I'd like to chime in here. In my opinion, the reason NASA's HSF budget has been declining in real terms is because they haven't accomplished anything inspirational since Apollo. Instead, STS has sucked up all the budget and had two spectacular tragedies - both avoidable and neither in pursuit of a worthy goal.SLS in a DIRECT form is obviously better than STS, but it will still suck all the oxygen from HSF and prevent NASA from accomplishing anything worthwhile in terms of exploration for the foreseeable future.If the jobs programs were canned, launches contracted, and NASA focused on spacecraft and landers for real exploration - congress would not dare cut funding in the face of an HSF program that inspires voters, regularly makes the news, and is a source of national pride (as opposed to embarrassment,) even in the face of a spectacular failure (losing a crew trying to get to mars for example.)SLS will essentially ground NASA for decades, and commercial exploration ventures will be our only hope (slim as that hope may be) of putting footprints on Mars or exploiting the moon's resources before 2050.
In my opinion, the reason NASA's HSF budget has been declining in real terms is because they haven't accomplished anything inspirational since Apollo. Instead, STS has sucked up all the budget and had two spectacular tragedies - both avoidable and neither in pursuit of a worthy goal.
SLS in a DIRECT form is obviously better than STS, but it will still suck all the oxygen from HSF and prevent NASA from accomplishing anything worthwhile in terms of exploration for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Luc on 10/03/2010 05:17 amI'd like to chime in here. In my opinion, the reason NASA's HSF budget has been declining in real terms is because they haven't accomplished anything inspirational since Apollo. Instead, STS has sucked up all the budget and had two spectacular tragedies - both avoidable and neither in pursuit of a worthy goal.SLS in a DIRECT form is obviously better than STS, but it will still suck all the oxygen from HSF and prevent NASA from accomplishing anything worthwhile in terms of exploration for the foreseeable future.If the jobs programs were canned, launches contracted, and NASA focused on spacecraft and landers for real exploration - congress would not dare cut funding in the face of an HSF program that inspires voters, regularly makes the news, and is a source of national pride (as opposed to embarrassment,) even in the face of a spectacular failure (losing a crew trying to get to mars for example.)SLS will essentially ground NASA for decades, and commercial exploration ventures will be our only hope (slim as that hope may be) of putting footprints on Mars or exploiting the moon's resources before 2050.Hi LucPlease allow me to present the other side of your coin.QuoteIn my opinion, the reason NASA's HSF budget has been declining in real terms is because they haven't accomplished anything inspirational since Apollo. Instead, STS has sucked up all the budget and had two spectacular tragedies - both avoidable and neither in pursuit of a worthy goal.You have to realize what has been happening here. At the end of the Apollo era the nations were divided into power blocks, with everyone, and I do mean everyone, jockeying for position to make themselves more powerful/important than the others. That includes the United States. The world was very much divided and as such humanity was going nowhere wrt space exploration - it is just way too expensive for any nation, including even the United States, arguably the wealthiest nation on earth, to fund. The ISS appears to be classified by you as a non-worthy goal but I submit it is perhaps the most worthy thing we have ever done. It is a foundation for humanity to venture into space. By building and operating the ISS together, many nations, including arch adversaries from the Apollo era, learned how to cooperate in a very technically challenging endeavour. But more importantly we learned how to actually trust and rely on each other to provide things that not only advanced the project, but also on which we all depended on for our very lives while we proceeded. Being a child of that era I cannot stress enough how totally different things are today than they were then. Today young families count their funds with the view to buying a new car while then the same young family would never consider such an expense until after they had constructed and paid for their underground nuclear bomb shelter. Now that may be a little stretch, because not everyone could afford that but it absolutely was the prevailing attitude of everyone, I promise you. It is the era of the ISS that has changed that. That my friend is perhaps the most worthy accomplishment of the ISS, in addition to its potential as a research station for the nations.QuoteSLS in a DIRECT form is obviously better than STS, but it will still suck all the oxygen from HSF and prevent NASA from accomplishing anything worthwhile in terms of exploration for the foreseeable future.The United States, the wealthiest nation on earth, cannot afford to explore the solar system on its own; we NEED the rest of the nations on earth to be partners in both spirit, contribution and financial skin in the game. Your comment appears to assume that we can do this alone - we can’t. SLS is not intended to enable us to do this alone. It is intended to provide the transportation resource so that humanity as a whole can do this. Arguably the SLS is expensive, very expensive, but without it we would be going nowhere BEO. Even with it we would go nowhere - by ourselves. No one else on earth could afford to build this, but we can. Once we (humanity, not just the US) has it however, NOW we’re talking. Just like the STS enabled the partner nations to roll up their sleeves and participate in meaningful ways, now the SLS will do the same for solar system exploration. Other nations will join with us, each one contributing to the “human” effort to explore, whatever they are able to add to the mix. NASA, all by itself, was NEVER going to “accomplish anything worthwhile in terms of exploration” by itself - it is just too expensive. But NASA *can* provide the means for humanity as a whole to do that. That will be the legacy of the SLS.The SLS will become the foundation for the foreseeable future for humanity as a whole to begin to move out into the solar system and establish a permanent human presence in various places there. And it will be a human effort, not just an American effort. That is and will be the “worthy goal” that you miss in your thoughts. The SLS will make that possible in ways that nothing else ever could.
