Quote from: Lars_J on 10/29/2012 10:23 pmQuote from: Lobo on 10/29/2012 09:25 pmI 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.
Quote from: Lobo on 10/29/2012 09:25 pmI 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.
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.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 10/29/2012 11:15 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 10/29/2012 10:23 pmQuote from: Lobo on 10/29/2012 09:25 pmI 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.
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.
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/29/2012 11:28 pmI 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...).
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/30/2012 01:11 amQuote from: Go4TLI on 10/29/2012 11:15 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 10/29/2012 10:23 pmQuote from: Lobo on 10/29/2012 09:25 pmI 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.
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, 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.
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.
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/29/2012 10:23 pmQuote from: Lobo on 10/29/2012 09:25 pmI 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. ...
Quote from: Lobo on 10/29/2012 09:25 pmI 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.
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.
using a 70+MT HLV to lift a 20MT capsule to LEO is wasteful in the extreme
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.]
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...
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/30/2012 02:40 pm1) 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.)