Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 12:03 pmWhat does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.The point is not the delay but the utter lack of payloads that could actually use the unique capabilities of SLS.
What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.
Quote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:16 amQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 09:56 amQuote from: Svetoslav on 02/07/2018 12:34 pmHow do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained? Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.Is it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.Yes, I think so.If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 09:56 amQuote from: Svetoslav on 02/07/2018 12:34 pmHow do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained? Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.Is it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
Quote from: Svetoslav on 02/07/2018 12:34 pmHow do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained? Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained? Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
SLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
Quote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 12:06 pmQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 12:03 pmWhat does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.The point is not the delay but the utter lack of payloads that could actually use the unique capabilities of SLS.It's true we do not know exactly what payloads the SLS will carry. That's because they haven't been built, yet, but they will be. And we do know the payloads for a Human Mars expedition are going to be heavy. Very heavy. Far, far, heavier than anything we have sent to Mars before, like the rovers. Falcon Heavy is designed to put satellites into low earth orbit. SLS is in a different league.
Quote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:51 amQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 10:36 amQuote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:16 amQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 09:56 amQuote from: Svetoslav on 02/07/2018 12:34 pmHow do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained? Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.Is it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.Yes, I think so.If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.Imagine NASA purchasing 5 FH launches for $500mln and spending the remaining $6.5bn on payloads for them. They could fund and launch 5 missions in the Cassini/New Horizon/Juno class just from the current budget.If I'm putting people on a round trip to Mars, I want to do that with as few launches as possible. Launches are risky, and I like as few risks as possible. Especially in human spaceflight. I'd go with the SLS.And it's not a very fair comparison to compare the entire development cost of the SLS to the speculative per launch cost of the Falcon Heavy. The SLS and Falcon Heavy are different rockets with different missions. The SLS has a much more ambitious objective. Putting people on a round trip to Mars. I don't expect their cost to compare.
Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 10:36 amQuote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:16 amQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 09:56 amQuote from: Svetoslav on 02/07/2018 12:34 pmHow do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained? Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.Is it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.Yes, I think so.If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.Imagine NASA purchasing 5 FH launches for $500mln and spending the remaining $6.5bn on payloads for them. They could fund and launch 5 missions in the Cassini/New Horizon/Juno class just from the current budget.
Quote from: woods170 on 02/14/2018 11:45 amQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 10:36 amQuote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:16 amIs it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.Yes, I think so.If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity. Tell me... When was the last time there was a 130 MT payload ready for SLS. Or a 105 MT payload? Or a 70 MT payload?The answer is never.What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.
Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 10:36 amQuote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:16 amIs it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.Yes, I think so.If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity. Tell me... When was the last time there was a 130 MT payload ready for SLS. Or a 105 MT payload? Or a 70 MT payload?The answer is never.
Quote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:16 amIs it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.Yes, I think so.If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
Is it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
Quote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 12:06 pmQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 12:03 pmWhat does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.The point is not the delay but the utter lack of payloads that could actually use the unique capabilities of SLS.It's true we do not know exactly what payloads the SLS will carry. That's because they haven't been built, yet, but they will be. And we do know the payloads for a Human Mars expedition are going to be heavy. Very heavy. Far, far, heavier than anything we have sent to Mars before, like the rovers.
Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 10:36 amQuote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:16 amQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 09:56 amQuote from: Svetoslav on 02/07/2018 12:34 pmHow do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained? Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.Is it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.Yes, I think so.If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.The "more than double the payload capacity" version of SLS is Block 2, which wouldn't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. SLS Block 1B has less than double the payload capacity, it wouldn't be ready until 2023 (i.e. 5 years from now). What is flying in 2020 is the SLS Block 1 which is 70t to LEO, about 6t more capable than FH, and just for this 6 extra tons you're willing to pay $7 billion?
Quote from: su27k on 02/14/2018 12:38 pmQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 10:36 amQuote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 10:16 amQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 09:56 amQuote from: Svetoslav on 02/07/2018 12:34 pmHow do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained? Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.Is it?https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.Yes, I think so.If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.The "more than double the payload capacity" version of SLS is Block 2, which wouldn't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. SLS Block 1B has less than double the payload capacity, it wouldn't be ready until 2023 (i.e. 5 years from now). What is flying in 2020 is the SLS Block 1 which is 70t to LEO, about 6t more capable than FH, and just for this 6 extra tons you're willing to pay $7 billion?The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.The Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for. You want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.Apples and oranges.
The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.
The Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for.
You want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.Apples and oranges.
Imagine NASA purchasing 5 FH launches for $500mln and spending the remaining $6.5bn on payloads for them. They could fund and launch 5 missions in the Cassini/New Horizon/Juno class just from the current budget.
