Author Topic: SLS costs and possible mission  (Read 25565 times)

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
SLS costs and possible mission
« on: 11/15/2011 01:39 am »
The shuttle isn't even dead yet until next year as far as redirecting the budget money for it.

This was the only real way to get a new rocket off the ground.

Trying to develop new technology while still supporting the shuttle and the massive workforce that goes with it was not going to happen.

2012 onwards is the real test.

Will the American people sit by while NASA gets peanuts and slowly develops a rocket as their lives go by?  ::)

That is the question that I want to know. Will be pretty sad if we're waiting until the 20s for SLS and to the 30s before Mars is even on the table.

Seems like a new thread is required here.

I just wanted to move my last post that was OT.

Is SLS too expensive to ever be a reality?

Clongton tells me a mission is coming soon. That sounds expensive and if it's not Mars until 2030+ it's not going to impress many Mars fans.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #1 on: 11/15/2011 01:54 am »
I don't believe SLS is too expensive...yet.  To get Block I up and running NASA is spending $3 billion a year on HSF through 2017 which will get us our first test launch.  But that includes Orion and ground infrastructure upgrades both of which would continue if SLS was canceled tomorrow, no?

In addition I agree with you Mars definitely needs to be on our radar for missions, but lets be real here.  We haven't been outside LEO in over 39 years.  Spending the 2020's in lunar and NEO and possibly Mars orbit/Phobos landings seems very logical to me.  That sets up actual Mars landings in the 2030's which is exactly what we're looking at.

We have a very real prospect of humans in lunar orbit by the end of the decade, which is extremely exciting and hopefully will spark a lot more interests in this country and worldwide.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #2 on: 11/15/2011 03:03 am »
There's the related question, "What is a feasible SLS launch rate?"

Just a little aside sdsds, under what you just described, if there is only ONE crewed BEO mission per year, then we are talking two (2) launches per year, one crew and one mission spacecraft, correct? Hmm. I seem to recall someone on the previous page going on about how there wouldn't be 2 launches per year. I think he was confusing launches with a 2-launch mission :)

I would love to see study or even speculation about the (fully integrated program) costs of systems that use a single launch vehicle for each mission compared with systems that use two launch vehicles for each mission.  It seems plausible that building and launching the extra vehicle doesn't really cost that much extra!

But if two is good, what about three?  I'm a big fan of a generic mission architecture that starts with a single-launch CaLV mission that robotically prepositions some asset at a BLEO destination, and then hibernates.  Follow that (maybe the next year) with a mission using two-launches, the first delivering to LEO an EDS and the second delivering to LEO the crew and the exploration vehicle(s).  After rendezvous the EDS sends the exploration vehicles to join the patiently waiting BLEO asset.

Is asking for three launches in two years really asking too much?
« Last Edit: 11/15/2011 03:04 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #3 on: 11/15/2011 03:42 am »
I don't believe SLS is too expensive...yet.  To get Block I up and running NASA is spending $3 billion a year on HSF through 2017 which will get us our first test launch.  But that includes Orion and ground infrastructure upgrades both of which would continue if SLS was canceled tomorrow, no?


No, there is no need to most of the upgrades without SLS

Offline jtrame

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 346
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #4 on: 09/12/2013 05:48 pm »
Noting that the HLV Studies thread is probably not the right place to discuss cancellation of the SLS and since a lot of the SLS threads are locked, maybe this old thread is a better place to answer Jim's comment.

If SLS is cancelled somewhere down the road as you predict, won't that leave us with a VAB reconfigured for SLS, along with the crawler-transporter, launch tower, rebuilt pad, rebuilt A-1 test stand at Stennis, SLS specific tooling and fabrication machines at Michoud, avionics and software package, and 5 segment SRBs (and this is just the short list)?

All of these things are well underway at this point, and I'm assuming that they are pretty specific to SLS and would have to be heavily modified to serve any other purpose, or even taken down completely to make room for whatever alternative came along to replace it. 

Aren't we building some kind of momentum here that makes cancellation less likely as time moves forward?  Won't the money spent up to that point, the effort, the parts and processes, etc., make some kind of difference in that decision making process?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #5 on: 09/12/2013 06:02 pm »

Aren't we building some kind of momentum here that makes cancellation less likely as time moves forward?  Won't the money spent up to that point, the effort, the parts and processes, etc., make some kind of difference in that decision making process?

Momentum means nothing wrt cancellation.  See Ares I.  See J-2X.  See Constellation.

Offline Longhorn John

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1570
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #6 on: 09/12/2013 06:06 pm »
I'd prefer to see more discussions on the threads about data and facts and not the crusade by the few people who have a problem with SLS.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2013 01:16 am by Chris Bergin »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #7 on: 09/12/2013 06:17 pm »
I'd prefer to see more discussions on the threads about data and facts and not the crusade by the few Australians who have a problem with SLS.

Hear, hear!!

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #8 on: 09/12/2013 06:33 pm »
From a NASA document called "ESD Integration, Budget Availability Scenarios" in August 19, 2011, it looks to me that starting in 2017, the SLS was budgeted at something between $2B and $2.5B with 1 to 1.5 launches per year. The document is on www.spacepolicyonline.com.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #9 on: 09/12/2013 06:39 pm »

Seems like a new thread is required here.

I just wanted to move my last post that was OT.

Is SLS too expensive to ever be a reality?

Clongton tells me a mission is coming soon. That sounds expensive and if it's not Mars until 2030+ it's not going to impress many Mars fans.

SLS is not too expensive to ever be reality. It's probably not our best option, sure. But too expensive? NASA's been able to fund both the ISS and the space shuttle for years. Currently that STS budget has been turned over to SLS and funding it seems to go just fine. SLS getting about 1.4 to 1.8 billion a year, Orion about 1 billion. Including ground systems roughly 3 billion total. If we continue like this SLS will probably come online by 2018-2020 which is early enough for me. So it's probably not too expensive to be a reality. Too expensive to operate? I don't know, if we increase the exploration budget to 4-5 million annually after ISS is gone SLS can operate just fine at roughly 1.5 billion a year with Orion at 1 billion. It's not efficient but it's certainly doable unlike some other rockets.

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality even though it's doing just fine for the time being, and I really don't get why A. They decide to make a whole "noble quest and B. they're almost all Australian.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #10 on: 09/12/2013 06:41 pm »

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because there is no need for it.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #11 on: 09/12/2013 06:42 pm »

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because there is no need for it.

No need =/= not possible

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #12 on: 09/12/2013 06:48 pm »

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because there is no need for it.

No need =/= not possible

It makes it less possible.
It is too expensive for no need.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2013 06:48 pm by Jim »

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #13 on: 09/12/2013 06:53 pm »

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because there is no need for it.

There's no "need" for space flight at all, when you get right down to it.  We were just fine before that dang agriculture came along and messed up everything.

I don't think you are necessarily the final word on what constitutes "need".
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #14 on: 09/12/2013 06:58 pm »

I don't think you are necessarily the final word on what constitutes "need".

That isn't my view, it is a fact.  There is no directed mission that requires the SLS.  Hence there is no need.  There is a want from Congress to provide funding for a launch vehicle project that will spend money in their districts.  But they have directed  no mission that requires its capabilities.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #15 on: 09/12/2013 07:05 pm »


Aren't we building some kind of momentum here that makes cancellation less likely as time moves forward?  Won't the money spent up to that point, the effort, the parts and processes, etc., make some kind of difference in that decision making process?

Pay little attention to the naysayers, they've had their time at the mic.

You are correct, the positive momentum that SLS is seeing will make it difficult to cancel. While there are certainly issues, the vehicle does not share the same serious design risks and setbacks that Constellation endured. The most likely scenario is a schedule slip into 2018 for EM-1 due to funding, but not outright not cancellation.

Stay positive.


Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #16 on: 09/12/2013 07:05 pm »

Aren't we building some kind of momentum here that makes cancellation less likely as time moves forward?  Won't the money spent up to that point, the effort, the parts and processes, etc., make some kind of difference in that decision making process?

Momentum means nothing wrt cancellation.  See Ares I.  See J-2X.  See Constellation.

Ares-I had no momentum, and thus does not compare to SLS. J2X is nearing completion of its test phase with flying colors, and is ready to go into production if that is the path chosen. Constellation's cancellation was due to many factors that SLS does not suffer under, which have been discussed many times over here at NSF.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #17 on: 09/12/2013 07:15 pm »

You are correct, the positive momentum that SLS is seeing will make it difficult to cancel.

No basis for that statement.  Momentum has never saved a project.
SLS has less going for it than Constellation.  I can see inside and outside the agency.

