Author Topic: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS  (Read 62765 times)

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #80 on: 02/08/2017 07:40 pm »
Does everyone think it is likely that any commercial customers for SLS would pay the entire operating cost of the system for a year? 
My guess is that they would pay a HEAVILY subsidized price.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #81 on: 02/08/2017 07:51 pm »
It [SLS[ at the very least saves money on having to thermally proof the craft from travelling inwards towards the sun for a gravity assist around Venus. Also the very fact that flight time is reduced means the equipment has less chance to go wrong, suffer an incident and general wear and tear is reduced. There are more complete discussions of this in the Europa thread.

Yes, there are advantages (and disadvantages) of using SLS rather than Atlas V.  But the decision appears to have been made not by engineers and scientists, but by politicians, who are not qualified to way up those factors.

I'd dispute that as I doubt you'd find many Europa scientists who would turn their noses up at a swifter science return.
They can have their cake and eat it too as long as they pick-up the tab...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #82 on: 02/08/2017 08:25 pm »
It [SLS[ at the very least saves money on having to thermally proof the craft from travelling inwards towards the sun for a gravity assist around Venus. Also the very fact that flight time is reduced means the equipment has less chance to go wrong, suffer an incident and general wear and tear is reduced. There are more complete discussions of this in the Europa thread.

Yes, there are advantages (and disadvantages) of using SLS rather than Atlas V.  But the decision appears to have been made not by engineers and scientists, but by politicians, who are not qualified to way up those factors.

I'd dispute that as I doubt you'd find many Europa scientists who would turn their noses up at a swifter science return.

If that swifter science return was a trade-off for a billion dollars smaller science payload... there would not be a single Europa scientist who wasn't screaming at the stinking bad deal.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #83 on: 02/08/2017 08:28 pm »
It [SLS[ at the very least saves money on having to thermally proof the craft from travelling inwards towards the sun for a gravity assist around Venus. Also the very fact that flight time is reduced means the equipment has less chance to go wrong, suffer an incident and general wear and tear is reduced. There are more complete discussions of this in the Europa thread.

Yes, there are advantages (and disadvantages) of using SLS rather than Atlas V.  But the decision appears to have been made not by engineers and scientists, but by politicians, who are not qualified to way up those factors.

I'd dispute that as I doubt you'd find many Europa scientists who would turn their noses up at a swifter science return.

If that swifter science return was a trade-off for a billion dollars smaller science payload... there would not be a single Europa scientist who wasn't screaming at the stinking bad deal.

I doubt very much it's that basic an exchange.


Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #84 on: 02/08/2017 09:27 pm »
This thread hasn't gotten at all political.  And I'm the king of Spain.

Let's try to bring it back around a bit if we can... (mod post)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #85 on: 02/08/2017 10:19 pm »
Endorsement is a form of lobbying IMHO...

Maybe Stern wants the Administrator job -- he'd run the place a bit differently, I'd imagine.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #86 on: 02/09/2017 04:14 am »
Also, you don't even have to human-rate Delta IV Heavy if you really don't want to. You COULD just use it to launch the spacecraft empty and transfer using a crew vehicle from ISS.

And then perform a plane change to get anywhere useful...

ISS isn't in the best plane to go to the moon or interplanetary.

I think he meant a crew vehicle from one of the commercial crew providers for ISS, launched specifically to meet Orion. It wouldn't have to go anywhere near ISS.

NASA could lease or rent a commercial spacestation for probably about the cost of launching an SLS. If the spacestation is BLEO then a large launch vehicle is needed, such as the SLS.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #87 on: 02/09/2017 10:49 am »
Does everyone think it is likely that any commercial customers for SLS would pay the entire operating cost of the system for a year? 
My guess is that they would pay a HEAVILY subsidized price.

I think it highly unlikely that there will be any commercial uses for SLS.  After Ares V was announced, more than ten years ago, we started hearing suggestions that there were all kinds of military and commercial uses for a NASA-managed heavy lifter.  But in all of this time, no indications of interest have emerged.

For that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload.  If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?

My guess is that the picture Stern has in mind is that NASA would use SLS to launch a cis-lunar hab, which would then be supplied by commercial launch vehicles.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2017 10:53 am by Proponent »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #88 on: 02/09/2017 04:53 pm »
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.

We've spent about $10 billion on SLS so far including ground equipment.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #89 on: 02/10/2017 10:39 pm »
Here’s why a commercial space group endorsed NASA’s SLS rocket

Quote
Later, during an interview with Ars, Stern explained that the commercial space organization has, in the past, engaged in a “bruising battle” over the government’s massive rocket and its influential prime contractor Boeing. The commercial space industry group (of which Boeing is not a member) contended the private sector could deliver the same capability as the SLS for far less than the $2 billion NASA has spent annually this decade to develop the rocket. The SLS will initially be able to heft 70 metric tons to low Earth orbit, but that could grow to 130 metric tons by the late 2020s.

