http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=43563Explanatory Statement for the Senate Substitute Continuing Resolution (NASA Excerpts) Source: Senate Appropriations Committee Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2013<snip>SLS vehicle development.-- Support for NASA's evolvable SLS development approach, which will provide a 70 ton SLS configuration by 2017 and build to a 130 ton configuration as work is completed on an upper stage and advanced booster system, is reiterated. However, NASA is urged to identify and implement ways to accelerate the schedule for the attainment of the 130 ton configuration. To enable better congressional oversight of NASA's progress, language from the House report regarding requirements for quarterly SLS funding reports is adopted by reference.<snip>
This is why critics haven't stopped using the monicker "Senate Launch System," in case anyone was wondering.
(Note that I am not going to debate if those studies are correct. This thread is about why 130 tonnes, not is SLS is good or bad.)
The goal is Mars. There has been long history of study that points to an HLV in that size range as being the best of not only way to go about that. (Note that I am not going to debate if those studies are correct. This thread is about why 130 tonnes, not is SLS is good or bad.) Congress was informed by those studies. Additionally some people who post on this site were involved in the crafting of the authorization act of 2010. They have graciously taken the time to talk about that process. Congress did not just pull a number out of you know where.
No, it was intended to be about why the Senate (meaning, apparently, the Appropriations Committee) just urged NASA to accelerate the development of the 130 tonne version. The "why 130 ton?" discussion took place a couple of years ago. See http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/04/14/the-source-of-the-130-ton-sls-provision/The current PoR has the 130 tonne rocket appearing sometime in the 2030s, and the Senate apparently has a problem with that. What that problem might be is the topic, or was intended to be.
If the goal is Mars, why do they care so much if it's 100mT or 130mT to LEO? They're still in roughly the same performance class.
What you have to keep in mind is that Congress remains skeptical of commercial crew and they know that the administration is opposed to SLS. They thus suspect that the SLS development schedule has been deliberately stretched out in order to kill it and to divert money to commercial crew (that they think should go to SLS). Thus, this is an effort to apply pressure, to essentially say "Don't stretch it out in order to kill it."
The cynic might suggest that the Senate wants to accelerate the 130mT because certain Senators/lobbyists think it could only be developed with solutions made by certain organizations or companies in their district (a large solid rocket manufacturer comes to mind, but this isn't necessarily the organization in question here).Otherwise, what is so special about 130mT? (And don't just attack my suggestion above if you disagree; give a solid justification for why they are so adamant about this technical detail.)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 03:44 pmThe cynic might suggest that the Senate wants to accelerate the 130mT because certain Senators/lobbyists think it could only be developed with solutions made by certain organizations or companies in their district (a large solid rocket manufacturer comes to mind, but this isn't necessarily the organization in question here).Otherwise, what is so special about 130mT? (And don't just attack my suggestion above if you disagree; give a solid justification for why they are so adamant about this technical detail.)A large solid rocket manufacturer has zero representation on the appropriations committee. A large engine manufacturer with announced plans to build engines in Huntsville, an engineering company mucking about with F1Bs based in Huntsville, and a large aerospace prime contractor for SLS that got a stop work on second stage efforts all have formidable representation in the form of a Vice Chair of that committee. Bet on that last entity, in particular, being a driver.
Advanced boosters made in Alabama If Shelby can increase SLS funding he can do what he likes.If not he's just causing problems.
Quote from: strangequark on 03/18/2013 08:22 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 03:44 pmThe cynic might suggest that the Senate wants to accelerate the 130mT because certain Senators/lobbyists think it could only be developed with solutions made by certain organizations or companies in their district (a large solid rocket manufacturer comes to mind, but this isn't necessarily the organization in question here).Otherwise, what is so special about 130mT? (And don't just attack my suggestion above if you disagree; give a solid justification for why they are so adamant about this technical detail.)A large solid rocket manufacturer has zero representation on the appropriations committee. A large engine manufacturer with announced plans to build engines in Huntsville, an engineering company mucking about with F1Bs based in Huntsville, and a large aerospace prime contractor for SLS that got a stop work on second stage efforts all have formidable representation in the form of a Vice Chair of that committee. Bet on that last entity, in particular, being a driver.Informative, thanks.
The fly in the ointment there is that Senator Hatch was a member of the four-senator group that pushed for SLS in NAA2010. He, currently ranking member/Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, might not be thrilled to see Senator Shelby working to bring advanced booster work to Alabama at the expense of Utah. Just how important that would be is a question that goes beyond my understanding of Senate power relations.
The topical question regarding Shelby is: What are his feelings regarding the 130 ton LV?
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/shelby_says_he_will_fight_figh.htmlShelby says he will "fight hard" to keep Space Launch System fundingby Lee Roop January 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, updated January 29, 2013 at 4:49 PM WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Despite new attacks on the program, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, said today he will "fight hard" to keep funding for NASA's Space Launch System being developed in Huntsville. <snip>Shelby said he will "continue to fight hard to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested wisely in SLS so that we maintain our nation's leadership role in human spaceflight." He will do that, Shelby said, "as the top Republican on the (Senate) Appropriations Committee."Shelby also said he intends to become the top Republican again on the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee that funds NASA. Both the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee will be chaired by Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.
http://www.huntsvillenewswire.com/2011/09/14/sen-shelby-releases-statement-nasa-sls-announcement/September 14, 2011, 1:45 pmSen. Shelby releases statement on NASA SLS announcementBy William T. Martin Print Preview(From release) U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) today issued the following statement regarding NASA’s selection of a design for the Space Launch System (SLS) Vehicle:"I am pleased that the Obama administration has finally agreed with Congress that SLS is the only viable option to maintain America's leadership in human space flight. However, we have not yet seen the details of this decision. Accordingly, I will continue to monitor this situation very closely to see whether the administration implements the 130-metric ton SLS plan as enacted by Congress. It is my hope to see thousands of our brightest scientists and engineers - in Alabama and across the country - put to work immediately and without interruption to bring this plan to fruition. We simply cannot afford to allow our global competitive advantage in human space flight to erode any further."