Author Topic: SLS General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 601728 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1560 on: 05/14/2018 04:58 pm »

I'm not sure different historical scenarios with different Shuttle-derived HLVs would have changed the ultimate outcome.

It really doesn't matter whether the vehicle is inline or sidemount, how many SSMEs it employs, or whether it uses 4- or 5-segment SRBs.  No matter the technical decisions, the vehicle still _must_ fully employ the old STS workforce and fully utilize the old STS infrastructure.

And that means we're still stuffing a ~$3-5 billion per year program into a ~$1-2 billion per year bag.

And when you try to do that, you wind up with the gross safety compromises, year-for-year delays, programmatic dithering, ground equipment screw-ups, unaffordability, and incompetent flight rate that we see in SLS today and Constellation previously.

There are only two ways out of this dilemma:

1) Ramp down/phase out/retire/RIF the old STS workforce and infrastructure.  (Politically unacceptable as a whole.)

2) Redirect the old STS workforce and infrastructure towards deep space human space exploration architecture elements that don't duplicate and compete very poorly with commercial offerings.  (More politically possible with a strong Administrator and White House backing.)

I suspect the actual way out, if it ever emerges, will be a combination of these two.

There is an old military saying that "Amateurs talk about tactics, generals study logistics."

The NASA parallel would be something like "Amateurs talk about vehicle configurations and rocket engines, managers change the workforce and infrastructure."

There's nothing wrong with armchair aerospace engineering.  But we shouldn't kid ourselves either.

A serious discussion about fixing NASA's human space flight program would focus on workforce and infrastructure and not fixate on vehicle configurations and rocket engines.

Between SLS, Exploration Ground Systems, and Orion, the Exploration Systems Development budget is a solid $3-$4 billion per year, not the $1-$2 billion that you posit.

Shuttle functioned well enough on that kind of budget, and actually flew missions to boot.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1561 on: 05/14/2018 05:08 pm »


The vehicle we got in SLS is NOT what DIRECT advocated for. It never was. It was far larger, more costly, and more complex than what direct proposed, and by the time all the damage from Griffin and the Obama administration's waffling was undone what we were left with in 2011 was something that had far exceeded the purpose of using SDHLV in the first place. Even for all that, it still could have worked were it not continuously grown in size and the flight rate reduced due to an absolutely piss poor budget and jackass contractors and their friends in the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)..

Again you are going from a reusable vehicle to a disposable one. To build the Orbiter Atlantis it took from March of 1980 till April of 1984 according to NASA’s website. A SDHLV is going to need much of the same systems as the shuttle.  In addition, most expendable rockets are ordered at least 2 years before the mission.  To expect the same flight rate for the same money as the shuttle disposing of expensive shuttle parts is a bit much. And the complexity as well as size have a lot to do with being a SDHLV in the first place. For instance a lox/kerosene first stage ala Saturn V and Falcon 9 and Atlas would make for a smaller more compact first stage as well as eliminate the reason for the SRB and make for a cheaper vehicle to operate but politically that was not viable. To give you an idea of the difference between the Shuttle and Saturn V, the Shuttle system actually masses more dry than the Saturn V. The VAB floor as well as the Crawlers had to be beefed up to handle it. The Saturn V would mass more wet but it wouldn’t do so until it was at the pad and filled with propellant. Not to mention the operational changes as the SRBs are both toxic and potentially explosive(i.e some offices had to be moved out of the VAB).


Quote
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove, the enemies of any spaceflight funding continuing beyond shuttle were all around, and there was absolutely no possible way to save the abortion that was CXP.   

Atlas V was in existence at the time of CXP and has sent cargo and will soon send crew to the ISS. The first goal of CXP was to send crew and cargo to the ISS not send people to the moon. Ares 1 was not needed and only served the political goal of keeping the shuttle workforce around.  Commercial space has existed since the late 80ies\early 90ies. The only difference between humans and cargo is that one is a bit more delicate than the other.


