Conditions necessary for SLS/Orion to be cancelled?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

For years people have been debating the merits of SLS vs potential commercial alternatives, but I think less debate on what's actually needed to overcome the political realities that currently require SLS/Orion.

Here's a piece by the National Space Society that attempts to define criteria that would be sufficient for the political reality to change:

Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls …. Whither SLS/Orion?
by National Space Society | Aug 28, 2019

[...]
This essay asks the question – what criteria would impel even the most conservative space planner to abandon SLS/Orion? And when might those criteria be satisfied?

https://space.nss.org/ask-not-for-whom-the-bell-tolls-whither-sls-orion/

The proposed (conservative) criteria to abandon SLS/Orion are (more details in the above):

1. Commercial Crew is operational
2. Ten successful flights in a row of an HLV other than SLS
3. Ten successful flights in a row of a second HLV other than SLS
4. Marshall Spaceflight Center must have a major project to replace SLS
5. Johnson Spaceflight Center must have a major human spaceflight project to replace Orion
6. Major SLS/Orion contractors need new projects similar in size to SLS/Orion
7. An alternative plan for all envisioned SLS/Orion missions is needed

The NSS concludes:

A reasonable netting out of all these dates might be 2024 for a conservative planner. However, the direction of things will be clear much sooner, probably by the end of 2021, and especially if orbital Starship testing is going well.

Based on his tweets last night, I think Elon is trying hard to make things clear in 2020 or even sooner!

[speedevil]

6. Major SLS/Orion contractors need new projects similar in size to SLS/Orion

I've wondered how to get the contractors to swap from making $25k/kg+++ stuff, to $1000/kg stuff for a reusable SS class launcher.
At $1000/kg, you can fill fifty SS a year with stuff off the current HSF budget.
At $25K/kg and many year lead times, probably not one.

I'm not sure it can be done.

[JohnFornaro]

SLS should be cancelled any minute now.  The President has omitted mentioning SLS in his tweets:

Omission is just as important as inclusion in politics.

[freddo411]

For years people have been debating the merits of SLS vs potential commercial alternatives, but I think less debate on what's actually needed to overcome the political realities that currently require SLS/Orion.

Here's a piece by the National Space Society that attempts to define criteria that would be sufficient for the political reality to change:

Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls …. Whither SLS/Orion?
by National Space Society | Aug 28, 2019

[...]
This essay asks the question – what criteria would impel even the most conservative space planner to abandon SLS/Orion? And when might those criteria be satisfied?

https://space.nss.org/ask-not-for-whom-the-bell-tolls-whither-sls-orion/

The proposed (conservative) criteria to abandon SLS/Orion are (more details in the above):

1. Commercial Crew is operational
2. Ten successful flights in a row of an HLV other than SLS
3. Ten successful flights in a row of a second HLV other than SLS
4. Marshall Spaceflight Center must have a major project to replace SLS
5. Johnson Spaceflight Center must have a major human spaceflight project to replace Orion
6. Major SLS/Orion contractors need new projects similar in size to SLS/Orion
7. An alternative plan for all envisioned SLS/Orion missions is needed

Those are plausible assumptions, but they are not sufficient to cause SLS to be cancelled.

Also, both Obama and Trump have made public, official efforts to cancel SLS.  The plausible scenario to ending SLS is the end of Shelby’s tenor as senator


CORRECTION: as noted below, Trump has not tried to cancel SLS.   My mistake.

[Proponent]

When did Trump make an effort to cancel SLS?  He's groused about its cost twice, but to my knowledge that's all.

[abaddon]

SLS should be cancelled any minute now.  The President has omitted mentioning SLS in his tweets:

Omission is just as important as inclusion in politics.

Omission is important when the omitting individual is trying to sell Congress on the creation of a new program that requires Congress to cut the check.  Omission is not important when the program exists, is funded, and is fully supported and required by Congress.

Snark doesn't make for better arguments.

[freddo411]

When did Trump make an effort to cancel SLS?  He's groused about its cost twice, but to my knowledge that's all.

Oops, my mistake.    The Trump budget proposals did NOT try to defund SLS.    They included planned defunding of ISS in 2025 and current defunding of WFIRST.    Also, NASA administrator Jim B. talking about using commercial rockets to fly EM-1 indicates ... something.

[butters]

Agree with 1 and probably 2. Not sure if 3 matters. 4-7 seem more like post-conditions than pre-conditions for canceling SLS.

I think the key factor will be private Starship demo missions including Dear Moon. If SpaceX demonstrates an unmanned lunar surface roundtrip, for example, then it becomes extremely difficult to continue defending SLS/Orion. The change will be forced upon NASA and Congress, and *then* they will worry about what to do with MSFC and to a lesser extent JSC and the traditional contractors.