But now, Stern said the organization believes the SLS will enable the aims of commercial companies to develop businesses on the Moon, as well as support asteroid mining and other ventures his members are interested in. “We are taking a long view,” Stern said. “This is clearly to the advantage of the expansion of commercial spaceflight. Now, with a new administration and a new Congress, we wanted to put our stake down on the side of SLS.”

Quote
Theoretically, then, the United States could have three heavy lift rockets at its disposal in 2020. If the reusable Falcon Heavy costs $200 million per flight, and the reusable New Glenn costs $200 million, while an expendable SLS rocket costs $1.5 billion, the agency—and by extension Congress and the White House—will have an easy choice to make.

One could argue at that time that NASA should never have spent in excess of $10 billion developing the SLS. But the bottom line is that, six years ago, Congress did not believe in the capacity of SpaceX to build a heavy lift rocket, and Blue Origin’s intentions were not known at that time. So Congress bet on NASA and its traditional contractor Boeing, and the agency kept its large base of employees intact.

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation likely recognizes that raising its voice now, publicly at least, against the SLS has limited political upside with a Congress predisposed to favor NASA’s big rocket. Instead of poking NASA or Congress in the eye with a stick, better to stay relevant. Ultimately, when SpaceX, Blue Origin, or both have a launch capability that costs far less than the public alternative, the commercial space organization will have a much more potent argument to make.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/heres-why-a-commercial-space-group-endorsed-nasas-sls-rocket/
« Last Edit: 02/10/2017 10:43 pm by Star One »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #90 on: 02/11/2017 12:12 am »
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.

We've spent about $10 billion on SLS so far including ground equipment.

The USofA has spent $12B (for Constellation), plus $10B (for SLS), plus $8B (for Orion), to achieve a heavy lift launch capability for 'exploration'.  Additionally, $3B+ per year for the next five years (if we're lucky) will be required before we lift the first 'explorer' off the ground on said launch capability.
This sums to the tidy total of $45B -- to reach the starting line.

You say, "We've spent $10B on SLS..." but that is the same we that has also spent or committed to spend vastly more than that before we get any capability in return. 

Think about what could be achieved with $45B...
« Last Edit: 02/11/2017 12:16 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #91 on: 02/11/2017 01:56 am »
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.

We've spent about $10 billion on SLS so far including ground equipment.

The USofA has spent $12B (for Constellation), plus $10B (for SLS), plus $8B (for Orion), to achieve a heavy lift launch capability for 'exploration'.  Additionally, $3B+ per year for the next five years (if we're lucky) will be required before we lift the first 'explorer' off the ground on said launch capability.
This sums to the tidy total of $45B -- to reach the starting line.

You say, "We've spent $10B on SLS..." but that is the same we that has also spent or committed to spend vastly more than that before we get any capability in return. 

Think about what could be achieved with $45B...

And once you replace SLS and Orion with <insert AncientUs preferred program>, you can just say that we spent $12 billion on Constellation, $10 billion on SLS, $8 billion dollars on Orion and X billion on <insert AncientUs preferred program> to get some kind of BEO capability and that capability is years away. From the get go, you can make the same case that <insert program> should be cancelled because the running tally is just getting bigger. Any large scale investment in NASA programs starts to look really, really wasteful. Which it shouldn't, because it really isn't, but the case would be easier and easier to make.

The USofA has spent $12B (for Constellation), plus $10B (for SLS), plus $8B (for Orion), to achieve a heavy lift launch capability for 'exploration'.

Constellation was focused on ISS logistics in the early years, as was Orion. Orion has nothing to do with the cost of heavy launch capability, except that it requires it for certain trajectories. The cost of heavy lift has been ~$10 billion so far while the europeans are spending ~$4 billion for Ariane 6. SLS is perfectly in line with historical cost figures for this kind of capability (Saturn V). You can certainly do launch(or the development thereof) cheaper, but that has tended to include either out sourced production or bugs showing up during missions with substantially greater frequency.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2017 02:00 am by ncb1397 »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #92 on: 02/11/2017 06:39 am »
The cost of heavy lift has been ~$10 billion so far while the europeans are spending ~$4 billion for Ariane 6.

The $3.8bn include A6 + Vega + infrastructure.

The main issue though is that SLS will launch so rarely. 'We' may be looking at $40bn for ~5 launches up to 2030. That's pretty crazy.

For that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload.  If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?

Why would there suddenly be such payloads for FH/New Glenn/ITS?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #93 on: 02/11/2017 09:59 am »
For that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload.  If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?

Why would there suddenly be such payloads for FH/New Glenn/ITS?

As for New Glenn and ITS, Bezos and, to some extent, Musk appear to have business plans to make those payloads materialize.  That's not a sure thing, but it's much more plausible than the idea that, after more than a decade's lack of interest, government agencies and companies will soon be falling all over themselves to get a ride on the drastically more expensive SLS.