Quote
II don't understand why people want to play this game and act like everything was so easy and there was some obvious alternative solution, there were none. Every possible one was considered and at that time SDHLV was about the only thing standing between some very angry goons and the remaining NASA budget post CXP. And that includes the commercial funding, no NASA no commercial funding. The only possible alternative that might have worked out better would have been going with the ULA ACES and expanded EELV proposals, but these would have had major pitfalls of their own and would have required alot of new hardware, and would have leverage exactly none of what CXP had left over.

Any SDHLV would have required lots of new hardware and there was little of CXP to leverage.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1562 on: 05/14/2018 06:47 pm »
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove....

In 2010 ULA, which was at the time the USA's most credible rocket builder, offered derivatives of the Atlas V and Delta IV with LEO capacities up to 140 tonnes (see 2nd & 3rd attachments to this post)..

I mentioned that in my post. This proposal was a good one but it had major pitfalls. The main pitfall being those rockets did not exist yet, they would have to be built and test and most of them would require almost all new hardware. It would be like starting over again from scratch and the potential for delays and cost overruns would have been very high. The other problem is that the contracting structure that has preserved the spaceflight lobby would have been at risk under that proposal, because you would be down-selecting to basically a "single" contractor in that only ULA and facilities directly involved with ULA would get the monies, and therefore only those districts/states would benefit.

We have talked about the political problems, but here is one of the programmatic problems. At the time you had billions of dollars of shuttle hardware sitting around everywhere as STS was winding down, as well as related tooling. You also had billions of dollars of tooling for CXP and leftover components. Going with the ULA proposal would have meant scrapping all of this, and nobody was prepared to do that most especially Congress. This was a key underpinning of the original argument for SDHLV, was that we were going to preserve as much of the CXP and STS workforces as possible, as well as re-using as much of the tooling and hardware as possible.

Because NASA under the previous leadership apparently decided that the law did not apply to them, and because of CXP goons at the Agency and MSFC acting like giant bullies, none of these things happened, including the parts that were supposed to be mandated by law. NASA did the absolute best it could to destroy shuttle tooling, infrastructure, and hardware without waiting for Congress to mandate SLS, to fire and force out the remaining work-forces of both programs, and to general waste as much time as possible. Then when they finally did set about building the vehicle it had morphed into a monstrosity that required brand new everything just like Ares V would have, with the ONLY exception being the main engines.

It was mandated BY LAW that they avoid doing many of the things they have since done. It was mandated BY LAW that they come in on time and under budget. It was mandated BY LAW that the baseline vehicle be online by the end of 2016. As you can see none of these things happened. I said something at the end of the final DIRECT thread years ago:
Quote
Nasa will do as its told from now on or it will cease to exist. It nearly did this time around. There won't be a second chance. They either stay in budget and on time or they go away: Its that simple.

Is there anyone here who thinks they have stayed within the law or the budgets or even the design that was laid out post Aug. Com. in the space act or anything that has come since? They haven't. They did the same thing they did during CXP. Its absolutely insane, but this go around when SLS is cancelled there will be no follow on program to bail them out. Will NASA cease to exist? It depends largely on what the Federal Government does or doesn't do in relation to the national deficit. If things continue in the direction they are currently going, it is likely we will default sometime in the late 2020s. If that happens, or even if it comes close to happening, it does not matter who is in power at the time. They will be forced to enact austerity measures and rapidly decrease federal spending, and folks I can tell you right now those cuts are not gonna come from the entitlement programs first, they will come from the discretionary budget. NASA has a giant target on its back right now, and there are things that could be done RIGHT NOW to fix this or at least mitigate it, but as Ross already said early they have a major case of head in the sand ism right now and so does the congressional space lobby.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1563 on: 05/14/2018 07:06 pm »


The vehicle we got in SLS is NOT what DIRECT advocated for. It never was. It was far larger, more costly, and more complex than what direct proposed, and by the time all the damage from Griffin and the Obama administration's waffling was undone what we were left with in 2011 was something that had far exceeded the purpose of using SDHLV in the first place. Even for all that, it still could have worked were it not continuously grown in size and the flight rate reduced due to an absolutely piss poor budget and jackass contractors and their friends in the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)..

