Author Topic: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS  (Read 62763 times)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #60 on: 02/08/2017 02:04 pm »
Endorsement is a form of lobbying IMHO...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #61 on: 02/08/2017 02:05 pm »
... we know what other entities have in the works and it sounds like it's going to be a job creation program for lawyers...

IMHO the key thing is not that BO or SpaceX may field a rocket that's in SLS's class or larger.  Rather it's that the possibility that NASA might get more down now if it got out of the rocket business and used commercial rockets never seems to be considered by anyone in power.  They don't even bother to argue against it, they just ignore it.


Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #62 on: 02/08/2017 02:12 pm »
SLS costs over $2 billion per year.  Over $10 billion more will have been spent on it by the time EM-1 flies.  It's only sensible to ask whether NASA might accomplish more by spending a similar quantity of money on an exploration program based on rockets the cost of which is shared with other users.
In other words, I don't think the argument has sailed.
SLS: 10 years in operation, 20 flights or $20B or 1B flight or $10,000/kg.  magically cut it in half  $5,000/kg

DOD:  100M/20mT  $5,000/kg  and that is without reuse nor increased flight rate and the US has to maintain all the excessive launch and capsule capacity with zero $$ for missions. 
   ==>  The USG pays 20B + 20B =40B for launch capacity  that has no missions
            The USG could pay            20B                                       for no missions  New Math?!
            So how does this competition reduce costs again?      http://alternativefacts.com

****  If you include more launchers with 'competition', one does not require a LV > ~20mT   *****

What are the reasons to change direction?  Costs and wrong architecture.

1970s: Shuttle lost out to Titan III unless it flew 28x/yr
1970s: "We really need to get behind a useable lower stage" Max Faget
1970s: "Solids, a major mistake (added by) Nixon" Max Faget
1984:  Dual Keel, satellite servicing, free flyers, advanced technology
1992:  140M could not be found in the budget for economic access to space
2002:  Bush appoints Okeefe who selects the spiral architecture using the DOD fleet.  Oops.
2003:  Prometheus for long duration space travel
2004:  Bush and Red Congress cast aside depot centric for CxP for Apollo Redux. Gut technology.
2004:  VSE:  common harware with the goal of reuse
2005:  ESAS uses flawed AR&D risk so lunar sortie (130mT) "must be less than 3 launches"  70/130mT QED.
2005:  "right in the middle of the debris field is Orion" LAS mass grows 6mT from solids Ares I can't getoffground
2009:  MARS DRM 5 forgets Apollo 13 and sends Orion to Mars, just like, err, Apollo
2010:  Augustine  3B/yr more
2010:  Must be 70 and 130mT. 
2011:  NASA can save at least 57B returning to the spiral, depot centric architecture cast aside by 2004 Red
2011:  Youtube Space Policy, Explained
2012:  Orion cannot return from an asteroid because, per Stanley, designed for lunar only
2013:  J2X Mothballed
2016:  The lunar ISRU Fallacy  head to the asteroids

HLV Incredibly Expendable Architecture
Mars DRM 5: "The mission uses essentially all expendable rocket and vehicle components, and does not leave any useful components in low Mars orbit or Earth orbit for use by the next mission. Thus, there is no advancement in safety or capability from one mission to the next. The architecture would require the design, development, and construction of at least 10 different types of expendable vehicles during the decade before the first mission"

Worse, if anyone wants to work on New Technology to head to Mars, all the money will be spent on LV and capsules for at least another decade that will have no practical use, just so Congress can use http://alternativefacts.com that 'Competition' can select the same approach cast aside in 2004.

Congress mandated that NASA would build SLS and was even told the basics on how to build it to make sure the right companies got the contracts. That supersedes the previous law in this case. Now NASA has to use SLS for BLEO exploration, at least for large payloads.
Unless Congress changes its mind, something I seriously doubt because SLS and Orion are the continuation of Constellation, it's pointless to discuss about what could have been. It's time to figure out what to do with SLS and commercial space to create a BELO program.
There is no $$ for missions..Congress will not give them enough money, haven't we been though this?

