Flight metal is being bent, the SLS/Orion stack will fly BEO unmanned in late 2018 ( assuming a successful launch! ) and BFR will not even be past PDR and may never make it beyond Powerpoint .
SLS is a heavy lift tool, it is up to future administrations to decide if and how it will be used.
But if it is used it can plug into many exploration architectures - both alone or in concert with commercial - as the first element of moving big stuff upstairs.
Be thankful that serious talk of BEO is happening now, it has been a long time coming for us true believers and might still die on the vine ...
Agreed, SLS is perfectly scaled for a lunar program and would be an enabler for a manned return to the moon. It's too expensive to go to Mars with expendables but you can go to the moon with expendables. Why not? It would justify SLS having a flight rate of value, without requiring so many launches that it should be bank breaking beyond what SLS already is. SLS at least makes an Apollo-like program repeatable, certainly enables large payloads to cislunar and perhaps even a minor lunar surface outpost.However, it's not going to be used for any of those things yet, which is eyewatering. I can see a shift to lunar for SLS happening eventually, but it's not going to happen in this tumultuous year.
The Moon is just so much cheaper that NASA can go back to the Moon with a reasonable budget in a reasonable amount of time with or without SLS consuming funds. Additionally even if the launch vehicles were free NASA would still not be in much better shape to go to Mars.
The Moon is easy enough, just need a lander.
A while back Bolden told Congress that would cost $8 billion. When he said that many said he was being overly pessimistic but lets just go with that for now.
I think an application of the lessons learned from the commercial crew program could bring that down significantly. So to put someone on the surface of the Moon by 2025 roughly a billions dollars at most is needed on average per year. It isn't too difficult to play with NASA's budget come up with the funds with or without SLS, especially if Congress kicks in a bit more money.
NASA is not planning on anyone setting foot on Mars until some time after 2030.
SpaceX says that in the same time frame they will be going to Mars. If so then SLS will be obsolete in that regard, but so will everything else NASA is doing.
If that is an argument for canceling SLS...
I believe SLS is overkill for even the moon. With fuel depots, and SEP tugs, and moon infrastructure can be built using existing EELV's and F9 and Falcon Heavies. This at a lower cost per/kg of material sent to L1 or to the moon. The money spent on one SLS launch could be spent building and supplying the moon infrastructure, using commercial bidders. A new metholox upper for Falcon Heavy, and ACES for the upcoming Vulcan. Together both launch providers could supply this infrastructure.Maybe SLS could launch a larger Mars Lander that could be refueled in LEO by fuel depots. Even then using the Vulcan and FH NASA could build a NautilusX type Mars transporter with landers. All the money supporting and launching SLS could build both moon centric and Mars centric infrastructure. Over $1 billion per launch for 105 tons to LEO. A Vulcan with ACES plus a FH with metholox upper (engine being developed) could launch over 105 tons for less than half the price.
It's not. The SLS is a U.S. Government-only transportation system, so the only reason to build it is if the U.S. Government has a sustained need for it's unique capabilities. So far that has not proven to be a correct assumption, thus the questions for why we are building it. "Build it and they will come" is not a justification, it's a wish...
The billions spent on SLS could have been spent on this infrastructure instead using existing or with a little upgrading existing upgraded rockets. Yes, there would be a lot of in space assembly, but that keeps everyone busy instead of one launch a year.
Shuttle was a U.S. Government transportation system and it launched payloads provided by other countries.
Why was Shuttle not U.S. Government only while SLS that is being operated the same way will be?
To be frank, the U.S. government doesn't have a need for much of anything NASA does. It is discretionary spending. Why is NASA building a Mars 2020 rover?
We Americans have a history of supporting "science", and that is what our current space program is focused on, both for the ISS and for our robotic missions.However sending humans to Mars, or back to the Moon, is more than "science", it's a prelude to colonization, and that is not yet supported politically. There needs to be a national conversation about our goals for sending humans to space, but so far no one has decided to start that conversation.And it could turn out that politically no one wants to support government-funded colonization of space.But "science" is still likely to be supported. Unfortunately that is not enough demand to support the need for a dedicated government-owned HLV.
Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon and manned US spacecraft docking to the ISS.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/18/2016 10:08 pmWithin about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon and manned US spacecraft docking to the ISS.... and people wonder why I'm cynical.We've been hearing these claims for years now. Still waiting.
Quote from: spacenut on 05/18/2016 04:20 amThe billions spent on SLS could have been spent on this infrastructure instead using existing or with a little upgrading existing upgraded rockets. Yes, there would be a lot of in space assembly, but that keeps everyone busy instead of one launch a year. SLS is costing about $10 billion in development up to its first launch. That's a bargain! NASA is spending $6.8 billion to develop commercial crew during the same time frame, just to get to ISS. The ISS program itself costs NASA something like $3.9 billion per year, nearly twice as much as SLS is getting each year.
Should we end ISS too and give the money to SpaceX?
We've all known that existing launch vehicles could get humans to the Moon. Griffin said as much, and I even advocated such an idea ( http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html ), but SLS isn't going to the Moon. NASA's Mars DRM 5.0 called for nine Ares 5 launches for a single mission to the Red Planet. The rocket that will get humans to Mars has to be big. SpaceX itself is not planning to use Falcon Heavy for humans to Mars.
SLS is costing about $10 billion in development up to its first launch. That's a bargain! NASA is spending $6.8 billion to develop commercial crew during the same time frame, just to get to ISS.
How much per launch would the SLS cost if they launched say 4 per year?
We build ships and planes to last 50 years or more. Why not in space components and transportation systems.