Author Topic: What will there be the money to do with SLS?  (Read 79796 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #20 on: 10/29/2012 11:28 pm »
I guess that would depend on what intended purpose you have in mind.

So far, it seems like the intended purpose is just to look busy. In which case, any old payload will do.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #21 on: 10/29/2012 11:37 pm »
I think it would be better to do EOR with Dragon or another Commercial partner spacecraft.

Orion is sucking budget and there is no destination.

Commercial crew has an immediate destination and isn't being funded.

Taking any payload away from SLS is a big big problem though. It makes SLS look less viable.

The crew capsule really is the least critical part. It allows you to fly to EML2 and not for very long either.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #22 on: 10/30/2012 01:11 am »
I keep hearing this sky is falling skepticism on the eventual flight rate of SLS.  And I suppose the worst case scenario projects of 2017/2021 don’t help.  But keep in mind, give or take, NASA has about the same budget now as it had during the last several years of STS.  It has remained pretty steady.  It was supposed to get increased for CxP, but obviously that didn’t happen.  Still, NASA had the money to launch the Shuttle 3-5 times per year.  Give or take, SLS plus Orion will be roughly the price of the STS stack.

That's the crucial/fatal flaw in your argument. You are basing it on what you think SLS should cost. Not what it actually will cost.

So what will it cost?  Where is your data and documentation to back this up.  Mind you that you need data on:
[snip]
There's more but I'll wait to digest the cornucopia of information that you will surely provide to enlighten us all on why cost estimates of approximately 3 billion a year will not support this along with the potential for more.

I don't have any data or documentation. I'm not claiming anything - perhaps you misread my post.

I was merely writing that Lobo's suggestion that basically reads "we did 5-6 STS missions per year on the same budget as we have now, so we should be able to the same amount of SLS missions" might be a dangerously close to wishful thinking, and not based on NASA's own budgets and expected flight rate.

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #23 on: 10/30/2012 01:16 am »
I keep hearing this sky is falling skepticism on the eventual flight rate of SLS.  And I suppose the worst case scenario projects of 2017/2021 don’t help.  But keep in mind, give or take, NASA has about the same budget now as it had during the last several years of STS.  It has remained pretty steady.  It was supposed to get increased for CxP, but obviously that didn’t happen.  Still, NASA had the money to launch the Shuttle 3-5 times per year.  Give or take, SLS plus Orion will be roughly the price of the STS stack.

That's the crucial/fatal flaw in your argument. You are basing it on what you think SLS should cost. Not what it actually will cost.

So what will it cost?  Where is your data and documentation to back this up.  Mind you that you need data on:
[snip]
There's more but I'll wait to digest the cornucopia of information that you will surely provide to enlighten us all on why cost estimates of approximately 3 billion a year will not support this along with the potential for more.

I don't have any data or documentation. I'm not claiming anything - perhaps you misread my post.

I was merely writing that Lobo's suggestion that basically reads "we did 5-6 STS missions per year on the same budget as we have now, so we should be able to the same amount of SLS missions" might be a dangerously close to wishful thinking, and not based on NASA's own budgets and expected flight rate.

But that is not what you said at all nor do I believe I am going far out on a limb by saying you did intend other context in your statement.

You said that was the "critical flaw" in the argument and went further by implying what it should cost will not be anywhere near what it actually costs. 

I'm glad you have admitted your post was hollow and you have nothing to substantiate it. 

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #24 on: 10/30/2012 01:23 am »
No, I suggest you read my post again, "Go4TLI". You managed to misinterpret it twice. That deserves some kind of award.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #25 on: 10/30/2012 01:38 am »
I guess that would depend on what intended purpose you have in mind.

So far, it seems like the intended purpose is just to look busy. In which case, any old payload will do.


Sadly the only funded payload is Orion....and you can't do much of any old thing with just a capsule. Kind of need space station, lunar lander, ect...

With commercal taking crew and cargo, ISS is kinda of the books for use(plus using a 70+MT HLV to lift a 20MT capsule to LEO is wasteful in the extreme...).

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #26 on: 10/30/2012 01:53 am »
That's what EM-1, EM-2 are for... why repeat Apollo 8 in a two step program? Who knows.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #27 on: 10/30/2012 02:02 am »
Block 1 flights to launch gateway might be possible.

That uses the initial vehicles, the only extra development is the gateway parts.

JSC will want that work I guess? They will need to build a mock up in the swimming pool.

This is just my speculation anyway  :P

NASA then has to get to the gateway and utilise it somehow to visit Moon, Mars or NEA. Possibly with international cooperation.