For the sake of argument, consider the costs of this three-year delay against the lift capability NASA could have bought by purchasing Falcon Heavy rockets from SpaceX in 2018, 2019, and 2020. That $7.8 billion equates to 86 launches of the reusable Falcon Heavy or 52 of the expendable version. This provides up to 3,000 tons of lift—the equivalent of eight International Space Stations or one heck of a Moon base. Obviously NASA does not need that many launches, but it could buy several Falcon Heavy rockets a year and have the funds to build meaningful payloads to launch on them.
Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 01:12 pmThe SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.There is no deep space habitat. You can't do long duration missions in a small capsule (e.g. Orion).Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 01:12 pmThe Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for. FH could launch people. In fact, SpaceX planned to, but is now convinced that BFR will make that obsolete. And: I doubt that FH will ever put satellites into LEO(1). It's bread and butter market are big GEO satellites.Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 01:12 pmYou want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.Apples and oranges.There are New Glenn, New Armstrong and BFR in the pipeline. At least one of them will deliver.(1) unless it's larger fairing makes StarLink launches economically viable.
People will never sit on top of a Falcon Heavy and ride it anywhere. SpaceX has already said this. It's easy to say we are going to do this and that but delivering is the thing you see.
SLS is going to deliver.
Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 01:33 pmPeople will never sit on top of a Falcon Heavy and ride it anywhere. SpaceX has already said this. It's easy to say we are going to do this and that but delivering is the thing you see. Let's hope there will never be a manned FH. This would mean that BFR stays on target.Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 01:33 pmSLS is going to deliver.Once or twice.
That would be once or twice more than a BFR will ever fly.
Quote from: jpo234 on 02/14/2018 01:37 pmQuote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 01:33 pmPeople will never sit on top of a Falcon Heavy and ride it anywhere. SpaceX has already said this. It's easy to say we are going to do this and that but delivering is the thing you see. Let's hope there will never be a manned FH. This would mean that BFR stays on target.Quote from: Deep_Space_Housecat on 02/14/2018 01:33 pmSLS is going to deliver.Once or twice.That would be once or twice more than a BFR will ever fly.
Quote from: su27k on 02/14/2018 12:38 pmThe "more than double the payload capacity" version of SLS is Block 2, which wouldn't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. SLS Block 1B has less than double the payload capacity, it wouldn't be ready until 2023 (i.e. 5 years from now). What is flying in 2020 is the SLS Block 1 which is 70t to LEO, about 6t more capable than FH, and just for this 6 extra tons you're willing to pay $7 billion?The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.The Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for. You want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.Apples and oranges.
The "more than double the payload capacity" version of SLS is Block 2, which wouldn't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. SLS Block 1B has less than double the payload capacity, it wouldn't be ready until 2023 (i.e. 5 years from now). What is flying in 2020 is the SLS Block 1 which is 70t to LEO, about 6t more capable than FH, and just for this 6 extra tons you're willing to pay $7 billion?
Taking the Baseline Scenario forward, adding an Advanced Booster as in Figure 10, reveals how costs and ambitions increasing at a pace faster than budgets easily places a lien on 100% of any funding the end of the ISS might make available one day. This is just for the two launches per year, plus a replacement booster development in parallel, not payloads, not Mars or any mission in-space elements like habitation or landers.
The SLS rocket was originally supposed to launch in 2017, but now the maiden flight of the SLS booster has slipped to 2020. That is understandable; most large aerospace rockets experience delays. However, the cost of a three-year delay is $7.8 billion.
That $7.8 billion equates to 86 launches of the reusable Falcon Heavy or 52 of the expendable version. This provides up to 3,000 tons of lift—the equivalent of eight International Space Stations or one heck of a Moon base.
"The question is really, why would the government continue to spend billions of dollars a year of taxpayer money for a rocket that will be unnecessary and obsolete?" Lori Garver, a deputy administrator of NASA from 2009 to 2013, told Ars. "If the US continues this travesty, it will siphon off even more funds NASA could otherwise use for science missions, transfer vehicles, or landers that actually get us somewhere."
Quote from: envy887 on 02/14/2018 11:56 amFH can put 34 tonnes to TMI with one crewed launch, the same mass as SLS. It only requires one additional uncrewed launch, which adds basically no risk to the crew.The assumption in all of these discussions seems to be that the cost of developing the capability for a LEO rendezvous mission, cryogenic orbital refueling etc., is free. It certainly is not. For example, you forgot to include here the extra two or three or more launches needed to refuel the trans-Mars stage in low earth orbit - assuming all are expendable launches. If the stages are recovered, count on six or more refueling launches. - Ed Kyle
FH can put 34 tonnes to TMI with one crewed launch, the same mass as SLS. It only requires one additional uncrewed launch, which adds basically no risk to the crew.