As for time at the mic, I have held back on SLS compared to my CxP criticisms.  And one of the reasons is that I see it going away and it doesn't need the push like CxP did.  i actively supported CxP getting cancelled.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2013 07:21 pm by Jim »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #18 on: 09/12/2013 07:33 pm »
I know this might sound strange on  this thread, but I am interested in the cost of SLS.  I posted rough numbers from a document dataed from 2011, are there newer cost estimates from NASA?

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #19 on: 09/12/2013 07:35 pm »
Unlike Jim, I actually don't think SLS will get cancelled. I think it's a really lousy use of limited NASA resources, and that the opportunity costs are enough to make one want to cry blood. But I think it's more than likely to fly, and become for HSF the sort of albatross that JWST has been for SMD. But saying that something should be canceled is far from saying it will be canceled. That said, I think that 50 years from now people will be looking back at SLS wondering "what the heck were those fools thinking?" not celebrating some game-changing capability that opened the solar system.

Nothing new here though on either side though. Just continually frustrated that the supporters of a multi-billion dollar program feel that the burden of proof is on those who want to cancel it and not on those who think it should stay.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #20 on: 09/12/2013 07:37 pm »
I know this might sound strange on  this thread, but I am interested in the cost of SLS.  I posted rough numbers from a document dataed from 2011, are there newer cost estimates from NASA?

Oh come on BrightLight, quit being On Topic... ;-)

Seriously though, I'd also like to see what the current estimates are both for fixed and marginal costs at both the current planned flight rate, and flight rates the SLS amazing peoples would like to see. My guess is that with the way they're doing things, there will be non-zero additional NRE and fixed costs to transition to a higher flight rate, and I'd love to have discussions about actual data.

~Jon

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #21 on: 09/12/2013 07:41 pm »
I know this might sound strange on  this thread, but I am interested in the cost of SLS.  I posted rough numbers from a document dataed from 2011, are there newer cost estimates from NASA?

I'd be interested in seeing that too. Aside from the HEFT document estimating it at 1.86 billion at a launch rate of 1 every two years I haven't seen any cost estimates that either don't include fixed costs (500 million) or that are ridiculously pessimistic, handwaving "estimates" by hardcore anti-SLS crusaders (5 billion for once per year). I'd say that 1.8 for one flight every one to two years is pretty realistic so I'll stick with that until something better comes along.

Also, post 100. Neat.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2013 07:42 pm by M129K »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #22 on: 09/12/2013 07:49 pm »

I'd be interested in seeing that too. Aside from the HEFT document estimating it at 1.86 billion at a launch rate of 1 every two years I haven't seen any cost estimates that either don't include fixed costs (500 million) or that are ridiculously pessimistic, handwaving "estimates" by hardcore anti-SLS crusaders (5 billion for once per year). I'd say that 1.8 for one flight every one to two years is pretty realistic so I'll stick with that until something better comes along.


HEFT document is just as much handwaving. 

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #23 on: 09/12/2013 07:51 pm »
Quote from: Jim
HEFT document is just as much handwaving.

It seems realistic to me, it's in line with my personal handwaving and I haven't seen anything better. If someone shows me anything less handwavy I'll be glad to accept it.

Also, the hand waving is done by people who now their stuff, which is a big improvement over some guesstimates.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2013 07:53 pm by M129K »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #24 on: 09/12/2013 07:55 pm »

You are correct, the positive momentum that SLS is seeing will make it difficult to cancel.

No basis for that statement.  Momentum has never saved a project.
SLS has less going for it than Constellation.  I can see inside and outside the agency.

As for time at the mic, I have held back on SLS compared to my CxP criticisms.  And one of the reasons is that I see it going away and it doesn't need the push like CxP did.  i actively supported CxP getting cancelled.

Cancelling CXP & SLS: to be replaced with.... What?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #25 on: 09/12/2013 07:58 pm »
Quote from: Jim
HEFT document is just as much handwaving.

It seems realistic to me, it's in line with my personal handwaving and I haven't seen anything better. If someone shows me anything less handwavy I'll be glad to accept it.

Also, the hand waving is done by people who now their stuff, which is a big improvement over some guesstimates.

It is going to be more.  You have to add in Orion cost because it is going to fly on every mission.  And that will equate costs closer to the shuttle's than the low costs projected here.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #26 on: 09/12/2013 09:16 pm »
Alright, add in a few 100 million per flight, don't know how much exactly. Also, how is 1.8 billion less than the shuttle?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #27 on: 09/12/2013 09:44 pm »
No, add the yearly budget for each and divide by the flight rate.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #28 on: 09/12/2013 10:07 pm »
I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because they have watched as several other heavily promoted NASA launch system development programs were cancelled. And because they don't understand how the SLS program is any different from those others.

The big difference (in my opinion) is that with SLS, NASA has found a way to proceed with extremely low planned flight rates. And for missions that involve multiple flights, the resulting mission rates could be incredibly low. Personally I don't doubt the possibility of a four-launch lunar surface mission every eight years.

That's 0.125 (crewed) missions per year! While still spending at the current rate! Never before have mission rates that low (yet non-zero) been within the realm of possibility for a human spaceflight program.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2013 10:17 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #29 on: 09/12/2013 10:08 pm »

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because there is no need for it.

But this is the government.  Need is more a secondary reason.

The same could be said for STS and it flew successfully for over 30 years.


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #30 on: 09/12/2013 10:21 pm »

I don't think you are necessarily the final word on what constitutes "need".

That isn't my view, it is a fact.  There is no directed mission that requires the SLS.  Hence there is no need.  There is a want from Congress to provide funding for a launch vehicle project that will spend money in their districts.  But they have directed  no mission that requires its capabilities.

Not disagreeing with you Jim.  You are exactly right.
But again, I don't think there was a "directed" mission for STS the way there was for Saturn V.  Certainly no payloads by USAF and probably NASA that an upgraded Saturn 1B, or an upgraded Titan III (Titan IV or similar) or other similar class ELV couldn't have done. 

In fact I think that Saturn V was the only NASA LV that had such a directed mission.  Mercury and Gemini used rockets which were developed for completely different purposes, and STS was basically just supposed to replace all government ELV's with a reusable system for both crews and payloads and reduce launch costs.

So I don't think this situation is unusual for NASA at all, historically.  Although personally I'd have rather saw EELV's, EELV-evolved, or a brand new scalable modular system, back during ESAS when there was a directed mission for it, the VSE (And ISS crew and cargo support).  And a much faster and cheaper road to getting it done that way. 

Offline patmamu

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Eastern Shore Maryland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #31 on: 09/12/2013 10:22 pm »

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because there is no need for it.

But this is the government.  Need is more a secondary reason.

The same could be said for STS and it flew successfully for over 30 years.



STS had a need, namely low cost access to space for large military and civillian payloads, it's just that the STS didn't work out as intended and its mission changed accordingly.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #32 on: 09/12/2013 10:38 pm »
...
In fact I think that Saturn V was the only NASA LV that had such a directed mission.  Mercury and Gemini used rockets which were developed for completely different purposes...
Indeed, they were the historical versions of EELVs. Didn't seem to be a big problem, so why the big problem today?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #33 on: 09/12/2013 10:41 pm »

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because there is no need for it.

But this is the government.  Need is more a secondary reason.

The same could be said for STS and it flew successfully for over 30 years.

With the cancelling of Gemini the STS did not have a rival for launching people.  SLS has 3 rivals.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #34 on: 09/12/2013 11:02 pm »

You are correct, the positive momentum that SLS is seeing will make it difficult to cancel.

No basis for that statement.  Momentum has never saved a project.
SLS has less going for it than Constellation.  I can see inside and outside the agency.

As for time at the mic, I have held back on SLS compared to my CxP criticisms.  And one of the reasons is that I see it going away and it doesn't need the push like CxP did.  i actively supported CxP getting cancelled.

Cancelling CXP & SLS: to be replaced with.... What?

Well EELV's would probably be the most likely candidates, unless there's another stab at a different HLV make-work project (to spread work around to various congressional districts).  SpaceX may have a hand in there too.  Depending on what MCT actually looks like, NASA could opt for a commercial HLV and go that way.  That's probably what they should have done way back in ESAS, but there's a lot of politics involved with having a "American" government flagship launcher.  And that's probably directly due to the success off Apollo.

