Total Members Voted: 245
Voting closed: 10/30/2017 05:15 pm
I voted both operational. I think NASA will be too far down their path to cancel SLS. I also think that BFR will just becoming operational. I think development will take longer that Elon Musk has stated. BFR will not have had a long enough track record yet to get NASA to Cancel SLS by 2027.I think there is a good chance that SLS will fade out in the 2030s after maybe a dozen flights. I think there also is a good chance that by the early 2030s the only US launch providers flying anything EELV class or larger will be SpaceX and Blue Origin. I think ULA will either dissolve or be sold to Blue Origin. I think it will be good to have the competition from the two. The other interesting part of the equation is what will the rest of the world be doing. Will Russia, Europe, China, Japan,etc try to come up with something reusable? Or will they settle for buying rides elsewhere?
It could go either way, but by default SLS is already expected to aim for 2 to 4 flights yearly...
Boeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility.
...so there would be a slight tilt in favor of BFR if SpaceX indeed plans to use it as heavily as planned.
Quote from: redliox on 09/30/2017 04:25 amIt could go either way, but by default SLS is already expected to aim for 2 to 4 flights yearly...So even getting up to two per year would cost more money - and that can only come from Congress.Quote...so there would be a slight tilt in favor of BFR if SpaceX indeed plans to use it as heavily as planned.Slight? It literally takes an act of Congress to fly an SLS. All SpaceX needs is to gas n' go.
This is my first attempt at a poll.
I think SLS will be operational in 6 years - and then be canceled before ten years is out. How many SSMEs are available - I forget, but not many.
Hmm.Currently in the pol:Only 14% BFR will not be operational in 10 years.But 57% that SLS will not be operational in 10 years.A little reading between the lines. Is that more faith in commercial to build a 100+mt monster rocket and successfully operate it than for the US government to do so.
So I was looking for some thread to ask this, and this thread is the closest one I could find.What size of Bigelow module could BFR carry, based on its lift capacity to LEO?Bigelow bases their module sizes on the carrying capacities of available launch vehicles. Their largest module, the BA2100 (with a volume of 2100m^3) is sized for the maximum lift capacity of the SLS to LEO.But with BFR looming as a possible space truck or general purpose heavy lifter, what size of hab module could Bigelow potentially create to match the lift capacity of BFR to LEO?
I think NASA programs will switch to using the BFR on cost grounds.
Well that was unexpected.
Order of most likely to most unlikely.BFR will be operational, SLS will not.Both BFR and SLS will not be operational.SLS will be operational, BFR will not.Both BFR and SLS will be operational.
Quote from: alexterrell on 10/02/2017 09:04 amI think NASA programs will switch to using the BFR on cost grounds. What programs?
Quote from: Lar on 10/02/2017 08:56 pmWell that was unexpected.I even saw a defense from Jim that the prop transfer wouldn't be that hard. I think someone hacked his account
Quote from: Jim on 10/02/2017 07:47 pmOrder of most likely to most unlikely.BFR will be operational, SLS will not.Both BFR and SLS will not be operational.SLS will be operational, BFR will not.Both BFR and SLS will be operational.Well, coming from you, that says a lot. Considering the sequence, that means you think SLS will be cancelled in ten years regardless of BFR?
Quote from: high road on 10/03/2017 08:14 amQuote from: Jim on 10/02/2017 07:47 pmOrder of most likely to most unlikely.BFR will be operational, SLS will not.Both BFR and SLS will not be operational.SLS will be operational, BFR will not.Both BFR and SLS will be operational.Well, coming from you, that says a lot. Considering the sequence, that means you think SLS will be cancelled in ten years regardless of BFR?in less than 5 launches
Quote from: Jim on 10/03/2017 03:01 pmQuote from: high road on 10/03/2017 08:14 amQuote from: Jim on 10/02/2017 07:47 pmOrder of most likely to most unlikely.BFR will be operational, SLS will not.Both BFR and SLS will not be operational.SLS will be operational, BFR will not.Both BFR and SLS will be operational.Well, coming from you, that says a lot. Considering the sequence, that means you think SLS will be cancelled in ten years regardless of BFR?in less than 5 launchesNot sure if you know this Jim but do you get the sense that those working on the vehicle itself share that assessment? Not that I'm disagreeing with you (quite the opposite), just wonder if everyone working on SLS feels the same way.
they are oblivious
Quote from: Jim on 10/03/2017 07:37 pmthey are oblivious This is really a fascinating bit of insight. Thanks Jim. It's almost as if they drank the SLS Kool-aid or something.
