Author Topic: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS  (Read 30187 times)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #40 on: 02/22/2018 09:28 pm »
As Dr. Bingham states in his first sentence, "...it is imperative that our decision-makers and the public are able to distinguish fact from fiction."  It is not an opinion piece.
(fan)The use of the word "fact" in an opinion piece doesn't make it not an opinion piece.

It's in the op-ed section of the site after all. Critique it on merit not on whether you view it as claiming to be something it isn't claiming to be. 
« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 09:41 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #41 on: 02/22/2018 09:44 pm »
In any case, unless a lot changes, it seems the effect of FH on SLS will be nothing. The author does a good job explaining why that's the case. You may think it's bunk, but that's how these decisions are made by the people who make these decisions.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #42 on: 02/22/2018 10:01 pm »
In any case, unless a lot changes, it seems the effect of FH on SLS will be nothing. The author does a good job explaining why that's the case. You may think it's bunk, but that's how these decisions are made by the people who make these decisions.
would be nice to read pieces where they go through pro's and cons of sls and address the issues.. rather than..this is a great rocket..or this rocket should be cancelled.  I'd probably would hate the article but would be nice to see. :)
discussion of distributed launch HAS to be involved in the article or pointless to write/read it.
jb

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #43 on: 02/22/2018 10:05 pm »
And cost. Not mentioned.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #44 on: 02/22/2018 10:14 pm »
would be nice to read pieces where they go through pro's and cons of sls and address the issues.. rather than..this is a great rocket..or this rocket should be cancelled.  I'd probably would hate the article but would be nice to see. :)
discussion of distributed launch HAS to be involved in the article or pointless to write/read it.

Can we just storify Jon Goff's tweets and call it a day?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #45 on: 02/22/2018 10:22 pm »


Can we just storify Jon Goff's tweets and call it a day?

lol... be nice to hear another voice on subject besides the usual..  for the others you may want to check out the tweets..
jb

btw the voice in my head keeps saying ..kill it... is that bad?????

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #46 on: 02/22/2018 10:28 pm »
discussion of distributed launch HAS to be involved in the article or pointless to write/read it.

You might feel that way but until someone actually demonstrates distributed launch I don't know why you'd expect it to be considered on par with more traditional solutions.  As with reuse, it may take someone doing it to really bring credibility to that solution.

Online jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #47 on: 02/22/2018 10:54 pm »
discussion of distributed launch HAS to be involved in the article or pointless to write/read it.

You might feel that way but until someone actually demonstrates distributed launch I don't know why you'd expect it to be considered on par with more traditional solutions.  As with reuse, it may take someone doing it to really bring credibility to that solution.
Jon Goff got me thinking about it years ago..and makes more sense as I read about it...even Tory Bruno said that nasty word considering who his "parents" are... so it is a real solution..
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/638450464137310209
Quote
.@rocketrepreneur @jabe8 Practical distributed launch will be a capability unique to Vulcan-ACES. ACES the primary enabler & a decade+ ahead
and https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/628655253437591552
jb

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #48 on: 02/22/2018 10:57 pm »
Jon Goff got me thinking about it years ago..and makes more sense as I read about it...even Tory Bruno said that nasty word considering who his "parents" are... so it is a real solution..

I agree it's a real solution, and hopefully it does get demonstrated in the next 5+ years (probably by SpaceX before ULA).  I just think the establishment might still view it as an immature technology.

Online jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #49 on: 02/22/2018 11:03 pm »

I agree it's a real solution, and hopefully it does get demonstrated in the next 5+ years (probably by SpaceX before ULA).  I just think the establishment might still view it as an immature technology.
i hope it is demo'd soon..it will make SLS appear even more wasteful since funds could be used to create other needed tech.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #50 on: 02/22/2018 11:25 pm »
discussion of distributed launch HAS to be involved in the article or pointless to write/read it.

You might feel that way but until someone actually demonstrates distributed launch I don't know why you'd expect it to be considered on par with more traditional solutions.  As with reuse, it may take someone doing it to really bring credibility to that solution.

I think that's exactly what must happen.  Unless a miracle occurs and something along those lines emerges from a NSC initiative (that is, NASA is forced to do it), it won't happen.  Lightfoot's testimony yesterday... BAU.

Good news is that's exactly what is planned.  SpaceX will not wait for NASA.  FH could have started the process with Red Dragons, but BFR/BFS will sweep 'more traditional methods*' away completely.

