Kill The Space Launch System To Save Human Spaceflight>
Thought you supported SLS Chris?
If they killed SLS, they probably wouldn’t save the 10 Billion, it would be probably be cut from NASA’s annual budget (3 Billion so called annual savings) therefore no net gain... Nonsensical but that’s politics...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 04/04/2013 12:39 amIf they killed SLS, they probably wouldn’t save the 10 Billion, it would be probably be cut from NASA’s annual budget (3 Billion so called annual savings) therefore no net gain... Nonsensical but that’s politics...Let's say SLS is junk and should be cut.. you don't have to agree, just assume it for a moment. Let's also assume that cutting SLS will result in some annual reduction in NASA's top line budget. In this situation, are you saying SLS shouldn't be cut? Taking the question more broadly, can nothing be cut if to do so would be a threat to NASA's top line budget?To put it more bluntly: is it better for NASA to waste money than to not get it at all?
That's an argument an anti-NASA person would use, but as an American I don't consider NASA to be wasting any money.
Quote from: KEdward5 on 04/04/2013 01:13 amThat's an argument an anti-NASA person would use, but as an American I don't consider NASA to be wasting any money."anti-NASA" is a label used by pro-NASA people. If you think NASA can do no wrong, even when instructed by Congress to do obviously wrong things, then you've already ruled out any rational conversation on the subject.
I never heard of Peter A Wilson before but I think this is himhttp://www.rand.org/about/people/w/wilson_peter_a.html
Anyone remember all the “happy talk” that we needed to stop flying the Shuttle in order to fund SLS?
Wonder why he's got involved - and why AW game him an op-ed slot. (No disrespect intended, but we can all publish someone like him and get vastly different responses).
QuantumG: Even wasting money is still worth it when you're talking about keeping job skills crucial for national security and when the fiscal multiplier is greater than 1 (which, according to the IMF, it is... especially in areas of Florida with high unemployment). Of course, this will be rejected out of hand, but it's the truth.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/04/2013 03:24 amQuantumG: Even wasting money is still worth it when you're talking about keeping job skills crucial for national security and when the fiscal multiplier is greater than 1 (which, according to the IMF, it is... especially in areas of Florida with high unemployment). Of course, this will be rejected out of hand, but it's the truth. No.. what I'm rejecting out of hand is your failure to accept conditional arguments. The question was about whether it is ever okay to cut NASA's top line budget. Not an invitation for you to bore us with Keynesian economics again.
Keynes is bunk anyway.What's needed is some Schumpeter style creative destruction. Those engineers can be doing useful things elsewhere.
Quote from: Lar on 04/04/2013 04:04 amKeynes is bunk anyway.What's needed is some Schumpeter style creative destruction. Those engineers can be doing useful things elsewhere.But Lar, he said "national security". National security! National security. It's not just the root password to the constitution, ya know? It also buys you a free pass on economics, budget deficits, common sense... the list is endless. One day those engineers working at MSFC will be called upon to, umm, ahh, launch something for the DoD? That's my guess anyway. I'm not exactly sure what national security need they're serving, it's probably secret anyway, but clearly they need a make work project to keep them fed or they might go learn a marketable skill.. then there will be no-one to launch the missiles or whatever. It's not that it's a horrible argument that makes no sense, it's just that we're not cleared to know all the details.. also, Inspiration. It's about the kids. Anyway, cancel SLS and it will be the end of human spaceflight - ya know, like the retirement of the Shuttle was? - and you like human spaceflight, don't ya? A penny for NASA, that's all we're asking.
Let's bring it around though. You and I know SLS needs to go.
Surely Pete Wilson knows it too. So why'd he sacrifice what remains of his career this way?
I'm apathetic to how exactly NASA wastes their budget.
Right, I think this is back on topic, ish.It's still got me wondering if it'll last when some people put stock into a short op-ed from someone we all had to google to work out who he is...
I actually like this thread. It reassures me there is no concise argument behind killing SLS, a wish from such people who seem more concerned with budget funding than future accomplishments, yet support a move that would cost and lose billions of dollars.Irony.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/04/2013 05:33 amRight, I think this is back on topic, ish.It's still got me wondering if it'll last when some people put stock into a short op-ed from someone we all had to google to work out who he is...So the upshot is... (my prediction) this oped will cause a (very[1]) minor ripple. Some outraged comments will be posted in various places. RAND might reassign him to less fun stuff. No other change in anything.1 - only places like here which, lets face it, are great sources of info but not a lot of influence...
