Author Topic: SLS capability touted for Europa Lander capability, Enceladus sample return  (Read 119651 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Liked: 7773
  • Likes Given: 2
Question for Blackstar and others:

If SLS is not a game changer for planetary studies then please speculate on what other technology or political factors might be a game changer.  From a taxpayer's perspective I agree that the decadal survey process and the competitive way teams go after missions works well.  But what factors would provide the most leverage in a more ambitious planetary exploration plan?  I realize more money is a big one.  But how would you spend it?

More ambitious being defined as:
Simultaneously flying: Europa/Jupiter orbiter, Titan boat, Uranus orbiter or the equivalent of these three missions

I hate the term "game changer." It's another one of those baloney-filled jargon words that NASA inherits from the military and that will disappear from the lexicon within a couple of years. That said, I think I know what you are getting at.

To jump ahead, there's no way that they're going to simultaneously fly those kinds of missions (actually, TiME, the "Titan boat," is a Discovery class mission, but they have to _prove_ that it can be built for that cost). A Europa mission and a Uranus mission would be flagship class, and as we have seen, NASA is having trouble affording _one_ of those at a time, let alone two.

If you look up the Launching Science report that I linked to earlier, there is a technology section there. There will also be an NRC report on technology roadmaps coming out soon, although I don't know what it will say.

The Launching Science report listed several important technologies for future space missions, and it looked for things that had the broadest applications. In other words, what technologies can you develop and use for multiple missions, rather than just one?

There are a few of these, but a couple that come to mind are aerocapture (i.e. using a heat shield to actually brake completely into orbit around a planet with an atmosphere, such as Venus, Mars, Titan, Neptune, etc.), and advanced electric propulsion.

Other important technologies include higher-capacity deep space communications (laser comm is really attractive, but poses some major challenges) and autonomous systems.

I am not saying that a heavy lift vehicle would not have its uses. It could be useful, and not only for planetary missions--the large diameter shroud enables large telescopes. But science missions are being squeezed, and the pressure on all of them is to find ways to do things smaller and cheaper than they are currently doing. A big rocket primarily enables more expensive missions.

As for political events that might change things? The obvious one would be finding signs of life (past or current) on Mars. That would result in an infusion of money to the planetary program. Another would be major exoplanet discoveries, which might result in an infusion of money into astrphysics. So really big discoveries can change the political equation. They have before.


Offline carolyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Sorry if this is somewhat changing the topic, or going back to an old topic, but I was asked by one of you to join this discussion, especially since I have been mentioned in it.  And so here I am.

From what I can glean from it, this is a typical internet melee, with folks talking over each other, conflating myriad issues, with one or two veiled ad hominem attacks thrown in for good measure.

So, let me say this:


1.  There are scientific issues and there are programmatic issues in discussing plans for spaceflight, and your discussion is conflating the two.  My OpEd from Feb 2007 was merely pointing out the obvious:  how the planetary exploration program would be vastly improved if we had a superior heavy launch capability.  The human flight program has severely suffered from not having such a vehicle, but I wanted to point out something that today's planetary scientists apparently don't often consider but what the older generation of planetary scientists has long lamented: the loss of the Saturn V and what the planetary exploration program might have looked like had we had that kind of capability to launch our spacecraft to remote destinations.

I also pointed out today's meager NASA budget compared to the Apollo-era budget and what we would need to really conduct such a planetary exploration program, which is not what we have now.

Was the vision I painted unrealistic, given today's budgets?  Of course it was.   But to have the kind of planetary program we oldsters long dreamed of, we would need advanced launch and propulsion capabilities.   And I"m glad that the article I was alerted to, about the SLS, mentioned those possibilities (maybe deriving from the vision I presented in my OpEd?) because they have all but been forgotten. The bottom line is:  We could do a LOT.



2.  Now I see my credentials have actually been called into question by someone named ugordon.  So, tell me urgordon, what are YOUR credentials?  Who are you?  For whom do you work?  Why should we even be listening to you at all?  Really...why don't you identify yourself.  Everyone knows who I am; it's only fair others don't hide behind false names.

