What should NASA actually do with SLS?

[clongton]

That is why it made the most sense to dismantle the industrial launch complexes until payloads were built for BEO, and then develop heavy lift in 4 to 5 years.

You have GOT to be kidding! I'll stop there.

This appears to be the money saving idea behind Presidential policy FY11.
It may have had a few bugs in it.

Oh my! I think we may have identified the secret author of the FY2011 budget proposal. Telo, was that you?

[A_M_Swallow]

That is why it made the most sense to dismantle the industrial launch complexes until payloads were built for BEO, and then develop heavy lift in 4 to 5 years.

You have GOT to be kidding! I'll stop there.

This appears to be the money saving idea behind Presidential policy FY11.
It may have had a few bugs in it.

Oh my! I think we may have identified the secret author of the FY2011 budget proposal. Telo, was that you?

No.  I have just seen similar (but smaller) things before.  Any R&D gap exceeding 4 months and the company started firing people and mothballing buildings.

[Proponent]

Please do not parse my posts and use incomplete quotes to put words into my mouth.

I mean really.  It does get tiresome.

Please note that I acknowledged and apologized to Ben the Space Brit for my error in understanding of his statement.

[Proponent]

ATLAST would be wonderful for astronomy, but ...

... it will have to wait until JWST is up and running.

... and another decade or two beyond that until the astronomy community is allocated the billions for another large space telescope.

[gospacex]

Of course that is true, but by having this big chunk of NASA's finite budget taken by an HLV [edit: EELV or any other launch vehicle], there are crumbs left over for actual payloads for the SLS.

Chris - I added the edit to make the point that the launch vehicle itself doesn't make that much difference. If the annual kg/yr to LEO is more or less the same then *any* launch vehicle will have the same effect as I described above. It's the cost of the infrastructure and people that make it so expensive, not the launch vehicle.

Yes. "If the annual kg/yr to LEO is more or less the same".

But it is not the same.

EELVs are about four times cheaper than STS (and I predict will be cheaper than SLS because SLS will be built/operated by the same NASA which operates STS), and SpaceX vehicles will likely be cheaper than EELVs even if Elon's current prices will grow twofold.

[HappyMartian]

Of course that is true, but by having this big chunk of NASA's finite budget taken by an HLV [edit: EELV or any other launch vehicle], there are crumbs left over for actual payloads for the SLS.

Chris - I added the edit to make the point that the launch vehicle itself doesn't make that much difference. If the annual kg/yr to LEO is more or less the same then *any* launch vehicle will have the same effect as I described above. It's the cost of the infrastructure and people that make it so expensive, not the launch vehicle.

Yes. "If the annual kg/yr to LEO is more or less the same".

But it is not the same.

EELVs are about four times cheaper than STS (and I predict will be cheaper than SLS because SLS will be built/operated by the same NASA which operates STS), and SpaceX vehicles will likely be cheaper than EELVs even if Elon's current prices will grow twofold.

But are launchers the main cost of space exploration? No? Oh well then, maybe the real issues are complexity of the mission, complexity of the payload, and other costs. Oh, and you only need one truck driver if the truck can carry three times as much as a small truck.

You know, we can argue this for the next twenty years or we can go out and find international partners and other ways to make this J-130/SLS very productive.

There is bipartisan support in Congress for the SLS. We have the ball. Run with it. Don't stand around arguing about the size and shape of the ball, not if you really want to go anywhere besides LEO.

It was time for the great escape but too many folks thought that it would be more productive to sit and wait for the perfect launcher and spaceship.....so they sat and argued. A few laughed and got on the available rocket and went exploring.

The ships have changed, but there are always those who are happier staying at home and complaining about how imperfect the new lands must be and how the ships to travel to the new lands are not really the kind you want to travel on...

Cheers!

[mmeijeri]

But are launchers the main cost of space exploration? No? Oh well then, maybe the real issues are complexity of the mission, complexity of the payload, and other costs.

They are the main incremental cost if you don't throw away your spacecraft every time. Most of the incremental costs can be converted to launch costs. And if you reduce those by an order of magnitude, then you can reduce incremental mission costs by an order of magnitude.

[clongton]

But are launchers the main cost of space exploration? No? Oh well then, maybe the real issues are complexity of the mission, complexity of the payload, and other costs.

