SLS build rate is like half per year, not 1 per year.If you're going by max rate, you'll have to compare with Shuttle's projected max (15, 20 per year? 40?). Shuttle achieved 9 missions one year and has a whole bunch of years where they achieved 7 or 8.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/23/2016 06:53 pmSLS build rate is like half per year, not 1 per year.If you're going by max rate, you'll have to compare with Shuttle's projected max (15, 20 per year? 40?). Shuttle achieved 9 missions one year and has a whole bunch of years where they achieved 7 or 8.Just look at the VAC flow and you will see that it is more than half an SLS per year. July 2016 - SLS hydrogen tank qualification article completeJune 2016 - SLS O2 tank confidence articleJune 2016 - LVSA structural test articleApril 2016 - Engine section flight articleFeb 2016 - SLS hydrogen tank confidence articleThat hardware represents everything that goes into the Core stage except the forward skirt and inter-tank...in half a year.
Quote from: Proponent on 08/16/2016 11:00 amAnd with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post.It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 08/18/2016 05:04 pmQuote from: Proponent on 08/16/2016 11:00 amAnd with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post.It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASAWas a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994? If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.
Quote from: Proponent on 08/25/2016 02:10 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 08/18/2016 05:04 pmQuote from: Proponent on 08/16/2016 11:00 amAnd with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post.It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASAWas a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994? If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.Space Exploration Initiative. A return to the moon and a manned mission to mars was abandoned under Clinton who labeled it too expensive. Without a BEO program, NASA was descoped and hence required less funding to complete a more limited mission.
There is also simply the lack of motivation to start another large decade long program when the last one was a failure. Orion and SLS being successful, within the confines of the goals of the program, is good for NASA's topline budget while failure will have at least some detrimental affects.
This is all besides the point though. Someone was making the case that NASA's budget never significantly goes up and down and hence the topline budget can never be damaged by anything. This is clearly not the case, but there is a post Apollo floor of about 15 billion(2014 dollars) that it never has gone below. We, today, at a budget of 19.3 billion aren't near that floor and so a significant drop is feasible.
That is not America becoming weaker, that is the successful shift of capabilities from the government to the private sector. And shouldn't that always be the goal for non-defense capabilities?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/26/2016 08:42 pmThat is not America becoming weaker, that is the successful shift of capabilities from the government to the private sector. And shouldn't that always be the goal for non-defense capabilities?Well... not always this bit. Its often extremely disastrous for everyone (but the stakeholders) to privatize everything. Perhaps its emblematic of my generation, but I prefer having baseline government accountability instead the impenetrable black box of private corporations for most things.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 08/25/2016 11:56 pmQuote from: Proponent on 08/25/2016 02:10 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 08/18/2016 05:04 pmQuote from: Proponent on 08/16/2016 11:00 amAnd with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post.It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASAWas a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994? If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.Space Exploration Initiative. A return to the moon and a manned mission to mars was abandoned under Clinton who labeled it too expensive. Without a BEO program, NASA was descoped and hence required less funding to complete a more limited mission.Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study, but Congress never funded it. Thus, there was nothing to cancel. More later when I have more time.
NASA has a lot of overhead. Things like wind tunnels, engine testing facilities, zero-gravity simulation pools, etc. Which are needed if the U.S. Government is building it's own capabilities in space.But we have certainly reached a moment in history where the private sector is more capable than NASA for pushing mass to & through space. And without a defined need for capabilities that don't exist in the private sector, the business case for NASA to continue to have lots of legacy development capabilities will just get weaker.
The reason commercial space companies, especially new ones can build lower cost vehicles (landers, LV, capsules etc) is because they have full access to NASA facilities and knowledge. Without NASA help a lot of these companies would never get off the ground.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/28/2016 11:17 pmThe reason commercial space companies, especially new ones can build lower cost vehicles (landers, LV, capsules etc) is because they have full access to NASA facilities and knowledge. Without NASA help a lot of these companies would never get off the ground.The same could be said about just about everything the government funds - we all stand on the shoulders of those that came before us.
But the money that paid for all that came from taxpayers, both private citizens and companies, so sharing that knowledge is part of the repayment.
And at least for NASA, it's mandated by law that they share what they have learned.
And that still doesn't alter the situation we have where the private sector is now more capable than NASA with regards to moving mass to space. NASA is just contracting for services - paying Boeing to build the SLS, paying someone else to manage the launch ops, etc. Other than money, NASA is not really bringing much to the table that the private sector wouldn't be able to do on their own - if asked.
Quote from: Proponent on 08/26/2016 07:36 pmBush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study, but Congress never funded it. Thus, there was nothing to cancel. More later when I have more time.NASA got significant increases in funding every year for a few years after the 1989 speech. At one point, NASA was 1.0% of the federal budget. If those budget levels were sustained, adjusted for inflation, conceivably 2 or 3 parts of the 3 part SEI could have been completed and not just the space station.
Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study, but Congress never funded it. Thus, there was nothing to cancel. More later when I have more time.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 08/28/2016 06:57 pmQuote from: Proponent on 08/26/2016 07:36 pmBush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study, but Congress never funded it. Thus, there was nothing to cancel. More later when I have more time.NASA got significant increases in funding every year for a few years after the 1989 speech. At one point, NASA was 1.0% of the federal budget. If those budget levels were sustained, adjusted for inflation, conceivably 2 or 3 parts of the 3 part SEI could have been completed and not just the space station.But Congress did not appropriate any funds for SEI.
Jon posted this todayJonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdfNASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US. SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 09/02/2016 02:44 pmJon posted this todayJonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:Heck, ... if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV...
Jon posted this todayJonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:Heck, ... if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV...