Author Topic: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS  (Read 91245 times)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #20 on: 09/06/2010 04:28 pm »

What about the ISS parts which are sitting around "in parking lots"?

Those are no longer viable for spaceflight

The node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use.  If it happens or not is TBD.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #21 on: 09/06/2010 06:59 pm »
But if all they want to do is attack the DIRECT/SLS approach because they don't like it and belong to the *Cult of I Love EELV - HLV Sucks* then they should confine their poisons over there on that thread that was made specifically for them. They are themselves welcome on the DIRECT/SLS thread, but their OT posts are decidedly NOT welcome there. THAT thread is where such posts should be expressed, where they are actually ON TOPIC.

Gee, Chuck, thanks for the labeling of everyone. "Either with us or against us", much?

I suppose many would label me as one of the dreaded "*Cult of I Love EELV - HLV Sucks*" (even though it is not even remotely accurate) - but I can only speak for myself: But I have been following DIRECT threads for a long time, and I have followed the evolution of DIRECT with great interest. And I will continue to do so. And if I see something posted that makes absolutely no sense, I will comment on it. I do not consider reasoned debate (and pointing out fallacies) to be thread-sniping.

If they return to the DIRECT/SLS thread and begin the snipes again then the Moderators will be called upon again to take action, which could eventually result in them being banned from NSF entirely, temporarily or permanently.

Does that mean there will be less thread-snipes from DIRECT/SLS supporters here, or is it a one-way street?  ;D  ;)

No, on a more serious note - As DIRECT transitions into SLS, and gets closer to actual production, many of the underpinnings of DIRECT are falling away. With a CxP style exploration program, with planned payloads and missions, DIRECT made excellent sense. But now, as Congress is solidifying/designing SLS primarily as a jobs program without a clear use, its utility is being questioned - as it should be. The state of the forum and threads just reflects that.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #22 on: 09/06/2010 11:35 pm »


The node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use.  If it happens or not is TBD.

It will be on an EELV if launched
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 11:36 pm by Jim »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #23 on: 09/06/2010 11:39 pm »
But if all they want to do is attack the DIRECT/SLS approach because they don't like it and belong to the *Cult of I Love EELV - HLV Sucks* then they should confine their poisons over there

Questioning the validity and scope of some claims about DIRECT & SDHLV costs or capabilities does not immediately imply that:
    a) one loves EELV
    b) one hates HLV.

Do you think these are all the same thing, and if so, why?
    -Alex

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #24 on: 09/06/2010 11:47 pm »


The node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use.  If it happens or not is TBD.

It will be on an EELV if launched

Wow, Jim.  I never said otherwise.

So, anyway, where can I find that logistics assesment for ISS post-shuttle and with ISS to 2020 or beyond again?  I guess I am still waiting in order to back up your other claims. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Why SLS/DIRECT will never fly or will be a failure
« Reply #25 on: 09/06/2010 11:55 pm »
If you are going to one day launch big BEO payloads on HLV [...] it makes sense to develop the launcher first, even if it initially does nothing more than a few test flights and make-work to gain operational experience.

I disagree.  I think you develop the payloads first. 

Thank you for the cogent points (and non-inflammatory dialogue) about this.  If we loosely described the "stages" of an SLS lunar surface mission as:
1. Core and boosters
2. EDS
3. CSM / MPCV
4. Lander

It is interesting that the Senate wants to focus funding on 1 and 3, i.e. on a piece of the launcher and a piece of the payload.  If those were accomplished first, would it be reasonable to shift the NASA people who had been working on 1 onto 2, and shift the people who had been working on 3 onto 4?  Is the Senate plan effectively trying to even out the flow of work (and thus the flow of funding dollars)?

It kind of seems to make sense, but I'm guessing the participants in this thread have reasons why that approach won't work?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #26 on: 09/06/2010 11:56 pm »
One other thing Jim.  What happened to they "are no longer viable for spaceflight"?  You went from totally saying it was not possible to saying they will be launched on EELV.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Why SLS/DIRECT will never fly or will be a failure
« Reply #27 on: 09/07/2010 12:20 am »
If you are going to one day launch big BEO payloads on HLV [...] it makes sense to develop the launcher first, even if it initially does nothing more than a few test flights and make-work to gain operational experience.

