Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now

[Proponent]

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.

[Longhorn John]

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.

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.

[Lar]

Betcha FH gets into double digit flights way before SLS flies twice.

That is nonsense too.

OK, but I'm willing to actually bet, if we can devise suitable wagering stakes... interested? Contact me offline and once we devise something I'll post it in a suitable thread.[1]

If not... well... I guess time will tell.

1 - all comers, not just Jim...

[Proponent]

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.

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.

SLS differs significantly Ares V, and the name "SLS" certainly was not in use at the time.  Hence the quote provided above cannot be accurate.  More specifically, the Augustine Report defines Ares V as a 160-tonne, 10-meter-diameter vehicle powered by modified RS-68 engines with two 5.5-segment SRBs strapped on.  SLS, in contrast, has about half the payload capability to LEO, an 8.4-meter tank, RS-25 engines and 5-segment SRBs.

But, if you want to argue that SLS, like Ares V, is unaffordable, I would disagree principally in degree.

[deltaV]

The summary slide of the Augustine Committee “Sally Charts” says: “Exploration doesn't appear viable under the FY10 budget and run-out.” The launch vehicles they studied included shuttle-derived vehicles similar to SLS (i.e. side mount and DIRECT) as well as EELV-derived vehicles. As I posted recently in another thread our current budget is lower than FY 10 levels:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31592.msg1037455#msg1037455 .

[Chris Bergin]

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/

[Political Hack Wannabe]

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/

I'll grant that SD-HLV was AN option from Augustine, but its a mistake to suggest that it was a "big part" of Augustine. 

There were 3 viable options for HLVs presented in Augustine, and it covered all 3 equally. 

[Chris Bergin]

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.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

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.

2 of those options were presentations to Augustine.  And Ms. Ride's piece was directly related to the question of "what do we do concerning the shuttle?"  If you look at the Exploration presentation, they made no decisions, recommendations. 

And in the actual report,
Discussions explaining details about HLV options (not doing a direct cost/benefit comparison, but more a "it looks like this, and uses these pieces")

Ares V - 2 paragraphs

Ares V-lite - 3 paragraphs

Shuttle derived - 3-5 paragraphs

EELV derived - 2 paragraphs

Section 6.5 was a sort of a back of the envelope trade study, comparing the 3 HLV options, using a flexible path strategy.  And it had all 3 in them, about equal. 

[Chris Bergin]

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.

[Jeff Bingham]

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.

Possibly even more to the point is that the presentations and materials you have referenced, the Augustine deliberations in general, and much of the underlying technical information for vehicle options across the board, coupled with many follow-on conversations and exchanges of information with the authors, engineers, and program folks across industry, formed the foundation for the drafting, between December 2009 and April 2010, of what eventually became the SLS-MPCV (and commercial crew, for that matter) language in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, where the moniker "Space Launch System" was included as a descriptive title for the required "evolvable," SD-HLV. It was the Administration's clear "plan" to basically ignore the findings and options of the Augustine HSF Committee that prompted those early drafting efforts, after the White House signaled its intention to wait for the FY 2011 Budget Request to "respond" to the Augustine report (as opposed to providing an amended FY 2010 Budget Request, as they has initially promised) which prompted those early drafting efforts in anticipation of an expected "unsatisfactory" FY 2011 Budget Request to come out in early 2010. Just some historical perspective.

[yg1968]

The Augustine commission also had a commercial HLV as one of its options. During one of the hearings, (Leroy Chiao of) the Augustine commission wondered whether Orion was necessary if you already had commercial crew capsules. You can make a good argument that the FY 2011 Budget was an attempt to follow the Augustine committee recommendations. The Augustine committee emphasized the importance of R&D for human exploration especially for in-space propulsion.

[deltaV]

Here's an interesting op-ed by Andrew Chaikin from late 2011 (which I read today when the Bad Astronomy blog linked to it): http://www.spacenews.com/article/guest-blog-apollos-spirit-alive-and-well#.UWcyi7Usk_Y .

Edit: a talk by Andrew Chaikin that's hard to describe:
http://www.andrewchaikin.com/2012/03/15/human-spaceflight-a-new-paradigm/ .

[KEdward5]

Now we're linking op-eds from 2011? This thread is very random, built on a short op ed from someone who clearly is very detached from the reality.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

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 has nothing to do in terms of whether SD-HLVs were a "Large part" of the Augustine report.  By that definition, Constellation was much more "a large part" of Augustine, because in so many of the meetings there was substantial discussion of Constellation.

And we don't know how much proprietary info Augustine got regarding Commercial Derived HLVs (although presumably it was substantial enough that they included it in their final report).

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.

I am not saying that her work was unimportant, or a side note.  But her report was done for the subcommittee that was looking specifically stuff within the context of the shuttle.  It did NOT look at the trades of what was the better option for HLV work for Exploration (which, depending on your thoughts about the various subcommittees, was either a job of the exploration committee, or arguably the full committee)

None of this is to say that you can't use arguments from Augustine to justify SLS (because Augustine provided series of metrics to consider HLVs for exploration purposes).  But to claim that Augustine specifically endorsed SD-HLVs, or that they were a "substantial portion" over other HLV options is incorrect. 

[QuantumG]

Okay, all the Augstine talk is off-topic and Chris should know better 

My two cents: they abandoned their mandate on the first day, saying they wouldn't stick to the existing budget. The report that resulted was nothing but science fiction as NASA was never getting the extra $3B/year that they determined was needed. The end.

[deltaV]

Let's talk about the future of SLS rather than the past. This thread is in the space policy section not the history section.

[cro-magnon gramps]

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...

[cro-magnon gramps]

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...

Like Ares I-X.

Face-plant; yah got me... 

[QuantumG]

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.