Poll

As of right now, do you support SLS?

Yes
No
Undecided

Author Topic: POLL: SLS Current Opinion Poll and Single Post Thread - April, 2014  (Read 22359 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Almost an annual event, this poll is basic, to avoid it becoming convoluted, as has been the style of previous versions of this poll. We can have splinter polls with more options at a later date.

This is a SINGLE POST thread, meaning you get one post to provide your opinion. This allows everyone a voice without fear of having to spend the following days fighting off counter arguments. Do not address any other posts in this thread. This is for your say and your say only.

Posts are obviously restricted to L2 members only, given this is on the space policy area, but everyone can vote (providing you're logged in).

Second posts or posts that breach the above will be removed.

While I'm here, here's our SLS articles of late:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/sls/

We always struggle with voter apathy on polls for some reason, so don't be shy, vote. You do not have to post you reasons, but it helps.

I'll post my own opinion when I've got time.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2014 09:33 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
I voted in support of SLS, because there is nothing to replace it. I used to think that VentureStar could replace it, but I have since realized how difficult it would be to make a SSTO RLV.
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
I voted "No", but I did consider not voting because the question is not the right question.  Maybe it's the same question you've asked before so you want to track changes over time, but it really doesn't get to the core of the debate with the SLS.

For instance, if I vote "No" then it seems like I'm against space exploration with an HLV, which I'm not.  I can't wait for the day that we have enough demand for mass in space that only an HLV will satisfy that demand.  But that's not today, nor in the foreseeable future.

The more important question is "When will U.S. politicians (i.e. the President + Congress) provide enough funding to build payloads and operate missions such that a government-owned HLV is required?"

That to me is the heart of the debate, not whether I support this or that rocket.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I voted yes same as last time and barely again... I hear only fantasy talk from congress and no funding for missions and payloads forthcoming. All this while they undercut the need for fully funded and expedited Commercial Crew Vehicle... I give it another year I guess until it might be time to consider either redirect the seemingly “fixed” funding for NASA or mothball SLS for now...

Edit to add: This might be NASA's last kick at the can...
« Last Edit: 04/16/2014 07:34 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Space Pete

Votes yes - because I just don't want all ISS cargo and crew transportation, as well as BEO exploration, to be run by companies whose PR "strategy" is to Tweet a low-res picture or two once per quarter. Would completely ruin the enjoyment of it for me and many others.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Jeff Lerner

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 240
I voted yes.... I so want to get out of LEO..maybe grasping
at straws but right now this program seems
To be the horse to bet on.

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2460
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 278
Voted yes because following its development has shown it's the polar opposite of Constellation's Ares I development and has a much better chance of not only succeeding, but also providing the United States with an amazing capability.

Offline AndyX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 594
Undecided. SLS looks like a great rocket, but I'd want to see more payloads and a higher launch rate. Also, as a SpaceX fan, I would like to see how the BFR would compare against SLS. But I have no viable reason to dislike SLS and haven't seen a good argument against it.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
I voted yes.

I believe in the need for an HLV architecture especially with regards to lifting large elements to orbit such as deep space habs, surface habs, cargo/crew landers, ISRU infrastructure, etc..

NASA has the ball and needs to run with it as best it can under challenging executive and congressional demands.

If other commercially offered HLVs come along, then we can evaluate accordingly. I'm also cognizant of how quickly the fortunes of NASA can change. And I rather have the SLS ready to go when called upon by a new administration to go forth and inspire us again. Crazier things have happened.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I voted no, because
1) I am somewhat familiar with SRBs. The process of manufacturing, assembling and preparing them for flight is too expensive and hazardous to ever be practical, and they vastly complicate the launch abort process, requiring the enormous launch escape tower on the Orion
2) Space travel should not be spectacular and expensive, it should be practical and routine. I want to see 100 people in space at the same time, living and working productively. With SLS we could launch no more than four a year.
3)  With enough money it can certainly be made to fly. but the money spent on SLS would provide a better return if spent on reusable launch systems and new technology
4) The Falcon Heavy will launch from LC-39A next year, and provide all the heavy lift capability we need at a fraction of the cost. I hope people won't think of me as an "SLS-hater". I worked my butt off on this program. But I am convinced it will not succeed because it is too expensive. We cannot afford to launch it at a rate that will make human spaceflight practical.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2014 12:25 am by vulture4 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
I voted no.  The highest-level design decisions for SLS were terrible.  They were made by Congress to preserve existing jobs.  SLS is far more costly than it should be for the performance it will provide.  Those huge costs will be crippling our exploration program until SLS is cancelled.

The right thing to do would be to cancel SLS and solicit bids for systems with different capability levels.  Then we'll know how much a 140 ton-to-LEO system would cost versus a 70 ton-to-LEO system.  Based on those costs, we should work out an exploration program that gives us the best overall program for the money available, using either larger or smaller launchers depending on how the costs of the other components of the exploration program work out.