Again you are going from a reusable vehicle to a disposable one. To build the Orbiter Atlantis it took from March of 1980 till April of 1984 according to NASA’s website. A SDHLV is going to need much of the same systems as the shuttle.  In addition, most expendable rockets are ordered at least 2 years before the mission.  To expect the same flight rate for the same money as the shuttle disposing of expensive shuttle parts is a bit much. And the complexity as well as size have a lot to do with being a SDHLV in the first place. For instance a lox/kerosene first stage ala Saturn V and Falcon 9 and Atlas would make for a smaller more compact first stage as well as eliminate the reason for the SRB and make for a cheaper vehicle to operate but politically that was not viable. To give you an idea of the difference between the Shuttle and Saturn V, the Shuttle system actually masses more dry than the Saturn V. The VAB floor as well as the Crawlers had to be beefed up to handle it. The Saturn V would mass more wet but it wouldn’t do so until it was at the pad and filled with propellant. Not to mention the operational changes as the SRBs are both toxic and potentially explosive(i.e some offices had to be moved out of the VAB).


Quote
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove, the enemies of any spaceflight funding continuing beyond shuttle were all around, and there was absolutely no possible way to save the abortion that was CXP.   

Atlas V was in existence at the time of CXP and has sent cargo and will soon send crew to the ISS. The first goal of CXP was to send crew and cargo to the ISS not send people to the moon. Ares 1 was not needed and only served the political goal of keeping the shuttle workforce around.  Commercial space has existed since the late 80ies\early 90ies. The only difference between humans and cargo is that one is a bit more delicate than the other.


Quote
II don't understand why people want to play this game and act like everything was so easy and there was some obvious alternative solution, there were none. Every possible one was considered and at that time SDHLV was about the only thing standing between some very angry goons and the remaining NASA budget post CXP. And that includes the commercial funding, no NASA no commercial funding. The only possible alternative that might have worked out better would have been going with the ULA ACES and expanded EELV proposals, but these would have had major pitfalls of their own and would have required alot of new hardware, and would have leverage exactly none of what CXP had left over.

Any SDHLV would have required lots of new hardware and there was little of CXP to leverage.

The space shuttle was not re-usable. It was partially re-furbishable at best, and the re-refurbishment was ungodly expensive and complex.  A truly re-usable system did not exist at the time and the expanded EELV proposal did not involve re-usable boosters, nobody had yet made an attempt at a fully re-usable booster and nobody at the time had any reason to think SpaceX would succeed, in fact to the contrary the evidence suggested they were going to fail catastrophically. There was no re-usable LV to hang your hat in at the time and there was no solid ground to suggest any would come, people really underestimate the magnitude of technical achievement by SpaceX and BO in creating re-usable boosters. It was thought not to be possible. Thus it is a moot point.

Quote
To expect the same flight rate for the same money as the shuttle disposing of expensive shuttle parts is a bit much. And the complexity as well as size have a lot to do with being a SDHLV in the first place.

That is correct given the vehicle that we got. It is incorrect given the vehicle that was proposed.

Again, the entire point, cost benefit argument, and operational gap closing argument, that underpins why to use an SDHLV was:
1. Retain shuttle and CXP workforces as much possible. Reduce delays in process, testing, design, and execution by keeping experienced people.
2. Retain shuttle and CXP tooling as much possible. Reduce the need to build new production facilities or completely re do the existing ones.
3. Re use existing shuttle hardware and continue using similar designs with minimal design changes being introduced in a phased and staged approach. This minimizes the need for working outside the existing knowledge base and saves massive amounts of time and money since you can keep building things you know how to build, have the machines to build, and have the people to build for the most part.
4. Salvage as much of CXP as possible to save some of the wasted billions. In this case the only thing that really should have been saved is Orion, but we know how this turned out ATK forced the issue.
5. By doing all of the above, have a baseline 70 MT vehicle online and flying cheaply and quickly. By doing this last part especially you save money for both payloads and phasing in upgrades to the LV later on for bigger mission profiles. ALSO, should anything go wrong with your program, doing this would enable you to had least have a functioning and flying LV that you understand the cost and technical side of well. With that 70MT LV you can still do alot, and you could even do a propellant depot proposal such as ACES with that vehicle if you had no other options.


