For me, I don't see much sense in continuing to fund the SLS Program any further - once Starship and New Glenn are both flying at a fraction of the price.
The Contractors and Congress both want large amounts of funds distributed to the various space districts, on a Program that won't get targeted for cancellation. That's just the way Congress and the Contractors work and they remain the ones with their hands on this particular tiller, so I doubt it will change any time soon. But a healthy Program could still be established within this framework.
Quote from: kraisee on 09/24/2023 09:17 pmFor me, I don't see much sense in continuing to fund the SLS Program any further - once Starship and New Glenn are both flying at a fraction of the price.I would go farther and say we should never have funded SLS ever. It was clear back in 2011 that a human spaceflight program based on SLS/Orion had a near-0% chance of producing a space program worthy of a great nation (unless you assume a magical budget boost) and a commercial-launcher-based program had a substantially greater chance (though not 100%) of producing great results. Things have only gotten clearer as Falcon Heavy reached orbit and as Starship and New Glenn have gotten closer to orbit.However Starship and New Glenn reaching orbit would eliminate the best excuses for SLS so maybe it's a good strategic move to wait until then before trying to cancel SLS.
Quote from: deltaV on 09/25/2023 12:55 amQuote from: kraisee on 09/24/2023 09:17 pmFor me, I don't see much sense in continuing to fund the SLS Program any further - once Starship and New Glenn are both flying at a fraction of the price.I would go farther and say we should never have funded SLS ever. It was clear back in 2011 that a human spaceflight program based on SLS/Orion had a near-0% chance of producing a space program worthy of a great nation (unless you assume a magical budget boost) and a commercial-launcher-based program had a substantially greater chance (though not 100%) of producing great results. Things have only gotten clearer as Falcon Heavy reached orbit and as Starship and New Glenn have gotten closer to orbit.However Starship and New Glenn reaching orbit would eliminate the best excuses for SLS so maybe it's a good strategic move to wait until then before trying to cancel SLS.I might agree that if current congressional funding levels for NASA activities are somewhat insufficient to keep Artemis missions beyond Artemis 3 fully funded, then NASA could put temporarily put Artemis 3 and 4 on the back burner, but keep the option of reprioritizing the Artemis program in the 2025-2026 timeframe if the first few launches of the New Glenn rocket are successful and the Starship reaches full operational status after completion of the IFT-2 flight and a few other launches, because the Starship HLS variant and the Blue Moon spacecraft designed to be carried aboard the New Glenn are still a long way off from completion.
I think NASA should fly out SLS through Artemis 8 and then retire it. They should put out a proposal to industry for a commercial replacement of its functions to the Moon. They should stop all development of any capability for advanced solids beyond these flights. Industry put forth some interesting proposals for HLS. I think they could do the same for commercial crew services to the Moon.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 09/25/2023 08:31 pmI think NASA should fly out SLS through Artemis 8 and then retire it. They should put out a proposal to industry for a commercial replacement of its functions to the Moon. They should stop all development of any capability for advanced solids beyond these flights. Industry put forth some interesting proposals for HLS. I think they could do the same for commercial crew services to the Moon.I definitely agree it makes sense to do some Artemis missions before retiring SLS but I probably wouldn't wait until after Artemis 8. There are a variety of natural stopping points: after Artemis 3 to get a lunar landing under our belt and avoid the need for EUS, after Artemis 4 to eliminate the need for RS-25E, after Artemis 6 so both SpaceX and Blue get 2 landings each to put them on a more level playing field for the next competition, or after Artemis 8 to avoid the need for new solid boosters. It's also worth considering if one can reduce the cost of Artemis 4-6 by eliminating EUS and the Gateway. Congress or the President should ask NASA to study good stopping points.For the replacement I think NASA should buy end-to-end services that transport astronauts from Earth to the moon and back using a "commercial" style procurement with two providers and fixed-price contracts. The alternative to end-to-end is splitting it up into separate tasks such as travel from Earth surface to the Gateway and back and travel from Gateway to the surface of the moon and back; this alternative seems bad because it reduces the ability of the bidders to choose the intermediate points that work best for them. Analogy: if you want to get from New York to Los Angeles it would be foolish to look at a map to find a city midway between the two, Kansas City, and then buy separate tickets from NY to Kansas City and Kansas City to LA.