I disagree.  I think you develop the payloads first. 

Thank you for the cogent points (and non-inflammatory dialogue) about this.  If we loosely described the "stages" of an SLS lunar surface mission as:
1. Core and boosters
2. EDS
3. CSM / MPCV
4. Lander

It is interesting that the Senate wants to focus funding on 1 and 3, i.e. on a piece of the launcher and a piece of the payload.  If those were accomplished first, would it be reasonable to shift the NASA people who had been working on 1 onto 2, and shift the people who had been working on 3 onto 4?  Is the Senate plan effectively trying to even out the flow of work (and thus the flow of funding dollars)?

It kind of seems to make sense, but I'm guessing the participants in this thread have reasons why that approach won't work?

The problem you have is that SLS needs to be able to do something that the EELV can’t do and it needs to be better at it. The problem is that this booster has no function without at least an EDS.  It would be like a 2 stage Saturn V. Useless for BEO work and of limited use for LEO work(i.e.  It can launch a Skylab, but we HAVE a space station at the moment). I mean what the heck are we going to pay KSC to do for the 4-5 years it takes to get an EDS and lander after you have the rocket? Mow the grass?
 
The senate needs to focus on  1,2 and 3 if they are real about doing BEO work and frankly more 1 and 2 than 3 as Orion is somewhat far along in construction.

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #28 on: 09/07/2010 12:35 am »
One other thing Jim.  What happened to they "are no longer viable for spaceflight"?  You went from totally saying it was not possible to saying they will be launched on EELV.

To be fair here, the question from Space Invaders was "What about the ISS parts which are sitting around "in parking lots"?"

The Structural article we hope will be Node 4 is not in a parking lot, but has been reasonably stored. So Jim's response was correct: "Those are no longer viable for spaceflight"

Let's all cool down please.


Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #29 on: 09/07/2010 12:42 am »
One other thing Jim.  What happened to they "are no longer viable for spaceflight"?  You went from totally saying it was not possible to saying they will be launched on EELV.

To be fair here, the question from Space Invaders was "What about the ISS parts which are sitting around "in parking lots"?"

The Structural article we hope will be Node 4 is not in a parking lot, but has been reasonably stored. So Jim's response was correct: "Those are no longer viable for spaceflight"

Let's all cool down please.



Well, to be fair, it actually sat outside in the elements at MSFC under a tarp, more or less. 
« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 12:42 am by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline moose103

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #30 on: 09/07/2010 12:49 am »

Basically, until we have the payloads ready, let's just keep doing with SLS what we've been doing with STS for three decades - but at a lower cost.

So launch a rocket for no apparent reason?   There has to be payloads in the first place.
What about the ISS parts which are sitting around "in parking lots"?

None of them are currently viable for spaceflight, and the only one being investigated for refurbishment isn't even big enough to be an SLS payload.  So as Jim said, no payloads for SLS.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 12:50 am by moose103 »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Why SLS/DIRECT will never fly or will be a failure
« Reply #31 on: 09/07/2010 12:52 am »
The problem you have is that SLS needs to be able to do something that the EELV can’t do and it needs to be better at it. The problem is that this booster has no function without at least an EDS. 

One thing that's been proposed that LEO SLS could do that EELV can't is to simultaneously launch both an Orion and a fully fueled Delta-IV 5 m upper stage.  That stage could then act as an EDS for a mission like Apollo 8.

If you reject this notion, can you explain why?

Quote
The senate needs to focus on  1,2 and 3 if they are real about doing BEO work and frankly more 1 and 2 than 3 as Orion is somewhat far along in construction.

I wonder if the Senate or NASA are particular adept at juggling spaceflight development programs.  I'm not certain they could keep 1, 2, and 3 in the air at the same time....  That's why I'm rather attracted to the (1+3) followed by (2+4) approach.

