Let Falcon-9 block-II fly and demonstrate reasonable reliability over at least 2 years of routine operations. Let the Falcon Heavy prototype fly and its' performance be more accurately estimated.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/06/2011 02:29 pmLet Falcon-9 block-II fly and demonstrate reasonable reliability over at least 2 years of routine operations. Let the Falcon Heavy prototype fly and its' performance be more accurately estimated. Will the Falcon 9 block II fly before the FH? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the new Merlin 1D on the FH?
If I were sitting in Congress, wanting to save money and progress in Space, and without a workforce constituency to worry about ...
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/06/2011 02:40 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/06/2011 02:29 pmLet Falcon-9 block-II fly and demonstrate reasonable reliability over at least 2 years of routine operations. Let the Falcon Heavy prototype fly and its' performance be more accurately estimated. Will the Falcon 9 block II fly before the FH? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the new Merlin 1D on the FH?Mr. Musk's confident predictions aside, Falcon-9 will have many times the launch rate of Falcon Heavy for some time. It will be the reliability of the high-flight-rate Falcon-9 and SpaceX's ability to keep its CRS obligations that will be the test. IMHO at least.
so anal about spending cuts - the *only* reason.2. "without a workforce constituency to worry about"? The "constituency" that needs to be appeased is the voters, of both parties, who live in the states and districts where NASA currently spends money. They have jobs because NASA spends big dollars there. No legislator is going to even dare to tell them that he's killing their jobs so that the Congress can save money on building Elon Musk's BFG instead. Sorry. Reality bites.
Quote from: alexterrell on 04/06/2011 08:51 am"Don't worry about building launchers, let us do that. Scrap the SLS. You can save billions per year this way. You can spend this on moon bases and Mars missions and really get on with proper exploration. You just give me $2.2 billion per year (much less than you spent on the shuttle) and I'll put 1,000 tons per year into space for your exploration missions"If I were in congress, I'd be tempted. Why not?Ofcourse this is the most obvious thing to do in the eyes of a space enthousiast.But the government will not divert money from launchers to BEO-spacecraft and landers, it will go to some other department than NASA.
"Don't worry about building launchers, let us do that. Scrap the SLS. You can save billions per year this way. You can spend this on moon bases and Mars missions and really get on with proper exploration. You just give me $2.2 billion per year (much less than you spent on the shuttle) and I'll put 1,000 tons per year into space for your exploration missions"If I were in congress, I'd be tempted. Why not?
Perhaps you feel that something strange and Machiavellian has been happening surrounding the Saga of Heavy-Lift the last few months? That maybe Bolden and Garver are dragging their heels deliberately about the issue, perhaps on instruction from above?! You could be forgiven for thinking so, I guess.
Quote from: clongton on 04/06/2011 02:43 pmso anal about spending cuts - the *only* reason.2. "without a workforce constituency to worry about"? The "constituency" that needs to be appeased is the voters, of both parties, who live in the states and districts where NASA currently spends money. They have jobs because NASA spends big dollars there. No legislator is going to even dare to tell them that he's killing their jobs so that the Congress can save money on building Elon Musk's BFG instead. Sorry. Reality bites.Soon there won't be much workforce to worry about contractor wise. It probably does not take near as many people to develop SLS as to operate it.
And you think that workforce only votes when they are employed? If normal voting trends hold true, only about half the (employed) voters will actually show up at the polls. But let the hammer come down and the plants close, nearly *all* the (newly unemployed) voters and now threatened employed voters will turn out to throw the legislator who fired them out of their job. Trust me - the current legislators are all too aware of that fact. If SLS goes away, so do their political careers - gone. They are not going to embrace Elon if the price is the loss of their *own* job.
Quote from: alexterrell on 04/06/2011 08:51 amIf I were sitting in Congress, wanting to save money and progress in Space, and without a workforce constituency to worry about ...You made two critical errors in that statement.1. In spite of all the hysterics you hear from the Congress these days, the Congress is not interested in saving money..........2. "without a workforce constituency to worry about"? The "constituency" that needs to be appeased is the voters, of both parties, who live in the states and districts where NASA currently spends money. They have jobs because NASA spends big dollars there. No legislator is going to even dare to tell them that he's killing their jobs so that the Congress can save money on building Elon Musk's BFG instead. Sorry. Reality bites.
SpaceX answered this on their press release yesterday:"Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress. That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit. SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."So I'm not sure what this thread is about.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/06/2011 03:47 pmSpaceX answered this on their press release yesterday:"Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress. That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit. SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."So I'm not sure what this thread is about.They didn't say that NASA should be developing said super heavy LV.
"SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."I must be missing something here Do you mean SpaceX didn't say "SpaceX agrees with the need FOR NASA to develop....?I doubt that would be of any concern to NASA, or change their plans - which is what this thread is intimating.We all need to be careful not to get drunk on SpaceX after what has been a very exciting week. I say that, cause I started feeling a bit tipsy yesterday
..."Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress. That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit. SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."So I'm not sure what this thread is about.
Quote from: clongton on 04/06/2011 03:28 pmAnd you think that workforce only votes when they are employed? If normal voting trends hold true, only about half the (employed) voters will actually show up at the polls. But let the hammer come down and the plants close, nearly *all* the (newly unemployed) voters and now threatened employed voters will turn out to throw the legislator who fired them out of their job. Trust me - the current legislators are all too aware of that fact. If SLS goes away, so do their political careers - gone. They are not going to embrace Elon if the price is the loss of their *own* job.True. But by never deciding anything they are still causing precisely that outcome. Why should the newly-unemployed voters then decide to reelect them?
Wouldn't the best scenario be for NASA to exit the launcher business entirely, buy 1,000 tons per year or so from SpaceX (or anyone else who can offer better), and use the money saved to undertake space exploration?
If SpaceX are going to produce a 53 ton rocket, why should NASA spend several billion to produce a 70+ ton rocket?