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).
Anyone remember all the “happy talk” that we needed to stop flying the Shuttle in order to fund SLS?
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.
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: 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 ...