How many flights for the SLS, ever?

[intrepidpursuit]

The test flight in 2018 will happen. There is too much hardware built and too much political will to keep that from happening. A second launch in 2021+ with humans is only a possibility if they find some new use for this monster before then, which in my mind is unlikely.

After the first test, the final performance and cost of SLS will become more clear. The Falcon Heavy will be flying with similar payload capacity for 10% of the cost, the Skylon will finally be a name people know as it continues its slow limp forward toward getting funding, Russia will be flying their new Angara 5 for a fraction of the SLS price for commercial payloads, and there will be no payloads for the SLS to lift. Under the next president the asteroid retrieval mission will be canceled and the next NASA rethink cycle will be put in motion with whatever goal he or she dreams up (martian moon?). SLS will be more or less functional, albeit with no dedicated upper stage, so it will sit on a shelf waiting for a use. Capitalizing on a cheaper launch vehicle to make a deep space goal more realistic while investing in American commercial enterprise will be a boon for a new president no matter his political orientation. Congress will either acquiesce or

Regularly spending $500 million to $1 billion+ to launch a rocket designed by congress whose only purpose wast to have low development costs, at which it has already failed, will never become a reality.

[mb199]

Never

[oiorionsbelt]

Voted two, but wish they'd just cancel it now.

[redliox]

Voted two, but wish they'd just cancel it now.

Keep SLS, cancel the Orion.

[daveklingler]

The answer is 2. 

I predict that more will be produced, and they'll end up as monuments. 

It's surprisingly difficult to come up with missions for it that can't be better accomplished in other ways.  Cases where it could be legitimately useful are prohibitively expensive and unlikely to be funded.

[Mongo62]

Coming in very late to the party.

I voted one unmanned test flight. By the time that the second flight would have happened, it will be abundantly clear, even to Congress, that SLS is a hyper-expensive white elephant, given that SpaceX will presumably be launching substantial payloads to LEO for 1/50th the cost per kg, and to BEO for maybe 1/30th the cost per kg (when you include the SLS development and capability maintenance costs). This is with a reusable FH with expendable US, if BFR is actually built, the costs would be even lower (not to mention that the payload size would dwarf that of any version of SLS).

[rsnellenberger]

I voted 2, based on my opinion that the SLS is NASA's N-1 or Energia -- the final, grandiose result of a program that is running on momentum and yesterday's successes.

[the_roche_lobe]

I'd vote zero, if I thought the funds would be diverted to the development of 1) a means of getting to the lunar surface and back 2) a more capable upper stage for EELV. Sadly there seems to be zero interest/will in doing 1), and I imagine those funds would simply evaporate from the budget if SLS is cancelled.

Very frustrating.

P

[QuantumG]

I'd vote zero, if I thought the funds would be diverted to the development of

You understand that this vote will have no effect on the outcome, right? It's not a democracy, and this isn't the senate floor..

I imagine those funds would simply evaporate from the budget if SLS is cancelled.

You'd rather NASA be kept busy working on a make-work project than have less to do?

[Robotbeat]

I went with 6-10.  It would not be able to compete with SpaceX's BFR, if that becomes available for general missions, but we don't know how far into the future that will be....

Musk said 2019-2020 or so is when it'll start flying. So apply the usual SpaceX dilation factor (1.5x), and you get about 2022-2024.

Anyway, I don't think it'll take BFR/MCT to doom SLS.

I voted 3. They may have enough engines for 4, but not all of them are necessarily ones they'd want to use. Really, anywhere from 1 to 4 seem possible. At this point, SLS will probably launch at least once, but I find it incredibly unlikely that it'll survive at least 2 more Presidential administrations, especially with NASA not even getting inflation adjustment budget "increases" (on average).

Then again, if China really goes to the Moon with people, all bets are off.

[llanitedave]

I went with 6-10.  It would not be able to compete with SpaceX's BFR, if that becomes available for general missions, but we don't know how far into the future that will be....

Musk said 2019-2020 or so is when it'll start flying. So apply the usual SpaceX dilation factor (1.5x), and you get about 2022-2024.

Anyway, I don't think it'll take BFR/MCT to doom SLS.