How many of these things did NASA do? Some, not all, but some were mandated by Congress. NASA did exactly none of these. Because of the political fight over the transition from the end of CXP there was probably no hope of doing most of the hardware and work force salvage by the time things actually started to happen.

Without these things there is no reason to have or use an SDHLV. It ceases to be shuttle derived and instead becomes Ares V *again*, essentially a brand new launch vehicle from the ground up, that requires brand new GSE brand new everything in all parts of its life cycle.  SLS is not an SDHLV its Ares V.

Quote
Ares 1 was not needed and only served the political goal of keeping the shuttle workforce around.  Commercial space has existed since the late 80ies\early 90ies.
It did not do this and was intended to serve the political goal's of ATK and Mike Griffin and Co only. It would not have kept shuttle workforce around because of it's delays.

Commercial space cannot and could not do BEO without entirely new vehicles. And primarily only one major player in the US had the ability to do BEO and that was ULA. They did not have a full proposal until the early 2000s. It could have been done but again, see aforementioned problems with scrapping everything. You would have basically been doing CXP again only ULA is the contractor. Having a single launch provider would be a very bad idea for costs. Where is the incentive not to build the vehicle and then raise the price 400%?

Finally

Quote
Not to mention the operational changes as the SRBs are both toxic and potentially explosive(i.e some offices had to be moved out of the VAB).

I am not a fan of SRBs and I never have been. AJAX proposed liquid boosters from the get go. At the very least the *best* SDHLV scenario I could have seen would have been to keep using 4 segment boosters for your initial 70 mt vehicle while you got a liquid booster program spun up and hardware built, and then switching as soon as possible. But of course this would make ATK mad which Congress doesn't want.

« Last Edit: 05/14/2018 07:14 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1564 on: 05/14/2018 07:13 pm »
Quote
2) Redirect the old STS workforce and infrastructure towards deep space human space exploration architecture elements that don't duplicate and compete very poorly with commercial offerings.  (More politically possible with a strong Administrator and White House backing.)
There is nothing to re-direct except a vacant launchpad in the form of LC 39 B and the VAB. Everyone and almost everything from STS is long gone already CXP and friends saw to that.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2018 07:14 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1565 on: 05/14/2018 07:19 pm »
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):

When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT. Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302 stated: "The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit". This was pulled directly from the team's work and subsequent conversations with prominent committee members. ATK's influence was all over the advanced capability and it was the DIRECT 246 Heavy (modified) that is reflected in the advanced capability requirement. The Senate Bill said: "the capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more". The Heavy was never the aim of the team, but a concession to the knowledge that by that time the 5-segment SRB was a certain thing. The team believed it could likely use the SRB for the initial capability by simply leaving out the center segment, effectively making it a 4-segment SRB. At that time the SRB's were still to be recovered and reused.

Bolden was dragging NASA's feet and slow walking the process so completely (likely at the direction of Obama) that by the time SLS was announced the Alabama mafioso and friends had completely redesigned the LV and had effectively resurrected the Ares-V in its place. It even started with 5xRS-26s. At that time there was still enough of the STS infrastructure and personnel left to make it possible for it to actually be a SDHL but that quickly evaporated as the entire program began slipping to the right by a year every year and became a perpetual jobs program rather than a space program that was actually supposed to do anything.

And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.

Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past. That program can never be resurrected so there's no need to rehash what might have been. SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown. Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP. So I hope we can all, even the non-supporters, support a successful program to get SLS/Orion into space. What NASA does with it after that - well that's up to the new vehicle's designers: Congress.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 12:07 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1566 on: 05/14/2018 08:05 pm »
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):

When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT. Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302 stated: "The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit". This was pulled directly from the team's work and subsequent conversations with prominent committee members. ATK's influence was all over the advanced capability and it was the DIRECT 246 Heavy (modified) that is reflected in the advanced capability requirement. The Senate Bill said: "the capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more". The Heavy was never the aim of the team, but a concession to the knowledge that by that time the 5-segment SRB was a certain thing. The team believed it could likely use the SRB for the initial capability by simply leaving out the center segment, effectively making it a 4-segment SRB. At that time the SRB's were still to be recovered and reused.

Bolden was dragging NASA's feet and slow walking the process so completely (likely at the direction of Obama) that by the time SLS was announced the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). and friends had completely redesigned the LV and had effectively resurrected the Ares-V in its place. It even started with 5xRS-26s. At that time there was still enough of the STS infrastructure and personnel left to make it possible for it to actually be a SDHL but that quickly evaporated as the entire program began slipping to the right by a year every year and became a perpetual jobs program rather than a space program that was actually supposed to do anything.

And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.

Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past. That program can never be resurrected so there's no need to rehash what might have been. SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown. Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP. So I hope we can all, even the non-supporters, support a successful program to get SLS/Orion into space. What NASA does with it after that - well that's up to the new vehicle's designers: Congress.

I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1567 on: 05/14/2018 08:14 pm »
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.

NASA is already prohibited by law from competing with commercial companies. If anything it is commercial that is allowed to compete with NASA for payloads. Cancellation of SLS is not a sure bet. It is a proven money maker for the Senators and Congressmen to feed federal funds back to their home districts. So assuming it survives, the US Gov is going to want to keep its own HSF program to fly US Gov payloads, crew and probes on US Gov vehicles. Remember, the government does not have to show any black ink. If it runs short it just taxes more, prints more, or both.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1568 on: 05/14/2018 08:15 pm »
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):

When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT.

At the time there were sightings of Michael Griffin with Senate staff, and the assumption was that he was the source of the technical specifications for the SLS. Which makes sense since he was the father of the Ares I/V rocket that was getting cancelled.

If that is true, would he be at all interested in the DIRECT design? Because I thought he didn't like DIRECT?

Quote
Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past.

I've mentioned this before, but it's because of DIRECT that I decided to get active in space forums, so I see myself as a legacy of DIRECT...  :)

Quote
SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown.

We all LOVE technology, but it's important to remember that the SLS is a transportation system, and transportation systems are judged by how effective they are - how much they transport, and how important the items were they transported, etc.

So regardless how well designed and built the SLS is, if it's not needed it will be designated a failure. That's life.

Quote
Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP.

Oh course NASA will survive. The SLS and Orion development programs are only about 20% of NASA's current budget, and if the SLS and Orion go away it's because Congress won't approve any HSF programs for them to transport. But there are plenty of other non-SLS programs that will continue.

The future of NASA is not in any way tied to the future of the SLS.
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 envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1569 on: 05/14/2018 08:23 pm »
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.

NASA is already prohibited by law from competing with commercial companies. If anything it is commercial that is allowed to compete with NASA for payloads. Cancellation of SLS is not a sure bet. It is a proven money maker for the Senators and Congressmen to feed federal funds back to their home districts. So assuming it survives, the US Gov is going to want to keep its own HSF program to fly US Gov payloads, crew and probes on US Gov vehicles. Remember, the government does not have to show any black ink. If it runs short it just taxes more, prints more, or both.

A law made by Congress, and which Congress routinely ignores.

SLS doesn't have to show a profit, but it does have to show a public benefit, or the public will stop funding it. There's no public benefit to competing with commercial providers of the same services.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1570 on: 05/14/2018 08:34 pm »
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.

