Quote from: Lars-J on 09/23/2017 10:44 pmQuote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmYou mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows... Actually if you look at the NASA budget the agency has lost around $6 Billion (2014 dollars) since 1991. Major human spaceflight programs like the space shuttle and Constellation may come and go but they are replaced with programs like SLS/Orion. Just look at what happened in 2010. There is no guarantee that if SLS/Orion were canceled their funds would go to your preferred space project. That isn't "fear mongering." That's a fact.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmYou mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows...
You mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what?
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...You mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows...
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...You mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what?
If SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...
Thanks for the great article! Its a pity the usual crowd is ready to attack the program over every little thing every time its so much as mentioned!
One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost.
Hence, my read is that Orion/SLS is (or rather, was) supposed to be operational only to LEO by the end of 2016.
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/23/2017 10:44 pmQuote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmYou mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows... Actually if you look at the NASA budget the agency has lost around $6 Billion (2014 dollars) since 1991. Major human spaceflight programs like the space shuttle and Constellation may come and go but they are replaced with programs like SLS/Orion.
Just look at what happened in 2010. There is no guarantee that if SLS/Orion were canceled their funds would go to your preferred space project. That isn't "fear mongering." That's a fact.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/23/2017 04:15 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 03:29 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. $1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 03:29 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. $1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me.
{snip}What happened in 2010 supports my point. The funds for NASA programs did not go away, despite the fear mongering here and elsewhere.Of course there is no guarantee for what will happen in the future. But the past history supports my claim, and not your fear mongering. I assume you understand that Congress has no specific attachment to specific programs, only that they bring jobs to their district. If anything else can do that, they will all jump on it in a heartbeat.And no, I don't expect a replacement program (*IF* SLS is cancelled) to be any more efficient. This is the nature of the beast.
The manned EM2 flight is far more important than EM1, as long as EM1 delays don't effect EM2 I don't care when EM1 flys. For those criticizing schedule slippages, this is a large space project, slippages and going over budget a the norm not exception. If you can't accept that then an interest in spaceflight is not for you.
...which underscores my point! There has been a slow and steady decline since 1991 (the prime days of the Shuttle program) until now, and the in that time Shuttle disappeared, ISS came, CxP came and went, SLS appeared. Are you seeing the trend here?
Of course there is no guarantee for what will happen in the future. But the past history supports my claim, and not your fear mongering. <snip>And no, I don't expect a replacement program (*IF* SLS is cancelled) to be any more efficient. This is the nature of the beast.
Following RS-25 engine delivery to MAF, teams will spend seven months integrating the engines into the MPS (Main Propulsion System) of the Core Stage...
Quote from: woods170 on 09/24/2017 09:33 amTell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: noneWhat 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.Orion will weigh 25 tonnes or more. Nothing but SLS could boost that mass trans-Lunar. Certainly nothing but SLS could boost Orion plus PPE or DSG at the same time, which is the current plan. Those missions will accelerate 33-35 tonnes of "revenue payload" beyond LEO all at once. - Ed Kyle
Tell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: noneWhat 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.
Apart from Orion, no HSF BEO payloads exist right now. Not right now and not for many years to come given that PPE and DSG are only conceptual in nature right now.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/25/2017 02:56 amQuote from: woods170 on 09/24/2017 09:33 amTell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: noneWhat 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.Orion will weigh 25 tonnes or more. Nothing but SLS could boost that mass trans-Lunar. Certainly nothing but SLS could boost Orion plus PPE or DSG at the same time, which is the current plan. Those missions will accelerate 33-35 tonnes of "revenue payload" beyond LEO all at once. - Ed KyleAs was correctly pointed out back in the DIRECT days, the CAIB did not recommend that a future Shuttle replacement not carry crew and cargo together. It was recommended that they not be together “in the same vehicle” unless absolutely necessary. Thus Orion carrying crew and stacked on the SLS with separately encapsulated cargo for delivery to BEO is a legitimate use of the vehicle as recommended in the CAIB, just the same as we had proposed back then for the Jupiter Shuttle replacement system. In this way Ed’s postulations are correct. However I tend to [partially] agree with Wood’s position because if NASA is only going to send crew BEO in Orion, then the flight rate of the SLS would need to be significantly increased - which we all know is not going to happen - ever. No one expects NASA crew to spend 1-1/2 years aboard the DSG or in a lunar surface outpost before being rotated out. So the use of commercially available crew vehicles capable of cis-lunar operations flying and rotating NASA cis-lunar crew is specifically indicated. Which begs the question – Why use Orion at all? If NASA is only going to fly SLS once every 12-18 months or so it will take FOREVER to gain a legitimate safety record for this manned spacecraft. Wouldn’t NASA be far better off using Commercial Crew vehicles for ALL its crewed missions and reserving SLS for massive cargo launches - uncrewed? I agree with Woods – make maximum use of the SLS capability by using it to launch Skylab-style stations and outposts. Make them big enough to fully use the SLS capability. Whatever the SLS is capable of delivering to the target location – make the delivered vehicle that size. SLS is going to fly so infrequently because of cost that it is a waste of capability not to max it out every time it flies – and NOT by substituting a hardly ever flown human spacecraft as ballast to justify a too-small cargo delivery.Fly SLS – if properly utilized it is justified for heavy lift delivery, even if it is infrequently used. But ditch Orion completely. It’ll never be used often enough to ever be declared operational because the only vehicle capable of flying it will hardly ever fly. Use the Commercial Crew capabilities for human delivery that has been so painfully developed over the past few years for ALL crewed flights. Orion is a waste of resources and a huge waste of money - money that could be better utilized in payload development. Ditch Orion but keep SLS. At least SLS can deliver something of value for all its investment. Orion never will.
1. Nobody seems in the least worried about gaining "a legitimate safety record" before putting crew on Orion. The first all-up Orion flight will be crewed.2. But the DSG isn't going to be permanently inhabited or have rotating crews. Crew will fly there on Orion, then fly back home on the same Orion 3 weeks later.
I suspect that the SLS will be used to build the Moon base and deliver its in situ resource utilization (ISRU) machinery.