Landers, tugs and deep space hab are all going to be expensive custom space hardware. Commercial companies might be able to compete to provide some of these services.

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #28 on: 10/30/2012 02:08 am »
I guess that would depend on what intended purpose you have in mind.

So far, it seems like the intended purpose is just to look busy. In which case, any old payload will do.
Sadly the only funded payload is Orion....and you can't do much of any old thing with just a capsule. Kind of need space station, lunar lander, ect...

With commercal taking crew and cargo, ISS is kinda of the books for use(plus using a 70+MT HLV to lift a 20MT capsule to LEO is wasteful in the extreme...).
Can we even guesstimate the price for a 70MT payload and its support? The CW on NSF is that the payload is at least as expensive as the launch vehicle. Does that still apply for mega-launchers like SLS? For example, what was the cost breakdown for an Apollo mission (e.g. the launcher vs. the CM+SM+Lander)?

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #29 on: 10/30/2012 02:46 am »
I keep hearing this sky is falling skepticism on the eventual flight rate of SLS.  And I suppose the worst case scenario projects of 2017/2021 don’t help.  But keep in mind, give or take, NASA has about the same budget now as it had during the last several years of STS.  It has remained pretty steady.  It was supposed to get increased for CxP, but obviously that didn’t happen.  Still, NASA had the money to launch the Shuttle 3-5 times per year.  Give or take, SLS plus Orion will be roughly the price of the STS stack.

That's the crucial/fatal flaw in your argument. You are basing it on what you think SLS should cost. Not what it actually will cost.

So what will it cost?  Where is your data and documentation to back this up.  Mind you that you need data on:
[snip]
There's more but I'll wait to digest the cornucopia of information that you will surely provide to enlighten us all on why cost estimates of approximately 3 billion a year will not support this along with the potential for more.

I don't have any data or documentation. I'm not claiming anything - perhaps you misread my post.

I was merely writing that Lobo's suggestion that basically reads "we did 5-6 STS missions per year on the same budget as we have now, so we should be able to the same amount of SLS missions" might be a dangerously close to wishful thinking, and not based on NASA's own budgets and expected flight rate.

But that is not what you said at all nor do I believe I am going far out on a limb by saying you did intend other context in your statement.

You said that was the "critical flaw" in the argument and went further by implying what it should cost will not be anywhere near what it actually costs. 

I'm glad you have admitted your post was hollow and you have nothing to substantiate it. 

No, I suggest you read my post again, "Go4TLI". You managed to misinterpret it twice. That deserves some kind of award.

Well, as a teacher who teaches writing, I have to say that your statement, "That's the crucial/fatal flaw in your argument. You are basing it on what you think SLS should cost, not what it actually will cost," clearly seems to imply that you do know what it will cost. Perhaps you did not intend to imply that, however the construction very much seems to make that implication. As a teacher, I must agree with Go4TLI that any good reader would infer that you are stating that you do know what the costs will be.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #30 on: 10/30/2012 05:05 am »

I was merely writing that Lobo's suggestion that basically reads "we did 5-6 STS missions per year on the same budget as we have now, so we should be able to the same amount of SLS missions" might be a dangerously close to wishful thinking, and not based on NASA's own budgets and expected flight rate.

Well, regardless of your intentions on your post, you do a decent job of summarizing my main point.
Athough I'd ammed it to say, "We did 3-6 STS mission ber year for the last several years of the program with roughly the same budget as we have now, so we should be able to do at least 2 missions per year with SLS rather than the one flight every other year which what people are afraid will be the case" And NASA shows that possibility in their current tentative PoR, so that doesn't help.  But that's as much because other than SLS and Orion, an official PoR for missions hasn' t been officially adopted yet.

My whole point is that if there's missions and hardware to fly, and there should be once we get to that point, I think we could afford at least a couple of SLS launches per year, given what NASA did with STS.

A lot of those latter NASA missions were expensive US-built ISS modules too.  So NASA launched several STS missions a year, with very expensive hardware riding up hill in many of them.

There's also talk of no payloads other than Orion.  A think part of that is that SLS's actual PoR hasn't been decided upon yet, but when it is, then payloads will start coming up for approval and funding, once people know for sure what capacity and performance they'll have to design around. 

Anyway, SLS is not STS, but the similarities are enough I think you can make some comparisons and generate some approximate numbers.  And that would indicate there should be enough money to do multiple SLS launches per year, if there is a need to, even if we don't know the exact costs at this point. 