On the other hand, SLS would save the U.S. money if NASA were directed to land astronauts on the moon and keep them there for extended periods.
I submit it [ISS] is perhaps the most worthy thing we have ever done.
I would quibble a bit about July 20, 1969, but that's no big deal. ISS is the proof of how bankrupt the notion of BTDT is. Life is repetition. Working every day, 9 to 5, cooperating with one another, regardless of political lines on a map. This is what we, humanity, are supposed to be doing.
Quote from: Luc on 10/03/2010 05:17 amI'd like to chime in here. In my opinion, the reason NASA's HSF budget has been declining in real terms is because they haven't accomplished anything inspirational since Apollo. Instead, STS has sucked up all the budget and had two spectacular tragedies - both avoidable and neither in pursuit of a worthy goal.SLS in a DIRECT form is obviously better than STS, but it will still suck all the oxygen from HSF and prevent NASA from accomplishing anything worthwhile in terms of exploration for the foreseeable future.If the jobs programs were canned, launches contracted, and NASA focused on spacecraft and landers for real exploration - congress would not dare cut funding in the face of an HSF program that inspires voters, regularly makes the news, and is a source of national pride (as opposed to embarrassment,) even in the face of a spectacular failure (losing a crew trying to get to mars for example.)SLS will essentially ground NASA for decades, and commercial exploration ventures will be our only hope (slim as that hope may be) of putting footprints on Mars or exploiting the moon's resources before 2050.Hi LucPlease allow me to present the other side of your coin.QuoteIn my opinion, the reason NASA's HSF budget has been declining in real terms is because they haven't accomplished anything inspirational since Apollo. Instead, STS has sucked up all the budget and had two spectacular tragedies - both avoidable and neither in pursuit of a worthy goal.You have to realize what has been happening here. At the end of the Apollo era the nations were divided into power blocks, with everyone, and I do mean everyone, jockeying for position to make themselves more powerful/important than the others. That includes the United States. The world was very much divided and as such humanity was going nowhere wrt space exploration - it is just way too expensive for any nation, including even the United States, arguably the wealthiest nation on earth, to fund. The ISS appears to be classified by you as a non-worthy goal but I submit it is perhaps the most worthy thing we have ever done. It is a foundation for humanity to venture into space. By building and operating the ISS together, many nations, including arch adversaries from the Apollo era, learned how to cooperate in a very technically challenging endeavour.
Quote from: clongton on 10/03/2010 12:12 pmQuote from: Luc on 10/03/2010 05:17 amI'd like to chime in here. In my opinion, the reason NASA's HSF budget has been declining in real terms is because they haven't accomplished anything inspirational since Apollo. Instead, STS has sucked up all the budget and had two spectacular tragedies - both avoidable and neither in pursuit of a worthy goal.SLS in a DIRECT form is obviously better than STS, but it will still suck all the oxygen from HSF and prevent NASA from accomplishing anything worthwhile in terms of exploration for the foreseeable future.If the jobs programs were canned, launches contracted, and NASA focused on spacecraft and landers for real exploration - congress would not dare cut funding in the face of an HSF program that inspires voters, regularly makes the news, and is a source of national pride (as opposed to embarrassment,) even in the face of a spectacular failure (losing a crew trying to get to mars for example.)SLS will essentially ground NASA for decades, and commercial exploration ventures will be our only hope (slim as that hope may be) of putting footprints on Mars or exploiting the moon's resources before 2050.Hi LucPlease allow me to present the other side of your coin.QuoteIn my opinion, the reason NASA's HSF budget has been declining in real terms is because they haven't accomplished anything inspirational since Apollo. Instead, STS has sucked up all the budget and had two spectacular tragedies - both avoidable and neither in pursuit of a worthy goal.You have to realize what has been happening here. At the end of the Apollo era the nations were divided into power blocks, with everyone, and I do mean everyone, jockeying for position to make themselves more powerful/important than the others. That includes the United States. The world was very much divided and as such humanity was going nowhere wrt space exploration - it is just way too expensive for any nation, including even the United States, arguably the wealthiest nation on earth, to fund. The ISS appears to be classified by you as a non-worthy goal but I submit it is perhaps the most worthy thing we have ever done. It is a foundation for humanity to venture into space. By building and operating the ISS together, many nations, including arch adversaries from the Apollo era, learned how to cooperate in a very technically challenging endeavour.The change you talk about was brought by fall of communism, not by space program.If you think Putin (or Obama) gives a damn about international cooperation via ISS, I bet you are seriously mistaken. ISS is peanuts in the global scheme of things. It can disappear tomorrow and nothing will change in US-Russia relations.
