NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[Downix]

Sure.  I mean after all, everything revolves around SpaceX. 

It does so long the probability that Falcon Heavy flies is dramatically higher than anything calling itself "SLS". The most likely scenario right now is that NASA wastes another few billion (just like it did with NLS and Ares) before giving up and buying launch services from SpaceX and ULA.

Direct is dead. SLS is now Ares V-Redux, and likely won't end any differently.

No, it's not.  You're putting the car before the horse.  There are 3 NASA SLS studies and 13 contractor studies for it being done right now.  You presume a lot.

[Namechange User]

Sure.  I mean after all, everything revolves around SpaceX. 

It does so long the probability that Falcon Heavy flies is dramatically higher than anything calling itself "SLS". The most likely scenario right now is that NASA wastes another few billion (just like it did with NLS and Ares) before giving up and buying launch services from SpaceX and ULA.

Direct is dead. SLS is now Ares V-Redux, and likely won't end any differently.

Hey Simon, nice job on taking a post completely out of context, cuting out most of it to fit your needs and then launching into yet another arm-waving rant. 

Weren't you just days ago declaring that an RP-based SLS was the answer?  You even had a nice little tag at the bottom of your posts saying something like "We need a SDLV, A Saturn Derived Launch Vehicle".  Now you have found "religion" supposedly and are preeching.

 Just like the wind, it'll shift again.  At least I stand on my principles.  Go back and look if you wish.  I have been very consistent.  With rationale.  Can you say the same?

[simonbp]

You presume a lot.

I presume nothing. The current Appropriations bill calls for initial capacity of SLS to be 130 tonnes. That rules out anything short of a full-up 5/5 with an upper stage. In other words, the original Ares V. It would be great if they built something smaller, but that simply doesn't fit the bill, literally.

And OV, I'd still love an RP-1 SLS, but that doesn't fit the bill either. I'm just trying to be realistic.

[Namechange User]

You presume a lot.

I presume nothing. The current Appropriations bill calls for initial capacity of SLS to be 130 tonnes. That rules out anything short of a full-up 5/5 with an upper stage. In other words, the original Ares V. It would be great if they built something smaller, but that simply doesn't fit the bill, literally.

More arm-waving.  There is an authority on here that has spoken about this multiple times until he was blue in the face.  If one can rant so well, I would assume that one can read two or so pages back as well. 

[Downix]

You presume a lot.

I presume nothing. The current Appropriations bill calls for initial capacity of SLS to be 130 tonnes. That rules out anything short of a full-up 5/5 with an upper stage. In other words, the original Ares V. It would be great if they built something smaller, but that simply doesn't fit the bill, literally.

And OV, I'd still love an RP-1 SLS, but that doesn't fit the bill either. I'm just trying to be realistic.

False, already established elsewhere.  AJAX 440 gets 130 tonnes.  The J-246 can get 130 tonnes with a third stage, which is allowable per the law. (it never says the EDS to get the lift has to be the second stage) The RP-1 SLS options being discussed also hit 130 tonnes.  There was even a proposal which got 130 tonnes out of the sidemount, although that was particularly ugly. 

You've convinced yourself, despite the facts of the matter.

[simonbp]

What precisely is arm-waving? Really, I'd honestly like to know.

The only vehicle I know of that fits the bill-that-will-soon-law is the "Block 3" Shuttle-Derived SLS. Can you describe any other vehicles that NASA could build without any modifications to the law? I'd love to hear.

(And AJAX does not use SRBs, so it doesn't fit the bill. Sorry.)

[Warren Platts]

I just can't stand the issue being raised over and over again.

So Chris:  Maybe the sticky could simply state that the units for SLS throw weight are metric tons.

Jeezy peezies.  As long as it's not troy ounces, or some such.

It's important because if the legislation is interpreted in short tons, then, according to Dr. Spudis, NASA could build a side-mount shuttle (which was not considered by HEFT) on schedule and within budget and stay within the letter of the law. We could actually have a rocket that flies, albeit an ugly one. By interpreting "tons" as metric, despite the fact that this is the US of A, and we don't do metric here, NASA is shirking its duty because it cannot build an SLS within the budget and schedule directed by Congress.