NASA is already prohibited by law from competing with commercial companies. If anything it is commercial that is allowed to compete with NASA for payloads. Cancellation of SLS is not a sure bet. It is a proven money maker for the Senators and Congressmen to feed federal funds back to their home districts. So assuming it survives, the US Gov is going to want to keep its own HSF program to fly US Gov payloads, crew and probes on US Gov vehicles. Remember, the government does not have to show any black ink. If it runs short it just taxes more, prints more, or both.

Congress will want to keep SLS and Orion programs running. One way to do that would be to use Orion on SLS Block 1B with a cargo module for launching crew while using commercial to launch everything else. Could place LOP-G or deep space vehicle modules in cislunar orbit, all designed and launched via commercial companies. Then a once per year SLS crew flight would keep Congress happy and actually accomplish something.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1571 on: 05/14/2018 09:47 pm »
SLS doesn't have to show a profit, but it does have to show a public benefit, or the public will stop funding it.

Don't confuse the interest for space displayed on this site for the interest for space displayed by the "public" you speak of.
The vast majority of the "public" could care less about what is or is not done with space. It is widely reported that a large number think the Shuttle is still flying. Others think nothing at all. Provide public benefit or don't provide public benefit. There is no difference between the 2 as far as the "public" is concerned. The "public" could care less either way. BTW, the "public" by and large has no idea what a "SLS" thingy is or who's building it or what it's for. They won't stop funding something they don't even know is being funded. The "public" just doesn't care. We do - but "they" don't. Yet discussions abound about what the Kardashians had for dinner last night or what Survivor got kicked out of what tribe. Now there is a subject of high national interest. -Sad

« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 12:10 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1572 on: 05/14/2018 10:04 pm »
Reminds of an encounter at a bar. I was talking to a friend that more is spent on beer each year than HSF at NASA. A drunk pipes up, "You want to take away my beer!?!".

Yep, that's the 'public'.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1573 on: 05/14/2018 11:29 pm »
And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.

Then not much has changed, has it?

NASA accidentally created this massive federal jobs program (or purposefully depending on who you ask) during Apollo. Reaching the moon was the goal, but it could not be accomplished without Congressional support. Apollo did not have the universal support that we like to recall it having, it needed a lot of support - support which had to be 'bought' with jobs.

Overtime the primary mission of this beast changed. Creating jobs became the main mission, and going to space with the Shuttle was a nice bonus.

And with CxP and SLS+Orion, the transformation is complete. Development contracts without end, and that's a feature, not a bug. Not flying is the safest thing after all. But as we all see, this is not sustainable. This gravy train IS ending in the next decade, the only question is what shape it will be in afterwards.

(Note that I am not blaming the fine workers trapped in this system. They could accomplish so much, if they only were allowed to.)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1574 on: 05/14/2018 11:56 pm »
I really wish that Jim would do a myths of direct or what ever thread like he did myths of CXP but I doubt he can at the moment due to working on SLS .

*snip*

And would require just about as much work as SLS does. Those studies like direct were at best first order. It is like saying if I put a more powerful engine in my car it would go faster. Well true, but can the engine fit under the hood and can the body support it? What about the power train, braking, center of gravity, suspension, wheel base, fuel economy(or millage per tank)and so forth. The shuttle was designed with a different purpose in mind reusable space plane not HLV. It was designed using technology and assembly methods from the 70ies and to expect it to be easy to mold into a rocket appropriate for the 21st centaury is wishful thinking.


Obviously Chuck or Ross would be the ones to really get into the meat of this.  But As I did follow it closely for awhile, a few things that were my understanding.

The J-130 was really the sweet spot LV.  It could have not only used all of the same construction as the ET, with the addition of a MPS on the bottom, actual left over ET's could have been converted at MAF to the J-130 core.  I think the heavier variants may have run into some of the same issues as SLS, needing to have thicker side walls for greater loads.  But SLS was longer as well as being designed to have more load on top, which lead them to go with a heavier Al-Li alloy, as the one they used for the ET couldn't be made in plates of sufficient thickness.  So the issues start to compound as you "try to put a bigger engine in your car", to use your analogy.  But J-130 didn't do that, it kept it stock.  That was the benefit of it.  It was the easiest material, work force, and political transition.  It checked a lot of boxes.

