We won't stand for armwaving, "OMG, cancel it" or any of that crap here (it's boring). You can be against it, but saying you want it to be canceled for the 500th time is just dull. Posts that are not useful, up to the standards of this forum or anything the moderators deem to be crap will be deleted. Want to rant, go on Twitter.(This warning is because the previous thread devolved into armwaving).
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 07/04/2018 04:57 pmWe won't stand for armwaving, "OMG, cancel it" or any of that crap here (it's boring). You can be against it, but saying you want it to be canceled for the 500th time is just dull. Posts that are not useful, up to the standards of this forum or anything the moderators deem to be crap will be deleted. Want to rant, go on Twitter.(This warning is because the previous thread devolved into armwaving). Can I preemptively ask for clarification on exactly where the line is drawn in regards to comparing SLS to other vehicles? I think laying that out at the start might help.
The National HSF Mission is ill-defined and the commercial ones mostly support the owners goals and not any national objective. Thus there is no main effort and no unity of command/purpose.
Quote from: mike robel on 07/05/2018 02:31 pmThe National HSF Mission is ill-defined and the commercial ones mostly support the owners goals and not any national objective. Thus there is no main effort and no unity of command/purpose.The national HSF mission is very clearly defined as: "Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;". Among the 3 major commercial players, two are always aiming for the Moon, the third is also willing and eager to provide transport to the Moon. So there is no divide between national goal and commercial players' goals, they are very well aligned.The problem is USG is ignoring their own strategic goal, instead they just want job program for NASA centers and big defense contractors.
Quote from: su27k on 07/05/2018 05:00 pmQuote from: mike robel on 07/05/2018 02:31 pmThe National HSF Mission is ill-defined and the commercial ones mostly support the owners goals and not any national objective. Thus there is no main effort and no unity of command/purpose.The national HSF mission is very clearly defined as: "Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;". Among the 3 major commercial players, two are always aiming for the Moon, the third is also willing and eager to provide transport to the Moon. So there is no divide between national goal and commercial players' goals, they are very well aligned.The problem is USG is ignoring their own strategic goal, instead they just want job program for NASA centers and big defense contractors. This is may sound semantical, but what you call a mission above is a goal and you properly reference it in your final comment.A mission specifies who, what, when, and where and sometimes why, for example: "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
The problem is USG is ignoring their own strategic goal, instead they just want job program for NASA centers and big defense contractors. With respect, can someone please offer some hard data that shows this is true and how it was proven? I have read this a gazillion times it seems but it is more like an article of faith than fact.I'm just an interested reader and claim no knowledge on the level many of you are on. But this is frustrating to read every 10-20 posts. Thank you
Taking the Baseline Scenario forward, adding an Advanced Booster as in Figure 10, reveals how costs and ambitions increasing at a pace faster than budgets easily places a lien on 100% of any funding the end of the ISS might make available one day. This is just for the two launches per year, plus a replacement booster development in parallel, not payloads, not Mars or any mission in-space elements like habitation or landers.
As long as flat NASA human spaceflight budgets are continued, NASA will be unable to conduct any human space exploration programs beyond cis-lunar space. The only pathways that successfully land humans on the surface of Mars require spending to rise above inflation for an extended period.
3. "to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.": Since SLS is projected to eat up all the funding, it's obviously not going to enable anything. Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.
6. "followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations": Same as #3, SLS/Orion is just too expensive to do anything beyond the Moon. The National Research Council's 2014 report "Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration" concludes the following assuming SLS is used:QuoteAs long as flat NASA human spaceflight budgets are continued, NASA will be unable to conduct any human space exploration programs beyond cis-lunar space. The only pathways that successfully land humans on the surface of Mars require spending to rise above inflation for an extended period.
2. "with commercial and international partners": This part is obvious, SLS is not partnering with commercial companies. No international partners either, but that's a good thing since the current international space cooperation model is completely broken (another topic).
Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.