As far as my credentials in mission design are concerned, other than teaching celestial mechanics for 10 years at the University of Arizona, I am indeed NOT a mission designer by trade.  However, I was the Vice-Chair of the Solar System Decadal Survey back in 2001/2, have sat on way too many NASA committees where mission designs were discussed, and I am quite familiar with the way these things go.  I also am the Co-Chair of the Enceladus Focus Group, and we have at every meeting a mission designer from JPL tell us what kind of missions are possible to return to and orbit Enceladus, and from there land on its surface.   Finally, in writing my OpEd, I communicated extensively with the mission designers at JPL.   And it was based on their work that I called out what kinds of payloads one could carry to, say, Saturn or Pluto if we had available to us the capability expected for the Ares V (and now, I presume, the SLS).

So, I know what I'm talking about and I rest my case.     

[Incidentally, Bob Pappalardo, a good friend of mine and a great guy, is no more an "authority" on mission designs than any other planetary scientist involved in spaceflight that I know.  He's of course very knowledgeable about, and an authority in, what JPL is considering for exploration of Europa.]



3.  About the present decadal survey, the main reason why it looks the way it does (as I've been told by its participants) is that the group was severely limited in budget and that was a big factor in determining the mission line-up.  Again (as is often the case), scientific priorities trumped by programmatic constraints, which has given us the feeble planetary program we have today.



4.  About missions in particular...I too agree it will be a long time before we see a Europa lander.  Europa was the highest priority flagship called out in the 2001/2 Decadal Survey -- and I personally promoted it heavily -- entirely because of its astrobiological potential.  BUT...we also stated in that Survey that the results from Cassini could change those plans, and in my mind, they have.   A far better, far easier target for investigating the possibility of an extraterrestrical habitable zone is Enceladus, where the operative word is `accessibility'.   Anything we would need to sample is being ejected out of its interior into space, and all we need to do is adequately sample that material, far preferably with an orbiter than eventually becomes a lander so we can conduct even more science, and we will have done what NASA has been claiming it wants to do for a long time now. It's even easier to do than at Mars. Getting rid of delta-V is the game in getting into orbit around Enceladus, and repeated flybys of moons like Titan and Rhea, the largest Saturnian moons, to bleed off delta-V make an Enceladus mission a real possibility.  [Absent in-situ analysis capability and prolonged investigation, I'm not a fan of a Sample Return mission.  But as an added feature of a full-blown Enceladus orbiter and/or lander mission, sample return would be ideal.  Again, though, ideal is in today's climate very likely not possible.]

I, in fact, have been invited by Jim Green to go speak to him about Enceladus science and will be leaving for DC tomorrow.

What will actually happen as far as mission line-ups go is probably anybody's guess, and I'll leave it to you folks to keep discussing it.  But right now, I gotta get back to work!

Cheers,
Carolyn Porco

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Welcome to NSF!
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 carolyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Oh, I forgot to add..... anyone who described me as someone who will `tow (sic) the party line' is completely ignorant of all facts in this matter, including proper use of that expression.  I have the reputation for being anything but, which makes this assertion laughable.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3540
  • Likes Given: 758
2.  Now I see my credentials have actually been called into question by someone named ugordon.  So, tell me urgordon, what are YOUR credentials?  Who are you?  For whom do you work?  Why should we even be listening to you at all?  Really...why don't you identify yourself.  Everyone knows who I am; it's only fair others don't hide behind false names.

What my credentials are is irrelevant to this discussion. No, you don't have to listen to a *single word* I say. I did not place a direct insult to you to warrant this reaction. I did not write an op-ed, but last time I checked I'm allowed to have an *opinion* on the matter and post it on a discussion board.

My comment re/ your credentials was a response to a poster who obviously wishes to see an anti-SLS conspiracy in anything posted here. I consider Bob Pappalardo a greater expert on the matter of Europa mission design than you. He's forced to work with what we have now, not contemplating Apollo level funding or past Apollo hardware. Any SLS vehicle that enters service in a decade will not operate at some idealistic funding levels so my point stands.