But I'll go out on a limb here and disagree with Jim (which means I'm probably wrong  :-)  ).  I don't think SLS will be cancelled.  I think it'll fly, because it has bi-partisan political backing.  Once it's flying there will be some development funds freed up that will then start to go into payloads.  And there will probably be a push on Congress and the next President to secure some more funds in addition to now do something with this rocket.  Unlike STS, SLS has the capability to do some missions that can catch the public and Congressional attention, rather than just poke around in LEO.
Also, it does sound like NASA is going a little more "common sense" with SLS.  Going with a more automated, and much smaller staffed core production at MAF.  A -much- scaled down KSC operation, etc.

Once flying, I don't think there will be the political will to cancel it, and retire the famous KSC complex (which is unnecessary without a flagship launcher).  Who wants to be -that- guy?  But, it can't really fly with nothing on it, and just sit there.  And if it won't be cancelled, then missions will have to be slated for it. 

And while, as Jim points out, "momentum" can't save a project by itself, having an operational project can save itself.  STS being a good example of that.  Within it's first decade it's problems and cost issues were obvious to all.  But a new LV just never quite had the drive to replace an operational system.  At least until Columbia.
I'm sure there's several examples of military hardware which continued service for a long time once it became operational and became clearthere was no longer a need or mission for it, or there was a better way to go.



Purely my opinion though.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #35 on: 09/12/2013 11:16 pm »

STS had a need, namely low cost access to space for large military and civillian payloads, it's just that the STS didn't work out as intended and its mission changed accordingly.

Ahhh...but there's a difference between a "need" or "purpose" and a "directed mission".  Saturn V had a directed mission.  And once that mission was fulfilled, there was no need for Saturn V.

STS had a "purpose/need".  To replace government ELV's with a lower cost launching system.  Replace both the Saturn/Apollo and Titan hardware.  There's different ways that could have been accomplished if the thumb hadn't been on the scale for reusibility.  A new 25mt class ELV which could also launch an updated LEO version of Apollo or small reusable spaceplane like HL-20 that used automation, high production rates, and technologies paid for by the Apollo program could have filled the rolls of STS, especially as far as USAF/DoD was concerned.  And pretty much anything NASA ended up doing with STS.
STS was just one way to go.  Unto itself it didn't have a directed mission like Saturn V had.
And that's why it last 30 years.  There wasn't a scenario where it finished it's directed mission and then it's purpose was over like Saturn V. 

And thus is the case for SLS.  It has a purpose/need.  To send crewed spacecraft BLEO.  VSE.  Like with STS, there's other ways to go about that without the thumb on the scale of Shuttle-derived.  RAC-2 and EELV's and evolved EELVs for example.  And like STS, those other ways probably would have been cheaper.  But it is what it is.




Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #36 on: 09/12/2013 11:22 pm »

And thus is the case for SLS.  It has a purpose/need.  To send crewed spacecraft BLEO.

Not the same, there were payloads for the shuttle with real destinations.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #37 on: 09/12/2013 11:30 pm »
I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality even though it's doing just fine for the time being, and I really don't get why A.

I think it's possible SLS will fly.  What I think very unlikely is that it will accomplish much exploration.  It's just too expensive, and there won't be money left over for payloads an worthwhile missions.  Meaningful exploration is more likely without SLS than with it.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #38 on: 09/12/2013 11:32 pm »


With the cancelling of Gemini the STS did not have a rival for launching people.  SLS has 3 rivals.

SLS has 3 rivals for launching people because NASA funded them.  And while those are cool, I always that it was unnecessary when NASA was developing it's own capsule which could do the job.

During STS NASA was much more guarded about their flagship.  Which is why HL-20 went away, and HL-42, and Shuttle-C, and inline SDHLV, etc.  Aside from other development costs, each of those in their own way would have eroded into the need of STS. 

One of the purposes of CxP coming out of ESAS was to service and support the ISS, as well as go to the Moon and to Mars.  That's not a huge number of missions.  A "better" CxP could have done it adequately though, and much quicker and cheaper. (Evolved EELV's/Atlas on steroids, AJAX, Direct, etc.)

Today, NASA (And congress perhaps) seems to be working against itself.   They are funding their own rocket, as well as giving part of CxP's job to commercial.  Cutting the missions for their system.  Cutting ISS support out of it.  NASA (and congress perhaps0 never let anything threaten their flagship launcher in the 70's, 80's and 90's)  ELV's even only came back into it after Challenger because USAF said they couldn't be tied to a manned LV for national security sake during the cold war era.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #39 on: 09/12/2013 11:38 pm »
Even if SLS doesn't get cancelled before it flies, there's only 15 RS-25D engines, and they're still talking about 4 engines per flight.. so they'll need RS-25D/E production up and running before the 4th flight. Last I checked, that hasn't even started yet, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #40 on: 09/12/2013 11:42 pm »

And thus is the case for SLS.  It has a purpose/need.  To send crewed spacecraft BLEO.

Not the same, there were payloads for the shuttle with real destinations.

Yea...kinda the same.  At least as in those payloads for the shuttle didn't require the shuttle specifically, and could have launched on any ELV with similar lift capacity and PLF size -instead- of STS.   A 1970's version of Titan IV could have done it.  And that was proven obviously when Titan IV was later built and flew.

Payloads that could fly on the shuttle, as opposed to an LV specifically designed and built for a single payload, like Saturn V. 

Saturn V was specifically designed to carry the Apollo CSM and the LEM and get them to lunar orbit. 

Wereas STS wasn't specifically designed to launch ERBS or TRDS-1.

The main difference is, unless you want to launch EELV class payloads on a SAturn V class LV, there are existing ELV's that those existing payloads can fly on other than Orion to BLEO.
STS was effectively causing the retirement of existing ELV's and designed to be big enough to handle the next gen payload requirements.   STS was a HLV with only a EELV-Heavy capacity.  So to be similar to STS, we'd have to cancel the EELV's and fly all government payloads on SLS, with the promise that that would bring launch costs down.

:-)

   
« Last Edit: 09/12/2013 11:49 pm by Lobo »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #41 on: 09/12/2013 11:46 pm »
Even if SLS doesn't get cancelled before it flies, there's only 15 RS-25D engines, and they're still talking about 4 engines per flight.. so they'll need RS-25D/E production up and running before the 4th flight. Last I checked, that hasn't even started yet, but correct me if I'm wrong.


If the 4th flight is 10-15 years away, they have some time. :)

Offline patmamu

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Eastern Shore Maryland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #42 on: 09/12/2013 11:50 pm »

Yea...kinda the same, as those payloads for the shuttle didn't require the shuttle specifically, and could have launched on any ELV with similar lift capacity and PLF size.  A 1970's version of Titan IV could have done it.  And that was proven obviously when Titan IV was later built and flew.


Shuttle payload to LEO was 53,600 lb
Titan to LEO was 47,790 lb

Shuttle had a unique payload bay that not only allowed large payloads but also offered recapture of satellites. Titan could not do what the shuttle could so its a weird comparison.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #43 on: 09/12/2013 11:52 pm »
Even if SLS doesn't get cancelled before it flies, there's only 15 RS-25D engines, and they're still talking about 4 engines per flight.. so they'll need RS-25D/E production up and running before the 4th flight. Last I checked, that hasn't even started yet, but correct me if I'm wrong.


If the 4th flight is 10-15 years away, they have some time. :)

Plus I think there's 16 engines, so 4 flights.  Won't need more until the 5th flight.
Or at least they have the parts to make the 16th engine.

Plus they could just make more RS-25D's I believe.  Expensive and labor intensive, but it depends on what the flight rate -really- turns out to be, and what the costs of RS-25E are to develop.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #44 on: 09/12/2013 11:57 pm »

Yea...kinda the same, as those payloads for the shuttle didn't require the shuttle specifically, and could have launched on any ELV with similar lift capacity and PLF size.  A 1970's version of Titan IV could have done it.  And that was proven obviously when Titan IV was later built and flew.


Shuttle payload to LEO was 53,600 lb
Titan to LEO was 47,790 lb

Shuttle had a unique payload bay that not only allowed large payloads but also offered recapture of satellites. Titan could not do what the shuttle could so its a weird comparison.

Then how did USAF move all their payloads over to Titan IV after Challenger?

The "real" and "existing" payloads I think Jim was referring to were USAF/DoD payloads that were in the pipe and needed something more than Titan III to launch.  So they invested in STS rather than a successor to Titan III in the 70's.  I don't think NASA had any real and existing missions at first, they were spending all of their money on the Shuttle development and infrastructure changes from Saturn. 
As those USAF/DoD payloads were later moved to Titan IV after Challenger, what need did USAF/DoD payloads have specifically of STS?