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #31 on: 10/30/2012 05:56 am »
EDIT: If SLS could achieve the same best-case flight rate that Shuttle did post-Columbia: 4 or 5 launches per year, then that would be a useful launch rate in terms of building up hardware and equipment for a deep space mission to a NEA or Martian orbit.

For the early years of its utilization: Orion needs a Gateway Station to go to, or a Lunar Lander to be paired with, otherwise Apollo 8-on-steroids will be all its able to do. Or maybe tele-robotically operating Lunar rovers and sample-return probes from L-2. Then again, with relay satellites, the same could be done from Earth...

After some trips to a Gateway Station for a handful of years: my preference would be to then use SLS/Orion in conjunction with Hab Modules and Propulsion Stages to go to Phobos. Once there; tele-operate some Rovers and Sample Return Probes. Also; if supplies, equipment and a big SEP stage were sent ahead to Martian orbit first; they could use the SEP to then spiral on up to Deimos for its exploration as well before heading back to Earth.

Future options? Use a powerful SEP or two to send chemical propulsion stages to Ceres to await a crew sent directly from Earth - they would be using another SEP to enact the plane-change needed to get to Ceres. Next to Mars, I feel that Ceres is the best destination a manned mission could have and it would be do-able with the transportation infrastructure developed for Mars. Also, with such very low gravity, no special high delta-V lander would be needed to explore the dwarf world.

SLS is sucking up development funds, for sure - but its a lot better than the Ares 1 & V combo would have been. That's why I'm optimistic that if SLS (wish it was called Nova, Hercules etc) can clear its hurdles of existence and move into test flights, then some worthy missions can get planned for it. But on flat and/or dwindling budgets, Gateway Station is all that could be done for the forseeable future. BUT: It would be a logical evolution of ISS technology and operations and would give NASA useful experience in the environment of true micro-g and high radiation environments. And also the engineering of deep space life support, propulsion, communications, logistics and operations.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2012 05:59 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #32 on: 10/30/2012 05:58 am »
Well, as a teacher who teaches writing, I have to say that your statement, "That's the crucial/fatal flaw in your argument. You are basing it on what you think SLS should cost, not what it actually will cost," clearly seems to imply that you do know what it will cost. Perhaps you did not intend to imply that, however the construction very much seems to make that implication. As a teacher, I must agree with Go4TLI that any good reader would infer that you are stating that you do know what the costs will be.

Sigh... I cannot believe I need to do this. Tom, as a teacher I hope that you also instruct your students to not read between the lines, or infer too much. I meant to write exactly what I wrote. The two sentences are meant to contrast each other - One to highlight how we wish things to be - The other how things actually will end up. I make no value judgement about what the actual cost will be, in this case we have to simply trust NASA in what # of SLS flights they think they can afford over the next decade with projected budget levels. That is all.

But then again English was never my favorite subject.  ;)

Offline Warren Platts

Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #33 on: 10/30/2012 07:06 am »
Lobo's suggestion that basically reads "we did 5-6 STS missions per year on the same budget as we have now, so we should be able to the same amount of SLS missions" might be a dangerously close to wishful thinking, and not based on NASA's own budgets and expected flight rate.

There might be some internal politics at NASA going on where they're playing chicken with Congress by gaming the numbers, either to extract more $$$ or to actually get SLS cancelled....
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #34 on: 10/30/2012 02:40 pm »
I keep hearing this sky is falling skepticism on the eventual flight rate of SLS.  ...  Still, NASA had the money to launch the Shuttle 3-5 times per year.  Give or take, SLS plus Orion will be roughly the price of the STS stack.

That's the crucial/fatal flaw in your argument. You are basing it on what you think SLS should cost. Not what it actually will cost.

Well, you certainly make a good point.  I could be way off.  But I’m not sure how it’d be that far off.

1) Once the SLS core is designed, ... the SLS core will be a little more than the ET.

Then there’s the engines.  Sounds like the RS-25E will cost about the same as it cost to refurbish the RS-25D.  ...

So the first four cores should actually be -cheaper- than ET + RS-25 refurb cost.

2) The SRB’s are similar.  New ones will cost about the same as reusing old ones ... I think [ATK] really want to make an attractive offer to NASA ...  If they make them too expensive, NASA could buy just one pair of them to hit the 2017 launch date, and then upgrade immediately to LRB’s as there’s already a lot of attractiveness in that direction.  So I’d be fairly surprised if NASA has to pay 25% more for them per pair than they paid for the STS 4-segs.

3) That leaves the cost of a new Orion CSM vs. the cost of reprocessing the orbiter less the costs of refurbishing the engines ...  I’m SWAGing when I say that cost is probably roughly equal to a new Orion CSM once they are rolling off the assembly line, but maybe it’s a little cheaper than a new Orion.