I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying.
Hmm.My first thought was "Ugg, here we go again".My second thought was "Save $10 billion? Is that before or after they have to pay up the contracts with Boeing and such - then pay off thousands (?) of people they would need to fire from the Program, etc?"
Quote from: Rocket Science on 04/04/2013 01:59 amAnyone remember all the “happy talk” that we needed to stop flying the Shuttle in order to fund SLS?I don't... probably because there was no such happy talk.By the time SLS was introduced (NASA Authorization Act of 2010, in the summer), ending the shuttle was already a fait accompli; there was no longer a choice whether to keep flying it or not.Perhaps you have confused SLS with its predecessor, Ares.Quote What happened to those savings?Some went to SLS, some to Orion, as Chris stated.Some went to ISS (Shuttle was basically absorbing some of the overhead of running Mission Control and other facilities, and those costs were absorbed by ISS since it's the only "active" program using those facilities).Some went to Commercial Crew.And some was used to reduce NASA's budget (it's lower, by several hundred million dollars, than it was when shuttle was flying).
What happened to those savings?
Quote from: KEdward5 on 04/04/2013 01:13 amThat's an argument an anti-NASA person would use, but as an American I don't consider NASA to be wasting any money.Of course they are wasting money. Every organization does. The problem is that NASA is hemorrhaging money on a vehicle that has no certainly of ever actually flying...The real answer is to give Human Spaceflight a big new mission which is *explicitly* not tied to a particular launch vehicle. An example would an L2 station, but there are others. Once you set that mission, then the requirements will follow. If SLS is needed to fill those requirements, so be it. But if not, cancel it. The point is to be focused on the mission as the product, not the Shuttle mentality of the launch vehicle as product.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/04/2013 12:20 amHmm.My first thought was "Ugg, here we go again".My second thought was "Save $10 billion? Is that before or after they have to pay up the contracts with Boeing and such - then pay off thousands (?) of people they would need to fire from the Program, etc?"Chris,if you remember when NASA was slow-walking CxP, Gen Bolden announced that the contractors had to keep enough reserves from money already received to cover any costs if the programme got cancelled. Can't find an article about that, unfortunately.Caused a major slow-down on CxP work at the time. (And some hassle to other programmes like JWST, IIRC.)ISTM that the same would apply today.cheers, Martin
Quote from: Jorge on 04/04/2013 02:20 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 04/04/2013 01:59 amAnyone remember all the “happy talk” that we needed to stop flying the Shuttle in order to fund SLS?I don't... probably because there was no such happy talk.By the time SLS was introduced (NASA Authorization Act of 2010, in the summer), ending the shuttle was already a fait accompli; there was no longer a choice whether to keep flying it or not.Perhaps you have confused SLS with its predecessor, Ares.Quote What happened to those savings?Some went to SLS, some to Orion, as Chris stated.Some went to ISS (Shuttle was basically absorbing some of the overhead of running Mission Control and other facilities, and those costs were absorbed by ISS since it's the only "active" program using those facilities).Some went to Commercial Crew.And some was used to reduce NASA's budget (it's lower, by several hundred million dollars, than it was when shuttle was flying).Hey Jorge,Yup, sometime SLS gets blurred in my corrupt memory files with Ares V... I seem to recall during Augustine that the discussion was along those lines that an increase in NASA funding was required to extend the last Shuttle flights and continue developing a new launch vehicle and Orion. NASA couldn’t afford both. Others have mentioned on NSF the question what happened to the savings of no longer flying Shuttle over the past couple of years, but let’s stay on topic I guess... Bottom line is I don’t see savings to be derived form canceling SLS, but a smaller-flying-sooner and at a higher flight rate as an investment if commercial cannot fill the void. Please feel free to correct any recollection of facts as there were so many convolutions from CxP to SLS... Memory fails at times... (Edit to add: I think the “happy talk” came via the WH about saving from ending Shuttle, CxP , Orion (which became MPCV)and going into R&D and future tech) Once again feel free...