* These methods have kept us stuck in LEO for 45 years.  Not going to be difficult to be on par with that.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #51 on: 02/22/2018 11:28 pm »
Von Braun wanted 100s of launches to build a station to build the ships to fuel ships to outfit...

Ah, you get the drift. Maybe the term for his way is Very Distributed Launch! ;)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #52 on: 02/23/2018 01:02 am »
I personally know Jeff Bingham and have spent untold hours with him discussing everything space from Von Braun to warp drive. The man is a dedicated and exceptionally gifted true believer. He is honest to a fault and his integrity is beyond questioning. He helped us (DIRECT team) get in front of all the right people and committees while at the same time never being afraid to point out to us what he saw as deficiencies in our architecture. He was fair, honest and extremely helpful. And he is a true believer in a government owned and operated launch system so it does not surprise me that he is such a SLS supporter. So please, no more disparaging the man. I might have to take you out behind Fish Lips and feed you dried coral.

Having said all that: NASA Procedural Requirement NPR 8705.2C - Human Rating Requirements for Space Systems, defines the certification process and a set of technical requirements to be applied to crewed space systems in addition to the standards and requirements that are mandatory for all of NASA's space flight programs. It's important to note that nothing in this document may be construed to include anything that defines "preventing" conditions that can lead to a launch abort as those are in the fault tolerance systems of the launch vehicle itself. NASA's human rating certification is limited to defining what has to happen in the case of some event which requires a crewed spacecraft to abort from its launch vehicle prior to orbital insertion. It begins by assuming the existence of a functional Emergency Detection System on the launch vehicle itself which would inform the crewed spacecraft that an abort is required. From that point on the launch vehicle is completely out of the picture and all systems needed to execute the abort are built into the spacecraft.

Falcon Heavy does not need separate human rating. The Emergency Detection System that a human rated launch vehicle must have is already part of the vehicle; it is intrinsically woven into the basic design. The Dragon spacecraft has already demonstrated that it's part of the human rating system is operationally functional. And the Falcon 9 that will carry it is already human rated. Falcon Heavy is (3) Falcon-9 cores plus the upper stage, all of which are, by design, human rated. It's part of the base design. It can only be "designed out", not "added" to the launch vehicle. What Mr. Musk meant when he said that the Heavy would not be human rated is simply that SpaceX will not file the necessary paperwork to certify this new "configuration" of multiple human rated cores to be a single human rated vehicle. Technically however the Falcon Heavy is, by design and by default, already a human rated launch vehicle, but without the pedigree paperwork. Sort of like purchasing a pedigree horse but not filing the ancestry paperwork that lets you stud the animal out.

Dr. Bingham's comparisons of the Falcon Heavy to the Block-2 SLS are misleading because (1) he underrates the capabilities of Falcon Heavy and then (2) compares it to a vehicle that likely will never exist. SLS Block 1B would be a better starting point for the comparison but even that falls short. By the time Block 1B actually begins flying operationally, Falcon Heavy will be retiring and the BFR will be coming online. A much better apples to apples comparison to SLS would be against the BFR.

Falcon Heavy will have very little effect on the SLS except for those of us that are actually awake. Dr Bingham is correct when he says that Falcon Heavy cannot compete with the SLS, but it's not supposed to. It will not eclipse SLS but it absolutely is a harbinger of a coming paradigm shift because it will be vastly less expensive to fly than the SLS but with similar lift capability. But the BFR will be even cheaper that that. Even the true believers, like Dr. Bingham will, by then, have to bow to the obvious fact that SLS simply cannot continue in light of the superior launch system and human spacecraft that SpaceX will be flying. Things will never be the same again.

Jeff Bingham has never been a man that refuses to learn new facts. Even being retired the man is still as sharp as a tack and inquisitive as a child. He'll figure it out. And when he does perhaps he'll write a new Op-Ed. I'll enjoy reading it.
« Last Edit: 02/23/2018 01:09 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #53 on: 02/23/2018 01:14 am »
I don't think it's fair1 to compare SLS to FH and I don't think it's fair2 to compare SLS to BFR.

1. To FH
2. To SLS
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #54 on: 02/23/2018 01:40 am »
I've always liked exchanging ideas with Jeff which is why I said that I wish he would do so. We would then have to refrain from beating up on the guy. Specifically he asked us to be patient and that landers would be coming. We have been and I don't see anything concrete for the Moon much less Mars...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #55 on: 02/23/2018 01:58 am »
discussion of distributed launch HAS to be involved in the article or pointless to write/read it.
You might feel that way but until someone actually demonstrates distributed launch I don't know why you'd expect it to be considered on par with more traditional solutions.  As with reuse, it may take someone doing it to really bring credibility to that solution.

