Quote from: Proponent on 02/08/2017 05:11 pmQuote from: Star One on 02/08/2017 04:49 pmIt [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.
Quote from: Star One on 02/08/2017 04:49 pmIt [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.
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.
Quote from: Star One on 02/08/2017 05:55 pmQuote from: Proponent on 02/08/2017 05:11 pmQuote from: Star One on 02/08/2017 04:49 pmIt [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.If that swifter science return was a trade-off for a billion dollars smaller science payload... there would not be a single Europa scientist who wasn't screaming at the stinking bad deal.
Endorsement is a form of lobbying IMHO...
Quote from: Basto on 02/08/2017 04:24 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/08/2017 01:15 amAlso, 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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/08/2017 01:15 amAlso, 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.
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.
Does everyone think it is likely that any commercial customers for SLS would pay the entire operating cost of the system for a year? My guess is that they would pay a HEAVILY subsidized price.
Even if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.
Later, during an interview with Ars, Stern explained that the commercial space organization has, in the past, engaged in a “bruising battle” over the government’s massive rocket and its influential prime contractor Boeing. The commercial space industry group (of which Boeing is not a member) contended the private sector could deliver the same capability as the SLS for far less than the $2 billion NASA has spent annually this decade to develop the rocket. The SLS will initially be able to heft 70 metric tons to low Earth orbit, but that could grow to 130 metric tons by the late 2020s.But now, Stern said the organization believes the SLS will enable the aims of commercial companies to develop businesses on the Moon, as well as support asteroid mining and other ventures his members are interested in. “We are taking a long view,” Stern said. “This is clearly to the advantage of the expansion of commercial spaceflight. Now, with a new administration and a new Congress, we wanted to put our stake down on the side of SLS.”
Theoretically, then, the United States could have three heavy lift rockets at its disposal in 2020. If the reusable Falcon Heavy costs $200 million per flight, and the reusable New Glenn costs $200 million, while an expendable SLS rocket costs $1.5 billion, the agency—and by extension Congress and the White House—will have an easy choice to make.One could argue at that time that NASA should never have spent in excess of $10 billion developing the SLS. But the bottom line is that, six years ago, Congress did not believe in the capacity of SpaceX to build a heavy lift rocket, and Blue Origin’s intentions were not known at that time. So Congress bet on NASA and its traditional contractor Boeing, and the agency kept its large base of employees intact.The Commercial Spaceflight Federation likely recognizes that raising its voice now, publicly at least, against the SLS has limited political upside with a Congress predisposed to favor NASA’s big rocket. Instead of poking NASA or Congress in the eye with a stick, better to stay relevant. Ultimately, when SpaceX, Blue Origin, or both have a launch capability that costs far less than the public alternative, the commercial space organization will have a much more potent argument to make.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 10:55 pmEven if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.We've spent about $10 billion on SLS so far including ground equipment.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 02/09/2017 04:53 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 10:55 pmEven if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.We've spent about $10 billion on SLS so far including ground equipment.The USofA has spent $12B (for Constellation), plus $10B (for SLS), plus $8B (for Orion), to achieve a heavy lift launch capability for 'exploration'. Additionally, $3B+ per year for the next five years (if we're lucky) will be required before we lift the first 'explorer' off the ground on said launch capability. This sums to the tidy total of $45B -- to reach the starting line.You say, "We've spent $10B on SLS..." but that is the same we that has also spent or committed to spend vastly more than that before we get any capability in return. Think about what could be achieved with $45B...
The USofA has spent $12B (for Constellation), plus $10B (for SLS), plus $8B (for Orion), to achieve a heavy lift launch capability for 'exploration'.
The cost of heavy lift has been ~$10 billion so far while the europeans are spending ~$4 billion for Ariane 6.
For that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload. If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?
Quote from: Proponent on 02/09/2017 10:49 amFor that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload. If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?Why would there suddenly be such payloads for FH/New Glenn/ITS?
Quote from: Oli on 02/11/2017 06:39 amQuote from: Proponent on 02/09/2017 10:49 amFor that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload. If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?Why would there suddenly be such payloads for FH/New Glenn/ITS?As for New Glenn and ITS, Bezos and, to some extent, Musk appear to have business plans to make those payloads materialize. That's not a sure thing, but it's much more plausible than the idea that, after more than a decade's lack of interest, government agencies and companies will soon be falling all over themselves to get a ride on the drastically more expensive SLS.As for FH, it will, despite its much greater payload capability, be competitive for payloads now launched by Delta IV Heavy. It may also be competitive for some payloads to high-energy trajectories now launched by Atlas V.
That sounds dangerously like you're implying that because they are commercial enterprises they are going to make payloads magically appear and because SLS isn't they can't do this.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 02/11/2017 01:56 amThe cost of heavy lift has been ~$10 billion so far while the europeans are spending ~$4 billion for Ariane 6.The $3.8bn include A6 + Vega + infrastructure.The main issue though is that SLS will launch so rarely. 'We' may be looking at $40bn for ~5 launches up to 2030. That's pretty crazy.Quote from: Proponent on 02/09/2017 10:49 amFor that matter, even the much smaller Delta IV Heavy has never flown a commercial payload. If there are no commercial payloads in the Delta IV class, why would there suddenly be such payloads in the SLS class?Why would there suddenly be such payloads for FH/New Glenn/ITS?
Quote from: Star One on 02/11/2017 11:02 amThat sounds dangerously like you're implying that because they are commercial enterprises they are going to make payloads magically appear and because SLS isn't they can't do this. You are misreading the tea leaves. It's not because it's commercial, it's because commercial launch costs almost an order of magnitude less.It's all about cost; nothing more and nothing less.
Quote from: clongton on 02/11/2017 11:17 amQuote from: Star One on 02/11/2017 11:02 amThat sounds dangerously like you're implying that because they are commercial enterprises they are going to make payloads magically appear and because SLS isn't they can't do this. You are misreading the tea leaves. It's not because it's commercial, it's because commercial launch costs almost an order of magnitude less.It's all about cost; nothing more and nothing less.Even with less costs I didn't see why this will mean a sudden appearance of overly large payloads that need such launchers. I thought outside of the NRO & some science payloads the move was towards smaller not larger payloads.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 08:36 pmWhat is commercial about SLS?This is disappointing.Disappointing because it could be positioned against Space X?In spite of protestations to the contrary it seems every time there is a hint of competition to Space X, whoever it might be, some get up in arms about it.
What is commercial about SLS?This is disappointing.