I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.
Again, unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go. And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276. All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.
While the only crewed mission to fly on SLS currently funded is EM-2, at a similar point in Apollo (which was a crash program in which all elements were being designed and built all at once) there was no funding specific to any crewed Saturn V launches, much less for actual lunar landing missions. They weren't going to happen in the next fiscal year, and as such none of the funding was specific to any such missions.
In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time. And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development. So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.
When y'all toss around the complaint "no funded missions," please recall Congress only funds things one fiscal year at a time (when they bother to do so at all and we don't just get stuck with a mess of CR's). Apollo didn't have funded crewed lunar landing missions until fiscal 1969. NASA had a longer-than-one-year plan for Apollo, and Congress appropriated for the new fiscal year based on what NASA told them were their needs to accomplish that plan. That doesn't differ from what's happening right now, as NASA refines their DRA for Mars and presents funding requests based on accomplishing it without many "balloon" years needed to do so (i.e., with mostly flat budgets). Congress has given them funding for the pieces they think they need to develop in the next fiscal year.
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.Nineteen-fifty-five. Two years before anyone, anywhere had even demonstrated the capability of orbiting anything. At all.If there was a funded mission that required an F-1 engine in 1955, I'd love to see the funding appropriation for it.And, to be honest, I don't believe it would have been possible to seek funding for Apollo if there was not an F-1 class engine already under development. If the U.S. had been forced to try and design Apollo without the F-1 having been under development for five years already, I don't think anyone would have bitten the bullet and committed to it. One of the reasons Apollo was considered within the realm of possibility in 1961 was the fact that the F-1 engine was scheduled to become available by 1965 or so.Again, unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go. And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276. All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles. While the only crewed mission to fly on SLS currently funded is EM-2, at a similar point in Apollo (which was a crash program in which all elements were being designed and built all at once) there was no funding specific to any crewed Saturn V launches, much less for actual lunar landing missions. They weren't going to happen in the next fiscal year, and as such none of the funding was specific to any such missions.In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time. And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development. So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.When y'all toss around the complaint "no funded missions," please recall Congress only funds things one fiscal year at a time (when they bother to do so at all and we don't just get stuck with a mess of CR's). Apollo didn't have funded crewed lunar landing missions until fiscal 1969. NASA had a longer-than-one-year plan for Apollo, and Congress appropriated for the new fiscal year based on what NASA told them were their needs to accomplish that plan. That doesn't differ from what's happening right now, as NASA refines their DRA for Mars and presents funding requests based on accomplishing it without many "balloon" years needed to do so (i.e., with mostly flat budgets). Congress has given them funding for the pieces they think they need to develop in the next fiscal year.Now, you can complain that the DRA doesn't realistically define needs for new start funding on various vehicles and preliminary missions. But that's a far different discussion than just continuing to insist SLS must die because there are no funded missions.Rant mode off...
The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year.
I'm a huge SpaceX band-wagoner, I love their product and what they bring to the table. But if opponents think SpaceX has suddenly solved how to get to Mars at 1/10 the cost simply because they are willing to accept more risk, they're kidding themselves.
Would a payload like "Skylab II" (the same diameter as SLS) need a jettisoned fairing at all? Why not design it with an aerodynamic forward end?
Completely agree. The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year. First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides. Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I. Then it was funding and political will.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/06/2016 09:14 pmhow the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?"You don't understand the power of the dark ... wait ... cost plus prime force ..." And that one won't come cheap. Also, the Skylab one didn't "fair" so well...
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
Quote from: sdsds on 08/08/2016 01:16 amWould a payload like "Skylab II" (the same diameter as SLS) need a jettisoned fairing at all? Why not design it with an aerodynamic forward end?That's what they did with Skylab but it didn't work out; damage was caused during launch and ascent to the sides of the module (insulation torn off along with a solar array). I don't know if it was caused by the slipstream but it does lead to the logical conclusion that you are wiser to protect side-mounted equipment from the airflow.
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.
... unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go. And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276. All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.
Quote... unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go. And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276. All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.To amplify Space Ghost 1962's reply on this point, have a look at NASA's plans for the Saturn V as of October 1962 (see p. 4 of the 1st attachment or, for fuller explanation a few months later, pp. 11 & 12 of the 2nd attachment). Then compare that with a typical projection of SLS launches, e.g., the second attachment. There's a world of difference between them. When NASA ordered 15 Saturn V's in 1962, it had a plan for each one of them. With SLS, the plan, even several years and $10+ billion in, is to launch every year or two with most payloads and missions TBD. It really does seem to be a rocket looking for missions. Even if missions are found, it hardly seems an efficient way of doing things, especially since all missions so far have been placed on SLS by legislative fiat.
