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 "
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