I voted 3. They may have enough engines for 4, but not all of them are necessarily ones they'd want to use. Really, anywhere from 1 to 4 seem possible. At this point, SLS will probably launch at least once, but I find it incredibly unlikely that it'll survive at least 2 more Presidential administrations, especially with NASA not even getting inflation adjustment budget "increases" (on average).

Then again, if China really goes to the Moon with people, all bets are off.

I think the chances of China sending people to the Moon are significantly above 10%.

My suspicion is that certain elements within Congress will be watching Raptor development carefully.  If it seems to be going well, there will be more voices for cutting SLS.  If there are problems, SLS will be protected.

[whitelancer64]

I voted 6 -10, with a heavy emphasis on the 6 or 7 range.

The EM-1 and EM-2 are essentially a given, after that, I suspect what happens largely depends on who's in control of Congress. If the Democrats, I'd expect to see asteroid exploration missions. If the Republicans, I'd expect to see asteroid exploration nixed for a few "return to the Moon" missions. I also expect the SLS to be used to launch a Europa exploration mission.

I think NASA is stuck with the SLS at least for the next decade and a half, thanks to the sunk cost fallacy thinking of the US Congress.

[savuporo]

I voted for "as many times as ITER will run deuterium-tritium cycle"

Random fact: easily more than 50% percent of megaprojects fail. The longer they are drawn out, the more likely they are to fail. Sometimes because of obsolescence, but mostly because everyone will get tired of getting something to work for an entire human generation...

[RocketmanUS]

Voted Zero-

Expect to hear more delays for first launch past early 2018.
2018 is three years away.
Expect cancellation before 2018, might be early or mid 2017.
White House and Congress have not shown real support for the HLV, nor any real missions for it.
Even if we don't get a commercial HLV I expect SLS will be canceled.
I don't see any U.S. government funded crew missions beyond LEO.
Planetary missions might use propellant transfer for greater mass probes, but would not need an HLV.
I would also expect Orion to be canceled along side of the SLS HLV, so no BLEO crew missions for NASA.

This vote is not about a possible commercial option, but political. The politics in the U.S. and global will see the end for NASA's returned crewed BLEO program ( keep your eyes and ears on the World news).

[pagheca]

Voted 0.

_{footnote: this is not necessarily equivalent to "hope for zero".}

[ArbitraryConstant]

2. Glad to see I'm in good company. Certainly anything over low single digits is out of the question.

-AJR is moribund. ULA clearly has their AJR exit strategy well in hand, but SLS doesn't have any alternatives to the RS-25.
-Still no payloads. These have long lead time, so the longer there's no major payloads funded the farther into the future we know SLS has no payloads.

Keeping it flying regularly requires an impossible to believe pipeline of enormous missions launching every year or so.

[marcus79]

I voted 21 or more, on the basis that it will form the basis for a new kind of HSF BEO program during the next administration. Once ISS is gone in 2020 that program will become the sole NASA HSF effort. The rocket team will learn to live with a fairly low flight rate, but the program itself will stretch into the decades much like Shuttle. If it flies for some 30 years, then it is likely that more than 21 launches will be accomplished, whether the objective is the Moon, Mars, or the flexible path.

Alternatively, it may be cancelled by the next administration, though I think that unlikely. At any rate, once established it will stay in its position. Musk will not be able to outdo it, as there is no commercial market for heavy-lift and NASA won't fund his HLV.

People will complain about it, but when it flies the rocket enthusiasts will adopt it as one of their own. Very much like Shuttle in that regard (which was far from cost-effective either). At least if it flies the missions will be more meaningful (yes, that is my very subjective opinion).

SLS is not a utopia, not a breakthrough, but it can provide a solid foundation for solid work within the existing societal constraints. As such it will prove durable, and fly many missions despite the misgivings of many here.

[john smith 19]

I voted for 4 at most. When the RS25s run out that's it. Congress will declare "Mission Accomplished" ASAP.
Although Jim's figure of 2, 1 to show they can launch an SLS, one to show they can launch it with people on top, is quite plausible.

I'm late to this thread and I think there are some misunderstandings.

1) If SLS or Orion is cancelled NASA does not keep the money. They just don't get it to begin with. 

2)SLS does threaten other programmes because NASA has a legal requirement to continue it. Stripping funds from other programmes (like Commercial Cargo and Crew) has come close to killing those programmes and made minimal improvements to SLS's schedule.

3) In case anyone thinks the top end SLS is too big for Mars note that SpaceX and Musks comments for the "BFR" are at the top end of the SLS payload range, and roughly the size of a Mars Colonial Transport, assuming various numbers for passenger numbers and flight duration. In fact the situation gets interesting if SpaceX deliver what is essentially a reusable SLS RLV and what reasons could Congress come up with for not using it? However I expect this is at least 8-10 years away and SLS is (sort of ) here now.

SLS's effect on NASA's budget, planning and staffing is huge.

 The real issue is that once you've built it you need to spend a shedload (metric or imperial) of cash to build the payloads. Once you know most of the mass of most of those missions is simply propellant you have to wonder why bother?

What could turn things around is a successful asteroid retrieval mission.

Suddenly you've got a ready made metre (or 2) thick rock wall radiation shield around your crew for your Mars ship. It might be quite the sleek metal structure people would hope (more a GT than a sports car) but comfortable and roomy.

I think this should be an international mission. Orion's ESA supplied Service Module could be a model for this process, with other partners supplying the habitat and the lander (what on TBD later?).
NASA supplies SLS and Orion for crew return.
Outside of that I've putting up a small "ISS 2" with a 2 or 3 modules in 1 launch?

Beyond that a settlement sized nuclear reactor? Good luck getting the funding for that through Congress. 

I noted that the US, using a Delta IV, Atlas V, F9 and (prior to its launch failure) Antares could, over the course of about a week, put about 63 tonnes into LEO, with no new LV development.

I'll remind people that one of the conclusions of the Augustine II committee was not that NASA did not need a big LV eventually, but it was not needed right now, as you could get a lot done (and still could) with depots.

BTW it was Robert Braun who noted that better propellant management, lowering boiloff, extending storage time on orbit was the single biggest reducer of mass on orbit needed for a Mars Mission.

IIRC Proving you could make those improvement work would lower mass to orbit by 60%
Which sounds like it should be a high priority task of NASA' s engineering people, does it not?

[MattMason]

I voted 2-5.

That was optimistic. The problem is that NASA cannot cheer-lead their own manned missions. That's serious capital that comes from taxpaxers, more specifically, legislators who want something from their appropriations bills for their constituents. In short, if NASA isn't making jobs or contracts for a senator's or congressman's area, too bad.

That said, Orion is a capable spacecraft and the SLS isn't a bad design. But like its predecessor, the reasons why it exists were muddled and defunded and delayed for years before some leadership came in to solidify a definitive purpose.

Interplanetary travel? Sure. Reasons? Hard for NASA to justify, especially when motion pictures are far more effective in pretending to send us, and when our various Mars and other space probes are reliable, exciting and doing great work. And Commercial Cargo/Crew continued work/success is nearly ready to show that NASA really doesn't need to play the LEO game.

NASA needs a cheerleader in Congress, and soon, to push Orion/SLS with more funding and with a reason that generates jobs and potential revenue. Going to Mars or snagging an asteroid won't fly. A moonbase might, especially if the Commercial side can ramp up flights while NASA leads the build team. It's close, it's comparatively easy and logical.

A brute-force attack to get SLS immediate funding is to warn that we have nothing around that can stop a rogue asteroid from hitting Earth and ending all life that we care about (us)--and make implied suggestions that something is near. A couple of clips from Armageddon should do it.

[Patchouli]

It hard to really say as it depends on a lot of variables.

Such as  the presence of commercial HLVs, will NASA return to the Moon and go to Mars ,will depots be put in use,will unmanned missions make use of the throw capacity of SLS?
A lot of missions such as a Hubble follow on or Europa orbiter would benefit greatly from the larger fairing and payload but they may not have the budget for a rocket as expensive as SLS.
A larger fairing may not necessarily require a HLV as it may be possible to put a hammer head fairing on a MHLV rocket like the Delta IV-H.

I say maybe around ten but it really depends on when  LVs like BFR come on line and the direction of BEO exploration.