That was my only point there.  NASA had some other things they wanted it to do that maybe Apollo on Saturn 1B couldn't really do.  But satilite delivery didn't need anything unique about STS that I'm aware of anywa.

Offline patmamu

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Eastern Shore Maryland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #45 on: 09/13/2013 12:19 am »
[

Then how did USAF move all their payloads over to Titan IV after Challenger?


Not all DOD payloads left shuttle after Challenger case in point STS-39 and sts-44 in 1991. Also the military was into shuttle for more than just payloads, they wanted to have military astronauts in space and joining in on shuttle would help them achieve this. With the risk of this topic getting to far off post I think that the argument that sls will succeed even with no need because the shuttle succeeded is wrong. The shuttle is a completely different animal than sls and had many different needs during its 30 years.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #46 on: 09/13/2013 01:21 am »
Even if SLS doesn't get cancelled before it flies, there's only 15 RS-25D engines, and they're still talking about 4 engines per flight.. so they'll need RS-25D/E production up and running before the 4th flight. Last I checked, that hasn't even started yet, but correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Build engine controller with J-2X.
2. Put RS-25D on test stand to qualify for higher LOX inlet pressure.
3. Start building RS-25E with same team and test stand used for step 2.

Even if you give SLS a mission NASA can't afford it. That's why I don't support SLS.

They can't even afford to do this.



The only part of this mission they might be able to afford is the translation boom. The rest is pure fantasy under the current budget.

NASA has to stop designing manned hardware.

They should get rid of SLS/Orion and keep their translation boom and then fund the ARM spacecraft.

Then let commercial companies figure out how to get the astronauts with their fancy boom to the DRO. It's just not that expensive a task to perform. SLS/Orion makes it a $25 BILLION+ mission. Like what the #$%*!!!!   ::)

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #47 on: 09/13/2013 01:27 am »
You know, I just edited a comment (as much as I agreed with it) as it makes me sob when I see threads like this rush into page 4 in double quick time, whereas I - or one of our writers - could spend forever on a long technical article and it'll never get such a reaction.

Has it really turned into the internet version of this....if you replace "Men" with SLS.



And yes, the irony is not lost via Homer's comment at the end. ;)

There's a very vocal minority who will never like SLS (or any rocket with "NASA" on the side - which I think is more the point). There will 100 more threads just like this (and I mean just like this) with the same people saying the same things.

It's getting a bit boring.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #48 on: 09/13/2013 01:42 am »

That was my only point there.  NASA had some other things they wanted it to do that maybe Apollo on Saturn 1B couldn't really do.  But satilite delivery didn't need anything unique about STS that I'm aware of anywa.

The shuttle was to be an all in one solution for all launch needs. Delta, Atlas, Titan sized payloads and more. The ELV were to be retired. Instead the Shuttle proved to be both more expensive than the ELV and incapable of taking their place(too much time to refurbish between missions to get an launch rate that could replace the ELV).  So the shuttle was designed to handle it all, which is why there is no Titan IV in the 70ies, only after Challenger does a new generation of ELV the Delta II, Atlas II, and Titan IV come about bringing improvements.  Saturn 1B is dead in the water before the shuttle, NASA couldn't bare the full costs of Saturn 1B without the Airforce, the most likely thing that manned spaceflight might have done is launch on Titan III.


SLS has no mission really, without a hab or an lunar lander and with a sad launch rate of maybe 2 a year if that you really can’t do much with it and the payloads that need to go with SLS need to be developed now not after SLS flies.  Without payloads about the only mission SLS can do is loop the moon with Orion.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2013 01:45 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #49 on: 09/13/2013 01:55 am »
There's a very vocal minority who will never like SLS (or any rocket with "NASA" on the side - which I think is more the point). There will 100 more threads just like this (and I mean just like this) with the same people saying the same things.

It's getting a bit boring.

Maybe one day the people who disagree will actually come up with some good counterarguments.

In the mean time, people will continue to say SLS is an albatross and SLS supporters will continue to retort with "but NASA says everything is going fine!"

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #50 on: 09/13/2013 02:25 am »

Maybe one day the people who disagree will actually come up with some good counterarguments.


To the contrary, it's usually the most ardent SLS supporters who come up with the best arguments and educated criticisms on what needs to be done. At least that's how I've seen it by having to trawl through the threads.

Then there's the "I just hate it" boooing that's utterly monotonous, because it's the same small group of people doing over and over and over again. I doubt some of those people are interested in counterarguments anyway.


In the mean time, people will continue to say SLS is an albatross

Yep, that group.


and SLS supporters will continue to retort with "but NASA says everything is going fine!"

I've rarely - if ever - come across a "SLS supporter" who's said "But NASA says everything is fine", as much as I can imagine that would rile anti-NASA people - and we've definitely got some of those on here. Such people would be the same problem if we had 100 threads titled "SLS - great isn't it!".

But here's the kicker. Doesn't matter if we had a 1000 members, starting threads and posting like it was their hobby to go after SLS. It's not going to change anything. The decision makers sure as hell aren't going to read it and think "Oh, hang on!"

So that's what I'm getting at. Let's have the spread of opinion, but let's not start thread after thread after thread from same people over and over. Let's balance what we have as news and discussion.

There's some bloody good threads down on page 4-10, all bumped down by "Huh, SLS - expensive innit!" threads. And I'm the one that gets the complaints, which are growing.

I'll be sleeping on this.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #51 on: 09/13/2013 04:34 am »
My concerns with the SLS.

1. Low flight rate.

If there are problems with SLS they're going to be hard to iron out when there isn't many of them being produced and flown. The reliability will be low and the chance of LOM/LOC will be higher than it should because of the low flight rate. Saturn V was able to launch twice before men were risked on it and that was when NASA was willing to take bigger risks.
The low flight rate also causes problems with the production cost. Producing one core at a time very slowly might take less man power but they will have to stretch things out which means a standing work force at least some of the time, especially for ground support at KSC. If they don't have any rocket to launch what do they do? Get paid to nap away the days waiting for delivery of the next core 2 years later?

2. Heritage hardware costs.

The reused parts from shuttle/CxP were supposed to save money but with serious redesign ongoing I'm not sure this will be the case. Things go obsolete quickly in the aerospace world if they're not being used. The RS-25 engine for starters is an old piece of hardware that will be costly to recreate. The shuttle ET can't be reused as it was built of an alloy not suitable for the SLS core. The 5-seg solid has issues with the lining and the nose cones might have to be thrown out to due to the shape of the SLS vs shuttle stack.

3. Lack of payloads.

For the SLS to truly be useful it has to be shown that missions can't be done without payloads sized for SLS. Right now it doesn't seem like Orion might be heavy but the diameter should fit on a Delta IV and the chances of an SLS tank derived habitat are very slim as NASA just can't afford such a big hab. The only thing SLS is being used for in the first couple of missions is to launch the upper stage which is just fuel. The ARM spacecraft can't be funded simultaneously so the only real mission NASA can do is a lunar orbit which could be done much cheaper with commercial launches even if you did it by filling over 100mt of storable propellant in a custom made LEO depot.

4. Opportunity cost.

While NASA puts all their eggs in the basket which uses old hardware they forgo making breakthrough developments in the fields of SEP and advanced cryogenic boiloff. Planetary missions are also taking a big hit and the fleet of commercial crew vehicles which NASA could build a robust LEO infrastructure will be cut down to only one vehicle seriously limiting any future capability those spacecraft could provide to NASA, American industry and the rest of the world. For the money SLS will cost they could build their ARM spacecraft and bring an asteroid close to Earth. With technology development it's possible that either SEP or advanced cryogenic boiloff could easily take astronauts out to the distant retrograde orbit where it will be placed. Technology developments take time, money sunk into heritage hardware that isn't even that "heritage" just wastes time.

All SLS supporters are welcome to refute any or all of these arguments.

I'd like to think this is much more than just "SLS!!! BOOOOOOOO!"  :)

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #52 on: 09/13/2013 05:04 am »
Noting that the HLV Studies thread is probably not the right place to discuss cancellation of the SLS and since a lot of the SLS threads are locked, maybe this old thread is a better place to...

Apologies for the long and out-of-sequence post.  I'm  putting my response to a post in the “Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs” thread here.  The discussion below is mainly about the flight rate for SLS, so although it’s off-topic for the thread where the discussion started, it should fit here.  Thx.

And it would have kept climbing, if not for a system vulnerability that SLS doesn't share.

STS had 26 more years after Challenger to prove out a higher flight rate.  It never did.  In fact, STS never returned to its 1985 flight rate.