Quote from: MP99 on 04/04/2013 06:47 amQuote from: Chris Bergin on 04/04/2013 12:20 amHmm.My first thought was "Ugg, here we go again".My second thought was "Save $10 billion? Is that before or after they have to pay up the contracts with Boeing and such - then pay off thousands (?) of people they would need to fire from the Program, etc?"Chris,if you remember when NASA was slow-walking CxP, Gen Bolden announced that the contractors had to keep enough reserves from money already received to cover any costs if the programme got cancelled. Can't find an article about that, unfortunately.Caused a major slow-down on CxP work at the time. (And some hassle to other programmes like JWST, IIRC.)ISTM that the same would apply today.cheers, MartinIt's a bit fuzzy, but I remember watching a Senate webcast where they spoke of lots of money to pay the contracts off.....and again, when the new plan came in, they said they transfered the contracts over?Yeah, we need some articles or documentation to nail that down.And I forgot all about the thread where we all get to realign the forward plan (in a "this is a fun exercise, not a "We know better than NASA" style). I'll do that today.
...After the President proposed canceling the Constellation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA reported that the agency's costs associated with terminating the various Constellation program contracts could reach close to $1 billion. As we reported previously, responsibility for these potential costs became an issue between NASA and its Constellation contractors. The questions about responsibility for potential termination liability costs, coupled with the Constellation program's constrained budget profile, led to disruption in work activities at some contractors. Because of these questions regarding responsibility for potential termination liability costs and the impact they could have on NASA's ability to execute its projects effectively, Congress asked us to assess NASA's policies and practices pertaining to the management and funding of contract termination liability, as well as interactions between the agency and its contractors related to termination liability.NASA's policy on management and funding of contract termination liability is to rely on the FAR's limitation of funds or limitation of cost clauses, which act as a mechanism to limit the government's liability in the event of a contract termination to the amount of funds currently allotted to a contract. ...
I said in 2011 that if you cut funds, they wont come back in another form. I was told I was wrong. I was not.
Quote from: Lar on 04/04/2013 05:44 amI'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying.I was going to say something similar about every post you've made on this thread! So where are you all going to find the money, which will be several billion, to cancel SLS?
Give SLS a purpose; some missions!1: EML-2 Station. 2: Near Earth Asteroid. 3: The moons of Mars. There! Simple, really. After that? Crews to the Lunar Poles, the Sands of Mars and drilling into Ceres...
Simply put, the SLS program should be canceled now to free up approximately $10 billion programmed for this decade. This money could then be redirected to continue the planned flight tests of the Orion spacecraft with the much lower-cost Falcon Heavy booster while making a robust investment in a first-generation space station in the vicinity of the Moon. An investment in such a cislunar station would provide—by the early 2020s—a multifunctional platform to act as a fuel depot, a workstation for robotic operations on the Moon and a habitat to protect against the more intense radiation environment outside of the Earth's magnetic field. This station could even be used as a habitat during longer-duration human missions to an asteroid and eventually to Mars.
My first thought was "Ugg, here we go again".My second thought was "Save $10 billion?My third thought ...
Without a credible long-duration human mission, this space transportation system could end up mothballed, possibly well before that first manned flight planned for 2021.
the Falcon Heavy with its payload to LEO of more than 50 tons is now a much lower-cost alternative than the SLS.
This money could then be redirected to continue the planned flight tests of the Orion spacecraft with the much lower-cost Falcon Heavy booster while making a robust investment in a first-generation space station in the vicinity of the Moon.
Ah, this looks relevant: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-609R (click for full text):-Quote...After the President proposed canceling the Constellation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA reported that the agency's costs associated with terminating the various Constellation program contracts could reach close to $1 billion. As we reported previously, responsibility for these potential costs became an issue between NASA and its Constellation contractors. The questions about responsibility for potential termination liability costs, coupled with the Constellation program's constrained budget profile, led to disruption in work activities at some contractors. Because of these questions regarding responsibility for potential termination liability costs and the impact they could have on NASA's ability to execute its projects effectively, Congress asked us to assess NASA's policies and practices pertaining to the management and funding of contract termination liability, as well as interactions between the agency and its contractors related to termination liability.NASA's policy on management and funding of contract termination liability is to rely on the FAR's limitation of funds or limitation of cost clauses, which act as a mechanism to limit the government's liability in the event of a contract termination to the amount of funds currently allotted to a contract. ...(My bold)cheers, Martin
Ah, this looks relevant: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-609R (click for full text):-Quote...After the President proposed canceling the Constellation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA reported that the agency's costs associated with terminating the various Constellation program contracts could reach close to $1 billion.
