Hm. Translation: we don't have a budget for the payloads for the missions SLS would be needed. And for the missions we have a budget for, SLS is oversized. So let's find additional cargo to take along?
NASA is planning for an eventual full evolution to the Block 2 configuration, with its 130 mT capability classed as a requirement for Mars missions in the 2030s.
Falcon Heavy isn't in the same league as Block 1B and BFR is a pipe dream.
Great headline!Quote from: pippin on 08/03/2015 02:24 pmHm. Translation: we don't have a budget for the payloads for the missions SLS would be needed. And for the missions we have a budget for, SLS is oversized. So let's find additional cargo to take along?Not really. It is about creating options and then promoting those options to customers. The problem would be to restrict what SLS can do and that wouldn't help anyone because this is going to be the most capable rocket on the planet.Falcon Heavy isn't in the same league as Block 1B and BFR is a pipe dream.
It's fascinating that NASA's concept of operations for the Space Shuttle replacement relies on crew + cargo manifests. It's like history repeating itself right before our eyes.
Quote from: Tim S on 08/03/2015 04:38 pmFalcon Heavy isn't in the same league as Block 1B and BFR is a pipe dream.With the possible upcoming stretches and deep cryo cooling of prop, FH may get a good bit more than 53mT. As for BFR being a pipe dream, I believe that not so long ago that's what the establishment said about landing a first stage. Everyone knows we are now on the cusp of that event. It's the same company that continues to achieve pipe dream after pipe dream.
Hmm, sounds like desperately fishing for missions to subsidize the cost of the rocket because it is a (very expensive) rocket without budget for any missions. I do not see why anyone would choose to piggyback on this unproven and expensive LV when there are proven and less expensive alternatives.
Wrong, he is dead on. This is trying to find customers. Stating otherwise is nothing but ignorance of reality.
The pipe dream is thinking that there is money for two payloads, much less one. History proves otherwise. How many times a year has the largest Atlas V (551), much less the Delta IV Heavy flown? That is on the national level, now just look for NASA missions.
I can see that the SLS haters are out in full force today.
I agree with Jim, SLS will soon come to an end.
Quote from: Sotar on 08/03/2015 08:05 pmI agree with Jim, SLS will soon come to an end. A rag tag group of internet people have been saying that for more years than I care to remember and I dare say they will be out at the launch pad on launch day for EM-1 with their "SLS will be cancelled before it flies" banners.
And what exactly is wrong with finding customers and other payloads? I would think that would be a good thing.
Tim S. is absolutely right. Even if the improvements to FH occur (remember they are abandoning cross-feed at least for the moment) SLS IB will still outclass it in LEO and more importantly in BEO (2-3 times more performance) and BFR is at least 15-20 years away. SLS can do the job and the infrastructure to support it is there.
If and when Falcon Heavy gets going, two launches of FH can match SLS for LEO building, assembly, or payloads.
Vulcan maxed out with an ACES upper stage and 6 solids can just about match SLS for BLEO payloads, at least two Vulcans can for less launch costs.
Large solids are expensive and the ones for SLS are expendable and not reusable.
Also developments in SEP propulsion, EM drives, and Lockheeds small fusion reactor, might negate the need for larger rockets by the time SLS gets on line.
I am also a taxpayer and want the most bang for the buck, SLS is not it.
The first test mission isn't anything other that a test, and is frankly just a waste of time and money. The second mission isn't much better. Neither are much more than publicity stuns as Ares 1-X was.
If there was something like ISS-II on the horizon
I agree with Jim, SLS will soon come to an end. It is a rocket that doesn't have a clear mission other than to loft really big payloads. The first test mission isn't anything other that a test, and is frankly just a waste of time and money. The second mission isn't much better. Neither are much more than publicity stuns as Ares 1-X was.If there was something like ISS-II on the horizon, or multiple space telescopes, or some sort of really big exploration rover / rover base that could cloned and sent to multiple planets / moons. That would be something... However the US doesn't have the money for those kinds of programs. And wasting the money we do have on SLS is the pipe dream.I'm very much in support of the space program and having excellent world class capability. However SLS is too costly to afford and lacks clear missions. I don't wish to bash SLS but to me it is clearly not needed and it using money that could be better spent on real missions.