Quote
Non sequitur, in this context.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I don't mean to pound you over the head with the actual STS flight rate.   But you don't get to call a statement a "non sequitur" just because that statement demonstrates that your claim is wrong and off-base.  You argued that Shuttle systems are "able to launch at least 10-12 times per year without trouble, possibly a lot more".  But actual history shows that Shuttle never achieved that flight rate and that its long-run average flight rate was less than half of your claim.  That’s not a non sequitur.  It’s a statement of fact.

If you think that the STS flight rate is a non sequitur in regards to the SLS, then you should never have brought the STS flight rate up in the first place.

Quote
Apollo 12 launched through a rainstorm that was apparently on the verge of being a thunderstorm - if you had suggested to an STS manager that they launch a Shuttle mission in that kind of weather, whether at the Cape or at the TAL sites, he would have assumed it was a bad joke)

It is misleading to blame the low STS flight rate on weather.  Only about a third of STS launch delays were due to weather:

http://www.space.com/6969-history-shuttle-launch-delays.html

More than half were due to technical issues.  And unlike weather delays, which could be resolved in days with rollbacks and rollouts, many technical delays took weeks to months to correct.  See some of the gaseous hydrogen leaks below for just one example.

Quote
The engines for SLS are a new design iteration (which was well underway 10 years ago but shelved) that completely changes the cooling channel design

LH2 systems leak gaseous hydrogen from anywhere and everywhere.  I stopped at ten or so incidents, but as the list of gaseous hydrogen leak-induced delays below shows, NASA fought this problem on STS for three decades and never solved it.  Another iteration of SSME design isn’t going to fix it.  In fact, none of the ten-odd gaseous hydrogen leaks below had a root cause in RS-25x cooling channels:

November 2010:  “the shuttle Discovery was grounded again Friday… because of a hydrogen leak in a vent line attached to the ship's external tank.”
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/101105scrub/index2.html

March 2009:  “Discovery's flight to the space station is already late because of concern about hydrogen gas valves in the ship's engine compartment. NASA spokesman Allard Beutel said Wednesday's small leak was in plumbing outside Discovery, in the vicinity of the fuel tank and a hydrogen gas-venting line, and had nothing to do with the valves.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29634469/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/gas-leak-forces-delay-shuttle-launch/

June 2009:  “Fueling was halted after the leak was detected near the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate, or GUCP, which attached to the external tank at its intertank area.”
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31494

April 2002:  “A few moments after switching from slow fill to fast fill, an alert engineer monitoring video cameras focused on the pad saw a cloud of vapor erupt from a hydrogen vent line.”
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/sts110/020404leak/

July 1999:  “… a pin lodged into a tube that feeds liquid oxygen into the engine's combustion chamber -- at the top of the nozzle -- fell out, striking three 1,080 stainless steel cooling tubes ringing the nozzle bell the moment the engines started.  When the pin struck the cooling tubes it weakened them, eventually causing a rupture.”
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9907/30/shuttle.leak.01/

September 1995:  “The space shuttle Columbia began leaking explosive hydrogen fuel just hours before liftoff… Liftoff tentatively was rescheduled… to allow NASA to replace the leaky valve in main engine No. 1--a new, redesigned engine.”
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-29/news/mn-51341_1_space-shuttle-columbia

Sep 1990:  “The problem was believed solved over the summer, when a leak was traced to a valve on the fuel line that connects the shuttle with its external fuel tank.  But after an attempted launch was scrubbed Sept. 5, another leak was traced last week to a crumpled seal in one of the shuttle engine`s recirculation pumps. The leak found Monday is also in the recirculation pump area.”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-09-18/news/9003180154_1_external-fuel-tank-liquid-hydrogen-fuel-shuttle-engine

May 1990:  “Launch attempt on May 30, 1990 was scrubbed due to a minor liquid hydrogen leak at Columbia's tail service mast discovered during tanking operations. Major liquid hydrogen leaks were also discovered at the external tank/orbiter 17-inch quick disconnect valve assembly and 17-inch umbilical assembly.  Repairs could not be made at the launch pad, so Columbia was returned to the Orbiter Processing Facility. Launch was rescheduled for September 1, 1990.”
http://www.spaceline.org/shuttlechron/shuttle-sts35.html

Aug 1988:  “The leak is in the same service mast as another hydrogen leak that developed last Friday in a pressure monitoring connector.”
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1988/Workers-Search-For-Space-Shuttle-Hydrogen-Leak/id-6fd545904b4ddd53caf57de069ea3606

Dec 1982 – Jan 1983: “... today’s 20-second of the new shuttle’s three main engines had disclosed leakage within the engine compartment from at least one of those engines… Since the first leak was never pinpointed there is no way of knowing if the leaks were the same or came from different places”
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/26/us/hydrogen-leak-forces-second-space-shuttle-delay.html

NASA never solved gaseous hydrogen leaks in 30-odd years of Shuttle operations and upgrades and was never able to mitigate the multi-week and multi-month delays that followed these leaks.  You have to rely on faith to believe that’s going to magically change on SLS. 

Quote
What kind of resources?  According to the 2011 ESD Integration budget availability report, it seems that adding an SLS Block 1 launch to the future schedule costs about $300M in 2011 dollars.

No, very wrong.

You got that $300M figure by comparing the SLS totals in the “Case #1” and “Case #2” columns under “1st 70mT Crewed Date” on slide #8.  You’re right that there is a $300M difference in those figures, $14.5B versus $14.8B.  But the difference has nothing to do with the extra SLS launch in “Case #2”.  Compare the schedules at top of slides #9 and #10, and you’ll see that the extra SLS launch occurs in August 2024.  As the sub-headers on slide #8 show, 2024 is three years after the totals on slide #8 stop in “Aug. 2021”.  NASA doesn’t budget in fiscal year 2021 (and earlier) for a launch in calendar year 2024.

To get the marginal cost of that extra SLS launch, you have subtract the SLS budget line in Case #1 on slide #9 from the SLS budget line in Case #2 on slide #10.  Since it takes two years to produce one SLS stack, you have to include 2024 (the launch year) as well as 2022 and 2023 (the two prior production years).   Here’s what the figures show:

($M)      2022   2023   2024   Total   Notes
Case #2      1,599   1,729   1,721   5,049   Extra SLS launch in 2024
Case #1      1,334   1,449   1,372   4,155
Delta      265   280   349   894

So the marginal cost of adding the extra SLS launch to Case #2 is almost $900M ($894M to be exact).  That is three times the figure from your misreading of the document.

And that’s just the marginal cost of an extra SLS launching lead weights.  Adding the extra Orion for the 2024 mission to the flow generates these additional maginal costs using the MPCV budget lines on slides #9 and #10:

($M)      2022   2023   2024   Total   Notes
Case #2      1,250   1,285   1,291   3,826   Extra Orion mission in 2024
Case #1      1,036   1,036   1,036   3,108
Delta      214   249   255   718

So the marginal cost of an extra Orion is $718M.

Add the two figures together, and you get a marginal cost for an extra Orion/SLS mission of over $1.6 billion, with a “b”.  (It’s $1,612M to be exact.)

Quote
and doing five launches per year would only cost about $1.8B extra, or about 10% of NASA's current budget

No, as the figures above show, adding five SLS launches per year would require an annual budget infusion of about $4.5B, an increase of 26-27% over NASA’s current $16-17B total annual budget.  Adding five Orions (or some roughly equivalent payload) per year would require an additional annual budget infusion of about $3.6B, an increase of 21-22% over NASA’s current $16-17B total annual budget.  Put them together, adding five Orion/SLS missions per year would require an annual budget infusion of about $8B, an increase of 47-50% over NASA’s current $16-17B total annual budget.

Needless to say, we have to engage in fantasy to expect these kinds of budget increases.

Quote
Besides, have you noticed that 4.5 is really close to 5, which is the higher number you were ridiculing, and way larger than 2, which is the lower one?

As you just did above, you keep bringing up five annual SLS launch figure.  If you don’t like that scenario, then don’t argue from it.

But the numbers are still pretty grim if you want to back off to two SLS/Orion missions per year.  That would require an additional annual budget infusion of about $3.2B, an increase of 20% over NASA’s current $16-17B total annual budget.

A $3B+ or 20% increase in the NASA topline may not be total fantasy, but it’s still pretty unrealistic.  The Augustine Committee argued for a $3B increase in NASA’s topline.  Both the White House and Congress were deaf to that recommendation.  In fact, NASA’s budget is now a billion or two lower than it was when the Augustine Committee released its report.

Quote
Your argument was that SLS would be technically incapable of sustaining the launch rate necessary to do a manned Mars mission. 