...After the President proposed canceling the Constellation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA reported that the agency's costs associated with terminating the various Constellation program contracts could reach close to $1 billion.
The Committee used the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to investigate the possibility of an essentially commercial acquisition of the required heavy-launch capability by a small NASA organization similar to a system program office in the Department of Defense. It would eliminate somewhat the historic carrying cost of many Apollo- and Shuttle-era facilities and systems. This creates the possibility of substantially reduced operating costs, which may ultimately allow NASA to escape its conundrum of not having sufficient resources to both operate existing systems and build a new one.However, this efficiency of operations would require significant near-term realignment of NASA. Substantial reductions in workforce, facilities closures, and mothballing would be required. When the Committee asked NASA to assess the cost of this process, the estimates ranged from $3 billion to $11 billion over five years.
Quote from: MP99 on 04/04/2013 11:53 amAh, this looks relevant: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-609R (click for full text):-Quote...After the President proposed canceling the Constellation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA reported that the agency's costs associated with terminating the various Constellation program contracts could reach close to $1 billion. As we reported previously, responsibility for these potential costs became an issue between NASA and its Constellation contractors. The questions about responsibility for potential termination liability costs, coupled with the Constellation program's constrained budget profile, led to disruption in work activities at some contractors. Because of these questions regarding responsibility for potential termination liability costs and the impact they could have on NASA's ability to execute its projects effectively, Congress asked us to assess NASA's policies and practices pertaining to the management and funding of contract termination liability, as well as interactions between the agency and its contractors related to termination liability.NASA's policy on management and funding of contract termination liability is to rely on the FAR's limitation of funds or limitation of cost clauses, which act as a mechanism to limit the government's liability in the event of a contract termination to the amount of funds currently allotted to a contract. ...(My bold)cheers, MartinIt sure is relevant.And BTW, we have been carrying TL for SLS, Orion, and GSDO moving forward since then. CFO and others have been adamant that we not put the agency in an untenable position again. Obviously the Programs have resisted, it means carrying money they can not spend. That and they have to actually have track it which means a half decent financial control system...Put simply, we are in a much better position regarding TL. Should the day come, it is my understanding that the agreements are in place and the money is there. Whether or not that holds true, or vanishes in a puff of smoke the day before the press release...my crystal ball isn't that good.Also, we were supposed to have a hearing on TL earlier this year, we never did. but we have 2 on neo's...surprised? i wasn't...congress and the people are fickle and more inclined to talk about shiny objects than substance.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 04/04/2013 11:51 amGive SLS a purpose; some missions!1: EML-2 Station. 2: Near Earth Asteroid. 3: The moons of Mars. There! Simple, really. After that? Crews to the Lunar Poles, the Sands of Mars and drilling into Ceres...As simonbp and JBF have said above, wouldn't it be better to choose (and fund) the mission, and then decide whether using SLS is the best way to accomplish it?
Thanks to DaveKlinger:"Regarding termination liability, search for the phrase in this May 2010 Senate testimony. There are some misconceptions in some of the posts.http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg66487/html/CHRG-111shrg66487.htm "
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 04/04/2013 11:51 amI said in 2011 that if you cut funds, they wont come back in another form. I was told I was wrong. I was not. You're still wrong. The minor cuts that followed Shuttle were more than made up in later programs. NASA's budget is flat and has been for decades. Your claim is that cutting X will be the end of human spaceflight where X = whatever the current boondoggle is. The cut inevitably comes, human spaceflight doesn't end.
RAND...for a "think tank", I've seen very little evidence of actual thought behind anything they've ever said.
And I know Human Spaceflight hasn't ended, for heavens sake man - it may never end (China, Commercial space stations: someday, if ever). But in the current budget environment, ISS wont be extended after 2020. What will Russia do then? Build another Mir?
Quote from: Lee Jay on 04/04/2013 07:00 pmRAND...for a "think tank", I've seen very little evidence of actual thought behind anything they've ever said.Certainly not lately...