They are the main incremental cost if you don't throw away your spacecraft every time. Most of the incremental costs can be converted to launch costs. And if you reduce those by an order of magnitude, then you can reduce incremental mission costs by an order of magnitude.

What is an "incremental cost" in terms of HSF capability?
I have never seen that term used in this context. I'm not sure it applies.
What I am sure of is that the infrastructure, industrial base & workforce are the majority cost for any annual expense for this. The LV is *almost* beside the point, unless its something as unacceptable as the Ares-I/V.

[mmeijeri]

What is an "incremental cost" in terms of HSF capability?
I have never seen that term used in this context. I'm not sure it applies.
What I am sure of is that the infrastructure, industrial base & workforce are the majority cost for any annual expense for this.

I agree fixed costs are high, I was merely focussing on the variable costs. Not much you can do about the fixed costs (other than not having unnecessary launchers or running them inefficiently...). But if you get variable costs low enough, then you can hope to have many more missions for the same budget.

The LV is *almost* beside the point, unless its something as unacceptable as the Ares-I/V.

Then how come you are so focussed on the launch vehicle? And note that Ares doesn't have higher fixed costs than DIRECT. It has higher development costs (and lower operations costs in the early years). It was optimised for incremental efficiency (more payload for given fixed costs) and operations efficiency.

[gospacex]

Of course that is true, but by having this big chunk of NASA's finite budget taken by an HLV [edit: EELV or any other launch vehicle], there are crumbs left over for actual payloads for the SLS.

Chris - I added the edit to make the point that the launch vehicle itself doesn't make that much difference. If the annual kg/yr to LEO is more or less the same then *any* launch vehicle will have the same effect as I described above. It's the cost of the infrastructure and people that make it so expensive, not the launch vehicle.

Yes. "If the annual kg/yr to LEO is more or less the same".

But it is not the same.

EELVs are about four times cheaper than STS (and I predict will be cheaper than SLS because SLS will be built/operated by the same NASA which operates STS), and SpaceX vehicles will likely be cheaper than EELVs even if Elon's current prices will grow twofold.

But are launchers the main cost of space exploration? No?

Yes, currently for NASA HSF, they are.

And no one other than you, DIRECT team, just witnessed how ferociously NASA would fight to keep it that way - you needed five years of lobbying and a huge economic depression to prevent Ares-I/V financial disaster from crippling NASA for the next thirty years.

There is bipartisan support in Congress for the SLS. We have the ball. Run with it.

You and I don't have the ball. NASA has. I presently have no confidence at all that NASA can "run with it".

[HappyMartian]

What is an "incremental cost" in terms of HSF capability?
I have never seen that term used in this context. I'm not sure it applies.
What I am sure of is that the infrastructure, industrial base & workforce are the majority cost for any annual expense for this.

I agree fixed costs are high, I was merely focussing on the variable costs. Not much you can do about the fixed costs (other than not having unnecessary launchers or running them inefficiently...). But if you get variable costs low enough, then you can hope to have many more missions for the same budget.

The LV is *almost* beside the point, unless its something as unacceptable as the Ares-I/V.

Then how come you are so focussed on the launch vehicle? And note that Ares doesn't have higher fixed costs than DIRECT. It has higher development costs (and lower operations costs in the early years). It was optimised for incremental efficiency (more payload for given fixed costs) and operations efficiency.

Some folks argue that we can't afford the payload for the J-130/SLS and mmeijeri now argues for bigger payloads on the Ares V, which does seem a little strange... Actually the Direct Team came up with an extensive space exploration plan. The J-130 launcher is just a piece in a much bigger plan.

Ares I and V are dead because we live day to day and what might be doable in the long-term isn't going to do you any good if you can't get from here to there. The J-130/SLS is affordable and doable and can take us from here to there and to almost anywhere. Ares I and V were perhaps twice the operations cost of the J-130. And we do care about operations cost, don't we?

Ares I was sucking all the air out of NASA's budget and couldn't even do the mission it was supposed to do. Developing Ares V would have cost so much money that continuing with it meant NASA would have had to close down robotic exploration and research and who knows what else. Oh, and the current President didn't like the previous President's Ares I and Ares V plan and got some smart people to poke a lot of Augustine holes in it. The new politics was bad, the techological problems that needed too much money to possibly fix were bad, and Congress, especially the Senate, was getting more than a little doubtful... and the whole Ares I and V development was going to take far too long to help out at providing robust support to the ISS if the International Space Station mission was to be extended like most Congressional folks thought it should be. But you're a smart guy mmeijeri, so why are you asking about what you already know? Do you just want to give Clongton a hard time? Lots of anti J-130/SLS attacks lately.