This list of criteria, in my opinion, reflects a launcher-centric way of thinking about spaceflight, when the reality is that SLS is not really under political pressure from any rival launchers. Starship is not an existential threat to SLS because it's an SLS-class launcher, it's a threat because it could land crew on the moon and Mars. That's what ultimately makes it infeasible for NASA and Congress to keep doing business as usual.

[Lar]

6. Major SLS/Orion contractors need new projects similar in size to SLS/Orion

I've wondered how to get the contractors to swap from making $25k/kg+++ stuff, to $1000/kg stuff for a reusable SS class launcher.
At $1000/kg, you can fill fifty SS a year with stuff off the current HSF budget.
At $25K/kg and many year lead times, probably not one.

I'm not sure it can be done.

I suppose we could give LazyB and LockMart stuff to do that isn't actually important.... Payoff money as it were, and let other more efficient contractors make the key stuff. Because I don't think they've demonstrated capability that is cost efficient. Not in this domain.

[speedevil]

6. Major SLS/Orion contractors need new projects similar in size to SLS/Orion

I've wondered how to get the contractors to swap from making $25k/kg+++ stuff, to $1000/kg stuff for a reusable SS class launcher.
At $1000/kg, you can fill fifty SS a year with stuff off the current HSF budget.
At $25K/kg and many year lead times, probably not one.

I'm not sure it can be done.

I suppose we could give LazyB and LockMart stuff to do that isn't actually important.... Payoff money as it were, and let other more efficient contractors make the key stuff. Because I don't think they've demonstrated capability that is cost efficient. Not in this domain.

The only real gap in the medium term arsenal that SpaceX probably can't fill - assuming SS succeeds fully:
Megawatt through fractional gigawatt nuclear reactors, and related technologies - droplet/dust radiators, for example.

Want an actual base on Titan? (ISRU with exposed ice and simple distillation of methane from the atmosphere)

Almost everything else at NASA is at risk if you can carry your ten of your normal lab instruments to your destination in a 25C atmosphere with plenty of radiation shielding and not have to give the least thought to reducing mass or changing the packaging.

[dglow]

How much expertise regarding potential Mars-transit habitation is held by NASA? Are the water recycling systems for ISS fully bespoke, or available from private industry? How has Bigelow tackled this?

[jadebenn]

Let's go through those "conditions" one-by-one.

1. Commercial Crew is operational

No. This will not affect SLS. They fulfill different roles.

2. Ten successful flights in a row of an HLV other than SLS
3. Ten successful flights in a row of a second HLV other than SLS

These two have some qualifiers. Do they mean before SLS flies? What's their definition of an HLV?

Depending on the answers to those questions, my answer ranges from "plausible" to "ridiculous."

4. Marshall Spaceflight Center must have a major project to replace SLS
5. Johnson Spaceflight Center must have a major human spaceflight project to replace Orion

Realistic.

6. Major SLS/Orion contractors need new projects similar in size to SLS/Orion

The politics would probably dictate NASA throws them a few bones, but I think this overestimates the political influence they have. They'd probably get something, but not at the SLS's scale.

7. An alternative plan for all envisioned SLS/Orion missions is needed

Absolutely.

Points 2 and 3 are my big questions here, and point 1 is just bad. But the rest of the points are pretty reasonable assumptions.

[envy887]

5. Johnson Spaceflight Center must have a major human spaceflight project to replace Orion
6. Major SLS/Orion contractors need new projects similar in size to SLS/Orion
7. An alternative plan for all envisioned SLS/Orion missions is needed

I'm not sure why they assume Orion will be canceled with SLS. There are at least 4 other plausible ways I can think of to use Orion on a commercial vehicle, other than all the ones already considered and rejected for EM-1.

Orion is a reasonably useful vehicle that is mostly handicapped by the expense, flight rate, and poor performance of the Block 1 SLS.

[envy887]

Let's go through those "conditions" one-by-one.

1. Commercial Crew is operational

No. This will not affect SLS. They fulfill different roles.

Read the reasoning in the article, it has nothing to do with technical roles. It's purely political bargaining.

2. Ten successful flights in a row of an HLV other than SLS
3. Ten successful flights in a row of a second HLV other than SLS

These two have some qualifiers. Do they mean before SLS flies? What's their definition of an HLV?

Depending on the answers to those questions, my answer ranges from "plausible" to "ridiculous."

They seem to be using ~30,000 kg to LEO as the limit for HLV, since Omega and Vulcan are listed as possibilities while DIVH is not. I agree that this seems inadequate to replace SLS, and the 50,000 kg SHLV metric should be the minimum - or more appropiately 25,000 kg to TLI. There is no way either Vulcan or Omega can get Orion to TLI, for example. FH and New Glenn could do it with a LH2 3rd stage, but Omega and Vulcan are too small for even that to work. Vulcan needs distributed launch, at a very minimum.