Additionally, the Mars Exploration Program directed JPL to form an Orbiter Study Team toassess various technical options for a 2022 Orbiter and to work with NEX-SAG regardingpotential mission capabilities (item f above). Launch vehicles were directed to be in theFalcon 9/Atlas V class.
NASA has been studying the development of even more powerful SEP systems, with aview to their application for missions like ARRM. In this Exploration SEP option classthe spacecraft could carry a payload of mass 200-600 kg, powered by more than 5 kW.At the higher end of capabilities in this class, the payload mass can be used to provideenough fuel to bring the SEP-powered spacecraft out of low Mars orbit and to returnit to Earth vicinity. In that return option, the remote sensing payload would berestricted to ~150 kg and the Mars mission phase (including relay) would beterminated after ~5 years.
Ultra-high-resolution optical imaging (~5 cm/pixel) has great promise for science,resources, and reconnaissance objectives. This is the resolution that bridges the gapbetween the state of knowledge from orbital images, and knowledge from rover andlanded platforms. The challenges are for the size and mass of the optics and thedemands on the spacecraft for exceptional pointing and stability.
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 08/07/2016 03:23 pmDevelopment of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.I'm having a hard time thinking of a US launch vehicle that was developed with such an ill-defined need as SLS. Vanguard and Juno I, for example, were developed expressly for launching particular earth satellites. The Jupiter-, Thor-, Atlas- and Titan-based vehicles that succeeded them were developed in the knowledge that many payloads needed vehicles of such sizes. The Saturns IB and V had very specific Apollo payloads and missions. Just about every launch vehicle since -- Shuttle, Atlas variants, Delta IV, Falcon 9 -- has been aimed at an existing stream of payloads. Antares is different, but it nonetheless had a very clearly defined mission, namely ISS logistics.The one exception was the Saturn I, which was initially just a big first stage, with upper stages and payloads TBD. But even then, nobody doubted that a larger launch capability was needed, and the Saturn I soon had the Army's Advent communications satellite and Dyna-Soar as payloads. Today, on the other hand, there is no obvious need for an SLS-sized launch vehicle. Even if you regard the US government as being serious about sending humans to Mars, the need, much less desirability, of SLS has not been established. Nothing like the Apollo mode debate has occurred.The fact that politicians have written SLS's specs into law and have legally mandated its use for BEO HSF and for Europa only feed the impression that they're really more interested in the rocket than in missions for it.
SLS is specifically excluded for science missions by NASA management. That is the main reason there was none announced until congress stepped in. It is aggravating to read the NeMO study group state in one of their reports how they were directed to consider EELV class vehicles only and then go on to rule out possible mission goals due to mass or size constraints.
Payloads drive launch vehicle requirements. Any upgrades or new vehicles in the last 50 years have been driven by the needs of a payload. There was no build it and they will come.
Quote from: Khadgars on 08/08/2016 02:02 amCompletely agree. The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year. First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides. Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I. Then it was funding and political will.I, for one, have been consistently saying for years simply that its high cost means that it will likely never deliver much in the way of actual exploration. Using it for significant exploration would appear to require large budget increases that are unlikely.
Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished during a max two-term (eight-year) period? Can you name any President in the past 60 years who has proposed anything he knew could not be accomplished during his own Presidency?
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 08/09/2016 05:38 pmDo you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished during a max two-term (eight-year) period? Can you name any President in the past 60 years who has proposed anything he knew could not be accomplished during his own Presidency?Apollo - proposed in Kennedy's first term in office, and his goal was two years outside of his possible last term in office.Shuttle - formally commenced in 1972, the year Nixon was running for his 2nd term in office. No way anyone would have expected the Shuttle to start operational flights in just 4 years.The ISS - when Reagan proposed Space Station Freedom during his 1984 State of the Union Address, he could have only expected preliminary work to have been done on it before he left office.Constellation program - Bush proposed the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in 2004, just before his re-election. The goal was to return to the Moon 12 years after he left office.So yes, many Presidents have proposed efforts in space that would not have reached space until after their time in office had ended.