Author Topic: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?  (Read 16913 times)

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« on: 03/17/2013 10:46 pm »
This got started on the public HLV forum and it seemed best to continue it as a policy topic.

Quote
http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=43563

Explanatory 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>

So, what is the Senate's interest in getting the 130 tonne version accelerated? Note that this emanated from the Appropriations Committee, not the Authorization Committee. There are many possible explanations, many of them overlapping.

Edit: Spelling oops.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2013 10:48 pm by ChileVerde »
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #1 on: 03/17/2013 11:35 pm »
My speculation is Shelby wants MSFC to ask for more money for advanced boosters and the upper stage.

Hope he is good for it  :P

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #2 on: 03/18/2013 12:30 pm »
This is why critics haven't stopped using the monicker "Senate Launch System," in case anyone was wondering.
1 billion for 6 motors... that just makes me blanch but it shows that pork is more important than actually building things that are actually needed.

And no, I don't think too many people were wondering.

Cue the "why you gotta be hating on SLS" crowd. I would like one of them to explain why SLS is worth the bazillions it is going to cost. I just don't get it. Other rockets were developed for FAR less
« Last Edit: 03/18/2013 12:32 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #3 on: 03/18/2013 02:21 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2013 02:23 pm by notsorandom »

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #4 on: 03/18/2013 03:01 pm »
The answer is simple - heavier rocket is more money to their contractors and so more money is donated to politicians. I was surprised they didn't call for something even more ridiciolus like 250 mt ;D

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #5 on: 03/18/2013 03:19 pm »
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #6 on: 03/18/2013 03:37 pm »
(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.)

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.
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #7 on: 03/18/2013 03:43 pm »
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.

Congress initially stated shuttle derived (ESAS time frame) that resulted in Constellation.   Constellation was optimized to reduce the $/kg of the HLV given that it was shuttle derived.   Constellation was thrown out.

Congress then specified 130 mT without revisiting alternative architectures or mission plans.

One part of NASA studied HLV options only and another part of NASA studied alternatives.

Was Congress briefed by the leaked NASA studies that clearly show cheaper alternatives?

If you link the 60 day ESAS study, note that the assumptions that excluded from further consideration have been refuted.  This in itself, shows that why the path should be flexible.

Here is one version of the HLV Evolution.

Did Congress specify the size of the rockets of the Apollo program?  Why did not Congress specify 240 or YYY metric tonnes per year, the correct figure of merit to scope out the size of program they were willing to invest in?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #8 on: 03/18/2013 03:44 pm »
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.)
« Last Edit: 03/18/2013 03:46 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #9 on: 03/18/2013 04:15 pm »
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.
Sure if you count the Minotaur IV and the Delta IV heavy in the same class. 30mt is a significant difference. I know that you have read the same studies as I have on Mars missions. We have debated that in the past. My point is not if those are valid conclusions but that they informed Congress when the legislation was drafted.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #10 on: 03/18/2013 05:13 pm »
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."


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #11 on: 03/18/2013 06:03 pm »
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."

How does this square with the instructions that any reduction of funds to SLS will be matched by a reduction to CTS/COTS funds (would that also apply if the funds were increased?)
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #12 on: 03/18/2013 07:30 pm »
The cynic in me notes that pretty much the two rockets are the same, except that the tank's a bit longer in the big one.  The tanks just costs a little bit of extra money to stretch, but they can charge more than double, since they would also get a premium for offering the world's biggest LV.

Ostensibly, I suppose Mars is a reason, but they would still have to assemble and fuel the mothership in LEO.

I have no idea of any pragmatic reason why its large size should be a priority, but there are many financial reasons for why its cost  and size should be increased as much as possible.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2013 07:37 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #13 on: 03/18/2013 08:22 pm »
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.)

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.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2013 08:23 pm by strangequark »

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #14 on: 03/18/2013 09:07 pm »
Advanced boosters made in Alabama  :)

If Shelby can increase SLS funding he can do what he likes.

If not he's just causing problems.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #15 on: 03/18/2013 10:07 pm »
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.)

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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #16 on: 03/19/2013 06:42 am »
Advanced boosters made in Alabama  :)

If Shelby can increase SLS funding he can do what he likes.

If not he's just causing problems.

Hmm, guess I missed that. That's a lot of replication of existing infrastructure.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #17 on: 03/19/2013 01:16 pm »
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.)

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. (As does the metaquestion of whether that question is OT for this thread.)
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #18 on: 03/20/2013 12:33 pm »
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.

Once they retire, they tend to retire.  Which is fine, in principle, and as it should be.  After all, a politician can only do good work while in office.  The overriding historical question would be whether or not a politician did do good work while in office. 

The same thing happens if a Senator doesn't get re-elected; that is, he no longer has official influence over the work of the various committees that he used to be in.

So if Senator Shelby is now calling the shots, then that's the way it is.

The topical question regarding Shelby is: What are his feelings regarding the 130 ton LV?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #19 on: 03/20/2013 01:09 pm »

The topical question regarding Shelby is: What are his feelings regarding the 130 ton LV?

I have the impression he likes it, or at least things associated with it.

Quote
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/shelby_says_he_will_fight_figh.html

Shelby says he will "fight hard" to keep Space Launch System funding
by 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.

Edit: And

Quote
http://www.huntsvillenewswire.com/2011/09/14/sen-shelby-releases-statement-nasa-sls-announcement/

September 14, 2011, 1:45 pm
Sen. Shelby releases statement on NASA SLS announcement

By 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." 
« Last Edit: 03/20/2013 03:05 pm by ChileVerde »
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Tags:
 

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