One concludes however, that If you support SLS/Orion, all you care about is building and operating old, expensive, expendable, technology   

« Last Edit: 12/05/2017 12:49 pm by muomega0 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #63 on: 02/08/2017 02:14 pm »
Endorsement is a form of lobbying IMHO...
In this case more like: not stepping on the toes of certain folks in the White House and US Congress.
Or better: When a situation is unclear, keep all your options open.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #64 on: 02/08/2017 02:19 pm »
Endorsement is a form of lobbying IMHO...
In this case more like: not stepping on the toes of certain folks in the White House and US Congress.
Or better: When a situation is unclear, keep all your options open.
True, but the they could have just "held fire" for a bit...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #65 on: 02/08/2017 02:41 pm »
Congress mandated that NASA would build SLS and was even told the basics on how to build it to make sure the right companies got the contracts. That supersedes the previous law in this case. Now NASA has to use SLS for BLEO exploration, at least for large payloads.
Unless Congress changes its mind, something I seriously doubt because SLS and Orion are the continuation of Constellation, it's pointless to discuss about what could have been. It's time to figure out what to do with SLS and commercial space to create a BELO program.
There is no $$ for missions..Congress will not give them enough money, haven't we been though this?

That's why I wrote we need to figure out what to do with SLS. Congress will have to fund payloads soon or their jobs program crashes after EM-2. Working with commercial space on BLEO, like NASA is already discussing, is a way forward.

It doesn't matter what any of us think about SLS. It's what Congress wants to do. The trick is working within that limitation.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #66 on: 02/08/2017 02:54 pm »
Congress mandated that NASA would build SLS and was even told the basics on how to build it to make sure the right companies got the contracts. That supersedes the previous law in this case. Now NASA has to use SLS for BLEO exploration, at least for large payloads.
Unless Congress changes its mind, something I seriously doubt because SLS and Orion are the continuation of Constellation, it's pointless to discuss about what could have been. It's time to figure out what to do with SLS and commercial space to create a BELO program.
There is no $$ for missions..Congress will not give them enough money, haven't we been though this?

That's why I wrote we need to figure out what to do with SLS. Congress will have to fund payloads soon or their jobs program crashes after EM-2. Working with commercial space on BLEO, like NASA is already discussing, is a way forward.

It doesn't matter what any of us think about SLS. It's what Congress wants to do. The trick is working within that limitation.

Guess you're forgetting about the Europa mission(s) it's not just about manned space flight.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #67 on: 02/08/2017 03:06 pm »
Congress mandated that NASA would build SLS and was even told the basics on how to build it to make sure the right companies got the contracts. That supersedes the previous law in this case. Now NASA has to use SLS for BLEO exploration, at least for large payloads.
Unless Congress changes its mind, something I seriously doubt because SLS and Orion are the continuation of Constellation, it's pointless to discuss about what could have been. It's time to figure out what to do with SLS and commercial space to create a BELO program.
There is no $$ for missions..Congress will not give them enough money, haven't we been though this?

That's why I wrote we need to figure out what to do with SLS. Congress will have to fund payloads soon or their jobs program crashes after EM-2. Working with commercial space on BLEO, like NASA is already discussing, is a way forward.

It doesn't matter what any of us think about SLS. It's what Congress wants to do. The trick is working within that limitation.

Maybe we need to resurrect the Federal Line Item Veto... swamp draining will not make any progress against entrenched interests without it. (Falls into the swamp draining toolkit... like 'term limits')  44 Governors have authority to use it; impossible to balance the budget without.

Obama would have slain SLS in the crib if he had that tool.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #68 on: 02/08/2017 03:11 pm »
Guess you're forgetting about the Europa mission(s) it's not just about manned space flight.

Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon Heavy could do the job too.  The use of SLS appears to be politically driven, in that Congress has weighed in, but I've never seen an analysis arguing that the extra cost of using SLS is actually worth the shorter flight time.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #69 on: 02/08/2017 03:18 pm »
Are you referring specifically to SLS?  In that case, the argument is probably just that there is not commercial launch vehicle of its capability. 

Actually, that argument does not wash.  Section 50301 of Title 51 of the U.S. Code begins with:

Quote from: U.S.C. 51 Sect. 50301
(a)In General.—
Except as otherwise provided in this section or in section 70102, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.

Emphasis added.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #70 on: 02/08/2017 03:42 pm »
Congress mandated that NASA would build SLS and was even told the basics on how to build it to make sure the right companies got the contracts. That supersedes the previous law in this case. Now NASA has to use SLS for BLEO exploration, at least for large payloads.
Unless Congress changes its mind, something I seriously doubt because SLS and Orion are the continuation of Constellation, it's pointless to discuss about what could have been. It's time to figure out what to do with SLS and commercial space to create a BELO program.
There is no $$ for missions..Congress will not give them enough money, haven't we been though this?

