Any chance people could stop misrepresenting data so that we can keep this thread on topic for a change?
Quote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am3. "to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.": Since SLS is projected to eat up all the funding, it's obviously not going to enable anything. Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.Twice per year is 4 launches per mars opportunity. That is IMLEO of 380,000-520,000 kg per launch window. BFR is supposedly 100 people with an IMLEO mass in the 1,500,000 kg range. That is only 15,000 kg per person. In fact, SLS could launch a fueled ~1/10th scale BFR-like vehicle with a crew of ~10 in one launch
3. "to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.": Since SLS is projected to eat up all the funding, it's obviously not going to enable anything. Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 07/06/2018 04:45 amQuote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am3. "to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.": Since SLS is projected to eat up all the funding, it's obviously not going to enable anything. Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.Twice per year is 4 launches per mars opportunity. That is IMLEO of 380,000-520,000 kg per launch window. BFR is supposedly 100 people with an IMLEO mass in the 1,500,000 kg range. That is only 15,000 kg per person. In fact, SLS could launch a fueled ~1/10th scale BFR-like vehicle with a crew of ~10 in one launchGoing back to item 1.2 of su27k's response: SLS and Orion are sucking the budget dry leaving no money available for the development of landers. As indicated by NASA's very own life cycle cost analysis.So I ask you: what BFR-like vehicle with a crew of ~ 10? There isn't any funding to develop it.
Quote from: meberbs on 07/06/2018 06:41 amAny chance people could stop misrepresenting data so that we can keep this thread on topic for a change?The NRC pathways report was done in 2014. The budget has not been flat since then. Their assumptions didn't pan out. And it wasn't really an assumption. It was an "if then" statement. One that really doesn't apply 5 years later.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/06/2018 08:38 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 07/06/2018 04:45 amQuote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am3. "to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.": Since SLS is projected to eat up all the funding, it's obviously not going to enable anything. Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.Twice per year is 4 launches per mars opportunity. That is IMLEO of 380,000-520,000 kg per launch window. BFR is supposedly 100 people with an IMLEO mass in the 1,500,000 kg range. That is only 15,000 kg per person. In fact, SLS could launch a fueled ~1/10th scale BFR-like vehicle with a crew of ~10 in one launchGoing back to item 1.2 of su27k's response: SLS and Orion are sucking the budget dry leaving no money available for the development of landers. As indicated by NASA's very own life cycle cost analysis.So I ask you: what BFR-like vehicle with a crew of ~ 10? There isn't any funding to develop it.A 10% reduction across the board in HSF programs would generate ~$1 billion per year. But any landers should be targeted to the moon as it is more representative of general space environments.
BFR is supposedly 100 people with an IMLEO mass in the 1,500,000 kg range.
The only long term way I see SLS staying around past the mid-2020's is if they replace the solids with reusable liquid rockets to cut costs.
*snip*Reusable solids (steel cased) are expensive to recover, disassemble, clean, repack with fuel, and reassemble. Cost about the same as new. Graphite composite are less expensive to produce, are lighter, but cannot be reused, and still more expensive than a reusable liquid rocket. *snip*
Quote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am2. "with commercial and international partners": This part is obvious, SLS is not partnering with commercial companies. No international partners either, but that's a good thing since the current international space cooperation model is completely broken (another topic).True for SLS and EGS, but not for Orion and LOP-G.QuoteEven if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.Sortie missions to the Moon is a lot better than what we've had for the last 46 years. Also, Apollo was much more than Flags and Footprints. Our knowledge of the Moon (and the rest of the planets) was fundamentally changed by what was learned from the Apollo missions.
2. "with commercial and international partners": This part is obvious, SLS is not partnering with commercial companies. No international partners either, but that's a good thing since the current international space cooperation model is completely broken (another topic).
Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.
