WASHINGTON—Commercial space interests for the first time are publicly singing the praises of NASA’s biggest, most expensive rocket program, seeking to get in sync with the Trump administration’s evolving focus on public-private partnerships to further space exploration.The shift was announced at a conference here Tuesday by Alan Stern, chairman of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, who emphasized synergies between budding commercial-space projects and the agency’s multibillion-dollar, heavy-lift rocket, called the Space Launch System, under development by Boeing Co. and a bevy of industrial partners.Starting in the early years of former President Barack Obama’s administration, many commercial-space companies and their advocates viewed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s behemoth rocket as a major rival, often complaining that the program effectively siphoned off funds from less conventional commercial efforts.
Under current scenarios, Lockheed Martin Corp.’s Orion spacecraft is designed to sit on top and ultimately protect humans from the ravages of radiation and other hazards on journeys throughout the solar system. But Mr. Stern’s surprise announcement appears to open the door to broader uses of the Space Launch System.Before his speech, Mr. Stern said in an interview that his members see “many potential benefits” from continued work and even accelerated development of the Space Launch System. “I don’t want us to get into a perceived food fight” over funding and other potential trade-offs related to the project, he said. The rocket’s initial unmanned flight is scheduled for next year, with a manned mission anticipated by 2021.But there is growing discussion among industry officials that the manned flight could be accelerated to 2020 to better fit with the Trump team’s preferred timetable. Going back to his campaign, Mr. Trump and his surrogates strongly endorsed NASA programs that also promote commercial space goals.
What is commercial about SLS?This is disappointing.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 08:36 pmWhat is commercial about SLS?This is disappointing.Disappointing because it could be positioned against Space X?In spite of protestations to the contrary it seems every time there is a hint of competition to Space X, whoever it might be, some get up in arms about it.
It's disappointing because it's not commercial. I've long been a fan of using EELVs, which are ULA and (for our purposes here) commercial.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 08:55 pmIt's disappointing because it's not commercial. I've long been a fan of using EELVs, which are ULA and (for our purposes here) commercial.Just because SLS isn't commercial doesn't mean it can't benefit the commercial sector. ISS isn't commercial but without it there would have been no market for commercial cargo or commercial crew. Using SLS in concert with commercial systems (such as FH and a commercial lunar lander) to create say a cis-lunar outpost would be a great boon to the commercial sector.
Annoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...
Quote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...You have it totally backwards.There's always a well-defined commercial need for EELV class payloads so it's intrinsically commercial. Human space flight does NOT have a very well-proven sustainable commercial market. So it makes more sense for NASA to fly Orion on commercial vehicles than to use SLS to launch commercial payloads because there simply AREN'T commercial payloads that need it, never mind afford it.Orion may be having programmatic difficulties, but it's intrinsically much more in NASA's wheelhouse to develop HSF vehicles than recreating a govt-only rocket at enormous expense.
Trump wants to see the first manned flight within his first term.Not surprise here.
Quote from: Oli on 02/07/2017 10:00 pmTrump wants to see the first manned flight within his first term.Not surprise here.Still think that's asking a lot unless they are willing to pay the extra money it will need.
Quote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...Odd as I could read it without logging in.Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 09:33 pmQuote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...You have it totally backwards.There's always a well-defined commercial need for EELV class payloads so it's intrinsically commercial. Human space flight does NOT have a very well-proven sustainable commercial market. So it makes more sense for NASA to fly Orion on commercial vehicles than to use SLS to launch commercial payloads because there simply AREN'T commercial payloads that need it, never mind afford it.Orion may be having programmatic difficulties, but it's intrinsically much more in NASA's wheelhouse to develop HSF vehicles than recreating a govt-only rocket at enormous expense.And of course just by chance would these commercial vehicles that human spaceflight should be using instead just happen to be supplied by Space X because by happenstance they have the FH.I don't need to put words in your mouth just know your posting history.