The national debt will be well above the GDP. The industry is in a tail spin after the ISS is defunded. Common day themes of CO2 emissions from rockets are brought to bear against the dichotomy of Elon’s views with climate change. HSF has already been down on the boxing ring floor for too long. New astronauts are only recommended to fly space qualified flight systems. The costs for human rating in the us just exceed what is available due to national debt crises.BFR and SLS are museum models, 1:50th scale.
, there are plenty of other governments willing to allow SpaceX to launch from their soil.
The national debt will be well above the GDP. The industry is in a tail spin after the ISS is defunded. Common day themes of CO2 emissions from rockets are brought to bear against the dichotomy of Elon’s views with climate change.
Quote from: high road on 10/03/2017 09:49 pm, there are plenty of other governments willing to allow SpaceX to launch from their soil. not possible
considering EM wasn't even born in America, I don't see any reason for him to be loyal to a country that stifles his dreams.
Quote from: high road on 10/04/2017 09:00 amconsidering EM wasn't even born in America, I don't see any reason for him to be loyal to a country that stifles his dreams.That's a really terrible thing to say, man.
First, I like to state that I am a huge Apollo fan and SpaceX fan. Being born in 1975, I missed the lunar landings but at 6 years old, I did see when space shuttle Colombia took off. Apollo showed that if politicians decide to go, it will happened. As I see it now there is not the political will to land on the moon and to land on mars. As of now, there is no dedicated lander that I know of for ether moon or mars. Therefor I do not think that SLS will be operational in 10 years’ time. Like Ares 1-X, EM-1 and Em-2 will fly. Then the crystal ball gets murky. For BFR I don´t think that it will be operational in 10 years’ time. In the current incarnation, I do not think it will fly. I think that BFR will undergo additional sliming. What Elon Musk is a master of doing is to take proven technology, improve it and package it in a new package. BFR is uncharted territory. There will be design hurdles that will take time. Government have almost an unlimited supply of taxpayer’s money. Private company’s do not. In my opinion the BFR and ITS is too big. It is going to be very complex to get it airborne, safe and reliably. I don´t think it is the right way to go if we want to get to the moon or mars. What I think will happened is that Falcon Heavy will play a large role. Launching modules to get to our destination. Modules that in itself is not that expensive. Doing so will be more easy to pay for and you will get incremented results faster.
Anyone wanna do a 10-year bet that there will be no operational 30+ ton launchers ? Beyond one or two test flights ala Energia or Falcon 1I'll happily put down like a hundred dollars, collecting interest too
Quote from: savuporo on 10/05/2017 04:32 amAnyone wanna do a 10-year bet that there will be no operational 30+ ton launchers ? Beyond one or two test flights ala Energia or Falcon 1I'll happily put down like a hundred dollars, collecting interest tooYou are aware that there are 6 such launchers in various stages of serious and active development in the US alone? Vulcan, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, NGL, SLS, and BFR all fit that description. The Chinese and Russians are also working on similar vehicles. The chance that any particular vehicle gets to operational status is relatively low, but at least one will almost certainly get there.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/05/2017 05:44 pmQuote from: savuporo on 10/05/2017 04:32 amAnyone wanna do a 10-year bet that there will be no operational 30+ ton launchers ? Beyond one or two test flights ala Energia or Falcon 1I'll happily put down like a hundred dollars, collecting interest tooYou are aware that there are 6 such launchers in various stages of serious and active development in the US alone? Vulcan, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, NGL, SLS, and BFR all fit that description. The Chinese and Russians are also working on similar vehicles. The chance that any particular vehicle gets to operational status is relatively low, but at least one will almost certainly get there.I'd take these odds.
"Operational" means that the rocket is now carrying the type of payload and conducting the type(s) of missions for which it was designed.
having the BFR operational by 2022 is absolutely absurd.
