Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 10:55 pmEven if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.So what you still have to develop an actual nuts and bolts launch vehicle first to put the lander on the moon, as you don't fly anywhere with paper rockets and PowerPoint presentations.
Even if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.
Quote from: Star One on 02/07/2017 08:50 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 08:36 pmWhat 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.Why single out SpaceX? There're more than one commercial company building heavy lift and contemplating super heavy.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 08:36 pmWhat 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.
What is commercial about SLS?This is disappointing.
Quote from: Star One on 02/07/2017 10:58 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 10:55 pmEven if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.So what you still have to develop an actual nuts and bolts launch vehicle first to put the lander on the moon, as you don't fly anywhere with paper rockets and PowerPoint presentations.As Robotbeat has pointed out elsewhere, Falcon 9, Atlas V, and Delta IV all currently exist and are flying. Unlike SLS. You do not need to invent a new rocket to go to the Moon. There have been tons of studies showing how you can do that with existing rockets. Even if you don't insist on orbital propellant transfer (though that would make it tons easier). CxP and SLS have delayed a human return to the Moon by at least a decade at this point. I think it's legit for some of us to be frustrated at the waste, and even more frustrated at the CSF for folding like a cheap suit on this.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 02/08/2017 02:39 amQuote from: Star One on 02/07/2017 10:58 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 10:55 pmEven if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.So what you still have to develop an actual nuts and bolts launch vehicle first to put the lander on the moon, as you don't fly anywhere with paper rockets and PowerPoint presentations.As Robotbeat has pointed out elsewhere, Falcon 9, Atlas V, and Delta IV all currently exist and are flying. Unlike SLS. You do not need to invent a new rocket to go to the Moon. There have been tons of studies showing how you can do that with existing rockets. Even if you don't insist on orbital propellant transfer (though that would make it tons easier). CxP and SLS have delayed a human return to the Moon by at least a decade at this point. I think it's legit for some of us to be frustrated at the waste, and even more frustrated at the CSF for folding like a cheap suit on this.~JonBut that boat has sailed as an argument. If you wanted to go an alternative route using existing hardware I'd thought that was something you'd need to have opted for years back. We are where we are and we'll just have plough on. If companies see commercial possibilities in SLS then that's all good.
SLS costs over $2 billion per year. Over $10 billion more will have been spent on it by the time EM-1 flies. It's only sensible to ask whether NASA might accomplish more by spending a similar quantity of money on an exploration program based on rockets the cost of which is shared with other users.In other words, I don't think the argument has sailed.
Quote from: Proponent on 02/08/2017 08:37 amSLS costs over $2 billion per year. Over $10 billion more will have been spent on it by the time EM-1 flies. It's only sensible to ask whether NASA might accomplish more by spending a similar quantity of money on an exploration program based on rockets the cost of which is shared with other users.In other words, I don't think the argument has sailed.Exactly. Saying "well we spent this much, we should finish" is sunk cost fallacy. (as I said before) Even cancelling SLS the day before the first flight saves money that could be better spent elsewhere.Star One, you should be making the argument that SLS is politically unkillable and therefore some use should be made of it... That's actually a valid argument. Not that SLS has any technical or economic merit whatever, which is a hill of malarky. (not a mod post)
Even cancelling SLS the day before the first flight saves money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Considering that SLS is the incumbent program with a fair degree of political support, there's still use for it in a way that would be beneficial for commercial human spaceflight. The Shuttle constructed the ISS and the ISS has served as a destination for commercial crew and cargo. SLS could serve a similar role in doing some of the initial heavy lifting of large payloads, which can be later served by a BLEO COTS program.
Well I was steering away from just saying the thing is pretty politically fireproof so you might as well make the best use of it you can, as it might be true but it's not a very constructive argument in my view to just say it's a public sector utility so to speak.As an aside I appreciate Blue Origin's approach to making space commercial with little or no government money or input. To me that's a strong commercial approach not expecting the government to get you there on the taxpayers dollar which others have done.
Quote from: Star One on 02/08/2017 11:29 amWell I was steering away from just saying the thing is pretty politically fireproof so you might as well make the best use of it you can, as it might be true but it's not a very constructive argument in my view to just say it's a public sector utility so to speak.As an aside I appreciate Blue Origin's approach to making space commercial with little or no government money or input. To me that's a strong commercial approach not expecting the government to get you there on the taxpayers dollar which others have done.With Orion/SLS, we have a government-funded, government-operated system. Blue Origin proposes a commercially funded, commercially operated system.But what about the middle ground, namely a government-funded system making use of commercially managed hardware where advantageous (mostly meaning cheaper)? I think that's what most of the argument against SLS is about. It's not "Let's just wait for Bezos and Musk to go to the stars," it's "Let's get to the stars as fast as we can by letting NASA focus on the really hard stuff that nobody else can or will do."Besides, since the Commercial Space Act of 1998, it's supposed to be government policy to use commercial capabilities where practicable.
Are you referring specifically to SLS? In that case, the argument is probably just that there is not commercial launch vehicle of its capability. This is disingenuous, since it fails to answer the question of whether a launch vehicle the size of SLS is needed, but that question does not occur to many.It's also the case that, whatever the government's policy is in general, Congress has specifically passed a law allowing the US of SLS in various broadly circumstances.
I'm a little confused... I thought that a NASA vehicle with not allowed to compete against a commercial vehicle...
In a speech opening the 20th Annual Commercial Space Transportation Conference here Feb. 7, Alan Stern, chairman of the board of the industry group, said the organization believes that the SLS could potentially be useful for its members.<snip>Stern said he was not worried about endorsing a vehicle that could compete with those commercial alternatives. “The market will sort that out,” he said.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/08/2017 01:31 pmI'm a little confused... I thought that a NASA vehicle with not allowed to compete against a commercial vehicle... Congress is only interested in others following the laws it writes; they are (obviously) above the law.
Once it gets down to talking value-for-money SLS won't stand a chance. After all: "endorsement" doet not translate into "we will use it".
Quote from: woods170 on 02/08/2017 01:51 pmOnce it gets down to talking value-for-money SLS won't stand a chance. After all: "endorsement" doet not translate into "we will use it".If it does ever get down to talking value for money. Thanks for highlighting that part of Stern's statement -- puts a very different spin on it than one would gather from the headline.