Clearly, since Congress had a set budget and schedule, then we can safely assume that the intention was short tons, since this is the only interpretation that's consistent with the schedule and budget authorized.

 My vote is for short tons. Let's just get on with it already. Shuttle C will will work and is good enough for our present purposes. Once again, the better is the enemy of the good enough. Continued paralysis at billions per year is the result....

[Namechange User]

What precisely is arm-waving? Really, I'd honestly like to know.

I know we are on page 85, but perhaps if it is not too dificult for you that you can find a way to read something way back in the far distant past.......on page 81.

[Pheogh]

Sure.  I mean after all, everything revolves around SpaceX. 

It does so long the probability that Falcon Heavy flies is dramatically higher than anything calling itself "SLS". The most likely scenario right now is that NASA wastes another few billion (just like it did with NLS and Ares) before giving up and buying launch services from SpaceX and ULA.

Direct is dead. SLS is now Ares V-Redux, and likely won't end any differently.

Hey Simon, nice job on taking a post completely out of context, cuting out most of it to fit your needs and then launching into yet another arm-waving rant. 

Weren't you just days ago declaring that an RP-based SLS was the answer?  You even had a nice little tag at the bottom of your posts saying something like "We need a SDLV, A Saturn Derived Launch Vehicle".  Now you have found "religion" supposedly and are preeching.

People like you blow whatever direction the wind is.  Just like the wind, it'll shift again.  At least I stand on my principles.  Go back and look if you wish.  I have been very consistent.  With rationale.  Can you say the same?

I certainly do not want to agree with Simon even a little. But haven't others on here said that you can not evolve from a 4/3 vehicle *if* you design from the start to evolve to the end state of 130mt. It should be clear from my posts where I stand but it has been raised by competent people on this thread.

I did read what 51D has said based on advice from industry and it would seem that if we go SDLV they would prefer to go to Ares-V Classic from the get go, which in a way would mean DIRECT, or a 4/3 start would in fact be off the table correct?

[Downix]

What precisely is arm-waving? Really, I'd honestly like to know.

The only vehicle I know of that fits the bill-that-will-soon-law is the "Block 3" Shuttle-Derived SLS. Can you describe any other vehicles that NASA could build without any modifications to the law? I'd love to hear.

(And AJAX does not use SRBs, so it doesn't fit the bill. Sorry.)

The law does not require SRB's.  It requires them if they are needed to keep the skills.  Already been established, they are not necessary to keep the skills due to the use of Solid rocket engines in things like ICBMs and the solids used on other rockets, therefore, the SRB's are not required for SLS.

[robertross]

What precisely is arm-waving? Really, I'd honestly like to know.

In the strictest sense?: drawing attention to oneself. (obviously)

Online: Trying to make people see a point of view not backed by any hard facts or data.

Like me saying this will all get cancelled when the US has to start slashing all its spending (something Analyst would probably agree with if here were still posting)

[Downix]

Sure.  I mean after all, everything revolves around SpaceX. 

It does so long the probability that Falcon Heavy flies is dramatically higher than anything calling itself "SLS". The most likely scenario right now is that NASA wastes another few billion (just like it did with NLS and Ares) before giving up and buying launch services from SpaceX and ULA.

Direct is dead. SLS is now Ares V-Redux, and likely won't end any differently.

Hey Simon, nice job on taking a post completely out of context, cuting out most of it to fit your needs and then launching into yet another arm-waving rant. 

Weren't you just days ago declaring that an RP-based SLS was the answer?  You even had a nice little tag at the bottom of your posts saying something like "We need a SDLV, A Saturn Derived Launch Vehicle".  Now you have found "religion" supposedly and are preeching.

People like you blow whatever direction the wind is.  Just like the wind, it'll shift again.  At least I stand on my principles.  Go back and look if you wish.  I have been very consistent.  With rationale.  Can you say the same?

I certainly do not want to agree with Simon even a little. But haven't others on here said that you can not evolve from a 4/3 vehicle *if* you design from the start to evolve to the end state of 130mt. It should be clear from my posts where I stand but it has been raised by competent people on this thread.

I did read what 51D has said based on advice from industry and it would seem that if we go SDLV they would prefer to go to Ares-V Classic from the get go, which in a way would mean DIRECT, or a 4/3 start would in fact be off the table correct?

