What exactly is "proving ground", is it lunar DRO? What do they do there which cannot be done in LEO?
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 11/18/2016 05:05 pmWhat exactly is "proving ground", is it lunar DRO? What do they do there which cannot be done in LEO?The radiation levels and temperature ranges are different from LEO.
There could be an open competition for say 400mT to orbit annually, starting 2025, with up to four launches, 8+m fairing capability, and minimum crew of 8 per year. (Adjust the numbers as you see fit for a realistic exploration program that includes Mars by early to mid 2030s.) Awards would be fixed fee/COTS model.SLS/Orion would compete be baselined with all costs through FY 2017 ignored, but full cost accounting thereafter. Existing industrial team would be required to propose fully document costs of this option, butand each member would be free to propose alternatives or team with others.Development costs to USG, plus operating costs for ten years (2025-2035) at this threshold 400mT annual rate would be one of the criteria. Another would be the tonnage and crew delivered to Mars surface per synod. Other technical features could score bonus points. Distribution of funds to existing industrial partners not a weighed criterion.At a minimum, this would force the SLS/Orion program to reveal costs, and possibly even work to reduce them. It would also fulfill US Law as we are frequently reminded by Robotbeat: QuoteTo 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
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
But nobody can be surprised by these costs.Also this looks now like yet another umpteen billion $ program that is spared to actually deliver on it's promises.
Quote from: Hauerg on 11/19/2016 02:29 pmBut nobody can be surprised by these costs.Also this looks now like yet another umpteen billion $ program that is spared to actually deliver on it's promises.Blame Congress for wasting tax money.If Congress had selected the Direct plan Jupiter would be operational today.If Congress had gone along with Obama's idea of researching technology for five years before designing the next big rocket then commercial space would be competing for the SHLV contract.
The only problem with SLS schedule was not committing to EUS at beginning.
ULA alternatives would require Boeing & LM approval. The two companies with most to lose by an alternative. Not allowing ULA to compete could mean losing out totally to Blue or/and SpaceX.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 11/19/2016 03:14 pmThe only problem with SLS schedule was not committing to EUS at beginning.Where would the extra money for starting on EUS at the beginning have come from?
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 11/18/2016 05:05 pmWhat exactly is "proving ground", is it lunar DRO? What do they do there which cannot be done in LEO?"Proving ground" is described on page 7 of doc as "cislunar space around the Moon with the Orion crew vehicle and SLS rocket, "
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 11/18/2016 06:17 pmThe radiation levels and temperature ranges are different from LEO. Also the time required to reach Earth (and thus e.g. emergency medical assistance) is considerably longer. It isn't a destination in-and-of itself. It's just ... a proving ground! ;-)
The radiation levels and temperature ranges are different from LEO.
To me imho, this RFI is really to just put Boeing/LM on notice that their costs estimates going forward are too high. We've already seen the tone from LM change recently. Will be interesting to see where this ends up.
So I ask again, what is the proving ground?What is it meant to be proving? How is it meant to be doing the proving? Why cis-lunar space? Is it just one orbit destination in cis-lunar space (DRO?), or do different proving ground missions go to different orbits, and if so why?I have some ideas about why they might possibly want flights to a proving ground (BEO space station and ARM related), but the RFI itself gives no indication about why they might want to spend many billions on doing stuff (whatever that stuff might be) in the proving ground rather than LEO.