Poll

How many times will SLS be launched before it is retired/canceled

0
16 (7.5%)
1
28 (13.1%)
2
53 (24.8%)
3
29 (13.6%)
4
43 (20.1%)
5
10 (4.7%)
6
10 (4.7%)
7
1 (0.5%)
8
5 (2.3%)
9
3 (1.4%)
10+
16 (7.5%)

Total Members Voted: 214

Voting closed: 06/08/2018 07:04 pm


Author Topic: POLL: How many times will SLS be launched before it is retired/canceled  (Read 16069 times)

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Voted 10+ on the optimistic assumption that NASA finally gets EM-1 and EM-2 off the ground. Once that has been done, there is no way Congress is going to pull the plug.

Everyone talks about high cost as if that's a downside for Congress. The higher the cost, the more money goes to Congress's various constituencies. Those are mainly defense contractors, and Congress is all about shoveling money to defense contractors.

On the less cynical side, I think SLS is a good, if not exactly great, program. Once the design settles down, say in 2035 or so, SLS will be real workhorse.

Offline randomly

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 182
I voted 4. I really think it will die after at most 3 flights, but give it a plus one for the congressional zombie effect.

There are no missions for this thing or funding for missions, it'll just drag on and on with almost no flights.

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
On the less cynical side, I think SLS is a good, if not exactly great, program. Once the design settles down, say in 2035 or so, SLS will be real workhorse.
By less cynical, I am not sure whether you mean "absurdly optimistic" or if you are being sarcastic and mean "absurdly pessimistic."

I don't think I have seen even the most extreme SLS supporters propose a serious argument that the program is "good, if not exactly great." If you have an explanation for that position I would like to see it.

My comment about your potential sarcasm (though I don't think you were being sarcastic) is because NASA's long term plan does not involve the capability to launch SLS more than about once per year. I sincerely hope that spaceflight does not regress so far within my lifetime that such a rocket could ever be considered a "real workhorse"

I voted 2 by the way, based on my probably somewhat optimistic prediction of when obviously better options will be far enough along, and how many SLS dedicated missions will be too far developed to be cancelled at that point.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2018 04:04 am by meberbs »

Online redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
I'm not voting at all because I am tired of second-guessing whether or not NASA will be manipulated this way or that.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Trump will kill SLS in 2018 after the midterm elections.

It’s not a priority and risks are too overwhelming to actually make the attempt for launching crew

Zero

And Congress will completely ignore his NASA budget once more.

3. It's no sunk cost fallacy if SLS flies before BFR, Vulcan or NG/NA. You can only count the money that will still have to be spent between now and that point, and estimates seem to be in the same ballpark. Neither SpaceX, Blue or ULA has a history of attaining their deadlines or expectations about those deadlines.

Edit: this does not necessarily mean this programme will be cancelled after three launches. Until BFR flies, which could be a looong time, this project will continue to limp on and receive billions from congress, with the only result being more time between launches, rather than more launches. Those constituents gotta eat.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 06:22 pm by high road »

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
I voted 5. My assumption is there will be strong pressure to fly out some hardware and missions in the pipeline when the program is killed, so even if the writing is on the wall after the first two test flights, there will probably be a few more. I also assume BFR/BFS is going to take a lot longer than Elon's aspirational schedules.

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Voted 2.

Delays in launch, lack of payload and eventually commercial pressure will stop the project.

Offline seeya later navigator

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Melbourne , Australia. ( Irish )
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 22
I voted eight because I thought that was the remaining stock of engines ,but I think there is only enough for six flights. Politics and the next POTUS election will decide it. I don't think it will fly beyond that as BFR and possibly new Armstrong will be so much cheaper to buy.
It's the one in a million chance that always happens nine times out of ten.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Voted 10+ because whether anyone likes it or not, this program has absolute solid support in Congress since it started and there's no major indications that this is changing soon. It will like serve as the flagship vehicle of a very modest return to the Moon in the 2020s.

Even the advent of commercial SHLV's are unlikely to immediately kill this program; The Shuttle program was not immediately stopped  because cheaper EELVs with equivalent payload capabilities were available. The most likely thing to cancel SLS is, god forbid, a tragic accident like Columbia or Challenger.

My vote is not necessarily what I wish to happen but what I think is likely to happen.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

I doubt BFR will be anywhere near ready by the mid2020s, but NG and Vulcan both will be. And only then Congress wont be able to justify funding the SLS program with 3 HLVs (FH being the third option). So voted 2, the EM1 and the Europa mission.
Maybe a crewed Orion for a third flight, but chances are that will be cancelled by the time a new administration in the WH, one will which pursue commercialisation even more.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 04:22 pm by mansourgh »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Previously thought there will be 3 SLS flights. One with ICPS upper stage and 2 with EUS upper stage. However the problems with the LV software and the delay or non-appearance of the EUS downgraded my prediction to a single SLS Block 1 flight after 2021 at the earliest. More likely in 2022.