Or are you saying that in the next 10 years no 30+ tonne capable rocket will achieve operational status anywhere in the world?
Yeah you can split hairs to no end. No i don't think Atlas 552 can be called an operational capability quite yet. Dual engine centaur isn't a done deal.If a thing flies more than 2 times, and has hit at least 1 flight a year cadence at some point, I'd say its properly operational. Quote Or are you saying that in the next 10 years no 30+ tonne capable rocket will achieve operational status anywhere in the world? That is what I'm saying.
Quote from: savuporo on 10/06/2017 12:42 amYeah you can split hairs to no end. No i don't think Atlas 552 can be called an operational capability quite yet. Dual engine centaur isn't a done deal.If a thing flies more than 2 times, and has hit at least 1 flight a year cadence at some point, I'd say its properly operational. Quote Or are you saying that in the next 10 years no 30+ tonne capable rocket will achieve operational status anywhere in the world? That is what I'm saying.This seems like a terrible bet for you, since you can't win for 10 years. But if you really think it worthwhile, I'll bet 6 months of L2 membership (or equivalent value when the bet ends, but not more than $100 US). Conditions: a launch vehicle in a configuration nominally capable of 30,000 kg of separable payload to LEO must successfully fly 3 times including at least 2 times in less than 2 consecutive calendar years before today's date in 2027. And the vehicle can't be explicitly considered experimental, even if completing those flights. Once those flights are complete, I win. If the end date passes without those flights happening, you win. Good?
Jim's prediction of less than 5 SLS flights puts the last flight of the 4 (EM-1 [2020], EM-2 [2023], EC [2024], EM-3 [2025]) ~2025. That is less than 10 years. It flies all of the left over RS-25's. The reason I specify these 4 is that NASA could cancel the RS-25 line restart contract before it produces any engines around 2020 because of evident progress being made on BFR saving as much as $750M. Actual RS-25"E" engines would be produced and available for qualification testing NET 2022. The 4 flights are NASA saying until the BFR is flying we will continue our BEO plans (hedging the bet) by prototyping BEO hardware placing it in BEO and testing it (PPE and DSG habitat) which would have some usefulness even with BFR.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/05/2017 03:24 pmJim's prediction of less than 5 SLS flights puts the last flight of the 4 (EM-1 [2020], EM-2 [2023], EC [2024], EM-3 [2025]) ~2025. That is less than 10 years. It flies all of the left over RS-25's. The reason I specify these 4 is that NASA could cancel the RS-25 line restart contract before it produces any engines around 2020 because of evident progress being made on BFR saving as much as $750M. Actual RS-25"E" engines would be produced and available for qualification testing NET 2022. The 4 flights are NASA saying until the BFR is flying we will continue our BEO plans (hedging the bet) by prototyping BEO hardware placing it in BEO and testing it (PPE and DSG habitat) which would have some usefulness even with BFR.I actually for got about the limited quantity of existing engines.
Last post plus the renewed dreamyness of the National Space Council has brought my views around 360 degrees.I voted that neither BFR or SLS will NOT be able to deliver in 10 years. But now I’m thinking it is just a matter of too much optimism, heightened desire for things not achievable.The dream keeps changing while the CDR has already occurred. Mission creep while over-constraining/over-specifying eventually grounds hardware. Think about it! You’ve got your moonbase, your Mars ISRU, Phobos station, Mars transfer vehicle, Mars lander, Moon lander, man rated craziness, lunar return vehicles, and then add twenty other flagship vehicles. Modularity requirements, ultra high reliability that a lifetime of testing couldn’t achieve...Come on!
Your views did a 360? So, back where you started. Sill not making much sense though, sadly.
Quote from: Lar on 10/08/2017 03:38 amYour views did a 360? So, back where you started. Sill not making much sense though, sadly.Also, you don't test reliability in. It is designed in and then verified.Exactly. In order to get near perfect reliability, the design is going to have to iterate. But the tests to demonstrate the required reliability are going to need more than a couple thousand hours (which is typical). In other words, how long would reliability testing need to run to demonstrate a service life on Mars for about two years?Demonstrating the required reliability to get to a moon base for 'just' 28 days would be quite a challenge.