Oh, I forgot to add..... anyone who described me as someone who will `tow (sic) the party line' is completely ignorant of all facts in this matter, including proper use of that expression.  I have the reputation for being anything but, which makes this assertion laughable.

All fine and dandy, except for the part where you assume that was directed towards *you*. There are plenty of opposing camps on this forum and violent disagreement abounds. The party line here being that SLS will be the Best Thing Ever and anyone who thinks otherwise has an agenda.

You do get 10 points for attacking someone for imperfect spelling, even though English is not that person's first language. Looks like veiled ad hominems work both ways, right?
« Last Edit: 01/09/2012 05:18 pm by ugordan »

Offline Warren Platts

Sorry if this is somewhat changing the topic, or going back to an old topic, but I was asked by one of you to join this discussion, especially since I have been mentioned in it.  And so here I am.

From what I can glean from it, this is a typical internet melee, with folks talking over each other, conflating myriad issues, with one or two veiled ad hominem attacks thrown in for good measure.

So, let me say this:


1.  There are scientific issues and there are programmatic issues in discussing plans for spaceflight, and your discussion is conflating the two.  My OpEd from Feb 2007 was merely pointing out the obvious:  how the planetary exploration program would be vastly improved if we had a superior heavy launch capability.  The human flight program has severely suffered from not having such a vehicle, but I wanted to point out something that today's planetary scientists apparently don't often consider but what the older generation of planetary scientists has long lamented: the loss of the Saturn V and what the planetary exploration program might have looked like had we had that kind of capability to launch our spacecraft to remote destinations.

I also pointed out today's meager NASA budget compared to the Apollo-era budget and what we would need to really conduct such a planetary exploration program, which is not what we have now.

Was the vision I painted unrealistic, given today's budgets?  Of course it was.   But to have the kind of planetary program we oldsters long dreamed of, we would need advanced launch and propulsion capabilities.   And I"m glad that the article I was alerted to, about the SLS, mentioned those possibilities (maybe deriving from the vision I presented in my OpEd?) because they have all but been forgotten. The bottom line is:  We could do a LOT.



2.  Now I see my credentials have actually been called into question by someone named ugordon.  So, tell me urgordon, what are YOUR credentials?  Who are you?  For whom do you work?  Why should we even be listening to you at all?  Really...why don't you identify yourself.  Everyone knows who I am; it's only fair others don't hide behind false names.

As far as my credentials in mission design are concerned, other than teaching celestial mechanics for 10 years at the University of Arizona, I am indeed NOT a mission designer by trade.  However, I was the Vice-Chair of the Solar System Decadal Survey back in 2001/2, have sat on way too many NASA committees where mission designs were discussed, and I am quite familiar with the way these things go.  I also am the Co-Chair of the Enceladus Focus Group, and we have at every meeting a mission designer from JPL tell us what kind of missions are possible to return to and orbit Enceladus, and from there land on its surface.   Finally, in writing my OpEd, I communicated extensively with the mission designers at JPL.   And it was based on their work that I called out what kinds of payloads one could carry to, say, Saturn or Pluto if we had available to us the capability expected for the Ares V (and now, I presume, the SLS).

So, I know what I'm talking about and I rest my case.     

[Incidentally, Bob Pappalardo, a good friend of mine and a great guy, is no more an "authority" on mission designs than any other planetary scientist involved in spaceflight that I know.  He's of course very knowledgeable about, and an authority in, what JPL is considering for exploration of Europa.]



3.  About the present decadal survey, the main reason why it looks the way it does (as I've been told by its participants) is that the group was severely limited in budget and that was a big factor in determining the mission line-up.  Again (as is often the case), scientific priorities trumped by programmatic constraints, which has given us the feeble planetary program we have today.



