Quote from: RanulfC on 04/25/2013 05:11 pmQuote from: deltaV on 04/25/2013 04:04 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 04/25/2013 03:30 pmThe idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?The "political" incompatibilty seems to be the basis for the conflict, rather than any serious "budget" conflicts but given an "assumption" of conflict in the first place they DO "seem" to be mutually exclusive systems However it is like Jon noted, SLS is going to need technologies like "boil-off" control itself among others that would be useful to either system. So there is a synergy on working both systems at the same time since there is no direct need to "add" items to the budget. As long as the research isn't too "focused" on one specific system more than neccessary it can be applied to others.About the ONLY "specific" technolgy that isn't something directly related is propellant transfer technologies, and I would argue that this is something with long term benifits we WANT to develop anyway.The tricky part comes in getting the people who are currently lined up on either side of the "debate" to stop making it a "political" issue and get them to understand there is lots of "value-added" to both sides in developing the technology. The budget can handle a lot of technological research and development as long as it keeps an "open" approach rather than being forced to focus on a single "system" approach as has been the habit in the past.The problem is short of going to Washington and visiting a lot of people with liberal applications of a "clue-bat" I'm not sure how to convince the necessary parties involved to get out of their ruts and start thinking longer-term instead of short-term Randy - in theory, I agree with you, when the issue is labeled as HLV vs depots. The problem is that the current plan has you locked into a closed system, not an open system.
Quote from: deltaV on 04/25/2013 04:04 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 04/25/2013 03:30 pmThe idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?The "political" incompatibilty seems to be the basis for the conflict, rather than any serious "budget" conflicts but given an "assumption" of conflict in the first place they DO "seem" to be mutually exclusive systems However it is like Jon noted, SLS is going to need technologies like "boil-off" control itself among others that would be useful to either system. So there is a synergy on working both systems at the same time since there is no direct need to "add" items to the budget. As long as the research isn't too "focused" on one specific system more than neccessary it can be applied to others.About the ONLY "specific" technolgy that isn't something directly related is propellant transfer technologies, and I would argue that this is something with long term benifits we WANT to develop anyway.The tricky part comes in getting the people who are currently lined up on either side of the "debate" to stop making it a "political" issue and get them to understand there is lots of "value-added" to both sides in developing the technology. The budget can handle a lot of technological research and development as long as it keeps an "open" approach rather than being forced to focus on a single "system" approach as has been the habit in the past.The problem is short of going to Washington and visiting a lot of people with liberal applications of a "clue-bat" I'm not sure how to convince the necessary parties involved to get out of their ruts and start thinking longer-term instead of short-term
Quote from: RanulfC on 04/25/2013 03:30 pmThe idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?
The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?
Quote from: deltaV on 04/25/2013 04:04 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 04/25/2013 03:30 pmThe idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?
Quote from: Proponent on 04/25/2013 07:33 pmAnd, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?With an annual m-dot to LEO of only ~100 mT/year and a cost to LEO in excess of ~$35K/kg, it's hard to think of any such missions....
And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 04/25/2013 05:41 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 04/25/2013 05:11 pmQuote from: deltaV on 04/25/2013 04:04 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 04/25/2013 03:30 pmThe idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?The "political" incompatibilty seems to be the basis for the conflict, rather than any serious "budget" conflicts but given an "assumption" of conflict in the first place they DO "seem" to be mutually exclusive systems However it is like Jon noted, SLS is going to need technologies like "boil-off" control itself among others that would be useful to either system. So there is a synergy on working both systems at the same time since there is no direct need to "add" items to the budget. As long as the research isn't too "focused" on one specific system more than neccessary it can be applied to others.About the ONLY "specific" technolgy that isn't something directly related is propellant transfer technologies, and I would argue that this is something with long term benifits we WANT to develop anyway.The tricky part comes in getting the people who are currently lined up on either side of the "debate" to stop making it a "political" issue and get them to understand there is lots of "value-added" to both sides in developing the technology. The budget can handle a lot of technological research and development as long as it keeps an "open" approach rather than being forced to focus on a single "system" approach as has been the habit in the past.The problem is short of going to Washington and visiting a lot of people with liberal applications of a "clue-bat" I'm not sure how to convince the necessary parties involved to get out of their ruts and start thinking longer-term instead of short-term Randy - in theory, I agree with you, when the issue is labeled as HLV vs depots. The problem is that the current plan has you locked into a closed system, not an open system."Technically" the current plan actually doesn't have us "locked" into anything (other than getting SLS/Orion up and "running" and the system is only "closed" because of "political" rather than "technical" issues.We're kind-of in an interesting "spot" at present because there is NOT a "directed" goal (Moon, Mars, etc) hanging over our heads which means no "specific" path/system/program has to be laid out and adheared to. However, on the other hand since we do not have that kind of "pressure" that can be understood and/or used towards justification/politics in arriving at a "specific" path/system/program the problem of selling "capability-building" multiple objective infrastructure is exceedingly difficult."We" need to sell an "open" system, but in the current political climate that is going to be difficult, if not impossible to do without a REALLY, really good sales pitch.Quote from: Proponent on 04/25/2013 07:33 pmQuote from: deltaV on 04/25/2013 04:04 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 04/25/2013 03:30 pmThe idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?None for SLS really, but a large part of that is the very lack of incentive or motivation to have "multiple" SLS missions. It is after all a "big-government-launch-vehicle" that is specifically being built to ensure that "government-employees" will have a "government-vehicle" to launch on, and so that "government-money" flows to the right places to do so. So there is no incentive or support from anywhere to fly the SLS any more often than minumully "needed" to get that result.So the SLS isn't really a "capability-expanding" system but more exactly what it was supposed to be: A "Shuttle" replacement system. That however does not mean that those in charge of space policy should fall into the rut of "assuming" that SLS should also be the "sole" means of space access for all needs. We have been down that road before and it bit us (and them) in the butt the last time. Even worse from a political/budget perspective SLS is not going to be a very 'fleixable' system and its quite obvious that large scale extensions of its building and flight rate are not going to be supportable.An "open" system with SLS supported by other launch vehicles is a self enhancing system which allows more flexiabilty at lower cost but this is NOT going to be "self-evident" to the folks inside and outside the government who have fallen for the "SLS-vs-Everthing-else" argument.If the issue remains defined as being an "either/or" equation then the conclusion ends up being forgone. If it can be redefined and more inclusive the options become easier to see and understand.Quote from: Warren Platts on 04/26/2013 12:44 pmQuote from: Proponent on 04/25/2013 07:33 pmAnd, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?With an annual m-dot to LEO of only ~100 mT/year and a cost to LEO in excess of ~$35K/kg, it's hard to think of any such missions....Actually it's impossible because the "capability" is far in excess of what the other factors (budget, politics, etc) can handle. That's a major reason why the discussion has to be changed from "either/or" to something else. Something more inclusive and flexiable. If not the current "inertia" will continue...Randy
One thing I don't quite understand about these hearings - what are they for? What is their purpose? So far it sounds like a casual blah-blah-blah without any tangible results...
These hearings are a part of the "process" from which policy is constructed. Without them, people (such as many here) would be barking that ALL of this is being done "behind closed doors." In fact if one follows the process closely, you can learn many things that lead to other things and thus not jump to uninformed conclusions.What you hear in these sessions is what officially goes into the Congressional record.It is too bad that we live in a microwave world where everyone expects everything to happen right now and to come out just the way that THEY individually want it to. We also exist in forums where usernames act as if they carry as much weight as the persons actually making the policy... strange times indeed.
Here is Jon's opinion of the hearing:http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/04/hobgoblins/