So, J-130 cores could have been built right there at MAF using all the same tooling and personnel.   And it would have been right in the same range of payload to LEO as the STS stack.  The 4-seg boosters would be exactly the same, and reused exactly the same.  It would have been a very good medium-heavy LV to get Orion CSM plus a payload module up to the ISS. 

Now, that wouldn't get us back to the Moon by itself, although with the DCSS/ICPS it could do pretty much what SLS will do prior to the EUS being flow.  It could have sent the Orion CSM around the Moon.  And been able to get under way probably a good 5-6 years before the last STS mission was flown, to be ready to fly right after without a gap, assuming the Orion CSM was ready.  (If it had been adopted out of the ESAS study, which a J-130 was evaluated, but rejected in favor of Ares 1/5.  "Direct" as such came along a few years later)

The rocket would need new avionics as the shuttle's avionics are mostly in the shuttle itself and were reused.

True, but this would be the case for -any- new HLV that wasn't the shuttle, SDHLV or a new clean sheet design.  So kind of a moot point.

Without  a mission no one can say what is or is not a useless piece of information. LEO is  perfectly good spot to stage a Mars mission, an NEO mission, or an moon mission that would make the Saturn V look about as powerful as an model rocket. But with no mission(at the time) driving the requirements of the rocket well any old number will do I guess.

Yes...and had NASA adopted the LEO construction method of BLEO missions, or even a 2-launch method, then J-130 itself would have worked well.  It could have lofted 75mt pieces/stages up to LEO at a time.  Or it could have launched Orion CSM + CPS on one launch, and a Lunar Lander + CPS on another launch, for a 2-launch system.  The CPS could have been basically ULA's ACES, using RL-10's, so no new J2X needed.
But they wanted the 1.5 launch, which meant the cargo launcher had to be really big...Ares V. Which got us the 5-seg booster, J2X, etc.

As Chuck mentioned, that ship as sailed.  But, the J-130 (Or what the ESAS Study called "LV 24 and LV 25"...they had it right there in front of them in 2005...) would have been a different animal that Ares V or SLS, as it kept right within the performance envelope of the STS stack.  It was just more streamlined, with no odd sidemounted loads or weird aerodynamics, and a traditional LOX tank instead of more difficult ovoid LOX tank.  The STS stack, with all of the weird and difficult bits of the STS stack removed.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1575 on: 05/15/2018 04:56 am »
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1576 on: 05/15/2018 06:15 am »
Between SLS, Exploration Ground Systems, and Orion, the Exploration Systems Development budget is a solid $3-$4 billion per year, not the $1-$2 billion that you posit.

I referenced the SLS budget, not the ESD budget.  But the point still stands if you use the larger total, because...

Quote
Shuttle functioned well enough on that kind of budget, and actually flew missions to boot.

Shuttle costs averaged $5.4B/yr. when operational.

Pielke and Byerly got $1.2B per STS flight (in 2010 dollars), not including development: 

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/04/space-shuttle-costs-1971-2011.html

Over 131 flights, that totals $157.2B. 

STS was operational from 1982-2011 or 29 years.

Dividing the former by the latter yields $5.4B/yr.

Or, for government work, $5B to $6B per year.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 06:20 am by UltraViolet9 »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1577 on: 05/15/2018 06:26 am »
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.

The likely big projects over the next few years are the Mars Transfer Vehicle, various space stations, the Moon base, the Mars base and rovers. In situ resource utilization (IRSU) on the Moon, Mars and asteroids will exist but requires a different skill set from making rockets. The rocket side of lunar landers is already under way but its cabin is not. IMHO Those are the areas that the SLS NASA sites should enter.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1578 on: 05/17/2018 05:04 pm »
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.
Another 10 billion dollars and ten years lost forever.

