Quote from: Space Invaders on 09/06/2010 01:44 pmWhat about the ISS parts which are sitting around "in parking lots"?Those are no longer viable for spaceflight
What about the ISS parts which are sitting around "in parking lots"?
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.
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.
The node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use. If it happens or not is TBD.
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
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/06/2010 04:28 pmThe 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
Quote from: kkattula on 09/06/2010 08:12 amIf 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.
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.
Quote from: butters on 09/06/2010 08:34 amQuote from: kkattula on 09/06/2010 08:12 amIf 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 boosters2. EDS3. CSM / MPCV4. LanderIt 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?
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.
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/06/2010 11:56 pmOne 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.
Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2010 01:33 pmQuote from: Space Invaders on 09/06/2010 12:11 pmBasically, 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"?
Quote from: Space Invaders on 09/06/2010 12:11 pmBasically, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2010 11:35 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 09/06/2010 04:28 pmThe node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use. If it happens or not is TBD.It will be on an EELV if launchedWow, 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.
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/06/2010 11:47 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/06/2010 11:35 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 09/06/2010 04:28 pmThe node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use. If it happens or not is TBD.It will be on an EELV if launchedWow, 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
Quote from: Jim on 09/07/2010 02:12 amQuote from: OV-106 on 09/06/2010 11:47 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/06/2010 11:35 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 09/06/2010 04:28 pmThe node sturctural test article is currently being evaluated for use. If it happens or not is TBD.It will be on an EELV if launchedWow, 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 noneThis 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).
Quote from: Jim on 09/07/2010 02:12 amThe point is HLV size payloads, there are noneThis is debatable. And has been debated ad infinatum. BTW if you wan;t to do NEO missions you need HLV.
The point is HLV size payloads, there are none
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.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 09/07/2010 04:41 amThis 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.