Author Topic: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS  (Read 24546 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7738
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« on: 02/07/2017 08:03 PM »
Article from the WSJ.

Again indicates the Trump administration wants to accelerate the first manned flight of SLS.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/leading-commercial-space-group-embraces-nasas-biggest-rocket-1486491576
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 08:07 PM by Star One »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26592
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6470
  • Likes Given: 4695
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #1 on: 02/07/2017 08:36 PM »
What is commercial about SLS?

This is disappointing.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7738
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #2 on: 02/07/2017 08:50 PM »
What 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.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26592
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6470
  • Likes Given: 4695
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #3 on: 02/07/2017 08:55 PM »
What 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.
Don't put words in my mouth, puny human!

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.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 08:55 PM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7798
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2097
  • Likes Given: 4880
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #4 on: 02/07/2017 08:58 PM »
Does accelerate mean trying to erase the slips?? ???
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Physics Professor in SC, USA
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 401
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #5 on: 02/07/2017 09:08 PM »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 09:08 PM by Endeavour_01 »
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Online redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #6 on: 02/07/2017 09:22 PM »
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...
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26592
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6470
  • Likes Given: 4695
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #7 on: 02/07/2017 09:27 PM »
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.

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.
That's a super crazy kind of twisted logic. The analogous thing to ISS would be the outpost itself, not SLS. All SLS does is suck up payloads, at an extremely high cost, that could be instead launched commercially at far lower cost. The analogous thing to SLS would be Shuttle, and commercial wasn't even given a chance to do logistics for ISS until Shuttle was retired.

The only way SLS will help commercial is by retiring.

Again, this announcement is a big let-down. They essentially sold out.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26592
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6470
  • Likes Given: 4695
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #8 on: 02/07/2017 09:33 PM »
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...

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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26592
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6470
  • Likes Given: 4695
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #9 on: 02/07/2017 09:34 PM »
And I'm sure you'll mention Bigelow, but there are multiple reasons that's inapplicable.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7738
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #10 on: 02/07/2017 09:49 PM »
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...

Odd as I could read it without logging in.

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...

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.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 10:03 PM by Star One »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2072
  • Liked: 361
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #11 on: 02/07/2017 10:00 PM »
Trump wants to see the first manned flight within his first term.

Not surprise here.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7738
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #12 on: 02/07/2017 10:02 PM »
Trump 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.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7798
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2097
  • Likes Given: 4880
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #13 on: 02/07/2017 10:10 PM »
Trump wants to see the first manned flight within his first term.

Not surprise here.
Manned flights are going to happen with Commercial Crew to ISS... No need for "the beast" on a mission to nowhere...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2072
  • Liked: 361
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #14 on: 02/07/2017 10:19 PM »
Trump 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.

Congress probably doesn't mind spending more on SLS. The Obama administration worked against it.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26592
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6470
  • Likes Given: 4695
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #15 on: 02/07/2017 10:33 PM »
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...

Odd as I could read it without logging in.

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...

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.
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?
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 10:43 PM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7738
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #16 on: 02/07/2017 10:42 PM »
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...

Odd as I could read it without logging in.

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...

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.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 10:44 PM by Star One »

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #17 on: 02/07/2017 10:44 PM »
Trump 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.

It would be $750 million extra.

1.)$150 million to man-rate ICPS
2.)$300 million for a 2nd mobile launcher
3.)<$300 million to outfit a 2nd VAB bay.

Re-fly EM-1(but crewed obviously) and develop EUS on a seperate track in a different VAB bay and on a different mobile launcher. Don't put EUS onto the critical path and start building the 2nd SLS now and 2020 is doable. Would make the SLS Block II transition smoother as well. Would make a multi-launch campaign a lot easier and stand-by rescue possible as well.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 10:48 PM by ncb1397 »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26592
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6470
  • Likes Given: 4695
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #18 on: 02/07/2017 10:45 PM »
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...

Odd as I could read it without logging in.

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...

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???
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 10:46 PM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7738
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #19 on: 02/07/2017 10:50 PM »
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...

Odd as I could read it without logging in.

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...

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???

Look I don't want Chris terminating this discussion so all I will say is I fundamentally disagree with you on this. I think there's enough room in the market for all these vehicles including SLS.

Tags: