How many flights for the SLS, ever?

[Alvian@IDN]

I know that no one has posted on this thread since 2015, but the Falcon Heavy has successfully launched five times, and even though the initial tentative timetable for the launch of the SLS was stymied by budget constraints, the first launch of the SLS last November was a success, and construction of hardware for the SLS rockets to be used in the Artemis 2 and 3 missions is now well-advanced. SpaceX and NASA are sharing the burden of all planned Artemis missions beginning with Artemis 3 in terms of cost, so the development of the Starship HLS ensures that for the first time in the history of US space exploration, NASA will be partnering with a private company to fund an extraterrestrial human spaceflight. The Artemis 9, 10, and 11 missions will be carried out by the SLS Block 2 variant.

No.  Falcon Heavy has nothing to do with SLS.   SpaceX is not cost sharing with NASA.  NASA will be paying for all costs associated with the lander.

Wrong. SpaceX is paying more than half of HLS costs with their own money

[DanClemmensen]

I know that no one has posted on this thread since 2015, but the Falcon Heavy has successfully launched five times, and even though the initial tentative timetable for the launch of the SLS was stymied by budget constraints, the first launch of the SLS last November was a success, and construction of hardware for the SLS rockets to be used in the Artemis 2 and 3 missions is now well-advanced. SpaceX and NASA are sharing the burden of all planned Artemis missions beginning with Artemis 3 in terms of cost, so the development of the Starship HLS ensures that for the first time in the history of US space exploration, NASA will be partnering with a private company to fund an extraterrestrial human spaceflight. The Artemis 9, 10, and 11 missions will be carried out by the SLS Block 2 variant.

No.  Falcon Heavy has nothing to do with SLS.   SpaceX is not cost sharing with NASA.  NASA will be paying for all costs associated with the lander.

Wrong. SpaceX is paying more than half of HLS costs with their own money

It's much more complicated than that. The HLS contracts are contracts for services, as are the GLS contract and the CLPS contracts. SpaceX bid $2.9 B for HLS, and later another $1.2 B for the HLS OPtion B extension. Presumably SpaceX will make a profit on these bids. In this sense, they are not "spending their own money". They were able to make this profit because the HLS development leverages on the Starship development they were already  spending their own money on, but NASA is not getting any rights to any Starship (or Starship HLS) intellectual property or hardware. The HLSs that land on the Moon will belong to SpaceX, not NASA, just like the Dragons that service the ISS.

[joek]

Wrong. SpaceX is paying more than half of HLS costs with their own money

Reference for that assertion, from Source Selection Statement -- Appendix H: Human Landing System, Option A, Next Space Technologies for Exploration, Partnerships-2 (NextSTEP-2) NNH19ZCQ001K_APPENDIX-H-HLS (pg. 13, emphasis added)...

...
SpaceX’s plans to self-fund and assume financial risk for over half of the development and test activities as an investment in its architecture, which it plans to utilize for numerous commercial applications, presents outstanding benefits to NASA. This contribution not only significantly reduces the cost to the Government (which is reflected in SpaceX’s lower price), but it also demonstrates a substantial commitment to the success of HLS publicprivate partnership commercial model and SpaceX’s commitment to commercializing technologies and abilities developed under the Option A contract.

It's much more complicated than that.
...

Do not think it is that complicated. We have seen this movie before to varying degrees (e.g., COTS, CRS, CCP). NASA wants a service. NASA is willing to pay for that service. NASA also wants to minimize their RDTE funding in order to obtain that service. Thus an emphasise on cost-sharing, which can reasonably occur only if there are non-NASA revenue streams for the service provider.

Not sure any of that has much to do with the number of SLS flights. SLS is tied to Artemis. Artemis is what it is (for the foreseeable future). Maybe Starship will change that, maybe it won't.

[woods170]

I know that no one has posted on this thread since 2015, but the Falcon Heavy has successfully launched five times, and even though the initial tentative timetable for the launch of the SLS was stymied by budget constraints, the first launch of the SLS last November was a success, and construction of hardware for the SLS rockets to be used in the Artemis 2 and 3 missions is now well-advanced. SpaceX and NASA are sharing the burden of all planned Artemis missions beginning with Artemis 3 in terms of cost, so the development of the Starship HLS ensures that for the first time in the history of US space exploration, NASA will be partnering with a private company to fund an extraterrestrial human spaceflight. The Artemis 9, 10, and 11 missions will be carried out by the SLS Block 2 variant.

No.  Falcon Heavy has nothing to do with SLS.   SpaceX is not cost sharing with NASA.  NASA will be paying for all costs associated with the lander.

Oh boy Jim... you haven't done your homework.

From the HLS source selection statement (page 13):

SpaceX’s plans to self-fund and assume financial risk for over half of the development and test activities as an investment in its architecture, which it plans to utilize for numerous commercial applications, presents outstanding benefits to NASA. This contribution not only significantly reduces the cost to the Government (which is reflected in SpaceX’s lower price), but it also demonstrates a substantial commitment to the success of HLS public- private partnership commercial model and SpaceX’s commitment to commercializing technologies and abilities developed under the Option A contract.

Had you paid attention during COTS and CCP, you would have known that self-funding part of development is standard MO for SpaceX.
For COTS SpaceX self-funded 53% of development (see the COTS final report, page 95). For CCP SpaceX self-funded ~30% of development (can't give a public link because that information is hidden in a confidential internal NASA report which I got my hands on thru a contractor employee). For HLS they are self-funding half of the development cost (per the source given above).

[yg1968]

If the original poster wants an answer to this question, right now, it seems that NASA intends to continue Artemis missions until Artemis XIV or XV. See below:

The OME will be integrated into Orion’s primary power and propulsion component, the European Service Module, and will replace the Orbital Maneuvering System Engine repurposed from the Space Shuttle Program for the service module on Artemis missions VII through XIV.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-orion-main-engine-contract-for-future-artemis-missions

This paragraph is a bit scary, it suggests that Artemis will end after Artemis XV XVI. So much for we are going back to the Moon to stay. Nelson made similar comments recently about exploring the Moon for a decade before going to Mars.

1.3.4 Sustaining Lunar Transportation (SLT) Services

Following successful crewed lunar demonstrations performed pursuant to this contract, NASA intends to separately procure transportation between Gateway and the lunar surface as commercial space transportation services. NASA estimates that it will require such services approximately once per year for a period of ten years.

[Robotbeat]

Why is that scary, tho? I think people over-estimate the challenge a deep space version of commercial crew. Which is all SLS is even used for at this point, plus maybe docking a small module or two, but those aren’t really needed for Artemis.

[Endeavour_01]

I know that no one has posted on this thread since 2015

It has been a while. Definitely interesting to see what the attitudes of the day were and if they have changed.

I voted for 21 or more flights for more or less the same reasons as marcus79. A couple of my own thoughts:

Yeah, me from 8 years ago was definitely more bullish on SLS/more bearish on BFR than I am now. Still support both but I am now quite bullish for Starship/Super Heavy and believe the Starship system will play the biggest role by far in opening up the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

So if I had to vote today I would vote 6-10 with my exact guess now being around 10. I think that gives more than enough time for Starship to prove itself capable of whatever is required. If that does not happen (less likely) or political inertia remains after flight 10 (more likely) I could see it flying longer.

I know that no one has posted on this thread since 2015, but the Falcon Heavy has successfully launched five times, and even though the initial tentative timetable for the launch of the SLS was stymied by budget constraints...

A false statement, since the SLS program has consistently received more than the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations have requested. And despite that, it STILL has not met the Congressional mandate of being "operational" by the end of 2016. So far all we have is one test flight, without humans.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The Obama administration didn't want SLS so they didn't propose a funding spike as had occurred with previous rocket developments. This happened to suit Congress's purposes as their goal was to stretch out development, which maintained jobs in their districts and increased cost in the long run. Their "mandate" was meaningless as they had no intention of providing the amount of money needed to make it.

[yg1968]

Why is that scary, tho? I think people over-estimate the challenge a deep space version of commercial crew. Which is all SLS is even used for at this point, plus maybe docking a small module or two, but those aren’t really needed for Artemis.

At the time that I wrote that message in March 2022, both Free and Nelson refused to stay that we are returning permanently to the Moon, they made it seem like the Artemis missions would end and NASA would then move on to Mars. I think that would be a huge mistake. But they have changed their message since then, both Free and Nelson are now saying that we are going to the Moon to stay.

[Coastal Ron]

I know that no one has posted on this thread since 2015, but the Falcon Heavy has successfully launched five times, and even though the initial tentative timetable for the launch of the SLS was stymied by budget constraints...

A false statement, since the SLS program has consistently received more than the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations have requested. And despite that, it STILL has not met the Congressional mandate of being "operational" by the end of 2016. So far all we have is one test flight, without humans.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The Obama administration didn't want SLS so they didn't propose a funding spike as had occurred with previous rocket developments. This happened to suit Congress's purposes as their goal was to stretch out development, which maintained jobs in their districts and increased cost in the long run. Their "mandate" was meaningless as they had no intention of providing the amount of money needed to make it.

1. The assertion made was that the SLS program was somehow under-funded. So it doesn't matter what any of the presidential Administrations requested, all that mattered is what was actually provided by Congress (and approved by the President).

2. In order to determine if something is "under-funded", first you have to have a baseline of what the funding should be. But that was never officially determined by NASA or Congress. NASA never went through the normal bid process for the SLS design BEFORE Congress told them to build the SLS, and because the SLS was a new design there was no way for anyone to provide a realistic budget profile.

In other words, no one can truly say if the SLS program was under-funded, because there was never an official budget for the SLS design - it actually took NASA years to finalize the design. One data point we do have is what then Senator Nelson (now NASA Administrator) is famous for saying:

"If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop."

Thru 2022 the SLS program has consumed over $23B, so how in any way can anyone say that the SLS program has been under-funded?