feel like they’re getting something in return for their districts or states.

But it still really ticks me off that, after a decade of development and enough of the public’s money to end all human suffering as we know it (just kidding), the best that NASA can come up with is a warmed-over rehash of Apollo and STS’ golden oldies!

Hell, I’d be happy if they were at least partying like it was 1999 – because then a big chunk of their solution would be reusable – you know, like the Space Shuttle was.

However, SLS feels like a huge step backward to a time when the world “trembled at the sound of our rockets” – mostly because they were worried the discarded stages might come crashing back down on their heads!

Bottom Line: Reusability is a game changer. SpaceX has it. SLS doesn’t. And in the era DOGE and its aggressive pursuit of government fraud and waste, fat budget line-items, like SLS, that underperform vs. nimbler, private-sector alternatives, are destined for the chopping block.

So, let the SLS fanboys whine – at some point, probably not too long from now, NASA’s hand will be forced, and its vaunted Space Launch System will find itself relegated to the ash heap of history.

I say, “GOOD RIDDANCE” – and bring on that shiny, steely starship!

Thank you for listening. Don’t forget to hit Like and Subscribe to be notified of my next sarcastic rant about all things space related.

Until next time, remember: Don’t look up? Because you might trip over something and look really dumb in the process.