That's why I wrote we need to figure out what to do with SLS. Congress will have to fund payloads soon or their jobs program crashes after EM-2. Working with commercial space on BLEO, like NASA is already discussing, is a way forward.

It doesn't matter what any of us think about SLS. It's what Congress wants to do. The trick is working within that limitation.

Maybe we need to resurrect the Federal Line Item Veto... swamp draining will not make any progress against entrenched interests without it. (Falls into the swamp draining toolkit... like 'term limits')  44 Governors have authority to use it; impossible to balance the budget without.

Obama would have slain SLS in the crib if he had that tool.

Doubt we'll see a federal line item veto since the first one was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

NASA has to play with the cards Congress dealt. So does commercial space.

Only chance any of this will change, and it's a slim chance, is if President Trump is incensed by the billions spent in the SLS/Orion programs and not being able to conduct a manned mission in his first term. If Trump is reelected and SLS/Orion continues to have schedule slips, there might not be a manned mission in his second term.

SpaceX, Blue, and even Boeing could have manned BLEO missions before 2025.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #71 on: 02/08/2017 03:52 pm »
Congress mandated that NASA would build SLS and was even told the basics on how to build it to make sure the right companies got the contracts. That supersedes the previous law in this case. Now NASA has to use SLS for BLEO exploration, at least for large payloads.
Unless Congress changes its mind, something I seriously doubt because SLS and Orion are the continuation of Constellation, it's pointless to discuss about what could have been. It's time to figure out what to do with SLS and commercial space to create a BELO program.
There is no $$ for missions..Congress will not give them enough money, haven't we been though this?

That's why I wrote we need to figure out what to do with SLS. Congress will have to fund payloads soon or their jobs program crashes after EM-2. Working with commercial space on BLEO, like NASA is already discussing, is a way forward.

It doesn't matter what any of us think about SLS. It's what Congress wants to do. The trick is working within that limitation.

Maybe we need to resurrect the Federal Line Item Veto... swamp draining will not make any progress against entrenched interests without it. (Falls into the swamp draining toolkit... like 'term limits')  44 Governors have authority to use it; impossible to balance the budget without.

Obama would have slain SLS in the crib if he had that tool.

Doubt we'll see a federal line item veto since the first one was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

NASA has to play with the cards Congress dealt. So does commercial space.

Only chance any of this will change, and it's a slim chance, is if President Trump is incensed by the billions spent in the SLS/Orion programs and not being able to conduct a manned mission in his first term. If Trump is reelected and SLS/Orion continues to have schedule slips, there might not be a manned mission in his second term.

SpaceX, Blue, and even Boeing could have manned BLEO missions before 2025.
Nah, he loves debt... ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Basto

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #72 on: 02/08/2017 04:24 pm »
Also, you don't even have to human-rate Delta IV Heavy if you really don't want to. You COULD just use it to launch the spacecraft empty and transfer using a crew vehicle from ISS.

And then perform a plane change to get anywhere useful...

ISS isn't in the best plane to go to the moon or interplanetary.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #73 on: 02/08/2017 04:33 pm »
Commercial Satellite manufacturer: Let's see, we have this super duper pie in the sky satellite that can image nanobots on the surface of Titan. It's going to do wonderful things if we can ever get it to a GTO. Dry mass is 18,000 kg, 44,000 kg with propellant. So here's the question: Do we spend $3 billion to fully fuel this observatory and launch it in one shot on SLS, or do we spend 1/10th of that to use a 2-launch Falcon Heavy with orbital propellant transfer?

Hmm let me think: Please have my secretary set up a conference call with Ms. Shotwell at SpaceX.

Now THAT is commercial. SLS got acknowledge (per the CSF "announcement") and then promptly shut down on commercial's life blood - cost. NASA doesn't give 2 craps what anything costs so it spends taxpayer dollars like a drunken fool at an open bar wedding. NASA couldn't "compete" its way out of a wet paper bag.

SLS may very well ultimately find some valid uses that no commercial entity can fulfill. But not in my lifetime.
To date NASA has had it pretty easy. The commercial space launch industry did not have the capability to provide the lift capability NASA needed. But those days are just about over. The very first time NASA uses SLS to launch a payload that could have just as easily been launched by SpaceX or Blue Origin - QUE THE LAWYERS - the Space Act of 1998 will begin to show its teeth as it bites NASA in the rear-facing parts.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2017 04:36 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #74 on: 02/08/2017 04:35 pm »
Also, you don't even have to human-rate Delta IV Heavy if you really don't want to. You COULD just use it to launch the spacecraft empty and transfer using a crew vehicle from ISS.