Quote from: Proponent on 04/04/2013 05:49 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 04/04/2013 11:51 amGive SLS a purpose; some missions!1: EML-2 Station. 2: Near Earth Asteroid. 3: The moons of Mars. There! Simple, really. After that? Crews to the Lunar Poles, the Sands of Mars and drilling into Ceres...As simonbp and JBF have said above, wouldn't it be better to choose (and fund) the mission, and then decide whether using SLS is the best way to accomplish it? And if it turns out you need SLS for that one particular mission, you have to delay it for 7 or 8 years while you develop SLS? No funding will survive that long a delay or bear the added cost. For the last 30 years, people have been proposing 1, 2, 3, etc. And every time someone says "no you can't do that, we don't have a HLV anymore". Maybe these missions can be done without HLV. It doesn't matter if they can. As long as there's a reasonable doubt, the objectors can and have stopped all such projects. Think of SLS as a rather expensive counter argument. Once you have it, every thing is more plausible, whether you use it or not. Of course if you do have it and are paying to maintain the capacity, the marginal cost of using it will often be far less than the alternatives, so you'll probably use it.
Question 13. What specific analysis is behind the $2.5B Constellation Program termination cost figure in the FY 2011 Budget Request for FY 2011 and FY 2012? To what specific uses will those funds be applied? Answer. The FY 2011 budget request transitions away from the Constellation Program, and in doing so, provides a total of $2.5 billion in FY 2011 and FY 2012 for Constellation closeout and transition costs--funding that is expected to cover closeout activity associated with facilities, environmental remediation, workforce, and prime and support contracts. A portion of this funding will also be used to support the retraining of Shuttle program contractors as that program is brought to a successful close. It should be noted, however, that at present, the breakdown of costs is not complete. The Agency is using the current budget planning activities to develop the details; and an implementation plan and coordinated communications with NASA responsible offices and current Constellation contractors are required to further refine this estimate, which is consistent with past planning experience and cost estimation for the Space Shuttle Transition and Retirement. NASA's experience with close-out of the Shuttle program will serve as a useful reference for the complexity of the tasks and the potential associated costs.
SLS is extremely poor value but it's a path to a launch vehicle that works.
The slip to the end of the year is in part related to an issue with the aft segment of the QM-1, which was found to have about a two foot-wide area where propellant had debonded from the inside of the segment wall.After some analysis – which found no voids in the actual propellant – NASA decided to ask ATK to scrap the segment and cast a replacement.
Ares had problems that posters were pointing out on these forums that NASA didn't acknowledge.
SLS/Orion has been open and honest about any issues they've had.
Quote from: spectre9 on 04/05/2013 11:55 pmAres had problems that posters were pointing out on these forums that NASA didn't acknowledge.So does SLS.QuoteSLS/Orion has been open and honest about any issues they've had.Wow, you're so easily placated.
Wow, you're so easily placated.
You make an accusation of SLS problems we don't know about, without mentioning any of them and then act sarcastically to someone who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories.That reflects very poorly on yourself and was probably not worth posting.
MSFC, Boeing, ATK & MAF will produce the world's next heavy lift rocket.
What will [SLS's] lifetime be? What missions will it fly? Who cares, NASA knows they need payloads and they're leaving plenty of time to build those payloads.
If SLS is cancelled they can still use it to build another station...
That's a good point. Not that it would ever happen, but there could be a massive 50,000 post petition thread where everyone posts in support of scrapping SLS.... and it would have zero influence.<snip>
Falcon Heavy is a disruptive development. Until it actually exists it's not an alternative. I will treat all FH based proposals as pure fantasy until SpaceX sorts out their development and operations for such a large launch vehicle.SLS is still the best path forward today.Skylab II, Gateway station, Fast track Europa mission are all good options for SLS.If a lunar lander is funded of course NASA can then visit a lunar pole. SLS can then evolve to support NEA/Mars missions.Even SpaceX doesn't think FH is big enough. They wouldn't be considering a 7m+ core MCT if they did.
Quote from: QuantumG on 04/05/2013 11:59 pmWow, you're so easily placated.SLS is doing well for a program with a limited budget and extreme public scrutiny.I'm not so trusting of commercial spaceflight that I think NASA doesn't need their own launch system.If you agree with Mike Griffin about anything is your opinion tainted?
