Quote from: llanitedave on 10/25/2015 02:18 pmIf SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.Not true at all. There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade. Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc. ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.
If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.
Quote from: Jim on 10/25/2015 03:31 pmQuote from: llanitedave on 10/25/2015 02:18 pmIf SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.Not true at all. There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade. Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc. ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 10/25/2015 04:41 amJust because previous efforts failed doesn't necessarily mean this one will. The current effort is far different from SEI, which was a smorgasbord of insanely expensive projects.Yes, it does. There is even less support in the gov't now than in the past for such programs. The "retooled" CxP has less support than ISS. And this is a fact, it only exists because it is a jobs programs. It had little to no support outside of the affected districts.
Just because previous efforts failed doesn't necessarily mean this one will. The current effort is far different from SEI, which was a smorgasbord of insanely expensive projects.
ISS was something for the shuttle to do.
Also, there IS no need for a gov't space station, that is why there will be no ISS-2.
Manifest destiny is no longer a valid reason for gov't managed space programs. Once that is realized, the rest makes sense. There isn't enough return for the tax payers for such programs, except those in specific districts
And in 1992, I was pro big gov't space. I was fully for ISS. I worked Shuttle Mir missions and early ISS logistics missions. The issue is that there is no break through science. The same experiments are still flying.
Congresspeople see pretty much everything as a jobs program. The Rep. from Hawthorne isn't more pure than the Rep. from Huntsville. Both of them want jobs in their districts. If there were no jobs for any district for SLS/Orion or CC then they both would have been canceled long ago.
I like the idea of "interplanetary bus" missions: one SLS is used to send a collection of missions to a common destination, or at least trajectory. A central, robust, core handles; Nav, Comms relay, Propulsion, etc., and dispenses sub-payloads as required.
1. Exploration doesn't need a gateway and a BEO station isn't the present objective. You're talking about a non-existant fantasy program.
Those things only occurred because there was a catastrophe with the government launch program that had every intention of continuing till the 2020s servicing the station,
The people in the future may act the very same way you are acting now: to favour the government system during a decision period. This new system is so expensive it pushes out and minimizes the commercial activity that would occur. Your commercial resupply of a BEO station would only occur a significant amount of time from now
Imagine telling someone in the early 1970s who wants the future space station to occur in the near term and who wants it to be a significant commercial involvement platform that hey, instead of doing that, instead of starting the objective now with commercial involvement, we will build a space shuttle
Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).
Really? There are many reasons for space exploration, not just "manifest destiny." National security, spinoff tech, inspiration, scientific understanding, eventual resource extraction ect. There wasn't a lot of "return" on the initial expeditions to the Americas either. I guess they should have all just gone home and never explored again.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 10/25/2015 04:01 pmThink your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018). EFT-1, PNH, and Juno do not count they are not flagship missions and did not cost like the others
Quote from: JohnF on 10/25/2015 12:35 pmQuote from: mike robel on 10/25/2015 01:50 amWhat's the issue with ice? It not like the Saturn I, IB, or V ever had a problem with ice. I thought the ice was a problem for the shuttle and would not be for SLS?Exactly Mike, wasn't that the idea of having an inline rocket ?, the Saturns flew with ice falling off no problem, why can't SLS ?The S-1, S-1B, and S-1C first stages were LOX/RP and were un-insulated like other LOX/RP stages (e.g. Atlas, Jupiter, Thor, Titan 1), but the Saturn LOX/LH2 upper stages all had insulation (exterior insulation on S-II, interior insulation on S-IV and S-IVB). The insulation was there on primarily to reduce LH2 boiloff. That is why the STS ET had insulation too, although ice was also a factor there. That is why Delta 4's CBC and upper stages and the Centaur stage on Atlas 5 all have insulation. More than half a tonne of ice shook off of Saturn 5 when those F-1 engines started. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: mike robel on 10/25/2015 01:50 amWhat's the issue with ice? It not like the Saturn I, IB, or V ever had a problem with ice. I thought the ice was a problem for the shuttle and would not be for SLS?Exactly Mike, wasn't that the idea of having an inline rocket ?, the Saturns flew with ice falling off no problem, why can't SLS ?
What's the issue with ice? It not like the Saturn I, IB, or V ever had a problem with ice. I thought the ice was a problem for the shuttle and would not be for SLS?
and, can someone tell me why the insulating foam for the ET was not inside, anyway. I've always wondered,