Offline KEdward5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 840
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 116
Yes for reasons already covered, but also because the fears of the no vote have never materialized.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Not surprisingly, I voted No, for similar reasons to why I voted no in the past:

1- I don't expect NASA's budget to come anywhere close to the level the A-com suggested was needed for an Shuttle-derive HLV architecture to do useful exploration.
2- Without the bigger budget you can still build the HLV, but it requires building it slower than is optimal, launching it less frequently than is optimal, seriously constraining funding for technology development and ISS utilization (including commercial crew development), and also puts big constraints on developing payloads to productively use the HLV. In the end, we'll still likely end up with an HLV, but with no real money to use it for much more than stunts.
3- We could get most of the benefit of an HLV by having one or two companies competitively develop large upper stages, and by developing propellant transfer technologies. In order to make most HLV-centric Mars missions work you need 90% of the new technology you need for depots (long-term cryo storage and hanlding on-orbit), so you don't save much by avoiding depots.
4- I'm fairly confident that by the time SLS/Orion are flying with a useful BEO upper stage and a heat-shield capable of returning from Mars, that they will both be completely anachronistic. Basically I think our grandkids are going to be looking at us like idiots for wasting our money on developing expensive dead-end systems and slowing the development of systems worthy of a 21st century space program.

It'll be interesting to see if the ~60/40 pro-SLS-vs-anti-SLS split that previous polls have shown shifts any.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 04/15/2014 11:48 pm by jongoff »

Offline rickl

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 150
I voted an emphatic no.  SLS will be a classic boondoggle.  In the 1970s, the Space Shuttle was advertised as making space flight routine.  That turned out not to be the case.  SLS doesn't even pretend to do that.  It guarantees that manned space flight will continue to be expensive and rare.


The more fundamental problem is that the United States government is effectively bankrupt.  It is borrowing and printing money to meet current obligations.  Any plans that count on increased funding for NASA are unrealistic.  SLS will suck all of the air out of the room, fiscally speaking.  Money spent on enormous projects like SLS will end up forcing cancellation of other, smaller missions. 


We already have plenty of rockets.  Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 are all capable of launching manned spacecraft.  Instead of spending money on a giant, government owned and operated rocket, I would rather see the money spent on spacecraft and missions that can be flown on existing launch vehicles, as well as research into on-orbit assembly, refueling, and Bigelow habitats.  There is a lot that can be done with existing launch vehicles, and we're not really taking advantage of that.  I'd also like to see Europa and Titan landers, but they are the sort of missions that could end up being cancelled if NASA puts most of their eggs in the SLS basket.


I really do prefer SpaceX's plans to gradually evolve a BFR rather than trying to build one from scratch.  That seems like a more realistic approach that can take advantage of lessons learned along the way.  And a high flight rate is better for reliability.
« Last Edit: 04/16/2014 01:27 am by rickl »
The Space Age is just starting to get interesting.

Offline James (Lockheed)

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Huntsville
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 3
It's fashionable for the internet to habor conspiracy and a place to be negative, but thankfully I have seen, first hand, the progression this vehicle is making through to what is now bending metal. This is a key element of architecture, that I could speak a lot about, but the naysayers won't be interest, so I'll simply say that SLS will return the United States to being a world leader, which we lost when Shuttle retired. Without such capability we will fall away and spend the tax dollars on outsourcing to companies with rich shareholders and teams of lobbyists, and foreign nations.

My answer, yes, of course yes.
« Last Edit: 04/16/2014 12:56 am by James (Lockheed) »

Offline Rangers75

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 34
Voted yes for numerous reasons. They include a wish for BEO exploration and while some companies make up fantasy claims, like the ones claiming to mine asteroids or send an elderly crew to their deaths on a Mars vehicle with no known ECLSS, SLS is real and under construction.

The capability creates the possibilities, otherwise we just keep going through study after study. Never again, support SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
SLS will not advance the US's spaceflight capability and be more of an anchor on NASA than the shuttle was.  It will be a rocketship to nowhere, where as the shuttle was at least good at servicing the ISS.

I see all the waste in the SLS program with the nonsensical requirements and processes and the absurd numbers of numbers of people working them.  I thinks its bad when we have meetings with ULA or Spacex and there are more NASA people than the contractors.  Then I go to GSDO/MPCV/SLS meetings and am blown away by the numbers present there.

It is a jobs program because the specific configuration and its very existence was dictated by law to ensure jobs in specific districts.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2014 02:07 am by Jim »

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
No.  Reasons:
1.  Design a shocker based on keeping an existing workforce employed as opposed to requirements-driven.
2.  No funded missions.  In fact no missions even identified.
3.  Single source contract rather than defining requirements and calling for bids.  The launch vehicle is not cutting edge technology and therefore should be able to be clearly articulated.  Ideally suited to a fixed price, milestone based competitive contract.
4.  Indications are that operational costs will not be sustainable or will consume much of a flat NASA budget.
5.  No commercial interest in payloads.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
I support SLS as the 130 t version is capable of crewed missions to the Moon.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
No.

Porkrocket, which is bad in and of itself.
Worse, it sucks oxygen out of the room when considering useful payloads.
Also, SRBs scare me, we should never use them again on manned things.
Finally, it's an anachronism already.

Jim and Jongoff gave plenty of other good reasons.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0