Quote from: notsorandom on 12/05/2014 05:50 pmIf you are the SMD do you want to pay for the launch vehicle? The money saved by using a gifted launch vehicle can be used to on reducing schedule and technology risk or a better scientific payload.Gifted launch vehicle? Haven't you heard of TNSTAAFL?The money for building a SLS has to come out of NASA's budget somewhere, unless you think the National Park Service is going to be "gifting" some of their budget over to cover the costs. So if the Science directorate that would be building and operating the Europa mission doesn't pay for the launcher, that means the Exploration directorate has to, which means that much less money for them to use for future SLS development (i.e. the 130mt version mandated by Congress).But there is more to the Europa decision than just cost (although that's pretty significant in itself), and that would be potential availability of the launcher when the Europa mission payload is ready. They already know that they can launch on an EELV and do the mission, and there is pretty much zero risk in relying on an EELV because if one is not available the mission could be changed to another (yes, not easy, but doable). But if the SLS is not available, for whatever reason, there are no alternatives. That's a big risk for the Europa mission to take.
If you are the SMD do you want to pay for the launch vehicle? The money saved by using a gifted launch vehicle can be used to on reducing schedule and technology risk or a better scientific payload.
SLS has a certain future, more so than any Europa mission.QuoteThe best that can be said is that the development of the SLS is going well. But without real users that makes it's operational future very uncertain.
The best that can be said is that the development of the SLS is going well. But without real users that makes it's operational future very uncertain.
QuoteBy 2017 when the new president and congress are sworn in it will be will be within a year of initial operating capability.No, the first full-up SLS launch is not until 2021, which is when the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) will have it's first flight. So the earliest NASA could declare the SLS operational is then, assuming two test flights are enough to certify the SLS as being operational.
By 2017 when the new president and congress are sworn in it will be will be within a year of initial operating capability.
QuoteIt is doubtful it is going to run into any developmental problems...Most of my career has been working for government contractors supporting military products, and Congress cancels programs all the time before they become operational, and sometimes after they have become operational. Congress has no long term memory about their actions, and they have no compunction about undoing what a previous Congress has done. No program is safe.
It is doubtful it is going to run into any developmental problems...
Gifted the launcher means that HSF picks up the tab or part of it for that particular SLS and SMD isn't stuck with paying for all of it. They are both part of NASA therefor its not a problem legally.
They made deals like this with probes and the Shuttle a number of times. There was a while where the cost charged for a Shuttle launch was the marginal cost of the flight rather than picking up the proportional total systems cost.
Lets just for the sake of argument and say that SLS is useless (its not of course). The F-35 needs two types of engines right? That is a billion dollar program which is happily cranking along with no real use. Lack of a need has never stood in the way of politics.
Yes, when SLS launches in 2018 it be a full up flight. There will be no battleship stages on it. It will fling Orion out beyond LEO.
The same actors and dynamics between them who lead to SLS's creation years ago are still in place. They will be till 2017. No one new has been elected who has the power to kill SLS. It is also logical to assume that people will continue to act in the same way as they have been previously. I doubt Sen. Shely is going to wake up one morning and think "wow I have made a terrible mistake".
Quote from: jgoldader on 12/07/2014 11:52 amNASA has shown it is serious about exploring Mars.SNIPIf NASA was serious about Europa, you'd see a similar cadence, and it's not there. Mission times are very long, costs are very high, and power and radiation are much more significant obstacles than on Mars missions. You're contradicting yourself. Even if NASA was "serious" about Europa, all those physical factors remain in place that would limit the cadence of Europa missions. Mars is an attractive target for exploration, but it is also an easier target for exploration. It is possible to send a mission there, gather the data, and then design a new mission based upon that data and send it only a few years later. In fact, with Mars it is possible to do this several times a decade.In contrast, it takes so long to get out to Jupiter that you have to wait a long time before you can incorporate what you learn into a new mission.
NASA has shown it is serious about exploring Mars.SNIPIf NASA was serious about Europa, you'd see a similar cadence, and it's not there. Mission times are very long, costs are very high, and power and radiation are much more significant obstacles than on Mars missions.
Well, unicorns or no, SLS is Congress's baby. And if SLS needs payloads, then Congress will mandate payloads. Heck, they might even be persuaded to pay for them.
I can just see it... "Mr. Chairman, I propose that we send a 1 meter by 4 meter by 9 meter block of black obsidian stone, to the Moon, and more precisely Tycho Crater..." "Mr. Senator from California, why should we sent this block of stone to the moon and what purpose would it serve." "Mr. Chairman, it would be a dedication to Stanley Kubrick and Sir Arthur C. Clarke and the movie they both worked on, "2001: A Space Odyssey"". "Mr Senator, would it not actually be a better monument to these brilliantly foresighted people to actually establish a working Moon Base, say around Copernicus Crater?" "Perhaps it would, Mr. Chairman, but this project has the advantage of providing thousands of jobs, being vastly cheaper than a Moon Base, and it would be really cool." "Mr. Senator, I think perhaps the "Coolness Factor" is perhaps the deciding factor here. All infavor of the project as proposed?..."