I guess I've always considered the ISS as an example of "distributed lift". And from ULA's paper on distributed lift it says:

Quote
Mission planners currently are limited by the mass rockets can launch to the desired destination. Mir and the International Space Station (ISS) have bypassed this limitation by transporting hardware into orbit across numerous launches. So far this tact has not been employed for destinations beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This paper describes the use of multiple launches (potentially of different rockets) and propellant transfer to enable missions that are impossible today...

So if I'm interpreting that correctly, ULA is stating that distributed lift has been demonstrated for applications in LEO, but not yet for BEO applications.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #56 on: 02/23/2018 03:22 am »
Just a couple of things.  I have respectfully disagreed with Jeff since ~2010.  When CxP impaled itself and SLS rose from the ashes many people thought the program would suffer the same fate.  It is now 2018 and we know the soonest SLS will fly is 2019 but most likely 2020.  2021 has a higher probability than 2019.  In essence - SLS has suffered the same fate as CxP.

Here is the main point:

You can be right, correct, but unless you can convince others to your point of view you simply have to sit back and watch it all unfold.  NewSpacers (like myself) could articulate the vision but we could never convince the decision makers to our point of view.  Politics.  This doesn't mean you continuously throw up markers to those who disagree with you - however we do need to be respectful. 

ISS is the perfect example of distributed lift.  We have done it for awhile now.  We do not need SLS to do the heavy lifting.  We can use FH and distributed lift.  FH is real and SLS only exists on paper.  NASA should be designing missions to FH specs and not a rocket that will never fly more than three or four times.

We are simply wasting time and money.

We all know what SLS is.  It is time for us to accept reality and move on to real rockets.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #57 on: 02/23/2018 04:29 am »
So if I'm interpreting that correctly, ULA is stating that distributed lift has been demonstrated for applications in LEO, but not yet for BEO applications.

ISS did demonstrate distributed lift and an architecture of multi-component assembly in LEO. Also, Apollo demonstrated that multi-component (4-or at least two, depending upon how you want to look at it) architectures are possible in deep space. In that multi-component architectures to deep space will likely see all or most of the components assembled (or refueled) in LEO, the claim that distributed lift has not been demonstrated beyond LEO is at the very least a considerably weak argument against pursuing that architecture.
« Last Edit: 02/23/2018 04:43 am by TomH »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #58 on: 02/23/2018 04:39 am »
Falcon Heavy does not need separate human rating. The Emergency Detection System that a human rated launch vehicle must have is already part of the vehicle; it is intrinsically woven into the basic design......the Falcon 9 that will carry it is already human rated. Falcon Heavy is (3) Falcon-9 cores plus the upper stage, all of which are, by design, human rated. It's part of the base design. It can only be "designed out".......

Given that:
1) the center core had to be modified for strength, which added mass and cost
2) the center core never flies as an F9 booster, but only as part of FH
3) FH is stated as not being human rated and not intended to launch manned spacecraft

Is it possible that SX left the EDS out of the center core to lower mass and cost? Has anyone at SX ever stated definitively whether the center core carries EDS hardware or does not carry EDS hardware?

In fact, given that none of the early blocks have been intended to launch Dragon2, do we know for sure that all F9 cores have the EDS included?
« Last Edit: 02/23/2018 04:47 am by TomH »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Op-ed by Jeff Bingham on FH and SLS
« Reply #59 on: 02/23/2018 05:06 am »
We do not need SLS to do the heavy lifting.  We can use FH and distributed lift.  FH is real and SLS only exists on paper.  NASA should be designing missions to FH specs and not a rocket that will never fly more than three or four times.

I'm a huge SpaceX fan, but in order for distributed lift to be truly successful, payloads should NOT be designed for only the largest launch vehicle (Falcon Heavy for now), they should be designed so that a variety of launch vehicles can lift them to LEO.

So not only distributed as in the number of launches that are required, but also distributed as in the number of launch vehicles that can be participating.

Sure that's not going to be the most cost efficient approach, but it will allow the most participation by the most partners, and we'll need lots of partnerships in order to afford to expand out into space. And right now it's unlikely NASA can afford to go anywhere in a big way by itself...

My $0.02
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0