I guess if you don't plan to build a lunar outpost and merely want to fly a few sorties with a small lander then you could be right. Still, I think NASA wants to avoid doing that.
A page or two back someone made the argument that the EC shouldn't be launched on the first SLS with a EUS because it would be launched on an unproven stage. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but given the fact that ULA is changing engines in Atlas V both the new Atlas V and SLS IB would be unproven. If I was in SMD and I had to choose between two unproven launchers I would pick SLS since it is being designed to carry humans (less tolerance for failure) and would most likely be at least majority paid for by HEOMD.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 12/11/2014 07:15 pmA page or two back someone made the argument that the EC shouldn't be launched on the first SLS with a EUS because it would be launched on an unproven stage. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but given the fact that ULA is changing engines in Atlas V both the new Atlas V and SLS IB would be unproven. If I was in SMD and I had to choose between two unproven launchers I would pick SLS since it is being designed to carry humans (less tolerance for failure) and would most likely be at least majority paid for by HEOMD.Atlas V is on track to be human rated, and it's successor (Atlas "X"?) no doubt will be human rated too since one of ULA's owners needs a human rated launcher for their spacecraft (i.e. Boeing and their CST-100). When that changeover occurs is unknown at this point, but it's pretty certain it will happen.And if Atlas "X" was not an option then SMD could choose Delta IV Heavy, or by that point Falcon Heavy might be available. And though Delta Heavy is not human rated, it is already certified for carrying what is arguably our nations most valuable payloads - spy satellites, and not humans. And we know SpaceX will be pushing Falcon Heavy to get Air Force certified as quickly as possible to start taking away Delta IV Heavy payloads from ULA, so it might be certified enough by that point to be an option.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 12/11/2014 07:15 pmA page or two back someone made the argument that the EC shouldn't be launched on the first SLS with a EUS because it would be launched on an unproven stage. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but given the fact that ULA is changing engines in Atlas V both the new Atlas V and SLS IB would be unproven. If I was in SMD and I had to choose between two unproven launchers I would pick SLS since it is being designed to carry humans (less tolerance for failure) and would most likely be at least majority paid for by HEOMD.Atlas wouldn't be unproven, it will have launched many times before then and also will still being using existing stages. Also, it will be carrying humans also. SLS will carry humans but it isn't much better than Atlas. It was found that Constellation wouldn't might the human rating standards put forth in the early 2000's and they were rewritten. Atlas will be flying from a proven team, SLS will still be going through growing pains. So, your arguments don't hold water.
And if Atlas "X" was not an option then SMD could choose Delta IV Heavy, or by that point Falcon Heavy might be available. And though Delta Heavy is not human rated, it is already certified for carrying what is arguably our nations most valuable payloads - spy satellites, and not humans. And we know SpaceX will be pushing Falcon Heavy to get Air Force certified as quickly as possible to start taking away Delta IV Heavy payloads from ULA, so it might be certified enough by that point to be an option.The SLS has a challenge in proving it's reliability since as a system (i.e. all parts flying together at the same time) it launches so infrequently. But if the price is right SMD could be swayed, or even if the price isn't right but they are told to use SLS...
Why would you certify Atlas/Delta for crew? Isn't one US vehicle (Falcon) enough in the short term (not FH)?
Why would you certify Atlas/Delta for crew? Isn't one US vehicle (Falcon) enough in the short term (not FH)? a) its going to be replaced with a new LV with a new domestic engine b) the current single crew delivery system to ISS is fine c) Falcon can loft the ISS crew vehicle in a few years d) there are no BEO missions for at least a decade e) violates the 2005 Policy that says keep them separate What part of "NASA is not allowed to touch this engine" don't you understand? The engine was developed with USAF money and belongs to the USAF. They are not interested in the slightest in making their "unmanned LV engine" into a more expensive "human rated engine".
Quote from: muomega0 on 12/11/2014 08:12 pmWhy would you certify Atlas/Delta for crew? Isn't one US vehicle (Falcon) enough in the short term (not FH)? a) its going to be replaced with a new LV with a new domestic engine b) the current single crew delivery system to ISS is fine c) Falcon can loft the ISS crew vehicle in a few years d) there are no BEO missions for at least a decade e) violates the 2005 Policy that says keep them separate What part of "NASA is not allowed to touch this engine" don't you understand? The engine was developed with USAF money and belongs to the USAF. They are not interested in the slightest in making their "unmanned LV engine" into a more expensive "human rated engine".Because Boeing won a contract and they are using Atlasa. And your point is?b. No, it isn't.c. So can Atlasd. Not relevant to this discussione. Again, your circular/nested links don't support your point. That policy is OBE and still wouldn't apply to commercial crew anyways. Your basic premise is wrong and so your argument is a house of cards.Anyway, the "engine" does not belong the USAF and it was not develop with USAF money.
