It may be more expensive to built it but it may be cheaper to put payload in space
and the other launch vehicles may be no good to go to mars.
Quote from: savuporo on 09/20/2011 12:15 amQuote from: nec207 on 09/20/2011 12:10 amSo if we have launch vehicles why is NASA not using them .Because of politics. Read some other threads here.With out politics getting in way of these threads than may be the people here at this web site and other web sites should sign a petition that 10 years is unacceptable.
Quote from: nec207 on 09/20/2011 12:10 amSo if we have launch vehicles why is NASA not using them .Because of politics. Read some other threads here.
So if we have launch vehicles why is NASA not using them .
The commercial competition are not planning to go to mars any time soon.
That me say this again if the SLS is the same or more costly than the apollo program ,space shuttle and project constellation proposed by president Bush that all got slash to to cost. Than it is a know fact that SLS is going to get scrapped before the first flight or after 2 or 3 launches.
Only if this brings space cost down or much cheaper of putting payload intospace.It would have to be cheaper than the apollo program ,shuttle program and project constellation if NOT it will be doomed like those programs too.
It really won't matter too much whether explorers get themselves and their equipment to the base camps on a large launcher like SLS, or medium launchers like the EELVs, Ariane, Proton, and HLV.
One of SLS's advantages, especially for Mars, is that it can launch very large pieces (both mass-wise and size-wise) in one shot, which helps with architecture design.
The answers to the questions of "which launcher is cheaper/faster/better for lunar/Mars missions" depend on assumptions about architecture and mission rate.
Quote from: 93143 on 09/20/2011 01:38 amOne of SLS's advantages, especially for Mars, is that it can launch very large pieces (both mass-wise and size-wise) in one shot, which helps with architecture design.No, it doesn't, not if you allow for propellant transfer, as you should.
As for crowds of anti-SLS posters: this whole site is pro-SLS by 2:1...
The objective is not a flags-and-footprints mission; we want to get serious infrastructure out there. (Or not, but IMO the answer to the thread's question does depend on this.)
That seems likely. And from the perspective of someone who passionately wants to see commercial development of space, it is the least bad thing we can hope for. Because after that, maybe we could give competitive procurement another try. Depressing, isn't it?
Quote from: mmeijeri on 09/20/2011 12:26 amQuote from: nec207 on 09/20/2011 12:14 amI still do not know if SLS is going to be cheaper than any of the other launch vehicles .It is certain to be more expensive if you count development costs, as you should. In fact that is precisely why certain influential politicians want it.It may be more expensive to built it but it may be cheaper to put payload in space and the other launch vehicles may be no good to go to mars.
Quote from: nec207 on 09/20/2011 12:14 amI still do not know if SLS is going to be cheaper than any of the other launch vehicles .It is certain to be more expensive if you count development costs, as you should. In fact that is precisely why certain influential politicians want it.
I still do not know if SLS is going to be cheaper than any of the other launch vehicles .
Quote from: 93143 on 09/20/2011 01:38 amOne of SLS's advantages, especially for Mars, is that it can launch very large pieces (both mass-wise and size-wise) in one shot, which helps with architecture design.No, it doesn't, not if you allow for propellant transfer, as you should. As for crowds of anti-SLS posters: this whole site is pro-SLS by 2:1...
SLS is expensive if you don't use it much, but as you ramp up it gets cheaper faster than the smaller rockets do.
When Constellation fans said "go back to the moon", they didn't mean "fire someone's ashes into a crater with a Pegasus". They meant a permanently-manned base, operating in parallel with sortie missions using large pressurized rovers all over the lunar surface. ..
Quote from: 93143 on 09/20/2011 02:18 amThe objective is not a flags-and-footprints mission; we want to get serious infrastructure out there. (Or not, but IMO the answer to the thread's question does depend on this.)See right there, perfect example of assumptions that people enter the discussions with and fail to check at the door. See, the thread topic is "how to get human(s) to the moon OR mars in the fastest and cheapest way possible" and you start speaking about serious infrastructure.Yours is a valid and fine goal, i'd be fully behind that, but its got nothing to do with the optimum solution for the question at hand.I keep ranting about this, as i feel if people would start more seriously articulating the end goals the discussions would be far more fruitful.
I say again if it is the same or more than the apollo program ,shuttle program or project constellation if is doomed like the apollo program ,shuttle program or project constellation.
SLS isn't going to be used enough to justify the costs of it.
Positive, as will many of the negative votes when they see the improved schedule and flight rate.
Quote from: 93143 on 09/20/2011 02:58 amWhen Constellation fans said "go back to the moon", they didn't mean "fire someone's ashes into a crater with a Pegasus". They meant a permanently-manned base, operating in parallel with sortie missions using large pressurized rovers all over the lunar surface. ..... while completely failing to articulate any end goals for such antics. You see, because if all you want is to have a few government employees sitting in a lunar base with no particular purpose and "flying sorties", your optimal mission architectures will still be very significantly different from other types of lunar bases, where you might want to focus on things like industrializing moon, developing key technologies for eventual settlement, or just building a huge theme park for hundreds of wealthy tourist to visit.The "why" and goals discussion goes a little deeper than how many NASA astronauts and how often. This seems to bother a lot of people ..