Quote from: Proponent on 04/04/2013 05:49 pmAs simonbp and JBF have said above, wouldn't it be better to choose (and fund) the mission, and then decide whether using SLS is the best way to accomplish it? And if it turns out you need SLS for that one particular mission, you have to delay it for 7 or 8 years while you develop SLS? No funding will survive that long a delay or bear the added cost.
As simonbp and JBF have said above, wouldn't it be better to choose (and fund) the mission, and then decide whether using SLS is the best way to accomplish it?
For the last 30 years, people have been proposing 1, 2, 3, etc. And every time someone says "no you can't do that, we don't have a HLV anymore".
Maybe these missions can be done without HLV. It doesn't matter if they can. As long as there's a reasonable doubt, the objectors can and have stopped all such projects.
Think of SLS as a rather expensive counter argument. Once you have it, every thing is more plausible, whether you use it or not. Of course if you do have it and are paying to maintain the capacity, the marginal cost of using it will often be far less than the alternatives, so you'll probably use it.
FH flies long before SLS ever does - wager?FH is big enough - fuel depotsFH is the more fiscally responsibleYou cannot come on this board and tell me the engineers at MSFC and JSC are so stupid they could not build a mission using multiple FH launches. They could......privately some have.All in a much quicker time frame and on much sounder economic footing.No one can even tell me one payload that will fly on SLS. There is ZERO funding for payloads and missions. We have to build the rocket first... kind of like we have to pass the bill before we see whats in it.VRRE327
It is theoretically possible that NASA is "leaving" plenty of time to develop payloads. The word "leaving", if true, would be clearly indicative of NASA's intention, as if to suggest that this was the plan all along.That doesn't seem likely.
Quote from: SpectreIf SLS is cancelled they can still use it to build another station...You're going to have to tighten up on grammar and logic; this makes no sense whatsoever. If they should cancel the rocket, how they can still use it?Not sure what you're driving at.
Really?Fine. Give SLS/Orion and commercial the same amount and look what will happen.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/06/2013 01:16 pmQuote from: SpectreIf SLS is cancelled they can still use it to build another station...You're going to have to tighten up on grammar and logic; this makes no sense whatsoever. If they should cancel the rocket, how they can still use it?Not sure what you're driving at.NASA had the option to launch a large space station the last time they had one spare and that was after Saturn V was cancelled. Of course SLS will not fly anything if it's cancelled in development, that's sort of given. I'm not going to type out monster article style posts so everybody can follow everything I'm saying without any prior knowledge. That would be a waste of space, I hate the posters that do that which is why I try to be concise.
Dear JohnThanks for your insightful commentary on my posting.I'm sorry you're still confused as to what I was trying to say.I mean if SLS is produced, not cancelled in development then not used for exploration because the whole BEO architecture doesn't appear.Please accept my apologies for my poorly worded rantings and thanks for your response.Yours sincerely,Stephen
Ha, finally a 'Dear John' letter, er post.
...Please accept my apologies ...
Quote from: spectre9 on 04/05/2013 08:41 pmSLS is extremely poor value but it's a path to a launch vehicle that works.Not everyone agrees with that statement.. nor does history."Ares is extremely poor value but it's a path to a launch vehicle that works." - Mike Griffin (paraphrasing)
Quote from: spectre9 on 04/04/2013 06:29 amFalcon Heavy is a disruptive development. Until it actually exists it's not an alternative. I will treat all FH based proposals as pure fantasy until SpaceX sorts out their development and operations for such a large launch vehicle.SLS is still the best path forward today.Even SpaceX doesn't think FH is big enough. They wouldn't be considering a 7m+ core MCT if they did.FH is big enough - fuel depotsFH is the more fiscally responsibleYou cannot come on this board and tell me the engineers at MSFC and JSC are so stupid they could not build a mission using multiple FH launches. They could......privately some have.All in a much quicker time frame and on much sounder economic footing.No one can even tell me one payload that will fly on SLS. There is ZERO funding for payloads and missions. We have to build the rocket first... kind of like we have to pass the bill before we see whats in it.
Falcon Heavy is a disruptive development. Until it actually exists it's not an alternative. I will treat all FH based proposals as pure fantasy until SpaceX sorts out their development and operations for such a large launch vehicle.SLS is still the best path forward today.Even SpaceX doesn't think FH is big enough. They wouldn't be considering a 7m+ core MCT if they did.