Quote from: deltaV on 09/26/2023 04:43 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 09/25/2023 08:31 pmI think NASA should fly out SLS through Artemis 8 and then retire it. They should put out a proposal to industry for a commercial replacement of its functions to the Moon. They should stop all development of any capability for advanced solids beyond these flights. Industry put forth some interesting proposals for HLS. I think they could do the same for commercial crew services to the Moon.I definitely agree it makes sense to do some Artemis missions before retiring SLS but I probably wouldn't wait until after Artemis 8. There are a variety of natural stopping points: after Artemis 3 to get a lunar landing under our belt and avoid the need for EUS, after Artemis 4 to eliminate the need for RS-25E, after Artemis 6 so both SpaceX and Blue get 2 landings each to put them on a more level playing field for the next competition, or after Artemis 8 to avoid the need for new solid boosters. It's also worth considering if one can reduce the cost of Artemis 4-6 by eliminating EUS and the Gateway. Congress or the President should ask NASA to study good stopping points.For the replacement I think NASA should buy end-to-end services that transport astronauts from Earth to the moon and back using a "commercial" style procurement with two providers and fixed-price contracts. The alternative to end-to-end is splitting it up into separate tasks such as travel from Earth surface to the Gateway and back and travel from Gateway to the surface of the moon and back; this alternative seems bad because it reduces the ability of the bidders to choose the intermediate points that work best for them. Analogy: if you want to get from New York to Los Angeles it would be foolish to look at a map to find a city midway between the two, Kansas City, and then buy separate tickets from NY to Kansas City and Kansas City to LA.I think an incremental approach may be better and may allow for a quicker replacement. Basically, start by replacing SLS but keeping Orion and keeping the rest of the Artemis architecture. Do this by launching Orion atop an expendable custom SS atop an ordinary SH. This could in theory be done as early as Artemis III. The advantage is that Artemis III thru V stay mostly the same as they are currently planned. Next, replace Orion with a crewed SS, but keep the rest of the Artemis architecture by having it just take four crew to NRHO and back, like Orion. At this point you have retired both SLS and Orion and can begin designing effective lunar missions. By killing SLS without killing Orion, you divide the OldSpace lobby. You also begin saving money sooner. By keeping Orion for awhile, you avoid the dependency on Starship EDL crew certification, which may otherwise end up being critical path.
It may be prudent for Blue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraft...
...to make up for any delay in the Artemis missions subsequent to Artemis 5...
...because not only is the New Glenn's design architecture brand-new, its first stage uses less hazardous methane fuel in contrast to its upper stage using a hydrolox engine...
...not to mention that the proposed Blue Moon spacecraft has been chosen as the lunar landing component for Artemis 5.
After all, the Orion spacecraft was spared from cancelation even as the Ares rocket that would have carried and which utilized STS technology like the SLS was canceled in 2010.
Quote from: Vahe231991 on 09/26/2023 07:33 pmBlue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraftNew Glenn has a C3=0 of 7.1t.Orion + ESM + LAS is 33.4tOne of these is much larger than the other/s Are you proposing:1. Cutting Orion into 5 equal slices. 1 New Glenn each and have the astronauts assemble it in deep space. NASA sells it to the public as practice for Mars and beyond.2. The variant you are alluding to is actually new glenn super duper heavy (5 core). Instead of the Korolev Cross it does a "John Glenn Starburst".3. Using the LAS as a kick stage.4. Deleting the LAS and installing ejection seats to save mass. The ejection seat motors are also ducted externally to serve as course correction thrusters.5. Launching the CSM sans fluids for weight, but then immediately telling the astronauts that they have to hold their breath ... and that they don't have power, heat or water because the ESM got left in canaveral due to the flight being overweight.
Blue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraft
A moon or Mars outpost, with the long term goal of building a sustainable colony requires a *V*A*S*T* amount of infrastructure be developed, all inter-related. Everything including habs, rad-protection, life support systems, rovers, digging systems, ISRU, robotic exploration drones, experiments, you name it - a healthy Exploration Program needs it all and I believe that would all require a lot of budget and a lot of people - exactly same as the Politico's and Contractors want.My point is that there is sufficient money in the budget - and sufficient REASON not to cancel individual projects because they all rely upon each other - to justify NASA's budget for the next few decades.A dozen inter-related projects that form a vibrant Exploration Program would easily employ just as many people, spend just as much of the agency's budget in the required districts and would create contracts and the associated profits that the companies all want. The same money and the same people can buy you a dozen different things instead as just one or two giant monolithic projects do.Most importantly, a vibrant Exploration Program would achieve a lot more for the bucks, would look a lot healthier to the public than the current Program does. And that makes it far easier to justify to the public, the press, Congress and the workforce.
Orion, SLS, NG and SS all have too many limitations. Vulcan might eventually succeed, but it too has too many limitations for what everyone needs.Sure it’s fun to go back to the drawing board every seven years. But the only option that is truly affordable is doing nothing. Cancel everything.
Quote from: cohberg on 09/26/2023 11:40 pmQuote from: Vahe231991 on 09/26/2023 07:33 pmBlue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraftNew Glenn has a C3=0 of 7.1t.Orion + ESM + LAS is 33.4tOne of these is much larger than the other/s Are you proposing:1. Cutting Orion into 5 equal slices. 1 New Glenn each and have the astronauts assemble it in deep space. NASA sells it to the public as practice for Mars and beyond.2. The variant you are alluding to is actually new glenn super duper heavy (5 core). Instead of the Korolev Cross it does a "John Glenn Starburst".3. Using the LAS as a kick stage.4. Deleting the LAS and installing ejection seats to save mass. The ejection seat motors are also ducted externally to serve as course correction thrusters.5. Launching the CSM sans fluids for weight, but then immediately telling the astronauts that they have to hold their breath ... and that they don't have power, heat or water because the ESM got left in canaveral due to the flight being overweight.I think probably New Glenn would just launch Orion to LEO (it actually would probably be the best option for that) and then how it gets from LEO to the Moon is another matter entirely.