I’m still making that argument and it’s independent of the budget figures above.  I’ll repeat it again.  We shut down a bunch of STS production capability when STS retired.  We are shutting down more in the ramp down to 1 mission every 2 years as the SLS production requirement demands.  It is fantasy to assume that the workforce that has been and will be dispersed, the tools that have been and will be discarded or destroyed, and the sections of facilities that have been and will be abandoned can all be brought back to support a 10-fold (5 launch per year) increase in the SLS launch rate.  It is unrealistic to assume they can be brought back to support a 4-fold (2 launch per year) increase in the SLS launch rate.  It’s just not believable that production rates could be increased by 400-1000% to support a Mars mission in the 2030s when the workforce, tools, and fully maintained facilities haven’t been around to do that for a couple decades.
 
I can believe that maybe the annual SLS production rate could double (an increase of 100%) from the requirement in a pinch.  Maybe a little more.   But 400-1000% increases are just not in the realm of reality.

Quote
Now you're arguing not only that the government will never fund a Mars mission

No, wrong.  I’m arguing that the USG will never fund a human Mars landing using SLS because:

1) Increasing the annual SLS production rate by 400-1000% over its requirement, especially 20-odd years after the system last saw that level of production, is somewhere between unrealistic and fantasy.

2) Increasing the NASA topline budget by 20-50% to accommodate the necessary increase in SLS production and operation and the accompanying payloads (assuming their DDT&E, production, and operation is roughly equivalent to an Orion on each SLS) is somewhere between unrealistic and fantasy.  (I’d add that the Orion assumption is probably way too low given Mars transit stage, hab, lander, rover, etc. costs.)

3) Because it relies on the same or very similar subsystems, SLS will suffer from many of the same multi-week to multi-month technically induced schedule delays as STS.  For example, despite heroic efforts over 30 years, NASA has never solved fundamental issues like gaseous hydrogen leaks that caused multi-week and multi-month delays for STS.  Even in a fantasy world where there are no impediments to ramping up SLS production by 400-1000% and the NASA topline budget can be increased by 20-50%, it is highly unlikely that NASA will magically resolve technical issues that have stubbornly resisted resolution for decades.  SLS is thus highly unlikely be able to maintain the launch tempo necessary to support a human Mars landing.

Quote
If a future government decides it wants a Mars mission, and the nation isn't in the grip of a series of financial crises, and NASA can avoid the temptation to pull another BSG like during SEI

If, if, if… and, and, and… This is the problem.   If only all the stars would align, anything is possible.  But realistically, it’s not, and we shouldn’t formulate programs and budgets on the expectation that all the stars will align.

Quote
Once they get it built, the ball is in the government's court again.

Build it (the SLS) and they (taxpayers, OMB, some future White House, and some future Congress) will come is not a strategy.  It’s a wish upon a star.  We have to be more realistic than that with our planning.

Quote
And then you go right ahead and do exactly what I said you were doing all over again.

I didn’t.  I argued that my assumptions and figures are more realistic and requires fewer leaps of fantasy than yours.

Quote
Your "reality" seems to involve low-order extrapolation over at least a decade, probably two.

My “extrapolation” is based on 30 years of actual STS flight rates, not theoretical rates like yours that Shuttle never achieved and that are double the actual average STS flight rate over the long run.

My “extrapolation” is based on the actual, written production requirement that SLS is being built to and reasonable expectations about how much that could be increased, not fantastical multi-hundred and thousand percent increases in production some two decades after the STS infrastructure last saw that rate of production.

My “extrapolation” is based on 30 years of actual STS launch delays, over half of which had technical causes, many of which were never solved in those three decades but still share common materials, designs, components, and subsystems with SLS that caused multi-week and multi-month delays.

My “extrapolation” is based on the actual marginal increases in SLS and Orion costs for an extra mission that starts production around 2022 and launches in 2024 using NASA’s own budget projections for that time period, not your misreading of a different budget figure that doesn’t even apply to that time period.

I’m sorry, but your assessment is based on a lot of bad recall, misreadings, and outright errors about the STS flight rate, the causes and nature of STS launch delays, and the SLS schedule.   And I don’t mean to keep pounding you with these words, but other parts of your assessment, like production rate increases, range from unrealistic to pure fantasy.

My “extrapolation” is “low order” because everything in this body of evidence – from STS flight history to STS launch delay history to actual SLS production requirements to the very high marginal costs of extra SLS/Orion missions in NASA’s own budget estimates – points in that direction.

In the immortal words of Santyana:  “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Quote
Six years ago the economy looked like it was in great shape.  Eleven years ago, Columbia was still flying.  Thirteen years ago, VentureStar was the next big thing.  Twenty-two years ago, SEI was still on.

Let me get this straight… you’re arguing that we should hope for the best in terms of SLS budget support and technical performance – that all the stars will align for SLS over the next 20-30 years – based on the history of the Great Recession, the Columbia accident, the X-33 debacle, and SEI’s implosion?  Really?

You do realize that you’re making my argument about being realistic for me, right?   

Quote
In my opinion, NASA needs a tool to help them get human crews out of LEO and do actual pioneering, before the growth of non-governmental spaceflight in LEO makes their human program entirely redundant. 

If it happened, it’s not apparent that robust private sector human LEO activities that are much larger and more relevant than NASA’s human LEO programs is a bad thing.  And even if that did happen, a company like ULA will always be willing to build a 70-ton EELV Phase 2 for NASA for $3B cost-plus and a company like SpaceX will always be willing to partner with NASA on a 150-ton Superheavy Falcon (or MCT or whatever it’s called) for a similar amount fixed price.

If companies like them can do it for a fraction of the cost of SLS development so that NASA can spend its limited human space exploration resources on more actual exploration hardware and earlier actual exploration missions, so be it.  More power to them and NASA.

Quote
The nature of the tool doesn't much matter, as long as it isn't extravagantly overblown like Ares.

An excerpt from http://www.knowledgeorb.com/2012/01/nasa-sls-rocket-survive-ares/:

"SLS cost – $18 billion through 2017. That includes $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to launch pad. Unofficial NASA documents estimate the cost of the program through 2025 will total at least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3 manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton SLS version will not be ready earlier than 2030.

ARES cost – The total estimated cost to develop the Ares through 2015 rose from $28 billion in 2006 to more than $40 billion in 2009.

Both programs have the final price tag of > 40 Billion dollars and estimates run about 1 billion per launch once development is done."

If you think Ares V costs were “extravagantly overblown”, then you should conclude that SLS costs are just as “extravagantly overblown”.

Quote
If the USG wants a big launcher (and Congress at least does; they've stuck to the idea since 2005), they get to pay to use it or else look like fools.

A future Congress or White House won’t take the blame for SLS/Orion.  At best, the blame will fall with the Congress that enacted the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.  More likely, the Obama Administration will take the political blame because these projects got started on their watch and it’s easier to remember who was President than a dozen or two congressmen.  Most likely, NASA will get the bulk of the blame for ineptly executing the eminent wisdom that was enshrined in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, whether that meme is true or not.

Stuff rolls downhill…

Quote
Congress funds programs at NASA.  Eliminate a program, and the funding disappears.

No.  Congress funds jobs first and foremost at NASA.  Incumbent congressmen want to make sure that there is no large turnout by recently fired NASA employees that could throw them out of office in the next election.  Even when a NASA program is eliminated, it gets replaced with something that maintains NASA workers in their jobs in the same districts and states.  Witness Ares morphing into SLS.  Witness Orion morphing into MPCV.

Quote
As for flat, SLS/Orion development is around $3B per year,

The actual spending (enacted plus op plan changes) on the SLS budget is not flat.  It’s declining at a rate of about $60M per year:

2011 $1,536M
2012 $1,498M
2013 $1,415M

This is tangential to the flight rate issue, but it will be hard to ever get SLS development finished if this declining budget pattern continues.  To finish a multi-year development project on budget and on time, it needs a forward-funded, Bell curve-shaped budget profile, like what the COTS developers got through their milestones.  To finish a development project with large budget overruns and schedule delays, it needs at least a flat budget profile, like what ISS got and JWST is getting.  And unless you start out with a ridiculously high number, it takes a miracle to build something over multiple years within a steadily declining budget.