Noone with authority or skills to do so.

DIRECT can reach 130mT without a core stretch if you are willing to add a dedicated EDS, such as an ACES or VASIMR based system.

AJAX can reach 130mT without any upper stage at all.

[2552]

Downix, how does a VASIMR based system work as an upper stage able to bring DIRECT to 130mT? Isn't the thrust far too low for that?

[yg1968]

What precisely is arm-waving? Really, I'd honestly like to know.

In the strictest sense?: drawing attention to oneself. (obviously)

Online: Trying to make people see a point of view not backed by any hard facts or data.

Like me saying this will all get cancelled when the US has to start slashing all its spending (something Analyst would probably agree with if here were still posting)

Since we are on the subject, "hand waiving" also has the same meaning as "arm waiving". Although, if you ask me both expressions are being overused on this forum.

P.S. I had to google the expression myself not long ago to find out what it meant...

[Namechange User]

Sure.  I mean after all, everything revolves around SpaceX. 

It does so long the probability that Falcon Heavy flies is dramatically higher than anything calling itself "SLS". The most likely scenario right now is that NASA wastes another few billion (just like it did with NLS and Ares) before giving up and buying launch services from SpaceX and ULA.

Direct is dead. SLS is now Ares V-Redux, and likely won't end any differently.

Hey Simon, nice job on taking a post completely out of context, cuting out most of it to fit your needs and then launching into yet another arm-waving rant. 

Weren't you just days ago declaring that an RP-based SLS was the answer?  You even had a nice little tag at the bottom of your posts saying something like "We need a SDLV, A Saturn Derived Launch Vehicle".  Now you have found "religion" supposedly and are preeching.

People like you blow whatever direction the wind is.  Just like the wind, it'll shift again.  At least I stand on my principles.  Go back and look if you wish.  I have been very consistent.  With rationale.  Can you say the same?

I certainly do not want to agree with Simon even a little. But haven't others on here said that you can not evolve from a 4/3 vehicle *if* you design from the start to evolve to the end state of 130mt. It should be clear from my posts where I stand but it has been raised by competent people on this thread.

I did read what 51D has said based on advice from industry and it would seem that if we go SDLV they would prefer to go to Ares-V Classic from the get go, which in a way would mean DIRECT, or a 4/3 start would in fact be off the table correct?

Well, General Bolden has been saying a lot recently "somewhere around 70-75 mT will be the initial capability".  That should imply something.

In addition, given we don't know yet (to my historic frustration) exactly what or how we are going to with all these various capabilities, we may find 70 mT is adequate (depots, upper stages as part of the payload, etc). 

If we need more, the core will be designed to accept more engines.  If we need 5 segment, it's not like ATK will "forget" how to make them, especially given the design will be done and the overhead/sustaining costs are covered by 4 segment. 

So, those are my thoughts....

[psloss]

House just passed full-year CR 260 to 167.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53204.html

(Double-posting)

Also passed by the Senate, 81-19.

[yg1968]

House just passed full-year CR 260 to 167.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53204.html

(Double-posting)

Also passed by the Senate, 81-19.

Finally!

P.S. Thanks for bringing this thread back on topic. Lots of arm/hand waiving going on in this thread...

[psloss]

House just passed full-year CR 260 to 167.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53204.html

(Double-posting)

Also passed by the Senate, 81-19.

Finally!

P.S. Thanks for bringing this thread back on topic. Lots of arm/hand waiving going on in this thread...

LOL -- that wasn't my intent, more about the legislative process finally concluding.

[Downix]

Downix, how does a VASIMR based system work as an upper stage able to bring DIRECT to 130mT? Isn't the thrust far too low for that?

I only meant if you don't use the US as EDS.  They clarified that the requirement was not for metric tons, but imperial, and DIRECT meets those qualifications if it uses all of it's US fuel for lift, and has nothing left over for EDS needs.

[2552]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/votes/156179-senate-approves-fy-2011-spending-bill-sends-to-the-president

In an 81 to 19 bipartisan vote the Senate on Thursday afternoon passed a bill based on last week's leadership agreement that would fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. The House passed the bill hours earlier.