You know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument. It gets exhausting. It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.
Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.
"NASA is laying the ground work to enable humans to safely reach multiple potential destinations, including the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs. 6.0 This BAA is soliciting proposals for Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology Systems Analysis and Trade study and seeks industry input on technical solutions in support of heavy lift system concepts studies. These studies will capture potential system architectures and identify propulsion technology gaps (to include propellant tanks, main propulsion elements, health management, etc.). This BAA request Offerors to expand upon the initial NASA technical assessments provided in the technical data package included. This effort will include architecture assessments of a variety of heavy lift launch vehicle and in-space vehicle architectures employing various propulsion combinations and how they can be employed to meet multiple mission objectives. A variety of in-space architectural elements, such as space transfer stages, space transfer vehicles, propellant depots may be included. The focus will be on developing system concepts that can be used by multiple end users with a strong emphasis on affordability, based on the offeror’s business assumption.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2013 04:34 pmThey could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.Reminds me of a quote about tolerancing parts from my freshman CAD professor (back in '96): "Ten thousandths?!? You could send a dog through that if you got it going fast enough!"I removed the rest of my comment as it was a bit much even for me.~Jon
They could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.
Quote from: jongoff on 09/11/2013 09:47 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2013 04:34 pmThey could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.Reminds me of a quote about tolerancing parts from my freshman CAD professor (back in '96): "Ten thousandths?!? You could send a dog through that if you got it going fast enough!"I removed the rest of my comment as it was a bit much even for me.~JonI think that was "if you got it spinning fast enough", but yes, Dr. Raisor was hilarious. I also loved his "This will be true, always and forever - world's without end," and "Whoa, mister, back up the truck!" quotes. (Sorry that that was off topic. I now return you to your regularly scheduled HLV vs depot study conversation.)
The heavy lift studies BAA initiated in 2010 contained a HLV study
And it would have kept climbing, if not for a system vulnerability that SLS doesn't share.
Quote from: muomega0The heavy lift studies BAA initiated in 2010 contained a HLV studyAm I mistaken or did the 33' RP-1 version win the competition hands down?
Quote from: 93143 on 09/11/2013 09:56 pmYou know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument. It gets exhausting. It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.
Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?
The Augustine Committee considered propellant depots but for various reasons recommended the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle anyway. See section 5.2.1 of the report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.