As for FH, it will, despite its much greater payload capability, be competitive for payloads now launched by Delta IV Heavy.  It may also be competitive for some payloads to high-energy trajectories now launched by Atlas V.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2017 10:25 am by Proponent »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #94 on: 02/11/2017 11:02 am »
For that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload.  If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?

Why would there suddenly be such payloads for FH/New Glenn/ITS?

As for New Glenn and ITS, Bezos and, to some extent, Musk appear to have business plans to make those payloads materialize.  That's not a sure thing, but it's much more plausible than the idea that, after more than a decade's lack of interest, government agencies and companies will soon be falling all over themselves to get a ride on the drastically more expensive SLS.

As for FH, it will, despite its much greater payload capability, be competitive for payloads now launched by Delta IV Heavy.  It may also be competitive for some payloads to high-energy trajectories now launched by Atlas V.

That sounds dangerously like you're implying that because they are commercial enterprises they are going to make payloads magically appear and because SLS isn't they can't do this.,

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #95 on: 02/11/2017 11:17 am »
That sounds dangerously like you're implying that because they are commercial enterprises they are going to make payloads magically appear and because SLS isn't they can't do this.

You are misreading the tea leaves.

It's not because it's commercial, it's because commercial launch costs almost an order of magnitude less.
It's all about cost; nothing more and nothing less.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #96 on: 02/11/2017 11:19 am »
The cost of heavy lift has been ~$10 billion so far while the europeans are spending ~$4 billion for Ariane 6.

The $3.8bn include A6 + Vega + infrastructure.

The main issue though is that SLS will launch so rarely. 'We' may be looking at $40bn for ~5 launches up to 2030. That's pretty crazy.

For that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload.  If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?

Why would there suddenly be such payloads for FH/New Glenn/ITS?

Maybe cost does matter?

FH will begin life soon (in six months or so  ;)) with a modest manifest of commercial launches... made possible by non-USG funded reuse technology for first stages.  USG launches will follow after certification, potentially saving the USG a bundle because FH delivers double the payload of DH at one-third of the cost. 

FH development cost the USG $0B.

FH's main goal, though, will be sending significant mass -- exploration mass -- payloads to Mars (and maybe now the Moon).  These non-USG funded Mars trips will be to demonstrate EDL at Mars using supersonic retro-propulsion... made possible by non-USG funded technology (which we will pay to share because we never got around to developing this crucial exploration technology though we did spend $350M on recent supersonic parachute/decelerator efforts which have been abandoned).  The Super-Draco engines providing this retro-propulsion were developed using additive manufacturing (non-USG funded) for an advanced landing technology on the Dragon -- which could easily have gotten by with its proven splash-down-in-the-ocean technology.  All of this and more resulted from a private vision that exploration was worthwhile, and cost of launch was the barrier to getting off this planet... so technologies were developed to achieve that goal.

Another private vision sees millions of people working off-planet in the future and is investing in low-cost launch capabilities to enable that vision.

No real future in space, exploration or otherwise, will be enabled by SLS/Orion. 
They simply cost too much and do nothing to advance the technology needed to move beyond this planet.

Endorsing them, as the Commercial Space Group has, is merely praising the Emperor's new clothes.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2017 11:24 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #97 on: 02/11/2017 11:22 am »
That sounds dangerously like you're implying that because they are commercial enterprises they are going to make payloads magically appear and because SLS isn't they can't do this.

You are misreading the tea leaves.

It's not because it's commercial, it's because commercial launch costs almost an order of magnitude less.
It's all about cost; nothing more and nothing less.

Even with less costs I didn't see why this will mean a sudden appearance of overly large payloads that need such launchers. I thought outside of the NRO & some science payloads the move was towards smaller not larger payloads.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #98 on: 02/11/2017 11:37 am »
That sounds dangerously like you're implying that because they are commercial enterprises they are going to make payloads magically appear and because SLS isn't they can't do this.

You are misreading the tea leaves.

It's not because it's commercial, it's because commercial launch costs almost an order of magnitude less.
It's all about cost; nothing more and nothing less.

Even with less costs I didn't see why this will mean a sudden appearance of overly large payloads that need such launchers. I thought outside of the NRO & some science payloads the move was towards smaller not larger payloads.

If we are going to Mars and back to the Moon, we'll need lots of large payloads.  (Did you forget that exploration also requires payloads?  Easy enough to overlook in this spend-everything-on-SLS/Orion era.)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #99 on: 02/11/2017 12:28 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.
What competetition?

For a MArs program? No, because even the ITV Mars program will be expensive.

Competition re Falcon Heavy? Ha!

The (only) reason I am supporting SLS is that it might, might, create a market for really heavy payloads.
(BAck then (20+ years ago) I was very much against the Space Station Alpha, later ISS because of cost/capability ratio. But hoped it would create a market for commercial resupply.)
So same agin.


Tags:
 

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