Quote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am2. "with commercial and international partners": This part is obvious, SLS is not partnering with commercial companies. No international partners either, but that's a good thing since the current international space cooperation model is completely broken (another topic).True for SLS and EGS, but not for Orion and LOP-G.
QuoteEven if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.Sortie missions to the Moon is a lot better than what we've had for the last 46 years. Also, Apollo was much more than Flags and Footprints. Our knowledge of the Moon (and the rest of the planets) was fundamentally changed by what was learned from the Apollo missions.
Quote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am3. "to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.": Since SLS is projected to eat up all the funding, it's obviously not going to enable anything. Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.Twice per year is 4 launches per mars opportunity. That is IMLEO of 380,000-520,000 kg per launch window. BFR is supposedly 100 people with an IMLEO mass in the 1,500,000 kg range. That is only 15,000 kg per person. In fact, SLS could launch a fueled ~1/10th scale BFR-like vehicle with a crew of ~10 in one launch.I guess with ISRU, your assumptions go out the window. Or SpaceX's numbers are questionable.
Quote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am6. "followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations": Same as #3, SLS/Orion is just too expensive to do anything beyond the Moon. The National Research Council's 2014 report "Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration" concludes the following assuming SLS is used:QuoteAs long as flat NASA human spaceflight budgets are continued, NASA will be unable to conduct any human space exploration programs beyond cis-lunar space. The only pathways that successfully land humans on the surface of Mars require spending to rise above inflation for an extended period.There is no flat NASA budget or NASA human space flight budget, the 2018 NASA budget was a 6.2% increase over the previous budget. The prior year was a 1% increase. The year before that was a 7.2% increase. Compared to a 1.9%-2.1% inflation rate for those years. As opposed to the years with the sudden end to ISS construction, the cancellation of constellation and end of Shuttle when the budget dropped 4%/5% per year.
1) Budgets will increase only at their historical rate, here at 1.95% a year, from data going back 15 years and project costs will increase at the rate published in the NASA New Start Inflation Indices, 2.5% a year.* By relation, NASA will continue to lose purchase power, as it has historically (a 9% loss of purchase power since 2003).
Quote from: ncb1397 on 07/06/2018 04:45 amThere is no flat NASA budget or NASA human space flight budget, the 2018 NASA budget was a 6.2% increase over the previous budget. The prior year was a 1% increase. The year before that was a 7.2% increase. Compared to a 1.9%-2.1% inflation rate for those years. As opposed to the years with the sudden end to ISS construction, the cancellation of constellation and end of Shuttle when the budget dropped 4%/5% per year.NASA's life cycle analysis in https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008892.pdf disagrees:Quote1) Budgets will increase only at their historical rate, here at 1.95% a year, from data going back 15 years and project costs will increase at the rate published in the NASA New Start Inflation Indices, 2.5% a year.* By relation, NASA will continue to lose purchase power, as it has historically (a 9% loss of purchase power since 2003).
There is no flat NASA budget or NASA human space flight budget, the 2018 NASA budget was a 6.2% increase over the previous budget. The prior year was a 1% increase. The year before that was a 7.2% increase. Compared to a 1.9%-2.1% inflation rate for those years. As opposed to the years with the sudden end to ISS construction, the cancellation of constellation and end of Shuttle when the budget dropped 4%/5% per year.
Quote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am2. "with commercial and international partners": This part is obvious, SLS is not partnering with commercial companies. No international partners either, but that's a good thing since the current international space cooperation model is completely broken (another topic).True for SLS and EGS, but not for Orion and LOP-G.QuoteEven if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.Sortie missions to the Moon is a lot better than what we've had for the last 46 years. Also, Apollo was much more than Flags and Footprints. Our knowledge of the Moon (and the rest of the planets) was fundamentally changed by what was learned from the Apollo missions.
The problem is USG is ignoring their own strategic goal, instead they just want job program for NASA centers and big defense contractors. With respect, can someone please offer some hard data that shows this is true and how it was proven?
2. The first mission will only have a dozen or so crew members, not 100.3. So IMLEO mass per person is 750t