4.  About missions in particular...I too agree it will be a long time before we see a Europa lander.  Europa was the highest priority flagship called out in the 2001/2 Decadal Survey -- and I personally promoted it heavily -- entirely because of its astrobiological potential.  BUT...we also stated in that Survey that the results from Cassini could change those plans, and in my mind, they have.   A far better, far easier target for investigating the possibility of an extraterrestrical habitable zone is Enceladus, where the operative word is `accessibility'.   Anything we would need to sample is being ejected out of its interior into space, and all we need to do is adequately sample that material, far preferably with an orbiter than eventually becomes a lander so we can conduct even more science, and we will have done what NASA has been claiming it wants to do for a long time now. It's even easier to do than at Mars. Getting rid of delta-V is the game in getting into orbit around Enceladus, and repeated flybys of moons like Titan and Rhea, the largest Saturnian moons, to bleed off delta-V make an Enceladus mission a real possibility.  [Absent in-situ analysis capability and prolonged investigation, I'm not a fan of a Sample Return mission.  But as an added feature of a full-blown Enceladus orbiter and/or lander mission, sample return would be ideal.  Again, though, ideal is in today's climate very likely not possible.]

I, in fact, have been invited by Jim Green to go speak to him about Enceladus science and will be leaving for DC tomorrow.

What will actually happen as far as mission line-ups go is probably anybody's guess, and I'll leave it to you folks to keep discussing it.  But right now, I gotta get back to work!

Cheers,
Carolyn Porco


You tell 'em Carolyn!! Awesome! ;D
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17256
  • Liked: 7111
  • Likes Given: 3061
Sorry if this is somewhat changing the topic, or going back to an old topic, but I was asked by one of you to join this discussion, especially since I have been mentioned in it.  And so here I am.

From what I can glean from it, this is a typical internet melee, with folks talking over each other, conflating myriad issues, with one or two veiled ad hominem attacks thrown in for good measure.

You have to understand that your op-ed in the N.Y. Times has been used by a number of pro-SLS, pro-Ares 5 and pro Direct persons in order to justify their large rocket. But the context that you have provided in your post above explains that this is not what you were trying to do. The comments in your post make it sound like you don't disagree with most of what Blackstar said in this thread. I get the impression that most planetary scientists agree with what Blackstar said in this thread.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2012 05:48 pm by yg1968 »

Offline carolyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Please summarize what BlackStar said in this thread; I do not have the time to digest all of it, by any means, and I don't want to say I agree or disagree until I know what the gist of his/her comments was.

And who is BlackStar?  I don't like debating folks when I don't even know who they are.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Please summarize what BlackStar said in this thread; I do not have the time to digest all of it, by any means, and I don't want to say I agree or disagree until I know what the gist of his/her comments was.

And who is BlackStar?  I don't like debating folks when I don't even know who they are.
BlackStar is Dwayne A. Day. From Wikipedia (our favorite of all sources, of course):
"Dwayne Allen Day is an American space historian and policy analyst and served as an investigator for the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

Day works for the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, where he has served as a study director on studies concerning NASA's planetary exploration program, the threat of asteroids striking Earth, NASA workforce skills, radiation hazards to astronauts on long duration spaceflights, and other projects. He has also written extensively on the history of American satellite reconnaissance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne_A._Day
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 carolyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Ok.  I did read over some of the comments.  Here's the scoop:

.  The missions and mission designs that planetary scientists consider are COMPLETELY determined by the types of rockets that are available.  So, yes, the capability of the rocket DOES come before the mission design and the payload determination.  It is only because a large rocket doesn't currently exist and funding is woefully tight that missions need to use the smallest rocket possible (to preserve capital for the payload).  In this sense, what BlackStar says is true:  Planetary scientists want cheap rockets.   

.  BUT....if there were a large rocket available and finances to boot, it would be a game changer in the planetary exploration program.  And so, to discuss what could be done with such a rocket is a GOOD thing to do and to keep doing, in my opinion, because it keeps our sights on what could and would be possible.  That's why I wrote my OpEd: to remind everyone of what we might be doing if we would commit to it. 

In short, 'tis true you don't need a Boeing 787 to get from NY to LA; you can use a horse and buggy instead.  But you can do so much more and get there so much faster if you DID have a 787. 

Bottom line:  If we want a vigorous planetary exploration program, which we don't have now because the political will, and therefore the finances, are not there, we could really use a heavy launch vehicle. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Why hasn't the Delta IV Heavy been used for planetary missions, then?
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 carolyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Why hasn't the Delta IV Heavy been used for planetary missions, then?

