Despite your and VSECOTSPE’s logic, there is absolutely no hope that this mess will be reformed from within
The only answer is the end run, and frankly (distastefully to many) that means Musk/SpaceX.
Meanwhile, SLS will roll on until Congress finds a convenient way to shift their favorites onto other lucrative pit-digging operations for taxpayer dollars.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/28/2023 04:43 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2023 03:06 amYou are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EconomyActually if you read that Wikipedia article, it does. But going into it would OT, so move along...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2023 03:06 amYou are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy
You are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.
Economic transactions occur when two groups or parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. However, monetary transactions only account for a small part of the economic domain.
... quotes ...Congress cares about the Orion/SLS workforce. Provide that workforce with other, more useful tasks (there’s plenty to pick from in a real human space exploration effort) and the Gordian knot of the Apollo/STS infrastructure/workforce that has bedeviled NASA since Goldin can be untied. But if an administration fails to address the workforce as the Obama White House did, Congress will likely just shove another iteration of STS/Ares V/SLS down the agency’s throat.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 05/29/2023 06:27 pm... quotes ...Congress cares about the Orion/SLS workforce. Provide that workforce with other, more useful tasks (there’s plenty to pick from in a real human space exploration effort) and the Gordian knot of the Apollo/STS infrastructure/workforce that has bedeviled NASA since Goldin can be untied. But if an administration fails to address the workforce as the Obama White House did, Congress will likely just shove another iteration of STS/Ares V/SLS down the agency’s throat.Is the workforce argument as strong as it was 14 years ago though? Certainly commercial space has way way bigger share of US space workforce than it was back then. I doubt the "we must preserve shuttle technology" will be as compelling.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/29/2023 03:18 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 05/28/2023 04:43 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2023 03:06 amYou are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EconomyActually if you read that Wikipedia article, it does. But going into it would OT, so move along... It says that it only accounts for a small part of the economic domain:Quote from: WikipediaEconomic transactions occur when two groups or parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. However, monetary transactions only account for a small part of the economic domain.
A given economy is a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure, legal systems, and natural resources as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. In other words, the economic domain is a social domain of interrelated human practices and transactions that does not stand alone.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/29/2023 07:18 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/29/2023 03:18 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 05/28/2023 04:43 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2023 03:06 amYou are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EconomyActually if you read that Wikipedia article, it does. But going into it would OT, so move along... It says that it only accounts for a small part of the economic domain:Quote from: WikipediaEconomic transactions occur when two groups or parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. However, monetary transactions only account for a small part of the economic domain.*Sigh*The paragraph preceding that gives you the answer, which is:QuoteA given economy is a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure, legal systems, and natural resources as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. In other words, the economic domain is a social domain of interrelated human practices and transactions that does not stand alone.The Artemis program is a science expedition, not a location where "interrelated human practices and transactions" will occur.You want to debate this more, PM me. Otherwise let's get back to the topic at hand, which is that yet ANOTHER non-biased investigation of the SLS program has found rampant mismanagement and overpayments to contractors. This will only end when the SLS program is ended...
I struggle to find (as in I want to believe there is) a benefit to Artemis that outweighs the $50 billion sunk into Orion/SLS/EGS through last year:https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-sls-and-orionI just don’t see it. The relative pittance planned to be spent on landers ($6 billion) and other surface systems (few billion?) is bass ackwards. And even if it wasn’t, those lunar activities are heavily constrained by a mission rate of one crew of four every year or two. And even if there was a better ratio of transport to actual lunar activity, there’s no clear articulation in Melroy’s goals of what that lunar activity is supposed to deliver, certainly nothing worth some handful of tens of billions of dollars.I wish it were otherwise, but so far, no justification/rationale or capability/achievement for Artemis has been put forth that is commensurate with its cost.
They should contract for services like they have done for HLS and commercial crew, etc.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 05/28/2023 05:13 am...I wish it were otherwise, but so far, no justification/rationale or capability/achievement for Artemis has been put forth that is commensurate with its cost.Artemis inherited SLS and Orion.
...I wish it were otherwise, but so far, no justification/rationale or capability/achievement for Artemis has been put forth that is commensurate with its cost.
The rest of Artemis: the Artemis Accords, HLS, the Spacesuits, CLPS, the LTV are all great programs or agreements that can and should survive SLS and Orion. The Moon to Mars goals and strategies are fine but in the end what really matters are the programs that are associated with these objectives and the programs are good.
No, the Artemis program was built on top of the SLS+Orion.Prior to the V.P. Pence announcing the 2024 Moon landing goal, SLS supporters (including those on NSF) had been claiming that the SLS was a "Moon rocket", and obviously the Orion as-built can only make it to the Moon, so the SLS+Orion were perceived as the only option to allow a Moon landing by the end of a potential second Trump Administration. There was simply no other option for making the 2024 politically-oriented date.