And people wonder why Mars is always 30 years away for this circus act.

Anyway back to the previous:

All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):

When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT. Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302 stated: "The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit". This was pulled directly from the team's work and subsequent conversations with prominent committee members. ATK's influence was all over the advanced capability and it was the DIRECT 246 Heavy (modified) that is reflected in the advanced capability requirement. The Senate Bill said: "the capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more". The Heavy was never the aim of the team, but a concession to the knowledge that by that time the 5-segment SRB was a certain thing. The team believed it could likely use the SRB for the initial capability by simply leaving out the center segment, effectively making it a 4-segment SRB. At that time the SRB's were still to be recovered and reused.

Bolden was dragging NASA's feet and slow walking the process so completely (likely at the direction of Obama) that by the time SLS was announced the Alabama mafioso and friends had completely redesigned the LV and had effectively resurrected the Ares-V in its place. It even started with 5xRS-26s. At that time there was still enough of the STS infrastructure and personnel left to make it possible for it to actually be a SDHL but that quickly evaporated as the entire program began slipping to the right by a year every year and became a perpetual jobs program rather than a space program that was actually supposed to do anything.

And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.

Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past. That program can never be resurrected so there's no need to rehash what might have been. SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown. Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP. So I hope we can all, even the non-supporters, support a successful program to get SLS/Orion into space. What NASA does with it after that - well that's up to the new vehicle's designers: Congress.

Chuck I am with you on all of this except the part of it flying. I too would like to see it fly, but I can't support taking the program to first flight, not as it's currently being run. Seems like right now we are getting new and major slips announced here every few months, or even every few weeks. And were talking 6-9 month slips each time, now it's looking like the first flight might not even happen in 2020.

It's totally unacceptable, we are likely to have an entirely new Congress by that point at least if the normal pendulum theory holds true in any way shape or form. On top of that alot of the old space flight hawks are nearing retirement or already retiring, I would think more of them will be gone by then so the safe guards for this program are gradually withering away.

On top of all of this is the fact that this thing fundamentally could have, and really should have flown in 2017 or this year. I can see missing the 2016 IOC but by more than two years? Ridiculous. At this rate a full scale BFR will have already landed a BFS on Mars by the time SLS makes a first flight.

And on top of that we have Falcon Heavy. The block 4 heavy in an expendable mode has crazy performance. I would imagine with M1d running at 192k-200k, SL the block 5 heavy flown in an expendable mode will have even better numbers, such that it may approach or exceed 70 mt. And even flown fully expendable the vehicle is still a tiny fraction of the money spent on SLS this year alone! And to do what? "Oh look guys we welded some seams! Oh look we made some tanks last month." This while BO/SPX and even ULA pump out stages at a regular pace.

Even as a jobs program this thing is failing. The term not so shovel ready comes to mind....
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1579 on: 05/17/2018 05:09 pm »
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.

The likely big projects over the next few years are the Mars Transfer Vehicle, various space stations, the Moon base, the Mars base and rovers. In situ resource utilization (IRSU) on the Moon, Mars and asteroids will exist but requires a different skill set from making rockets. The rocket side of lunar landers is already under way but its cabin is not. IMHO Those are the areas that the SLS NASA sites should enter.

What they should do is put a big chunk of the SLS budget on these things, and things like DSG maybe make several DSGs to work in tandem as SEP tugs basically. That and Mars surface systems, almost nobody really knows what or how to do surface systems yet for Mars or where the cash is gonna come from for it. Even Spacex is only at the initial stages, we think, of working on their ISRU plant design, to say nothing of all the rest you would need.

Then take the rest of the budget and put it on a COTS BEO program for the LV, and this time don't force people to re-design a bunch of times by moving the goal posts (like commercial crew).

Sell the SLS components and the ML's for scrap metal maybe you could use the money you get for DSG.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1