As I said, to preserve limited capital for payloads.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

Ok.  I did read over some of the comments.  Here's the scoop:

.  The missions and mission designs that planetary scientists consider are COMPLETELY determined by the types of rockets that are available.  So, yes, the capability of the rocket DOES come before the mission design and the payload determination.  It is only because a large rocket doesn't currently exist and funding is woefully tight that missions need to use the smallest rocket possible (to preserve capital for the payload).  In this sense, what BlackStar says is true:  Planetary scientists want cheap rockets.   

.  BUT....if there were a large rocket available and finances to boot, it would be a game changer in the planetary exploration program.  And so, to discuss what could be done with such a rocket is a GOOD thing to do and to keep doing, in my opinion, because it keeps our sights on what could and would be possible.  That's why I wrote my OpEd: to remind everyone of what we might be doing if we would commit to it. 

In short, 'tis true you don't need a Boeing 787 to get from NY to LA; you can use a horse and buggy instead.  But you can do so much more and get there so much faster if you DID have a 787. 

Bottom line:  If we want a vigorous planetary exploration program, which we don't have now because the political will, and therefore the finances, are not there, we could really use a heavy launch vehicle. 


And everyone wants a pony too.  If we have an SST we could go even faster from LA to NY.  Even I could say if I had a bigger pickup truck and more money, I could buy more things to carry in it.

There isn't the finances nor a rocket for battlestar type spacecraft, so the point is moot.  There are higher national priorities than a "vigorous"* planetary exploration program. 

* "vigorous" planetary exploration program is a matter for debate, some might say that the last 15 years were more vigorous than the previous 15 years.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Why hasn't the Delta IV Heavy been used for planetary missions, then?

As I said, to preserve limited capital for payloads.
Okay, so how in heck would pursuing a $XX billion development effort for SLS based on arguments like in your op-ed in spite of a flat NASA budget help the situation at all?

It sounds to me like it'd make the situation much worse instead of better. And either the planetary mission has to pay for it or another part of NASA (which has seen effectively a flat budget, especially under the Congress which supposedly supports SLS so much that they are lowering NASA's budget compared to the PBR to pay for it) is effectively acting as a completely subsidized launch provider for government payloads. This would also act to effectively increase the cost of launches for smaller missions which wouldn't use SLS.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2012 07:39 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 Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
carolyn,

Welcome to the site and I hope you decide to stick around.  Overall it is a good place.  There are those, many of whom have posted on this thread, that simply hate SLS, or the possibility of it, and want to try and discredit the potential launch vehicle at any given point.

First it was to support "pork".
Then it was there is no "competition".
Then it was "everything should be launched via ULA and SpaceX"
Then it was "no payloads"

The list could go but the pattern is that the anti-SLS argument always changes to fit the angle necessary to attack.  These posters will also go after you personally, so you know, in order to try to classify you as something you are likely not in order to score, what they deem as, "internet political points" for like-minded individuals also on the internet.

We don't hate other launch vehicles, contrary to the myth that some like to advance.  We believe we know how to make it as efficent as possible and we are not in it for a "jobs program".  The reality is we (the mainstream and those of us in the industry) all know this is a chicken-and-egg scenario.  That with the capability the potential LV gives, certain things, like your theoretical planetary missions, could take advantage of it.  We also know the budget is tight and politics, like those the anti-SLS-supposed-"space community" like to tout is a danger. 

For those of us that see potential in SLS, if and when it happens, and are not concerned about what certain "others" like to portray.  You are not alone here, just take the "hate" for what it is and be advised that any thread that mentions SLS will have the arm-wavers.  I salute you that you are willing to discuss some of the potential uses if and when it does become reality. 
« Last Edit: 01/09/2012 07:35 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Why hasn't the Delta IV Heavy been used for planetary missions, then?