Quote from: notsorandom on 12/08/2014 04:03 amThey made deals like this with probes and the Shuttle a number of times. There was a while where the cost charged for a Shuttle launch was the marginal cost of the flight rather than picking up the proportional total systems cost.I doubt they shifted the full amount over though, since at the time NASA really didn't keep track of Shuttle costs. Regardless, it doesn't matter how much they shift around, it still comes out of NASA's overall budget - and so far the budget has not been increased to account for flying the SLS operationally.
I doubt they shifted the full amount over though, since at the time NASA really didn't keep track of Shuttle costs. Regardless, it doesn't matter how much they shift around, it still comes out of NASA's overall budget - and so far the budget has not been increased to account for flying the SLS operationally.
Once STS was built they found ways to build and fly things. Anyone who thinks it is not possible again has their head in the sand.
Quote from: newpylong on 12/08/2014 05:48 pmOnce STS was built they found ways to build and fly things. Anyone who thinks it is not possible again has their head in the sand.It still was sucking the life out of other NASA programs. The "continuing" development cycle is just a way of keeping MSFC busy.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/08/2014 06:29 amI doubt they shifted the full amount over though, since at the time NASA really didn't keep track of Shuttle costs. Regardless, it doesn't matter how much they shift around, it still comes out of NASA's overall budget - and so far the budget has not been increased to account for flying the SLS operationally.This is a straw man argument.Once core development (by far the most expensive) winds down the money will be there within the appropriated budget. No one is planning on any substantial increase.
If HSF wasn't being carried out, legislators would probably see NASA as simply a smaller agency like ESA.
Cancelling SLS/Orion doesn't lead a legislator to all of a sudden think we need to pour 3 billiion a year into heliophysics instead. Ok, we aren't sending humans to space, therefore we need to understand the sun better. It just doesn't compute.
It is just as likely to go to some other agency or leave the budget altogether to accomplish deficit reduction.
You are right. If that were all that was to considered, it would not compute or equate. But we have the "NASA Industry Complex" to take into consideration. Can you see a politician like Shelby voting to significantly reduce the size of the Marshall Space Flight Center - for any reason? How do you think Boeing and Lockheed Martin would react to a significant reduction in contracts coming from NASA? Lots of people care about these topics, and not for the reasons you or I would.
Quote from: newpylong on 12/08/2014 05:48 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 12/08/2014 06:29 amI doubt they shifted the full amount over though, since at the time NASA really didn't keep track of Shuttle costs. Regardless, it doesn't matter how much they shift around, it still comes out of NASA's overall budget - and so far the budget has not been increased to account for flying the SLS operationally.This is a straw man argument.Once core development (by far the most expensive) winds down the money will be there within the appropriated budget. No one is planning on any substantial increase.This is speculation of course, since no one in the political world that is responsible for providing NASA with funding has stated that NASA's budget will not be decreased as development winds down on the SLS. And the only way to they would increase funding would be by approving a mission or payload for the SLS, and so far they have not seriously considered any.QuoteOnce STS was built they found ways to build and fly things. Anyone who thinks it is not possible again has their head in the sand.I'm not sure you realize the difference between the Shuttle and the SLS, and how that affects the future of the SLS.The Shuttle was a transportation system that was planned to provide frequent, low-cost access to space for payloads up to about 20mt, which satisfied the needs of just about every commercial, military and NASA product and program. Customers were building payloads for the Shuttle well in advance of the Shuttle becoming operational. Just a few examples:- The first commercial payload launch on the Shuttle (SBS 3) was ordered in 1977 and launched on STS-5 (11/11/82).- NASA's first TDRS satellite was launched on STS-6 (4/4/83). Don't know when construction started, but it was 3 more years until the second of seven ordered was ready for launch.- The Hubble was funded in 1978 and initially planned to fly on the Shuttle in 1983. It was delayed until 1990, which is another cautionary tale for the SLS.Just look at the list of Shuttle missions on this Wikipedia page and you'll see that customers were not waiting for the Shuttle system to proven before they committed to flying on it. Which was pretty ballsy considering no one had ever created a manned, reusable spaceplane before. By comparison there is virtually no technical risk concerning the SLS - the U.S. aerospace industry has been building rockets for decades, and is pretty good at it.But the SLS is not being built to provide frequent, low-cost access to space, nor is it supposed to be the primary transportation system that commercial, military and NASA will use. NASA will not even use it for every need they have, since it's too expensive.So while the answer for the question "who will use the Shuttle" was "EVERYONE", the answer to the question of "who will use the SLS" is "only users that have HLV-sized payloads or need high-energy transport beyond Earth". See the difference?The pool of potential payloads for the SLS is rather limited without substantially increased funding by Congress for new NASA missions such as going to the Moon/Mars, and the Europa and Mars sample return missions are not enough need to justify the SLS by themselves (and who knows when they will eventually launch anyways).At this point the SLS is a niche solution for a need that has not been proven.
Launching would be a good way of keeping them busy too.
Considering I was involved in shuttle this was a good laugh.The point, which you once again sidestepped, is that it is speculation that a budget increase is required to fly anything.Didn't you say you were in operations? You should know it's common place to see reduced operational cost as a product's life cycle moves from development to operational use.