Quote from: muomega0 on 12/11/2014 08:12 pmWhy would you certify Atlas/Delta for crew? Isn't one US vehicle (Falcon) enough in the short term (not FH)?Regardless how reliable one launch system may be, it makes sense - for a number of reasons - to have more than one launch provider. Atlas V is going to be around long enough that Boeing will be able to use it for the CST-100, and the new Atlas will not come online soon enough to satisfy NASA's needs for starting Commercial Crew flights in 2017. And regardless whether it's the current Atlas or the future Atlas they will both use the same upper stage, which is part of the reliability equation too.However for non-crew payloads that need to get to space in the 2020's, the new Atlas should be an option as well as Falcon Heavy.
It also appears likely to me that unless the supply of RD-180 engines is actually cut off manrating of the Atlas V will continue. The new ULA/Blue vehicle is years from first flight and will, like Falcon, require some operational experience before being accepted for human launch. I doubt any effort will be made to manrate the Delta IV since this would be expensive, the field is already rather crowded and the Delta will likely be supplanted by the new ULA/Blue Origin concept.
its not *my* premise---Is not a depot centric architecture with the existing fleet
Don't combine SLS with Atlas or Delta in any discussions (like you have in the past "SLS/Atlas/Delta"), they are separate and unrelated.
1. The RS-25 and 68 are tied at the hip with the same folks who provide the RL-10 for these vehicles..not separate and not unrelated. Carrying blue engines for EELV and old space engines for SLS is not cost effective…2. so if you do not combine NASA's BEO and LEO needs with DODs, one will not reduce cost to space (along with several other items mentioned earlier).
Political realities can't be ignored. That is where *your* premise fails. NASA has to have its own (SLS), see congress about that. DOD, ULA and SMD want nothing to do with SLS. There is no synergy with any of its hardware. Anyways, ULA has a plan for vehicle to compete with Spacex that will serve DOD, SMD and commercial. If you want depots to replace SLS, that is fine. {snip} leave as is and let the market sort it out.
None of this has to do with the subject of this thread. It's just the typical "SLS vs [fillintheblank]" discussion that can be found in a million other places on this site and throughout the interwebs.
Quote from: Jim on 12/12/2014 03:11 pmPolitical realities can't be ignored. That is where *your* premise fails. NASA has to have its own (SLS), see congress about that. DOD, ULA and SMD want nothing to do with SLS. There is no synergy with any of its hardware. Anyways, ULA has a plan for vehicle to compete with Spacex that will serve DOD, SMD and commercial. If you want depots to replace SLS, that is fine. {snip} leave as is and let the market sort it out. No cash no depot...."Market" no want depots..no depots...the market is quite complex. To infinity and beyond....infinity is the time scale.Quote from: Blackstar on 12/12/2014 07:24 pmNone of this has to do with the subject of this thread. It's just the typical "SLS vs [fillintheblank]" discussion that can be found in a million other places on this site and throughout the interwebs.SLS and Orion represent are the centerpieces of all that is wrong with the process and actually restate the obvious: "One thing you can count on however, is that they will increase spending on their political interests and cut taxes for the same."
Quote from: muomega0 on 12/12/2014 08:35 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/12/2014 03:11 pmPolitical realities can't be ignored. That is where *your* premise fails. NASA has to have its own (SLS), see congress about that. DOD, ULA and SMD want nothing to do with SLS. There is no synergy with any of its hardware. Anyways, ULA has a plan for vehicle to compete with Spacex that will serve DOD, SMD and commercial. If you want depots to replace SLS, that is fine. {snip} leave as is and let the market sort it out. No cash no depot...."Market" no want depots..no depots...the market is quite complex. To infinity and beyond....infinity is the time scale.Quote from: Blackstar on 12/12/2014 07:24 pmNone of this has to do with the subject of this thread. It's just the typical "SLS vs [fillintheblank]" discussion that can be found in a million other places on this site and throughout the interwebs.SLS and Orion represent are the centerpieces of all that is wrong with the process and actually restate the obvious: "One thing you can count on however, is that they will increase spending on their political interests and cut taxes for the same."Talk about Mars and Europa or be gone
This is a 1969 paper on how the Saturn V could be used in the 1970s for various missions, including planetary missions.