1) There are some people who think that NASA shouldn't be building launch vehicles when there are several suitable commercial launch vehicles which launch defense and commercial payloads already and for a pretty low cost (compared to cost of NASA developing its own independent capability).2) There are some people who think NASA should not develop its own launch vehicle no matter what the price in the private sector is.3) There are also some people who think SLS as is designed is unnecessary given the launch rate.4) There are some people who like SLS but think that the money would be more appropriately spent on other aspects, such as HSF payloads, before we start spending a lot of money on a new big launch vehicle.
5) There are some people who accept SLS as a potentially valuable LV, but who continue to point out that LV(s) need be no larger than seventy 25 tons to LEO in its initial configuration [to go to the moon twice a year or Mars every other year, which were the goals of the Constellation program]This fifth viewpoint could lead to a sustainable US HSF program for the next few decades
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/05/2013 12:51 pm5) There are some people who accept SLS as a potentially valuable LV, but who continue to point out that LV(s) need be no larger than seventy 25 tons to LEO in its initial configuration [to go to the moon twice a year or Mars every other year, which were the goals of the Constellation program]This fifth viewpoint could lead to a sustainable US HSF program for the next few decadesa few edits to 5)
9) There's no reason that we could build a cis-lunar infrastructure with 25 ton to LEO launch capability. Should that infrastructure prove to be a profitable economic sphere, the throw weights of the launch vehicles would increase in size, according to private market demands. Could happen.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/08/2013 02:12 pm9) There's no reason that we couldn't build a cis-lunar infrastructure with 25 ton to LEO launch capability. Should that infrastructure prove to be a profitable economic sphere, the throw weights of the launch vehicles would increase in size, according to private market demands. Could happen.Could or could not ?? I'm confused.I think we COULD build such an infrastructure with 25 mt to LEO[1] capability1 - my fingers typed LEGO there and I had to correct
9) There's no reason that we couldn't build a cis-lunar infrastructure with 25 ton to LEO launch capability. Should that infrastructure prove to be a profitable economic sphere, the throw weights of the launch vehicles would increase in size, according to private market demands. Could happen.
Quote from: muomega0 on 04/08/2013 01:45 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 04/05/2013 12:51 pm5) There are some people who accept SLS as a potentially valuable LV, but who continue to point out that LV(s) need be no larger than seventy 25 tons to LEO in its initial configuration [to go to the moon twice a year or Mars every other year, which were the goals of the Constellation program]This fifth viewpoint could lead to a sustainable US HSF program for the next few decadesa few edits to 5)I have no idea with the principle of your edit there. But I would suggest you add it as point #9 to your list:9) There's no reason that we could not build a cis-lunar infrastructure with 25 ton to LEO launch capability. Should that infrastructure prove to be a profitable economic sphere, the throw weights of the launch vehicles would increase in size, according to private market demands. Could happen.Edit: Thanks Lar.
A single 25 mT launcher could fulfill the Mars mission assuming the mass estimates of the Mars DRM and is not limited to earth moon. With ZBO LEO depots, access to a whole fleet is possible to reduce costs of staging at L2 for likely EP or hybrid chemical EP, to Mars.
Private market demands are significantly less than government mass to IMLEO and will be for decades (any data that states otherwise?).
Delta IV Heavy can apparently do 29 mt to LEO (as of the RS-68A upgrade). Falcon Heavy is planned to get 53 mt to LEO. I'm not aware of any American rockets than can handle 25 mt to LEO but not 29 mt too. How'd you choose the 25 mt to LEO figure?
Falcon Heavy doesn't exist, yet.
Betcha FH gets into double digit flights way before SLS flies twice.
We are almost a 15 TRILLION Dollar economy. That's 15,000 Billion produced in goods and services every year.And we're getting hung up over a few BIllion to build a Heavy Lift capability? What a farce. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.We conquered LEO and are now passing it off quite appropriately to commercial as best we can. An action I think will have profoundly positive implications in both the near and the long term.BLEO, in my view, is different. At least for now. I believe we will need SLS and the full weight and resources of the US Gov't to enable a meaningful Human presence BLEO. If not for today, then for tomorrow. And not for the remembrance of glories past but for an amazing future to come. A future realized by our drive to imagine and our need to explore. Besides, I can't take another damn commission. So let's just get on with it.