Quote from: spacenut on 07/06/2018 01:11 pm*snip*Reusable solids (steel cased) are expensive to recover, disassemble, clean, repack with fuel, and reassemble. Cost about the same as new. Graphite composite are less expensive to produce, are lighter, but cannot be reused, and still more expensive than a reusable liquid rocket. *snip*That's why SLS isn't recovering the SRBs.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 07/06/2018 08:46 amQuote from: woods170 on 07/06/2018 08:38 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 07/06/2018 04:45 amQuote from: su27k on 07/06/2018 03:36 am3. "to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.": Since SLS is projected to eat up all the funding, it's obviously not going to enable anything. Even if there's funding for payloads, SLS is limited to just 2 launches per year, that's just enough to send humans to the Moon for an Apollo style flag and footprint mission, no way it will be able to send humans further into the solar system.Twice per year is 4 launches per mars opportunity. That is IMLEO of 380,000-520,000 kg per launch window. BFR is supposedly 100 people with an IMLEO mass in the 1,500,000 kg range. That is only 15,000 kg per person. In fact, SLS could launch a fueled ~1/10th scale BFR-like vehicle with a crew of ~10 in one launchGoing back to item 1.2 of su27k's response: SLS and Orion are sucking the budget dry leaving no money available for the development of landers. As indicated by NASA's very own life cycle cost analysis.So I ask you: what BFR-like vehicle with a crew of ~ 10? There isn't any funding to develop it.A 10% reduction across the board in HSF programs would generate ~$1 billion per year. But any landers should be targeted to the moon as it is more representative of general space environments.Good luck trying to convince US Congress to annually shave ~$1B from the SLS and Orion programs to fund a lander. Not going to happen with the current gravy-train addicts in US Congress.
And BTW, NASA is getting a 3-4% raise (or more if the conference comes back with a number higher than both versions which has happened before). In real terms, that is 1-2% or $200-$400 million. So, a few percentage points here and there are signifcant amounts. If the budget rose by 5%, people could still make the argument that it is essentially flat, but that is still a swing of a billion dollars.People have been saying that it couldn't increase because it was a flat budget for many years going back to 2014 and probably earlier. But from 2014, it has gone up. Look at the graph posted above.
With all due respect I disagree. The budget is still flat. Including this FY2018 the NASA budget, over the past 20 years, has constantly varied between ~$18B and ~B21B in constant dollars. (I suggest you read up on the subject of constant dollars).
No, across the board. ISS, SLS, Orion, EGS, pure research programs
Changing standard crew rotations to 9 months essentially does the majority of this for the ISS program without affecting anything else.
That also happens to be over standard trip times to Mars.
As far as Congress cutting SLS and Orion, the budget for those was flat between 2017 and 2018, which actually represents a cut of ~2% adjusted for inflation.
I agree 100% with Steven. What people call "Flags and Footprints" is reconnaissance. Without reconnaissance, there is no way to focus other efforts on the best opportunities and to better define missions and goals.
Quote from: mike robel on 07/06/2018 02:42 pmI agree 100% with Steven. What people call "Flags and Footprints" is reconnaissance. Without reconnaissance, there is no way to focus other efforts on the best opportunities and to better define missions and goals.I think the word exploration is much more appropriate in this circumstance.If you are going to explore of raconteur, the value of the mission is the information you are going to get. You are saying the information is needed to assess lunar opportunities. I think there are a number of high value questions to answer in that regard:-What is the composition of those caves on the moon? (can we build habitats in them?)-What is the water content of the lunar poles? (can we make fuel?)-What other elements are present at the poles? (can we make a self sufficient settlement?)-Does the hydrogen content of the moon increase if you start drilling downward?I am aware of no SLS mission that will get us the answer to any of these questions. What is the information about lunar opportunities you believe the SLS will get us?It's also well within the abilities of NASA to answer all of these questions with moon rovers. Compared to the herculean tasks they have done with martian rovers and deep space missions, these missions would be child's play. If exploring the moon is worth so many billion dollars then could we please spare a billion to answer these questions?Quote from: spacenut on 07/06/2018 11:10 pmLaunching one or possibility of two per year for over $1 billion cost to me is a waste of my taxpayer money especially once newer reusable rockets come on line. Please reread the first post of the thread.
Launching one or possibility of two per year for over $1 billion cost to me is a waste of my taxpayer money especially once newer reusable rockets come on line.
The only long term way I see SLS staying around past the mid-2020's is if they replace the solids with reusable liquid rockets to cut costs. Then adding a 5th engine on the core for greater lift capability, then adding a reusable upper stage/spaceship like SpaceX is planning.