Quote
if NASA isn't blowing smoke with their $500M number for one launch per year (which is possible)

NASA (actually SLS deputy manager Jody Singer) never said that the $500M figure was applicable to one launch per year.  She said that $500M was the project’s target for SLS’s “average launch cost”:

http://www.space.com/17556-giant-nasa-rocket-space-launch-cost.html

An average launch cost is just the total number of launches divided by the total budget.   For example, the average launch cost for the Space Shuttle was $1.2-1.5B: 

http://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html

To hit Singer’s average launch cost of $500M with only one launch per year, the annual budget for SLS would have to reach $500M per year.  Obviously, with an annual SLS budget projected to remain well above a billion bucks through 2025-2030, that’s not in the cards.

[Edit:  Changed out reference for Ares V versus SLS costs.]

« Last Edit: 09/13/2013 01:51 pm by darkbluenine »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #53 on: 09/13/2013 05:21 am »
I'll see if I can get around to answering this weekend.  Right now I have too much CFD derivation to do and too little time...
« Last Edit: 09/13/2013 05:26 am by 93143 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #54 on: 09/13/2013 05:27 am »
I'll see if I can get around to answering this weekend.  Right now I have too much multiphase CFD coding to do and too little time...
I think it might take longer than a weekend to answer that novel of a post! Phew! I hope you have some better sense of brevity.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #55 on: 09/13/2013 06:27 am »
[

Then how did USAF move all their payloads over to Titan IV after Challenger?


Not all DOD payloads left shuttle after Challenger case in point STS-39 and sts-44 in 1991. Also the military was into shuttle for more than just payloads, they wanted to have military astronauts in space and joining in on shuttle would help them achieve this. With the risk of this topic getting to far off post I think that the argument that sls will succeed even with no need because the shuttle succeeded is wrong. The shuttle is a completely different animal than sls and had many different needs during its 30 years.

I can't comment on those because I don't know the specifics about it, but as I understood, Titan IV was specifically designed to take payloads that would otherwise need the shuttle to launch as part of the CELV program.  Perhaps those payloads had been designed specific enough to the Shuttle payload bay that it was easier to go ahead and launch them on the shuttle rather than modify them for Titan IV?
My point being is that the Shuttle had no unique capability that USAF ended up needing.  Maybe they had dreams of sending commando astronauts into space on the Shuttle to infiltrate Soviet space stations or something, but that never really turned out to be the case.  A Titan IV (or similar capability LV) built and flying by 1981 would have taken care of all of the USAF/DoD needs throughout the STS program.  (as far as I understand anyway, I don't want to sound like I'm speaking in absolutes because there's almost always exceptions.  :-)  )

And, IMHO, STS and SLS are different animals only in that the government decided to retire all other ELV's and make all payloads fly on STS.  That's not the case with SLS obviously, but if they made all government payloads fly on SLS, that'd certainly give it the same "need" as STS.   STS was SLS class as far as hardware, but only Titan IV class in payload.  But you were still launching a 70mt LV to get that 22mt payload to LEO.

STS had a "need" only in so much as the government gave it a need.  They could do the same for SLS.  Why couldn't they?
That'd certainly get it's flight rate up, cost per launch way down,  and there'd be "real" payloads for it (as Jim noted about STS).  Every upcoming EELV payload currently on the docket would be there for it.  It'd have to fly with a lot of ballast, like STS did (the 70mt orbiter it lugged uphill with the payload), but it could do it.  Just cancel both EELV's and make sure all government payloads fly on it and don't give any government payloads (COST, CRS, or otherwise) to any other commercial provider like SpaceX, like they did in the 70's.  Send only Orion to the ISS.  Maybe throw a big airliner on top of it with Orion so that it felt more like STS and looked more like the same animal then.  ;-)

Anyway, I'm playing a little devil's advocate here for the SLS critics.  Look, at the end of the day, I get the argument you are making.  There was a plan to make STS the only US launcher, and with the expectation that it would be cheaper than any ELV.   There's not the same plan for SLS.
SLS is basically just the shuttle stack...without the orbiter.  (enlarged a bit).  Without the dead weight of the orbiter, suddenly it's capacity goes from about 23mt to near 100mt.  And although we thought it a good idea to launch all government payloads on this stack for several years in the 80's and then other NASA payloads for the next two decades, now it's just too expensive?
It's really not I don't think.  It's just that USAF was paying money into STS while they were developing it and using it....which they aren't with SLS.   And it really won't be any cheaper than STS. 
So, it's the same cost (at least) as STS, and because of that, NASA can't afford any payloads other than EELV-heavy class payloads, while operating it.  But those can fly on EELV's because it seems like a huge waste to fly a 23mt class payload with 75mt of lead weights.  NASA never had to try to fund Saturn V class payloads while operating STS.  IF their budget isn't larger, and they want larger payloads, they need a cheaper LV.  Fairly simple math.  ;-)
The ESAS study should have basically been just one question, "What is the -absolutely- cheapest way we can get X payload to TLI or escape velocity?"  And CxP/SLS should have been THAT. 
IF there's crews and BLEO large payload able to be afforded, then CxP/SLS has it's STS-like "purpose".


Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #56 on: 09/13/2013 06:33 am »

Ares V development cost was somewhere in the neighborhood of $68B:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-sets-out-ares-v-cargo-launch-vehicle-development-plan-319979/

SLS development cost is somewhere in the neighborhood of $38B:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-08-05/news/os-nasa-next-moonshot-20110805_1_constellation-moon-program-nasa-supporters-internal-nasa-documents

That’s less than a factor of two difference in total development costs.  For all intents and purposes, Ares V development and SLS development are in the same cost ballpark.  If you think Ares V costs were “extravagantly overblown”, then you should conclude that SLS costs are “extravagantly overblown”.

You may want to read the flightglobal.com article again  ;)

Quote from: FlightGlobal
NASA has detailed its plans to spend at least $68 million until 2013 on the development of the largest rocket ever, its proposed Ares V cargo launch vehicle (CaLV) that will send the USA back to the Moon by 2020.

...

To decide what changes should be adopted, NASA will spend the $68 million, and more, next year and through 2010, 2011 and 2012.

The SLS figure includes Orion.

And people, please stop insulting albatrosses!  ;D
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #57 on: 09/13/2013 07:01 am »
Just out of (slightly) left-field: Falcon Heavy has stuff-all payload prospects as well. Perhaps it should be cancelled, too? Oh hang on - it's mostly Elon's money. So is FH a case of 'build it and they will come?' SLS's main problem is a lack of clearly defined mission that a Heavy Lifter is best suited for. There was a budget-strangled campaign (Organised? Bungled? Both?!) to rob the Ares boosters of a mission - so out they went. SLS's reasons-to-be are underwhelming (Asteroid Capture, "No Moon", "Mars someday") so with no mission; why is it needed again?!

Huh! Almost like someone planned this to happen...

I say SLS should only be canned if it is honest-to-goodness, no-kidding going to be replaced with a FH/Delta IV-H 'launch tag team' for an exploration program. But hell, since chances are now strong that there's going to be no exploration program anymore; then can Delta IV-H and maybe Atlas V, too. After all; isn't Elon's Falcon 9 and the coming Ariane 6 going to be all the launchers the Western world needs?! ;) ................. :( :(
« Last Edit: 09/13/2013 07:08 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #58 on: 09/13/2013 07:24 am »
What? Falcon Heavy is being sold incredibly cheaply per flight ($133 million for full capability... less than a regular Atlas V right now), and NASA doesn't have to pay a cent for its development. There is no comparison to SLS in this regard. Even if the incredibly optimistic $500million marginal cost per flight is accomplished for SLS, it's still cheaper per kg IMLEO to use Falcon Heavy than SLS /even if you still pay for SLS's infrastructure upkeep/. Again, no comparison here.

And Falcon Heavy has plenty of payloads: anything which is too heavy for F9 v1.1. It's cheaper to fly on FH than Ariane V or Atlas V or Delta IV, assuming you can wait until sometime after FH's demo flight. And it's even cheaper than Proton, since SpaceX is offering flights for $77 million for less than 6.4mT to GTO. There are both commercial and defense payloads already booked. Once FH actually flies sometime in probably 2015 (maybe 2014, but less likely), you'll see plenty of payloads show up.

SLS faces a different problem. It's definitely not cost-competitive for any commercial endeavor and the military won't touch it and NASA can't afford any payload for it other than Orion (although I hope NASA somehow finds money for at least a DSH of some kind).