@muomega0: your rule of thumb says that if one were to build a clean-sheet launch vehicle (and the costs of splitting payloads are negligible) it should lift 24 mt. Your rule of thumb is not applicable to comparing a clean-sheet vehicle to an existing vehicle. We already have two launch vehicles with more than 24 mt capacity (Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy), neither of which NASA has to pay the fixed costs for. Furthermore Falcon Heavy is planned to have a very low cost per kilogram (to LEO). Using one of these existing 29 mt+ vehicles is cheaper and better than developing a brand new 24 mt launcher.
Quote from: rcoppola on 04/04/2013 09:55 pmWe are almost a 15 TRILLION Dollar economy. That's 15,000 Billion produced in goods and services every year.And we're getting hung up over a few BIllion to build a Heavy Lift capability? What a farce. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.We conquered LEO and are now passing it off quite appropriately to commercial as best we can. An action I think will have profoundly positive implications in both the near and the long term.BLEO, in my view, is different. At least for now. I believe we will need SLS and the full weight and resources of the US Gov't to enable a meaningful Human presence BLEO. If not for today, then for tomorrow. And not for the remembrance of glories past but for an amazing future to come. A future realized by our drive to imagine and our need to explore. Besides, I can't take another damn commission. So let's just get on with it. Thank you!
Ironically (?), without including development costs, as was stated, the existing fleet is still cheaper assuming SLS is fully developed. Hence the statement by Augustine Commission: "even if you were handed SLS developed, NASA could not afford to operate it."
I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but Augustine never commented on SLS, for the simple reason that it didn't exist at the time. I believe it was Augustine Committee member Jeff Greason who made a statement about having to cancel Ares V even if Santa Claus gave it to NASA fully developed.
Quote from: Lar on 04/11/2013 12:29 amBetcha FH gets into double digit flights way before SLS flies twice.That is nonsense too.
Quote from: Proponent on 04/11/2013 02:54 pmI agree with the gist of what you're saying, but Augustine never commented on SLS, for the simple reason that it didn't exist at the time. I believe it was Augustine Committee member Jeff Greason who made a statement about having to cancel Ares V even if Santa Claus gave it to NASA fully developed.That's simply not true. SDHLV was a major part of Augustine. Just because they hadn't named it SLS is not rationale for your comment.
SDHLV was a major part of Augustine.
Quote from: Longhorn John on 04/11/2013 03:09 pm SDHLV was a major part of Augustine. Yes, it certainly was. Sally Ride used the SD-HLV per her Shuttle extension presentations. The options included a smooth transition per the whole idea of SD-HLV.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission/
John Shannon represented a major review on SD-HLV - easily the largest documented presentation at the entire hearing, created by a very large team.Direct presented their SD-HLV.Sally Ride presentated SD-HLV in tandem with a Shuttle Extension.
SD-HLV Presentation to the Augustine Commission - or did I imagine John Shannon being up at the podium for ages?That was from: "SHUTTLE DERIVED HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE ASSESSMENT - 726 Pages"And that's just one part.Sally Ride was hardly a "response to a question". It was a detailed evaluation involving USA and the Aerospace Corp etc.And we know Direct's work.
SD-HLV Presentation to the Augustine Commission - or did I imagine John Shannon being up at the podium for ages? That was from: "SHUTTLE DERIVED HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE ASSESSMENT - 726 Pages"
And that's just one part.Sally Ride was hardly a "response to a question". It was a detailed evaluation involving USA and the Aerospace Corp etc.And we know Direct's work.
Quote from: cro-magnon gramps on 04/12/2013 03:10 amIt seems to me that SLS has until 2017+six months before a new administration's pet space POR cancels it... Call me an optimist, but that should imply that the first launch is assured... Like Ares I-X.
It seems to me that SLS has until 2017+six months before a new administration's pet space POR cancels it... Call me an optimist, but that should imply that the first launch is assured...
I guess we'll know how far the 2017 date is going to move to the right, by next year, when they finally get to CDR.
Quote from: QuantumG on 04/12/2013 03:21 amI guess we'll know how far the 2017 date is going to move to the right, by next year, when they finally get to CDR.Your right of course...