As for Orion being far along in construction ... well, yes ... that Ground Test Article capsule they've built is looking mighty impressive!  Have you seen any photos of the first Service Module yet?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Why SLS/DIRECT will never fly or will be a failure
« Reply #32 on: 09/07/2010 01:57 am »

One thing that's been proposed that LEO SLS could do that EELV can't is to simultaneously launch both an Orion and a fully fueled Delta-IV 5 m upper stage.  That stage could then act as an EDS for a mission like Apollo 8.

If you reject this notion, can you explain why?
 

Here is the  problem.  BEO exploration is limited by the amount of BEO payload you need to launch. SDHLV launching mission in one go is a great idea if you are doing four or more lunar\BOE missions a year. If all you are doing is one or two then the fixed costs of the SDHLV is going to be a BIG problem.

If the EELV can get the mission done in three launches and you are only doing 1-2 BOE missions a year the EELV is much cheaper. This is why payloads and prices are so important.

Being able to launch 70 tons at once is useless if all you are doing is one flight a year. And if your payload is running at around $2-4 billion for orion, lander, EDS all disposable you wont be able to afford much flight if the ISS is still running.  The esp. cost of Orion is 1 billion and a lander is not likely to be cheap.


Quote
I wonder if the Senate or NASA are particular adept at juggling spaceflight development programs.  I'm not certain they could keep 1, 2, and 3 in the air at the same time....  That's why I'm rather attracted to the (1+3) followed by (2+4) approach.


During the time of Apollo they kept 6 development programs up and running. Apollo capsule, Gemni capsule, Saturn V, Saturn IB,  Man rate Titan II, lunar module.  If you can't focus on more than the rocket and the capsule, then cancel everything work on the capsule then work on the rocket and require said rocket have EDS capability.

 If NASA needs to "put down the duckie" then it should focus on what is useful NOW not what needs to be keept busy until we get more funding.

Quote
As for Orion being far along in construction ... well, yes ... that Ground Test Article capsule they've built is looking mighty impressive!  Have you seen any photos of the first Service Module yet?

No, I meant that LM thinks they could have atleast a CRV Orion up in 3 years. BEO orion won't be ready for some time yet, but not so far as to be incompatable with SLS.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #33 on: 09/07/2010 02:12 am »


The node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use.  If it happens or not is TBD.

It will be on an EELV if launched

Wow, Jim.  I never said otherwise.

So, anyway, where can I find that logistics assesment for ISS post-shuttle and with ISS to 2020 or beyond again?  I guess I am still waiting in order to back up your other claims. 

The point is HLV size payloads, there are none

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #34 on: 09/07/2010 04:23 am »


The node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use.  If it happens or not is TBD.

It will be on an EELV if launched

Wow, Jim.  I never said otherwise.

So, anyway, where can I find that logistics assesment for ISS post-shuttle and with ISS to 2020 or beyond again?  I guess I am still waiting in order to back up your other claims. 

The point is HLV size payloads, there are none
This is debatable. And has been debated ad infinatum.

BTW if you wan;t to do NEO missions you need HLV. And the payloads will be able to be built because there won't be the added cost of building the HLV at the time you need to starting build the HAB, Deep space Propulsion module, CM, ect.

Its easier to build payloads when you don;t have to pay for building the HLV at the same time (cause its already built).
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #35 on: 09/07/2010 04:41 am »


The node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use.  If it happens or not is TBD.

It will be on an EELV if launched

Wow, Jim.  I never said otherwise.

So, anyway, where can I find that logistics assesment for ISS post-shuttle and with ISS to 2020 or beyond again?  I guess I am still waiting in order to back up your other claims. 

The point is HLV size payloads, there are none
This is debatable. And has been debated ad infinatum.

BTW if you wan;t to do NEO missions you need HLV. And the payloads will be able to be built because there won't be the added cost of building the HLV at the time you need to starting build the HAB, Deep space Propulsion module, CM, ect.

Its easier to build payloads when you don;t have to pay for building the HLV at the same time (cause its already built).

This is why SLS is so ill suited for this budgetary environment. You could develop Atlas phase II and have Atlas around in use until YOU needed it without NASA having to “own” it.  IF for instance NASA had Atlas, it would pay little to nothing to keep it on the back burner while it developed payloads. The production lines would just be doing regular atlases with the same parts.  The ULA folks would be launching other rockets in the mean time.