And then perform a plane change to get anywhere useful...

ISS isn't in the best plane to go to the moon or interplanetary.

I think he meant a crew vehicle from one of the commercial crew providers for ISS, launched specifically to meet Orion. It wouldn't have to go anywhere near ISS.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #75 on: 02/08/2017 04:42 pm »
ISS isn't in the best plane to go to the moon or interplanetary.

Sure it is. Just depends if you want a near-equatorial orbit at the destination. If you don't have to have one then earth inclination doesn't matter as much. You still need the same Δ-V.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2017 04:45 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #76 on: 02/08/2017 04:49 pm »
Guess you're forgetting about the Europa mission(s) it's not just about manned space flight.

Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon Heavy could do the job too.  The use of SLS appears to be politically driven, in that Congress has weighed in, but I've never seen an analysis arguing that the extra cost of using SLS is actually worth the shorter flight time.

It at the very least saves money on having to thermally proof the craft from travelling inwards towards the sun for a gravity assist around Venus. Also the very fact that flight time is reduced means the equipment has less chance to go wrong, suffer an incident and general wear and tear is reduced. There are more complete discussions of this in the Europa thread.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2017 04:53 pm by Star One »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #77 on: 02/08/2017 04:54 pm »
Star One, you should be making the argument that SLS is politically unkillable and therefore some use should be made of it... That's actually a valid argument. Not that SLS has any technical or economic merit whatever, which is a hill of malarky. 

(not a mod post)

Lar's point may sound like semantics, but I believe it is very important. Even if SLS goes forward (as I fully expect it will), how it goes forward depends a lot on why it goes forward. If SLS is continued because it's basically politically unkillable due to a few key Congresspeople on key committees, that suggests the best way to handle it is as a cost of doing business and move on. It's not critical, but it's not killable, so you find some job for it to do that minimizes the damage on the rest of the system, like maybe doing semi-annual crew shuttling to/from a lunar orbital facility. You don't try to build the rest of your human spaceflight program around it, unless it really has some other application where it is truly, uniquely useful for.

On the other hand, if SLS should continue because it's a key piece of national infrastructure, where it's really the best and most optimal way of carrying out the mission, then that suggests it should be integrated a lot more tightly into whatever plans are done moving forward. It should be prioritized over other things that are less unanimously agreed on, etc.

My fear is that by CSF caving and making the case that SLS is useful, not just politically unkillable, they've opened the floodgates for porkers in Congress to divert more and more of NASA's HSF budget into missions to justify SLS, and upgrades for SLS, etc. If even those crazy commercial guys admit this is critical infrastructure, then obviously it should be higher priority than pretty much everything else.

That's why I think CSF's move was shortsighted, as much as I respect many of the members on their board. I hope I'm wrong, but I think CSF's announcement just added another nail in the coffin of us doing anything useful BLEO over the next decade.

~Jon

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #78 on: 02/08/2017 05:11 pm »
It [SLS[ at the very least saves money on having to thermally proof the craft from travelling inwards towards the sun for a gravity assist around Venus. Also the very fact that flight time is reduced means the equipment has less chance to go wrong, suffer an incident and general wear and tear is reduced. There are more complete discussions of this in the Europa thread.

Yes, there are advantages (and disadvantages) of using SLS rather than Atlas V.  But the decision appears to have been made not by engineers and scientists, but by politicians, who are not qualified to weigh up those factors.

EDIT:  "way" -> "weigh"
« Last Edit: 02/28/2017 09:40 am by Proponent »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #79 on: 02/08/2017 05:55 pm »
It [SLS[ at the very least saves money on having to thermally proof the craft from travelling inwards towards the sun for a gravity assist around Venus. Also the very fact that flight time is reduced means the equipment has less chance to go wrong, suffer an incident and general wear and tear is reduced. There are more complete discussions of this in the Europa thread.

Yes, there are advantages (and disadvantages) of using SLS rather than Atlas V.  But the decision appears to have been made not by engineers and scientists, but by politicians, who are not qualified to way up those factors.

I'd dispute that as I doubt you'd find many Europa scientists who would turn their noses up at a swifter science return.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0