Quote from: rayleighscatter on 12/17/2016 02:15 pm (which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable1) LOL, coming from a President Elect who talks about taking care of potholes before space exploration, who just strongly criticized both Boeing (threatening cancellation of AirForce One) and Lockheed (threatening F35), who supports those who want a federal govt hiring freeze and generally reduced budget except for defense, actually has plenty of friction with Congress, and for goodness sake look at the title of this thread if you think the funding tap for SLS/Orion will be opened up2) Your sort of unfounded speculation belongs in the Space Policy section.3) Even if I granted "still achievable," that's still a far cry from what's /most likely/ to occur.
(which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/19/2016 05:38 pmQuote from: rayleighscatter on 12/17/2016 02:15 pm (which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable1) LOL, coming from a President Elect who talks about taking care of potholes before space exploration, who just strongly criticized both Boeing (threatening cancellation of AirForce One) and Lockheed (threatening F35), who supports those who want a federal govt hiring freeze and generally reduced budget except for defense, actually has plenty of friction with Congress, and for goodness sake look at the title of this thread if you think the funding tap for SLS/Orion will be opened up2) Your sort of unfounded speculation belongs in the Space Policy section.3) Even if I granted "still achievable," that's still a far cry from what's /most likely/ to occur.First off. You display an outstanding level of cognitive dissonance to follow up your first point with your second one....
I just see a lot of people questioning this RFI, questioning the seriousness of the new Admin supporting efficiency improvements and questioning bloated government projects like SLS/Orion. If people are arguing the new Admin is going to be kinder to SLS/Orion than the old Admin, skirting the line of Space Policy, the only way to really disagree and build a case against that is to post about policy. AirForce1 is not off-topic (provided it's just a side note) if you're talking about the new Admin being opposed to inefficient, bloated projects (or ones perceived to be that way). Which is the topic of this thread.
I was just trying to counter the misconceptions on this thread that the new administration is going to automatically be really friendly with Congress over SLS/Orion. I could easily see a repeat of FY11 and Ares/Orion. The fact that the transition team (I assume) wants an RFI on ways to improve efficiency is evidence of that.
Can SLS be outsourced?
Quote from: dror on 12/24/2016 09:20 amCan SLS be outsourced?No
I believe you. But could you be a bit more specific as to why not?
Quote from: clongton on 12/24/2016 04:18 pmQuote from: dror on 12/24/2016 09:20 amCan SLS be outsourced?NoI believe you. But could you be a bit more specific as to why not?
For the RFI I do not see a way to lower SLS cost were it would be a valuable asset to the launch fleet for crewed BLEO exploration. What I do see is ULA's ( half owned by Boeing ) Vulcan with it's advanced upper stage ACES that can provide NASA the flexible path forward for Air Force, commercial, NASA robotic , and crewed BLEO missions. The Vulcan is such that it has a job of launching day to day payloads unlike SLS that is scaled to large payloads only for it's per launch cost. Vulcan with ACES ( US, tanker, and depot version ) can also deliver the crewed deep space missions. So one launch vehicle with one yearly fixed overhead instead of two with payloads already for the Vulcan. The SLS still has lack of support for missions. Were Vulcan already would have payloads and can be used by commercial for their possible BLEO enterprise such as the moon.What I see as a possibility is to change some of the SLS contracts to Vulcan. Such as the ATK solids for SLS to the new solids for Vulcan. Doing so could help get Vulcan with ACES launching sooner. The sooner it is certified for DoD launches the sooner the Altas V and the more costly Delta IVH can be retired. The Vulcan would use American made engines unlike the Atlas V helping the over all American economy that helps fund NASA. By canceling the SLS by a phase out over 6 to 18 months can help in finding new jobs for the people that would not be switched to the Vulcan by the sub contractors. Also gives time to save some of the infrastructure that might be used later on in other projects.As NASA crewed BLEO is for exploration and not colonizing ( that is for commercial ). Vulcan ACES is supported by other launches and can be ready for NASA BLEO launches without yearly fixed cost to NASA like the SLS has. NASA could then invest the funding on the payloads needed for crewed BLEO exploration. This also can help when transitioning from one administration to another as they may change to destination. Hove ever the launch system stays the same, as so can the EDS ( ACES US ) and other hardware as it uses the same launcher.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/24/2016 07:53 pmQuote from: clongton on 12/24/2016 04:18 pmQuote from: dror on 12/24/2016 09:20 amCan SLS be outsourced?NoI believe you. But could you be a bit more specific as to why not?In addition to what Steven said, SLS is built from proprietary designs and hardware that no company would share with another company that underbid them. Think RS-25 and ATK-SRB, among others. Could they be replaced? Yes, but would cost far more because they would be starting from scratch to design and build their own versions.