With SLS and being shuttle derived you MUST pay to keep all the facilities open and ready to produce parts for SLS during the WHOLE time that you are trying to develop a lander or hab unit. Little to nothing is shared with other users because there are NO other users of the shuttle who could take up the slack.

« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 04:56 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #36 on: 09/07/2010 04:52 am »
The point is HLV size payloads, there are none
This is debatable. And has been debated ad infinatum.
BTW if you wan;t to do NEO missions you need HLV.
    Reply A) this is debatable, and has been debated ad infinitum.
    Reply B) or use propellant depots.

-Alex

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #37 on: 09/07/2010 05:30 am »
This is why SLS is so ill suited for this budgetary environment. You could develop Atlas phase II and have Atlas around in use until YOU needed it without NASA having to “own” it.  IF for instance NASA had Atlas, it would pay little to nothing to keep it on the back burner while it developed payloads. The production lines would just be doing regular atlases with the same parts.  The ULA folks would be launching other rockets in the mean time.

With SLS and being shuttle derived you MUST pay to keep all the facilities open and ready to produce parts for SLS during the WHOLE time that you are trying to develop a lander or hab unit. Little to nothing is shared with other users because there are NO other users of the shuttle who could take up the slack.

EELV Phase 2 may not be affordable in the coming budget environment either.

But this is all beside the point. The real objective of SLS as mandated by Congress is not to launch payloads and still less for BLEO human exploration. The objective is workforce retention. All that is needed for this is to build the launcher and test it. And have a few spectacular launch videos and some "feel-good" about having the world's biggest, badest rocket (Ares, anyone?)

Actual launches and payloads are not even required, therefore it doesn't matter that there is no budget for payloads, spacecraft and lunar landers.

And cancellation is not going to happen until Congress make-up changes significantly, because cancellation would be political suicide.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #38 on: 09/07/2010 05:41 am »
This is why SLS is so ill suited for this budgetary environment. You could develop Atlas phase II and have Atlas around in use until YOU needed it without NASA having to “own” it.  IF for instance NASA had Atlas, it would pay little to nothing to keep it on the back burner while it developed payloads. The production lines would just be doing regular atlases with the same parts.  The ULA folks would be launching other rockets in the mean time.

With SLS and being shuttle derived you MUST pay to keep all the facilities open and ready to produce parts for SLS during the WHOLE time that you are trying to develop a lander or hab unit. Little to nothing is shared with other users because there are NO other users of the shuttle who could take up the slack.

EELV Phase 2 may not be affordable in the coming budget environment either.

But this is all beside the point. The real objective of SLS as mandated by Congress is not to launch payloads and still less for BLEO human exploration. The objective is workforce retention. All that is needed for this is to build the launcher and test it. And have a few spectacular launch videos and some "feel-good" about having the world's biggest, badest rocket (Ares, anyone?)

Actual launches and payloads are not even required, therefore it doesn't matter that there is no budget for payloads, spacecraft and lunar landers.

And cancellation is not going to happen until Congress make-up changes significantly, because cancellation would be political suicide.

So we don't get exploration because we can't afford the payloads.

We have a nice big rocket that we don't use becuase it has no use.

And we are paying taxes for it? No wonder people hate HSF.

There are mucher cheaper and more cost effective means to show national pride.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #39 on: 09/07/2010 05:54 am »
IMO the only plausible long-term option for NASA to stay in the HSF game (and for U.S. HSF) is to fund several commercial crew options, and hope that one of them is successful. Even more so if they ever want to do BEO HSF.

With the current budget SLS can be supported, yes. But without going anywhere, it is ripe for cancellation in the next economic crisis.

Funding commercial crew is just a small fraction of SLS, and would allow NASA (and the country) to have a HSF backup plan - which sooner or later will have to take over from SLS.

Once commercial crew is established in LEO, and ISS de-orbited or decomissioned, NASA and partners can start looking at BEO flights with a much lower fixed cost base, allowing more to be done. If we need a HLV then, we can build it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0