If the BFS is hopping anytime before the inaugural SLS flight. The SLS will have a very brief flight history if any.

Offline Toast

I'm betting on one. Two isn't too outlandish, but I doubt it'll go further than that. I think NASA will inevitably try to make a big publicity push with the maiden launch, which I think will probably fall flat since it'll be uncrewed and will almost certainly be delayed further. By the time EM-1 happens, commercial crew is flying, New Glenn will be nearing flight, and BFS may even be doing short test hops. Then, by the time they're ready for launch two NASA will probably be going through another administration change, the economy will probably not look as good as it does now, and deficit/debt hawks will be looking for cuts. With lots of required expenditures to move to EUS, replace/rebuild the mobile launch platform, plus other inevitable unforeseen costs, continued investment in SLS will look even worse than it does now. Not to mention the level of commercial competition that will be starting to appear on the market.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
I will quote a comment I read on another space site: "SLS will be Ares 1-X writ Large!"

So perhaps I should change my vote to 1x launch :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Neither SpaceX, Blue or ULA has a history of attaining their deadlines or expectations about those deadlines.

This is true.  However it's also true that the SLS is extremely unlikely to make it's deadline of first flight in 2017.  BFR and ACES do not appear to be behind SLS in development and the organizations moving them appear to have a lot more fire under the asses to actually get the job done.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Neither SpaceX, Blue or ULA has a history of attaining their deadlines or expectations about those deadlines.

This is true.  However it's also true that the SLS is extremely unlikely to make it's deadline of first flight in 2017.  BFR and ACES do not appear to be behind SLS in development and the organizations moving them appear to have a lot more fire under the asses to actually get the job done.

This is mostly not true. SLS has a lot of flight hardware built and qualified while neither BFR nor ACES have any built as far as we know. And ULA does not appear to be in any hurry at all to move ACES along.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48151
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81637
  • Likes Given: 36932
I voted 1 (before seeing the latest schedule news: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/schedule-first-sls-core-stage-sliding/).

I didn't think 2020 for EM-1 would be achieved and with the latest news that's increasingly likely. I'd be amazed if the latest schedule slip is the last for EM-1. So realistic best case now is launch in 2021, could be later. My guess is best case for second SLS flight is 2024; more likely 2025 or later.

I expect commercial developments by 2023 (SpaceX and Blue Origin) to make continued SLS funding politically unsustainable by then.

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
This is mostly not true. SLS has a lot of flight hardware built and qualified while neither BFR nor ACES have any built as far as we know. And ULA does not appear to be in any hurry at all to move ACES along.

More ACES hardware has flown then SLS hardware.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
This is mostly not true. SLS has a lot of flight hardware built and qualified while neither BFR nor ACES have any built as far as we know. And ULA does not appear to be in any hurry at all to move ACES along.

More ACES hardware has flown then SLS hardware.

Such as? They haven't flown an IVF test, and without IVF it's just Centaur, not ACES. ULA haven't even picked an engine for ACES yet.

Flight testing components is not the same, development wise, as having built, fully integrated, and tested flight qualified hardware. You can have flight tested components without being anywhere near finishing development of a flight qualified vehicle.

SLS has hardware ready to be stacked and flown (not that it matters, but some of it - the RS-25s and SRB casings - have already flown).

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
This is mostly not true. SLS has a lot of flight hardware built and qualified while neither BFR nor ACES have any built as far as we know. And ULA does not appear to be in any hurry at all to move ACES along.

More ACES hardware has flown then SLS hardware.

Such as? They haven't flown an IVF test, and without IVF it's just Centaur, not ACES. ULA haven't even picked an engine for ACES yet.

Flight testing components is not the same, development wise, as having built, fully integrated, and tested flight qualified hardware. You can have flight tested components without being anywhere near finishing development of a flight qualified vehicle.

SLS has hardware ready to be stacked and flown (not that it matters, but some of it - the RS-25s and SRB casings - have already flown).

You can have flight hardware ready to be stacked and flown and be no where near finishing development of a flight qualified vehicle -- e.g., SLS/Orion.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
ULA haven't even picked an engine for ACES yet.

https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2018/05/11/united-launch-alliance-selects-aerojet-rocketdyne-s-rl10-engine-for-next-generation-vulcan-centaur-upper-stage

Such as?

ACES equipment that has flown in one form or another:
-the engine
-the capsule
-the payload adapter
-the avionics
-prototypes of the long duration cryogenics gear

SLS equipment that has flown in one form or another:
-The engine they aren't planning to use
-The capsule (on an Atlas V rocket...)


And this disparity is even more absurd when you consider this is comparing an entire superheavy rocket to just a second stage.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1