...I used a lower per flt cost for SLS 2B in the hope that the cost per flt would go down with more use.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/06/2016 04:09 pm...I used a lower per flt cost for SLS 2B in the hope that the cost per flt would go down with more use.That is wishful thinking. Expect the SLS 2B to be more expensive than the SLS 1B, IMO. Also to get to the SLS 2B you need to restart RS-25 production and developed some flavor of advance booster. The advance booster is iffy considering the past with the STS's booster history.And your table shows how noncompetitive the SLS is for assembling vehicle stacks in LEO in price. Of course the SLS will have a bigger payload fairing.
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/06/2016 09:14 pmhow the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing? Live test on a commercial launcher with an adapter. After all the Atlas V got that 7.2 meter fairing option.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/06/2016 09:14 pmhow the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?At the Space Power Facility in Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The largest vacuum chamber there is 30 meters in diameter and 37 meters tall.
Fiso podcast on SLS.http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Sanders-Fuller-DaLee_8-3-16/Costs aside there is lot to be said for being able to deliver 45t and 10m dia payloads direct to Mars , plus greatly reduce travel time for outer solar system robotic missions.
I guess its once again time for my quarterly reminder that should SLS fly, or fly more than a couple-four times, the ultimate variation we'll see is 1B. Having said that, I fully support SLS, and I bet the refined 1B will throw N. of 111T.
I'd say slay the Orion, keep the SLS, and use commercial flights. I could see the SLS easily flying an empty Mars or Lunar lander into LEO and whatever equipment, and then a smaller commercial launcher deliver the humans separately. That would be the best compromise to me.
With SLS you're looking at >$2bn per year for 2 launches. Starting at the end of the next decade. Until it flies at that rate it is going to cost another ~$20bn. All that while FH comes "for free" and SEP costs a fraction and is needed anyway.
Quote from: Oli on 08/07/2016 01:46 pmWith SLS you're looking at >$2bn per year for 2 launches. Starting at the end of the next decade. Until it flies at that rate it is going to cost another ~$20bn. All that while FH comes "for free" and SEP costs a fraction and is needed anyway.As opposed (adjusting to match projected timeframe dollars for SLS) to flying eight FH's for $2bn per year? Or four Delta IV's? Or three Vulcans?And how in the world do you figure that FH comes "for free"?! FH right now is being guesstimated at a cost per launch between $120 million and $250 million, depending on who you listen to. Delta IV is already around a half billion per launch, Atlas V at around a quarter to a third of a billion, and I don't know anyone who is willing to bet that Vulcan will cost less than either of the other two ULA offerings available at present.This is, pardon me for saying so, one of the stupidest examples of going way overboard on "SLS will cost so much, it's completely absurd!" By trying to state that FH is "for free," you completely invalidate any argument you may have.Face it -- there ain't no big launchers that aren't relatively expensive right now. The difference between SpaceX and other providers is simply a matter of degree, at the moment.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 08/06/2016 09:54 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/06/2016 09:14 pmhow the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?At the Space Power Facility in Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The largest vacuum chamber there is 30 meters in diameter and 37 meters tall.Oh, I know Plum Brook well. I've been inside it before. But even testing the 5m commercial fairings is cramped, let alone a much taller and wider 10m fairing. I'd argue there isn't enough room for a 10m by 30m fairing to be fully tested inside the space, since it needs room to actually separate, with all the mechanisms involved.Heck, the doors are only 15m square. I don't see it realistically and fully being tested at Plum Brook, and I've never seen this realistically addressed.10m fairings are a nightmare and likely to cost a fortune. How do you even transport them? Build them? Test them?8.4m fairing even is a stretch (though isn't as absurd as 10m). My bet is SLS will fly only with Orion or the 5m fairing before being cancelled.
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.
Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.Nineteen-fifty-five. Two years before anyone, anywhere had even demonstrated the capability of orbiting anything. At all.
In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time.
And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development. So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.
So why does Congress want NASA to create a U.S. Government capability? If there is a real need, it should be easy to quantify.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/07/2016 08:16 pmSo why does Congress want NASA to create a U.S. Government capability? If there is a real need, it should be easy to quantify.Like a manned space program?