4) So let’s say that when you add up all the math, an SLS launch with Orion is $100M more than an STS launch.  STS was still about $1 billion per launch once all the KSC overhead per year was factored in, on it’s average launch rate.  At least that’s the number I’ve heard thrown around.  ...

You are still basing your estimate on what you think SLS should cost.  I agree with the general thrust of your math up there, but it won't play out like you suppose.

1) The SLS core is very nearly a clean sheet design, to the point where the other ET's in storage are not usable, per my understanding. particularly by the time it is stretched to fit the 130 ton LV.  [Edit:  Good eye there, Chile.  Shoulda refreshed my memory.]

2) Looking at the way ULA is playing the game regarding its $650M costs for assuring launch services, it is hardly going to be the case that ATK will want to "make an attractive offer" to NASA. Instead, they are likely to fight the LRB bidding process in court.  They have no corporate reason whatsoever to control NASA's launch costs, and every corporate reason to raise them.

3) That assembly line is not likely to be rolling them off at a very fast rate.  Each one is virtually built from the ground up, one at a time.

4) There's math out there that says that shuttle cost $400M/ launch, exclusive of payload, for one thing.  But it's interesting to see how, even by your math, the costs of building this LV, based on the legacy savings from the shuttle, end up costing more than shuttle.  And you don't even get wings with that.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2012 03:06 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #35 on: 10/30/2012 02:44 pm »
using a 70+MT HLV to lift a 20MT capsule to LEO is wasteful in the extreme

But they'll be using ballast to fill it up. 

Largely composed of the blood that I will have boiled between now and 2017.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #36 on: 10/30/2012 02:52 pm »

1) The SLS core is very nearly a clean sheet design, particularly by the time it is stretched to fit the 130 ton LV. [My underline.]

Have we seen NASA indicate that the 130 tonne SLS is going to require core stretching over the 70 and 105 tonne versions? (It could just be something I've missed.)
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #37 on: 10/30/2012 02:56 pm »
Well, as a teacher who teaches writing, I have to say that your statement, "That's the crucial/fatal flaw in your argument. You are basing it on what you think SLS should cost, not what it actually will cost," clearly seems to imply that you do know what it will cost. Perhaps you did not intend to imply that, however the construction very much seems to make that implication. As a teacher, I must agree with Go4TLI that any good reader would infer that you are stating that you do know what the costs will be.

Tom:  I gotta disagree.  As a Godwinian Grammarian.

Lobo thinks he knows what it will cost, and lays out why he concludes that.  Even so, Lars and I disagree with Lobo.

It would be a crucial mistake of understanding to conclude that Lobo "knows" what those costs would be.  He thinks he does, and he thinks he knows why.  I am sure that he's wrong, but he never presented the info as if he were a know-it-all.

We did 3-6 STS mission ber year for the last several years of the program with roughly the same budget as we have now, so we should be able to do at least 2 missions per year with SLS rather than the one flight every other year which what people are afraid will be the case...

I agree, we should be able to do that.  I don't think this will happen because costs will baloon, because they hav deliberately understated the engineering problem of evolving from a 70 ton LV to a 130 ton LV for one thing.  For another, they are engaging on a crash course design as fast as they can on this "evolutionary" path.  I don't believe that they have a handle on the design iterations that are yet to come.

But what we "should" do is still only your hope, and what we "will" do remains to be seen.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2012 05:07 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #38 on: 10/30/2012 02:57 pm »

1) The SLS core is very nearly a clean sheet design, particularly by the time it is stretched to fit the 130 ton LV. [My underline.]

Have we seen NASA indicate that the 130 tonne SLS is going to require core stretching over the 70 and 105 tonne versions? (It could just be something I've missed.)

I am going from memory on this assertion, and it proved faulty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Core_stage
« Last Edit: 10/30/2012 03:02 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: What will there be the money to do with SLS?
« Reply #39 on: 10/30/2012 03:03 pm »
Not stretching, but reinforcement for the higher loads (see one of the L2 SLS threads). That's why the Block IB stuff has taken off, it doesn't need the core redesign.

The Block II (large upper stage) and Block IA/IIA (advanced boosters) are concepts that NASA is not excluding, because via the authorization act, they can't. Really though, it sounds like the actual effort is going into Block IB (Ares SRBs, Delta IV upper stage). That's the minimal-new-development SLS, and the minimal SLS capable of sending Orion to L2...
« Last Edit: 10/30/2012 03:04 pm by simonbp »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1