As I said, to preserve limited capital for payloads.
Okay, so let's increase NASA's budget!
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 baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8267
Bottom line:  If we want a vigorous planetary exploration program, which we don't have now because the political will, and therefore the finances, are not there, we could really use a heavy launch vehicle. 
You are currently doing what, 80% to 90% of all the BEO science that's being done. How can you characterize your exploration program as less than vigorous? Don't lose perspective! I wish my country had done a mission higher than LEO, think about your currently runing and planned missions!
The G8 are in a very difficult economic crisis. You are very lucky that NASA's budget wasn't wiped. That's means a lot of respect for your science program. Most countries in the world would have kept the bare minimum of civil servants and only doing studies. Yet, NASA got what, an 8% budget reduction?
May be you want to say that it's worth to actually discuss now the possibilities now, for the day the economy improves again. If so, I would love to hear what you think about the work done for Constellation, which is very similar to SLS. The study was pointed out by Blackstar and can be found here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12554.html
I personally think that a small group should still keep thinking about it. I love the 8m ATLAS idea, for example. And looking at the projected 7.5m EDS that are in development, it might be worth to put the word for the the science people to get some requirements there. But I wouldn't go farther than there. The study showed that it would be a multi billion mission in any case. And I doubt your Congress would allow anything like that for at least five years. So, serious studies and getting synergies with the human exploration people would be what I would expect to see this sort of proposals.

Offline carolyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Why hasn't the Delta IV Heavy been used for planetary missions, then?

As I said, to preserve limited capital for payloads.
Okay, so how in heck would pursuing a $XX billion development effort for SLS based on arguments like in your op-ed in spite of a flat NASA budget help the situation at all?

It sounds to me like it'd make the situation much worse instead of better. And either the planetary mission has to pay for it or another part of NASA (which has seen effectively a flat budget, especially under the Congress which supposedly supports SLS so much that they are lowering NASA's budget compared to the PBR to pay for it) is effectively acting as a completely subsidized launch provider for government payloads. This would also act to effectively increase the cost of launches for smaller missions which wouldn't use SLS.

Well, the human spaceflight program needs such a rocket. So, if we wish to have a far-reaching human spaceflight program worthy of the US name, such a rocket will likely have to be built.  If the space program became inspirational again, in the way it was when I was a kid, it just might engender enough public support to admit larger budgets and more capable (and exciting) missions, both human-piloted and robotic. 

Now, I really do need to sign off.  Nice conversing with you!

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 8708
  • Likes Given: 98

And it really is too bad that a group of about 4 particular senators seem to think the human spaceflight program is their own private source of pork rather than something for the scientists to direct.  It is also pretty pathetic that a certain group of legislators believe they can simply legislate climate change out of existence and prohibit NASA from studying it. Extremist politicians *@^&!>#<%/$ grrrrrr. Sorry, end rant.

To coin Blackstar, don't believe what you read in op-eds.....because the above reads like one of those "Senate Launch System" keyboard bashing episodes. Let's keep the thread out of the gutter.

To expand - given it needs stating again - the Senate Bill (S. 3729) - which reversed FY2011 budget proposal was passed by a vote ratio of 3:1. The "four Senators" (I assume Sen. Nelson and Sen. Hutchison etc.) Did NOT design SLS, they provided documented notes of guidance based on what they were told would work best.

And the "we could do everything with medium launchers" is a valid argument, but lost at the RACs (documented) - to which there are (opinionated) claims that was fixed, but I'm yet to see any evidence of that.

Now people are entitled to voice opinions that they'd rather NASA remained in LEO and studied "Climate Change" (Earth Observation), or wish to see SLS scrapped, hoping the funding would be diverted into other programs (when that is claimed to be wishful thinking/doubtful). However - despite knowing very little about politics - even I know other branches of NASA wish they had the HSF budget, we've seen it around Shuttle, and now SLS is the new target.

I'd claim we're seeing raise its head here, and no amount of shouting or ranting is going to change that. So let's keep this focused on THESE missions outlined in the Con Ops, because that was all a valid and interesting conversation from both sides of the fence.

Good post. This thread's a wild one!

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 8708
  • Likes Given: 98
I was a study director on the decadal survey, involved in the entire process.

Well at least that explains why you have this "my way or the highway" approach to this topic.

Tags:
 

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