[jadebenn]

Let's go through those "conditions" one-by-one.

1. Commercial Crew is operational

No. This will not affect SLS. They fulfill different roles.

Read the reasoning in the article, it has nothing to do with technical roles. It's purely political bargaining.

I don't think it will effect the politics in any meaningful way. If it would, it would've already done so by now. Congress doesn't view their objectives as overlapping with SLS (aside from the deprecated ISS DRM for SLS that will never get used).

[Stan-1967]

Condition #8:  Any LOM or, heaven forbid, LOC on an SLS flight

At least as likely as any of the conditions 1-7 aligning.

[Coastal Ron]

The only condition required to cancel the SLS and Orion programs is that Congress decides to defund them.

Why would Congress defund them?

As of today the only program that is funded that specifically calls out for the SLS is the Europa Clipper, and there is a chance that could be moved to a Falcon Heavy.

Other than that there are NO funded missions that require the SLS or the Orion. Yet. We'll see what Congress decides on the Artemis program in the FY2020 budget, but if that is not funded then Congress should be asking itself why NASA needs the largest rocket in the world and an under-capable space capsule.

I don't expect anything to happen in the FY2020 or FY2021 budgets, especially since we're coming into a highly watched election period, so the FY2022 budget is likely the first opportunity to address what we do with the SLS, Orion, and all the NASA personnel that are supporting those programs.

[meberbs]

2. Ten successful flights in a row of an HLV other than SLS
3. Ten successful flights in a row of a second HLV other than SLS

These two have some qualifiers. Do they mean before SLS flies? What's their definition of an HLV?

Depending on the answers to those questions, my answer ranges from "plausible" to "ridiculous."

You could read the article, if you do, it is clear that since these are the requirements (in their opinion) to obsolete SLS so completely that no one could reasonably fight for its continued existence. Therefore, it is irrelevant if it happens before or after SLS has flown, since either way the SLS would be obsolete. They also clearly discuss some upcoming vehicles they consider HLV, and their expected timeline. Actually they seem significantly conservative on Starship, and seem to underestimate SpaceX's current observed rate of progress.

Considering the position you seem to have often taken on SLS, the question I would like to see you answer is not if/when you think these criteria will be met, but whether you think these criteria are necessary or sufficient. (I have drafted a long post with my answer to that question that I expect to post soon.)

[Lar]

2. Ten successful flights in a row of an HLV other than SLS
3. Ten successful flights in a row of a second HLV other than SLS

These two have some qualifiers. Do they mean before SLS flies? What's their definition of an HLV?

Depending on the answers to those questions, my answer ranges from "plausible" to "ridiculous."

You could read the article, if you do, it is clear that since these are the requirements (in their opinion) to obsolete SLS so completely that no one could reasonably fight for its continued existence. Therefore, it is irrelevant if it happens before or after SLS has flown, since either way the SLS would be obsolete. They also clearly discuss some upcoming vehicles they consider HLV, and their expected timeline. Actually they seem significantly conservative on Starship, and seem to underestimate SpaceX's current observed rate of progress.

Considering the position you seem to have often taken on SLS, the question I would like to see you answer is not if/when you think these criteria will be met, but whether you think these criteria are necessary or sufficient. (I have drafted a long post with my answer to that question that I expect to post soon.)

Pretty clear to me that jadebenn hasn't actually read the article, but that's OK.  I'm quite interested in whether jadebenn can even contemplate what conditions would allow (or require) SLS to be cancelled, and articulate them clearly.  As meberbs said... if these are not the necessary and sufficient conditions, what are? Surely there must be some? Or is SLS so awesome that it is uncancellable short of apocalypse?

(mod) Defense of SLS is off topic here, as is criticism. Stick to the topic of what conditions...

[ChrisWilson68]

I disagree with this list.  I think the list is pretty silly, actually.  It's just one person's speculation about possible futures.

There are lots of different things that could cause SLS to be cancelled.

The truth is that SLS is funded because there is a mass of people whose jobs depend on it, which makes them push very strongly for it, while nearly everyone else doesn't pay attention.  The people who depend on it provide justifications that sound reasonable enough to people that don't know the difference.

Either one of two things can change this situation:

  1. Events can occur that make more people see that the SLS justifications aren't really valid.

  2. A strong lobby can emerge for an alternative use of SLS funds.

I think over time both 1 and 2 have been starting to happen and will accelerate in the next few years.

For 1, imagine Dear Moon happening.  Then imagine Starship landing people on the moon and returning them to Earth.

For 2, as SpaceX and Blue Origin grow and get more money, they will employ more people, and their political power will grow.