Quote from: AncientU on 12/06/2017 01:28 pmQuote from: whatever11235 on 12/06/2017 01:25 pmQuote from: Bubbinski on 12/06/2017 12:46 pmSome chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive."Too big to fail" at this point.Nope.You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty twelve billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.Edit: adjusted the sunk cost amount to reflect ncb1397's dose of reality
Quote from: whatever11235 on 12/06/2017 01:25 pmQuote from: Bubbinski on 12/06/2017 12:46 pmSome chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive."Too big to fail" at this point.Nope.
Quote from: Bubbinski on 12/06/2017 12:46 pmSome chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive."Too big to fail" at this point.
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
Note: SLS costs need to include Orion -- their conception, birth, continued existence, survival, and thus price tag are inexorably linked.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/07/2017 06:07 pmNote: SLS costs need to include Orion -- their conception, birth, continued existence, survival, and thus price tag are inexorably linked.I've wonder if it's possible to break this link. What kind of effort would it take to put Orion on either Vulcan ACES or on a New Glenn? Would refueling a second stage allow these launchers to take Orion anywhere SLS could take it? If so, that could remove another argument for not canceling SLS.
It is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing, could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition: 1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination 2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF) 3. First to do so wins in each category named.
SLS mentioned by Boeing CEO as the way that Boeing will beat SpaceX to Mars.http://fortune.com/2017/12/07/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-elon-musk-marsMusk's response is classic Muskhttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/938816780444745728 QuoteDo it
Do it
It might be an interesting new thread to discuss how to get to Mars first if you were the CEO of Boeing and you were going to actually try to pull this off.
The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...(The aeroplane side)
Or develop yourself a lander that can go up in sections within the shrouds of existing launchers (oh, the irony!!!!). Dock it in orbit with a Starliner, some Cygnus/Bigelow habs and a transfer stage and off you go! If you give it a few years, you may be able to use a DSG power and propulsion module for Martian transfer. The liquid booster idea for the SLS won't work. Remember, the same political directive that got you your mega-rocket won't allow you to shut-out some of it's powerful backers by removing the solid boosters. You are stuck with the design as-is.
However, what can’t be estimated is ATK’s foothold as the provider of boosters for NASA’s human space flight program for the past 30 years. A continuation with the familiarity of the solid motors is continually classed as the favored option by SLS sources.
...In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.
Quote from: speedevil on 12/08/2017 03:06 amThe only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...(The aeroplane side)Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/08/2017 08:16 amQuote from: speedevil on 12/08/2017 03:06 amThe only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...(The aeroplane side)Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.To be explicit - Boeing-aircraft, after passenger transport BFR starts eating their core business.