It doesn't look like Congress agrees with your assessment, since Congress continues to dump money into the SLS, regardless of the MANY warnings that U.S. Taxpayer money is NOT being economically spent. Because the goal that Congress has for the Artemis program is not what your goal is - everything BUT the SLS+Orion are just secondary to spending money on the right large NASA contractors, as the cost overruns on the RS-25 and booster show.If Congress truly cared about the Artemis program then they would care about WHY the SLS & Orion program costs so much, are NOT meeting their planned schedule goals, and CANNOT provide a meaningful Artemis mission tempo without massive budget increases. In other words, Congress would care about what it would take to make the Artemis program more than a flags & footprints exercise...
Bridenstine was essentially forced by Shelby to conclude that SLS was the only way to go but it was obvious that there was other options including Falcon Heavy and Orion which NASA had started to look at.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/31/2023 02:50 pm Bridenstine was essentially forced by Shelby to conclude that SLS was the only way to go but it was obvious that there was other options including Falcon Heavy and Orion which NASA had started to look at. I think that what happened to Kathy Lueders was a pretty good sign that "other options" were not actually on the table no matter how much they appeared to be.
Quote from: tea monster on 05/31/2023 08:21 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 05/31/2023 02:50 pm Bridenstine was essentially forced by Shelby to conclude that SLS was the only way to go but it was obvious that there was other options including Falcon Heavy and Orion which NASA had started to look at. I think that what happened to Kathy Lueders was a pretty good sign that "other options" were not actually on the table no matter how much they appeared to be.That happened after Bridenstine left, under the new Administration. However, if your point is that Congress never would have accepted a non-SLS-solution, I agree with that.
SLS was originally supposed to use off the shelf components. Boosters, SSME, and RL-10's on the upper. They spent a lot developing the 5 segment solids, a lot on changing the SSME to RS-25's, and a lot on developing the J2X that they didn't or haven't used. Direct had the right approach. Use what they had until Jupiter could evolve. Spending some money to manufacture the RD-180 in America and making an 8-10 engine RD-180 booster with a J2X upper stage would have been cheaper and given the same or better results. This booster could have been made reusable using F9 technology. Solids are heavy and expensive and cost as much to refurbish as new ones. Core and RS-15's are expendable and expensive. No clear way to evolve into a reusable rocket.
I have not followed the engine saga for the RS-25s. Please correct me if I have missed something - at what point did they realise that they did not have enough shuttle engines to fulfil the SLS program? I would have thought that this point would come up pretty early in planning the SLS. In descriptions of the development of the SLS it seems to be almost an afterthought that they would need to somehow come up with more SSMEs to keep the program going. If I've missed something, I'm sorry.
Quote from: tea monster on 05/31/2023 11:00 pmI have not followed the engine saga for the RS-25s. Please correct me if I have missed something - at what point did they realise that they did not have enough shuttle engines to fulfil the SLS program? I would have thought that this point would come up pretty early in planning the SLS. In descriptions of the development of the SLS it seems to be almost an afterthought that they would need to somehow come up with more SSMEs to keep the program going. If I've missed something, I'm sorry.IIRC there was some consideration of using the RS-68 instead of the SSME/RS-25, but once they decided to use the SSME/RS-25 they would have known that they were going to need to build more engines.As a note, Aerojet Rocketdyne makes both the RS-68 (used on Delta IV) and the SSME/RS-25, so the SLS program was going to provide guaranteed work for them regardless which was chosen.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2023 11:39 pmQuote from: tea monster on 05/31/2023 11:00 pmI have not followed the engine saga for the RS-25s. Please correct me if I have missed something - at what point did they realise that they did not have enough shuttle engines to fulfil the SLS program? I would have thought that this point would come up pretty early in planning the SLS. In descriptions of the development of the SLS it seems to be almost an afterthought that they would need to somehow come up with more SSMEs to keep the program going. If I've missed something, I'm sorry.IIRC there was some consideration of using the RS-68 instead of the SSME/RS-25, but once they decided to use the SSME/RS-25 they would have known that they were going to need to build more engines.As a note, Aerojet Rocketdyne makes both the RS-68 (used on Delta IV) and the SSME/RS-25, so the SLS program was going to provide guaranteed work for them regardless which was chosen.Yup. But IIRC that was squashed cuz RS-68: (1) Had no relationship to Shuttle. Which, as we all know would have violated the raison d'être of SLS continuing on with reusing Shuttle legacy parts (*cough*). (2) Would have to be human rated (a long history of yes-no-maybe with RS-68). (3) The heat flux and ablative nozzles in proximity to the SRB's would likely have been problematic. (4) ...In any case, those issues were recognized fairly early on. And much of the rework to use RS-68's likely would have landed outside of AJR. So path of least resistance (*cough*), RS-25 it wuz and is.