Quote from: Star One on 02/07/2017 09:49 pmQuote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...Odd as I could read it without logging in.Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 09:33 pmQuote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...You have it totally backwards.There's always a well-defined commercial need for EELV class payloads so it's intrinsically commercial. Human space flight does NOT have a very well-proven sustainable commercial market. So it makes more sense for NASA to fly Orion on commercial vehicles than to use SLS to launch commercial payloads because there simply AREN'T commercial payloads that need it, never mind afford it.Orion may be having programmatic difficulties, but it's intrinsically much more in NASA's wheelhouse to develop HSF vehicles than recreating a govt-only rocket at enormous expense.And of course just by chance would these commercial vehicles that human spaceflight should be using instead just happen to be supplied by Space X because by happenstance they have the FH.I don't need to put words in your mouth just know your posting history.What the hell?? Could I not be clearer? I favor commercial. They would fly on EELVs before Falcon Heavy, because EELVs are proven and Falcon Heavy hasn't flown yet. If you actually knew my posting history, you'd know I favored Orion on Delta IV Heavy because it actually flew a test flight in that configuration.Seriously, what is your problem?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: Star One on 02/07/2017 09:49 pmQuote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...Odd as I could read it without logging in.Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 09:33 pmQuote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...You have it totally backwards.There's always a well-defined commercial need for EELV class payloads so it's intrinsically commercial. Human space flight does NOT have a very well-proven sustainable commercial market. So it makes more sense for NASA to fly Orion on commercial vehicles than to use SLS to launch commercial payloads because there simply AREN'T commercial payloads that need it, never mind afford it.Orion may be having programmatic difficulties, but it's intrinsically much more in NASA's wheelhouse to develop HSF vehicles than recreating a govt-only rocket at enormous expense.And of course just by chance would these commercial vehicles that human spaceflight should be using instead just happen to be supplied by Space X because by happenstance they have the FH.I don't need to put words in your mouth just know your posting history.What the hell?? Could I not be clearer? I favor commercial. They would fly on EELVs before Falcon Heavy, because EELVs are proven and Falcon Heavy hasn't flown yet. If you actually knew my posting history, you'd know I favored Orion on Delta IV Heavy because it actually flew a test flight in that configuration.Seriously, what is your problem?Your anti-SLS agenda that's my problem.The problems that SLS has suffered from in the past have been mostly been down to political resistance at certain levels rather than anything inherently wrong with it as a program. So I therefore I don't see an issue with it being embraced now by commercial space.
Quote from: Star One on 02/07/2017 10:42 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: Star One on 02/07/2017 09:49 pmQuote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...Odd as I could read it without logging in.Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 09:33 pmQuote from: redliox on 02/07/2017 09:22 pmAnnoyingly the article in question requires login so I can't read it for myself...Although an unusual twist, I don't see a specific downside to it. The SLS itself was never the problem, it was Orion and (previously) how wobbly the Constellation program became. The SLS might be a government rocket, but the fact it can loft payloads of 105 mt opens up opportunity for commercial spacecraft. A Cygnus, for example, could become a larger and far more functional module because it would be granted a better fairing than any current rocket can offer. Instead of Apollo on steroids, we'd see Dragons on steroids in short.Cancel Orion and let the commercial people design something better. Of course...Lockheed might have to be omitted from the next competition...You have it totally backwards.There's always a well-defined commercial need for EELV class payloads so it's intrinsically commercial. Human space flight does NOT have a very well-proven sustainable commercial market. So it makes more sense for NASA to fly Orion on commercial vehicles than to use SLS to launch commercial payloads because there simply AREN'T commercial payloads that need it, never mind afford it.Orion may be having programmatic difficulties, but it's intrinsically much more in NASA's wheelhouse to develop HSF vehicles than recreating a govt-only rocket at enormous expense.And of course just by chance would these commercial vehicles that human spaceflight should be using instead just happen to be supplied by Space X because by happenstance they have the FH.I don't need to put words in your mouth just know your posting history.What the hell?? Could I not be clearer? I favor commercial. They would fly on EELVs before Falcon Heavy, because EELVs are proven and Falcon Heavy hasn't flown yet. If you actually knew my posting history, you'd know I favored Orion on Delta IV Heavy because it actually flew a test flight in that configuration.Seriously, what is your problem?Your anti-SLS agenda that's my problem.The problems that SLS has suffered from in the past have been mostly been down to political resistance at certain levels rather than anything inherently wrong with it as a program. So I therefore I don't see an issue with it being embraced now by commercial space.So you think that the fact that I'm consistent in thinking SLS is a bad deal means I'm a mindless SpaceX drone?I have been following SLS for a long time, before it was SLS. It's a valid point of view that NASA should probably be using commercially available vehicles for launch so they can focus funding and effort on things that AREN'T already available. Like, I don't know, maybe a frakking lander???