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.
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?
I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying.
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
...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. ...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.