Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/25/2017 03:34 amI suspect that the SLS will be used to build the Moon base and deliver its in situ resource utilization (ISRU) machinery.There are a lot of missions the SLS could be used to support, but so far none of them, including a Moon base, have been authorized and funded.The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded. That would be a challenge for getting it built, tested, and made ready for flight by 2024, which some have speculated would be the first operational SLS flight where NASA's SLS safe launch tempo is no-less-than once every 12 months.
I suspect that the SLS will be used to build the Moon base and deliver its in situ resource utilization (ISRU) machinery.
"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."Haven't they said repeatedly that its being funded now under the NextStep and ARM allocation or are we just forgetting that again.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/25/2017 02:33 pm"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."Haven't they said repeatedly that its being funded now under the NextStep and ARM allocation or are we just forgetting that again.
"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."
Lightfoot cautioned that the Deep Space Gateway remained just a concept at this time, without the former endorsement of the project by the administration or Congress.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. - Ed Kyle
If SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...
Doesn't anybody even care about crew safety... anymore?
Doesn't anybody even care about... fiscal responsibility anymore?
Quote from: ZachF on 09/25/2017 11:14 pmhttps://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43641.0The entire global LV business is $5.5 billion/year... That we're spending $4 billion/year just to develop SLS/Orion is a titanic waste of money.Even $1.5-2 billion a year is equal to 1/4 to 1/3 of the global LV business by $, for about one launch per year.The SLS/Orion budget would be for SLS *and* Orion - launch plus payload, so obviously launch would not cost $1.5-2 billion per year. It would cost half as much or less, for the equivalent mass capability of roughly 6-8 big expendable launch vehicles or 12-14 medium size launchers. Since 2007 inclusive, only ten launches out of the 853 total launches worldwide have gone beyond Earth orbit. Those payloads weighed a combined 20.3 tonnes. SLS 1B could do half-again as much mass beyond Earth orbit in one launch, and probably for less money than those 10 launches. - Ed Kyle
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43641.0The entire global LV business is $5.5 billion/year... That we're spending $4 billion/year just to develop SLS/Orion is a titanic waste of money.Even $1.5-2 billion a year is equal to 1/4 to 1/3 of the global LV business by $, for about one launch per year.
Actually if you look at the NASA budget the agency has lost around $6 Billion (2014 dollars) since 1991. Major human spaceflight programs like the space shuttle and Constellation may come and go but they are replaced with programs like SLS/Orion. Just look at what happened in 2010. There is no guarantee that if SLS/Orion were canceled their funds would go to your preferred space project. That isn't "fear mongering." That's a fact.
Quote from: clongton on 09/25/2017 02:13 pmDoesn't anybody even care about crew safety... anymore?I've asked the same thing with SLS/Orion carrying a projected LOC of 1-in-75 for a simple lunar flyby. That's slightly worse than the projected LOC of 1-in-90 for STS at program end, and barely different from the demonstrated LOC of 1-in-67 for STS over its lifetime.Morally, it is hard to justify flying astronauts on a system that is projected to take their lives at a somewhat higher rate than its predecessor system.Politically, it is hard to continue developing a program with flight crew safety figures that are worse or no better than its predecessor program, which was terminated for reasons of flight crew safety.And programmatically, real human space exploration missions will carry higher-risk elements than ETO launch, a quick lunar flyby, and EDL back at Earth. It is hard to see how such missions can have reasonable chances of success when what should be the lowest-risk segments of these missions will be exposed to such high probabilities of loss.
But flying crew on EM-2 without an actual all-up test flight of EUS and Orion is just asking for trouble.
On the other hand, previous reporting indicated that Europa Clipper would launch before EM-2, and this seems like it should be required for safety (no crew on first launch of EUS), but it does not appear to be accounted for in this schedule.
Quote from: meberbs on 09/24/2017 05:36 pmOn the other hand, previous reporting indicated that Europa Clipper would launch before EM-2, and this seems like it should be required for safety (no crew on first launch of EUS), but it does not appear to be accounted for in this schedule.I suppose this is necessarily up in the air at the moment, since, as far as I know, the launch vehicle for Europa Clipper has yet to be determined (vague memory says a decision is due a year from now).But still, you'd think there would might be a placeholder or conditional indication of some sort.
SLS / Orion is a successor to Apollo, not to STS.
And what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.
Quote from: su27k on 09/26/2017 07:29 amAnd what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.This is the difficult part, right here. As a spectator, it seems that this is where the process has failed for the last 30 years. Politically, there hasn't been a case for the budget needed to operate one system, while properly funding the development of the successor. Apollo was cancelled early, before STS was ready. STS was cancelled well before its successor was ready. I fervently hope this can change.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 07:06 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/23/2017 04:15 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 03:29 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. $1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost. - Ed KyleAh yes. I was waiting for that argument to rear it's ugly head.Tell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: noneWhat 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.Two points why your post is poor in quality:1. Falcon Heavy is not intented for launching (pieces of) a deep space architecture. Thus, the comparison tot SLS block 1B is apples-to-oranges.2. SLS will launch, at best, pieces of a deep space architecture in co-manifest mode. Because no single item of the developing deep space architecture warrants the need of SLS Block 1B capacity, on it's own. Simply put: a less powerful launcher could do the job just as well and have the virtue of having to fly more often to get the job done. Thus preventing the huge financial waste of having a standing army for a launcher that, on average, flies only once a year.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/23/2017 04:15 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 03:29 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. $1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 03:29 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. $1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me.
Quote from: jgoldader on 09/26/2017 05:51 pmQuote from: su27k on 09/26/2017 07:29 amAnd what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.This is the difficult part, right here. As a spectator, it seems that this is where the process has failed for the last 30 years. Politically, there hasn't been a case for the budget needed to operate one system, while properly funding the development of the successor. Apollo was cancelled early, before STS was ready. STS was cancelled well before its successor was ready. I fervently hope this can change.Was there budget to both operate Apollo and develop Shuttle? I doubt it. Just like there was no budget for developing CxP during Shuttle.Ideally NASA should not be operating one giant launch system (giant as in its budget footprint), the budget should be spent on smaller projects that hopefully have some synergy.
Just comparing tonnage is like making deep space exploration into Lego elements. It woefully fails to account for an enormous host of other factors that come into play when you piece-meal an exploration stage into being from tens to hundreds of individually-launched payloads.
I am a strong proponent of SLS, but I am not a strong proponent of the idea of heading off into the Solar System in a kludged-up structure of Bigelow inflatables and Cygnus closets as your exploration craft.
SLS will at least allow for putting together larger pieces into good-sized spacecraft, rather than attaching a whole lot of tin cans, each barely able (if at all) of providing one person's minimal personal space requirements.
Yes, there is no funding to *build* such a large-structure DSH at the moment, but Marshall's DSH plans are for a structure as large in diameter as the SLS.
And their hab design requires SLS to launch; it would not possibly be achievable with 13 F9 launches -- structurally, if not tonnage-wise.