Your views did a 360? So, back where you started. Sill not making much sense though, sadly.Also, you don't test reliability in. It is designed in and then verified.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/06/2017 02:28 amQuote from: savuporo on 10/06/2017 12:42 amYeah you can split hairs to no end. No i don't think Atlas 552 can be called an operational capability quite yet. Dual engine centaur isn't a done deal.If a thing flies more than 2 times, and has hit at least 1 flight a year cadence at some point, I'd say its properly operational. Quote Or are you saying that in the next 10 years no 30+ tonne capable rocket will achieve operational status anywhere in the world? That is what I'm saying.This seems like a terrible bet for you, since you can't win for 10 years. But if you really think it worthwhile, I'll bet 6 months of L2 membership (or equivalent value when the bet ends, but not more than $100 US). Conditions: a launch vehicle in a configuration nominally capable of 30,000 kg of separable payload to LEO must successfully fly 3 times including at least 2 times in less than 2 consecutive calendar years before today's date in 2027. And the vehicle can't be explicitly considered experimental, even if completing those flights. Once those flights are complete, I win. If the end date passes without those flights happening, you win. Good?You are on.
If SLS is to continue, I predict NASA will build kerolox reusable boosters for it with SpaceX landing technology. They will probably use 5 AR-1's. This would cost less in the long run. They will probably expend the core, but, going back to the SSME, and either maybe parachuting them down. It may lower costs, but still not be fully reusable. If not it will be cancelled and NASA will use BFR for things they want to do in space. They will have to design to fit the payload bay of a cargo BFR. By then there will also be New Glenn and Vulcan for larger payloads, in space assembly of something.
Quote from: savuporo on 10/06/2017 07:21 amQuote from: envy887 on 10/06/2017 02:28 amQuote from: savuporo on 10/06/2017 12:42 amYeah you can split hairs to no end. No i don't think Atlas 552 can be called an operational capability quite yet. Dual engine centaur isn't a done deal.If a thing flies more than 2 times, and has hit at least 1 flight a year cadence at some point, I'd say its properly operational. Quote Or are you saying that in the next 10 years no 30+ tonne capable rocket will achieve operational status anywhere in the world? That is what I'm saying.This seems like a terrible bet for you, since you can't win for 10 years. But if you really think it worthwhile, I'll bet 6 months of L2 membership (or equivalent value when the bet ends, but not more than $100 US). Conditions: a launch vehicle in a configuration nominally capable of 30,000 kg of separable payload to LEO must successfully fly 3 times including at least 2 times in less than 2 consecutive calendar years before today's date in 2027. And the vehicle can't be explicitly considered experimental, even if completing those flights. Once those flights are complete, I win. If the end date passes without those flights happening, you win. Good?You are on.That's one.
Quote from: envy887 on 02/09/2018 04:51 pmQuote from: savuporo on 10/06/2017 07:21 amQuote from: envy887 on 10/06/2017 02:28 amQuote from: savuporo on 10/06/2017 12:42 amYeah you can split hairs to no end. No i don't think Atlas 552 can be called an operational capability quite yet. Dual engine centaur isn't a done deal.If a thing flies more than 2 times, and has hit at least 1 flight a year cadence at some point, I'd say its properly operational. Quote Or are you saying that in the next 10 years no 30+ tonne capable rocket will achieve operational status anywhere in the world? That is what I'm saying.This seems like a terrible bet for you, since you can't win for 10 years. But if you really think it worthwhile, I'll bet 6 months of L2 membership (or equivalent value when the bet ends, but not more than $100 US). Conditions: a launch vehicle in a configuration nominally capable of 30,000 kg of separable payload to LEO must successfully fly 3 times including at least 2 times in less than 2 consecutive calendar years before today's date in 2027. And the vehicle can't be explicitly considered experimental, even if completing those flights. Once those flights are complete, I win. If the end date passes without those flights happening, you win. Good?You are on.That's one.That's two.
The real question with the bet was never really if envy 887 would win, but how many times over. There is still Vulcan, New Glenn, Starship and SLS. Most of those may also qualify. On topic for this thread, I think that if any of those don't make it, the most likely is SLS, and Starship's expected timeframe for launch has improved significantly since this poll was made.