And gospacex, I don't really know anyone on the Direct Team. Yet I've been reading this website for four or more years now and I haven't seen anything more useful and doable than than the current Senate/House NASA Bill. Today the Congress and President are supportive of a program that is sensible and supportive of the ISS, and that reality is very good.  The long-term ISS mission and the J-130/SLS and BEO Orion and the space taxis are going to offer us a lot of exciting options for international cooperation in exploring space.

This Senate/House NASA Bill is perhaps the beginning of the International Space Station paradigm, or way, of exploring space and going to the Moon. There are a lot folks that are happy about the idea of exploring space and going back to the Moon...

Nonetheless, for whatever reason or reasons some folks seem to be very unhappy lately. Oh well, that is life. It's likely that some people will start complaining as soon as they get to Heaven. Nothing is ever 'good enough' for some individuals.   
 
Cheers! 

Edited.

[mmeijeri]

Some folks argue that we can't afford the payload for the J-130/SLS and mmeijeri now argues for bigger payloads on the Ares V, which does seem a little strange...

I'm not arguing for Ares V or bigger payloads, I'm merely pointing out that Ares would have the same fixed costs as DIRECT, but lower cost/kg.

But you're a smart guy mmeijeri, so why are you asking about what you already know? Do you just want to give Clongton a hard tiime? Lots of anti J-130/SLS attacks lately.

I was pointing out an inconsistency. And for the record, I could live with a J-130 + DCSS if it is used to facilitate immediate commercial propellant launches as it easily could. I energetically argued for this back when talk of hypergolics was taboo and DCSS was supposedly only good for one time stunts like an Apollo-8 rerun. How times have changed.

[Namechange User]

I'm not arguing for Ares V or bigger payloads, I'm merely pointing out that Ares would have the same fixed costs as DIRECT, but lower cost/kg.

Well, that's not quite correct.  Ares Project would have had substantially higher fixed costs than a theoretical SLS Project. 

[mmeijeri]

How so? I'm not talking about amortising development costs, are you? If you are talking about RS-68A and RL-10 instead of RS-68B and J2X then I agree.

[Namechange User]

I keep development and operations in sepaerate buckets.  It's pretty simple really, two rockets in one project, at either end of the performance spectrum, versus one rocket in one project that is in the sweet spot. 

[mmeijeri]

I chose my words carelessly, I only meant Ares V, not Ares I. Doing both would be more expensive.

[Mark S]

I only meant Ares V, not Ares I. Doing both would be more expensive.

If you're saying that an SLS program implemented using just the existing Ares-V design would be cheaper to operate than SLS implemented with Jupiter (or something like it), then I would have to disagree.

The Jupiter can fly with or without an upper stage, Ares-V cannot. Jupiter uses standard 4-segment SRB's, Ares-V uses 5.5-segment boosters. Jupiter uses 2 or 3 SSME, Ares-V uses six (or is it seven?) RS-68 engines.

How do you see Ares-V being as affordable to operate as Jupiter?

Mark S.

[mmeijeri]

Let me begin by saying my aim is not to show the virtues of Ares, but to point out that DIRECT or SLS is almost as bad when it comes to fixed costs.

To address your points:

It is probably true that Ares V cannot fly as a single stage, but there aren't any requirements for that to begin with, so it is only a theoretical disadvantage. The 5 seg boosters vs 4 seg boosters only affect development costs, not recurring costs. Ares might use more engines, but it also lifts more mass. And fixed costs are probably a large part of the engine costs too.

[Mark S]

Let me begin by saying my aim is not to show the virtues of Ares, but to point out that DIRECT or SLS is almost as bad when it comes to fixed costs.

That's okay, I know you're not a fan of HLV in any form.

I don't think SLS costs will be as bad as everyone is assuming, but I guess only time will tell.

Cheers!

[mmeijeri]

Definitely not a fan, especially not of SDLV, but as I said there are things "NASA could actually do with SLS" that I could live with.