The budget crunch is hurting NASA. SLS was not made for this sort of budgetary environment, and I unfortunately don't see any chance of the budget changing in NASA's favor. At least, not yet. I was hopeful that an asteroid exploding over Russia injuring a thousand might actually spur a response, but there's nothing. SLS's best hope is China.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #59 on: 09/13/2013 09:10 am »
Just out of (slightly) left-field: Falcon Heavy has stuff-all payload prospects as well. Perhaps it should be cancelled, too? Oh hang on - it's mostly Elon's money. So is FH a case of 'build it and they will come?' SLS's main problem is a lack of clearly defined mission that a Heavy Lifter is best suited for. There was a budget-strangled campaign (Organised? Bungled? Both?!) to rob the Ares boosters of a mission - so out they went. SLS's reasons-to-be are underwhelming (Asteroid Capture, "No Moon", "Mars someday") so with no mission; why is it needed again?!

Huh! Almost like someone planned this to happen...

I say SLS should only be canned if it is honest-to-goodness, no-kidding going to be replaced with a FH/Delta IV-H 'launch tag team' for an exploration program. But hell, since chances are now strong that there's going to be no exploration program anymore; then can Delta IV-H and maybe Atlas V, too. After all; isn't Elon's Falcon 9 and the coming Ariane 6 going to be all the launchers the Western world needs?! ;) ................. :( :(

I was being slightly ironic/sarcastic - 'build them and they will come'; FH has some payloads, yes. But its not booked out in the way other busy boosters are - which is only natural considering it's size and capability. And I did say it's Elon's money! And its also why I advocate FH & D4H as a launch 'tag team' for any Exploration program: adapt 39A & B for FH and have D4H and Atlas V go from the other KSC pads during a salvo-launch 'campaign'. Heck; if they needed more launches per campaign reactivate or modify some of the older pads for more of the same...
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #60 on: 09/13/2013 09:33 am »
Quote from: Chris Bergin
So that's what I'm getting at. Let's have the spread of opinion, but let's not start thread after thread after thread from same people over and over. Let's balance what we have as news and discussion.

There's some bloody good threads down on page 4-10, all bumped down by "Huh, SLS - expensive innit!" threads. And I'm the one that gets the complaints, which are growing.

I had the same problem on the space sub on reddit. Just removing hijack attempts and publicly ridiculing the spacex amazing peoples seems to have fixed it. The problem was very different from here though.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #61 on: 09/13/2013 09:58 am »
There's a very vocal minority who will never like SLS (or any rocket with "NASA" on the side - which I think is more the point). There will 100 more threads just like this (and I mean just like this) with the same people saying the same things.

I must take issue with the implication that we critics of SLS are irrational.  Three recent studies undertaken at credible institutions (ULA, NASA and Georgia Tech) conclude that non-HLV architectures will deliver more exploration than will SLS under plausible budgets.  The Augustine Committee, while it did not advocate one approach or another, certainly pointed out the substantial advantages of exploration architectures based on EELV-derived launch vehicles in the 50-metric-ton class. 

Even if heavy lift is needed, ULA (as well as SpaceX) has offered to build it more cheaply than SLS.

Against this, we have the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, in which Congress declares, without much justification, that SLS is the way to go.  Yet three years into SLS, nobody's yet found a mission that Congress is willing to pay for and actually makes much sense.  Furthermore, the only concrete budget projections we've seen, the Budget Availability Scenarios of 2011, suggest that even before sequestration there was no possibility of real exploration with SLS through FY 2025.  So what is it, exactly, that some people like about SLS?  Can anyone show credible, budget-aware projections in which an SLS-based program delivers BEO exploration in the foreseeable future?

Of course, studies and projections can be wrong, and we SLS critics could turn out to be incorrect.  But it's not right to suggest that criticism of SLS is motivated principally by antagonism toward NASA-managed rockets.  If one's hope is that NASA will explore the solar system, then there are good, hard-headed reasons to think SLS a mistake.  If one's hope is that NASA will build a big rocket, then, I acknowledge, the case against SLS is very weak.  Although I think big rockets are cool, I like space exploration more.  If you want to stop me from kvetching about SLS, you could start by showing me some credible projections under flat or declining budgets in which SLS actually accomplishes significant exploration in the foreseeable future.  (Or you could just ban me: that might be easier! :),)

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #62 on: 09/13/2013 12:29 pm »
You may want to read the flightglobal.com article again  ;)

Ugh, thanks for the correction.  That's what I get for scrambling for one last figure after midnight.

Anyone have a referenced cost estimate for Ares V development?

Edit:  Nevermind.  I found an editorial by a NASA award winner that makes my Ares V/SLS cost comparison for me.

Quote
And people, please stop insulting albatrosses!  ;D

Every time we point out the bird hanging around our necks, it chokes us a little more tightly.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2013 01:57 pm by darkbluenine »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #63 on: 09/13/2013 12:34 pm »
The natural payload for the SLS is the Mars Transfer Vehicle, should we ever build one.  Until then delivering mining tools to lunar orbit will be its job.  I hope the budget cuts have not cancelled the mining and Moon machines.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #64 on: 09/13/2013 01:26 pm »
God my heads hurts, and not from a hangover. Like Chris said, how many times can the same things be said? No one here is going to effect the outcome of the program one way or the other.

If you support SLS, enjoy the development update threads.
If you don't support it, well, enjoy the SpaceX threads or something else.

I personally enjoy them both, and the ULA threads, and the Orbital threads, and anything else for that matter.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #65 on: 09/13/2013 01:30 pm »
Until then delivering mining tools to lunar orbit will be its job.  I hope the budget cuts have not cancelled the mining and Moon machines.

Huh?  NASA is not doing any lunar mining nor have there ever been any budget for such machines.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #66 on: 09/13/2013 01:54 pm »
Even if SLS doesn't get cancelled before it flies, there's only 15 RS-25D engines, and they're still talking about 4 engines per flight.. so they'll need RS-25D/E production up and running before the 4th flight. Last I checked, that hasn't even started yet, but correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. The J-2X engine team is transitioning over to the RS-25.
There will be new RS-25 engines by the time they are needed.

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #67 on: 09/13/2013 02:10 pm »
God my heads hurts, and not from a hangover.  Like Chris said, how many times can the same things be said? No one here is going to effect the outcome of the program one way or the other.

Why are folks repeatedly trying to censor the speech of other posters in this thread? 

If the bad news in the debate threads gives you a headache, then ignore those threads.  This isn't Clockwork Orange.  No one is tying you to a chair, propping open your eyes, and forcing you to read things you don't like.

Do you also write complaint letters to your cable provider when they air shows you don't enjoy?  Or do you change the channel?

Quote
If you support SLS, enjoy the development update threads.
If you don't support it, well, enjoy the SpaceX threads or something else.

I personally enjoy them both, and the ULA threads, and the Orbital threads, and anything else for that matter.

Good for you.  Stick to those threads.

Other folks enjoy a robust debate.  We shouldn't be censored just so you don't get a headache that you could easily have avoided by not reading our debates in the first place.

Our speech doesn't exist to mollify your migraines.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #68 on: 09/13/2013 02:20 pm »

I just don't understand why some people on here think that SLS can never become a reality

Because there is no need for it.

No need =/= not possible

The discussion is not that SLS is technically possible or impossible.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #69 on: 09/13/2013 02:35 pm »
HEFT document is just as much handwaving. 

Thank you.  I said as much after having slogged thru that 700 page document.

I disagree with you in that I think that there is a directed mission for SLS, however.  They need to verify whether or not 2000SG344 is a booster stage from a Saturn V rocket.

To the Thread Title, we have a "possible mission".
« Last Edit: 09/13/2013 02:35 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLS costs and possible mission
« Reply #70 on: 09/13/2013 02:36 pm »
There's a very vocal minority who will never like SLS (or any rocket with "NASA" on the side - which I think is more the point). There will 100 more threads just like this (and I mean just like this) with the same people saying the same things.

I must take issue with the implication that we critics of SLS are irrational. 

Didn't say anything about irrational, I was pointing out - as the guy who is responsible for ensuring the site's forum is not diluted into a handful of people dominating the place with negativity and in some cases agenda - just how monotonous it all is....and just how many people complain to me about it. A lot more than those posting, I can tell you that much.

No problem with opinion. Big problem people dominating threads and forum sections.

Solution: More single post threads - which have worked well in the past and to what seems to be everyone's satisfaction.

Everyone gets their say, which is a big deal for freedom of opinion (before anyone pulls that card on me), because the big issue is a lot of people are turned off from reading and posting on these threads, out of fear someone is going to jump on them with a 2000 word post - sometimes copied and pasted from another thread.

The strength of this site is content and resources. News articles, live threads, L2 etc. The weakness is with these mega threads with only a 20-50 people posting on them.

I won't allow this site's forum to be diluted in such a way. If we lose some people as a result, so be it. Quality over quantity.

Many single post threads will be set up over the coming days.

This one.....locked.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2013 02:37 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0