Quote from: gospacex on 10/03/2010 06:22 pmQuote from: clongton on 10/03/2010 12:12 pmYou have to realize what has been happening here. At the end of the Apollo era the nations were divided into power blocks, with everyone, and I do mean everyone, jockeying for position to make themselves more powerful/important than the others. That includes the United States. The world was very much divided and as such humanity was going nowhere wrt space exploration - it is just way too expensive for any nation, including even the United States, arguably the wealthiest nation on earth, to fund. The ISS appears to be classified by you as a non-worthy goal but I submit it is perhaps the most worthy thing we have ever done. It is a foundation for humanity to venture into space. By building and operating the ISS together, many nations, including arch adversaries from the Apollo era, learned how to cooperate in a very technically challenging endeavour.The change you talk about was brought by fall of communism, not by space program.If you think Putin (or Obama) gives a damn about international cooperation via ISS, I bet you are seriously mistaken. ISS is peanuts in the global scheme of things. It can disappear tomorrow and nothing will change in US-Russia relations.You do realize that a large reason for the "fall of communism" was due to the space race.
Quote from: clongton on 10/03/2010 12:12 pmYou have to realize what has been happening here. At the end of the Apollo era the nations were divided into power blocks, with everyone, and I do mean everyone, jockeying for position to make themselves more powerful/important than the others. That includes the United States. The world was very much divided and as such humanity was going nowhere wrt space exploration - it is just way too expensive for any nation, including even the United States, arguably the wealthiest nation on earth, to fund. The ISS appears to be classified by you as a non-worthy goal but I submit it is perhaps the most worthy thing we have ever done. It is a foundation for humanity to venture into space. By building and operating the ISS together, many nations, including arch adversaries from the Apollo era, learned how to cooperate in a very technically challenging endeavour.The change you talk about was brought by fall of communism, not by space program.If you think Putin (or Obama) gives a damn about international cooperation via ISS, I bet you are seriously mistaken. ISS is peanuts in the global scheme of things. It can disappear tomorrow and nothing will change in US-Russia relations.
You have to realize what has been happening here. At the end of the Apollo era the nations were divided into power blocks, with everyone, and I do mean everyone, jockeying for position to make themselves more powerful/important than the others. That includes the United States. The world was very much divided and as such humanity was going nowhere wrt space exploration - it is just way too expensive for any nation, including even the United States, arguably the wealthiest nation on earth, to fund. The ISS appears to be classified by you as a non-worthy goal but I submit it is perhaps the most worthy thing we have ever done. It is a foundation for humanity to venture into space. By building and operating the ISS together, many nations, including arch adversaries from the Apollo era, learned how to cooperate in a very technically challenging endeavour.
The Soviet Union kept trying to persue parity with the US space program, and only gave up on it's parity quests when we gave up on them. (N1 was persued until such time as we abandoned Apollo, and even then, it's follow on Vulkan was kept on as Energia, in case we ever build the NLS) This attempt, and failure, for parity is one of the underlying causes of the Soviet Unions collapse.
Not the sole reason, but a very large reason. The Space Shuttle and Star Wars together fueled into the Soviet paranoia, and with the resulting buildup of technologies they could not support, economically. While not planned that way, it is how things went.
Quote from: 93143 on 10/02/2010 09:13 pmAlso, the HEFT study is not a good place to get numbers, nor is Augustine (who are known to have used very large margins in cases where it wasn't justified, like SD-HLV), nor is the JSC study, which is known to have tacked on Inline at the last minute with suboptimal assumptions. Do tell where a good, authoritative place to get numbers is, since you evidently prefer to dismiss these high-level sources. Then explain why your preferred numbers are more reasonable, and precisely where you see that these sources went wrong. (Hand-waving "large margins" and "suboptimal assumptions" doesn't quite cut the mustard.)
Also, the HEFT study is not a good place to get numbers, nor is Augustine (who are known to have used very large margins in cases where it wasn't justified, like SD-HLV), nor is the JSC study, which is known to have tacked on Inline at the last minute with suboptimal assumptions.
Quote Done right, SLS should probably have fixed costs not much more than half what the HEFT study assumes, and the difference between consuming 60% of the available BEO HSF budget on an ongoing basis and consuming 30% of it is not something alexw should be dismissing as "a billion here and there" that "won't make any difference". a) You're not deindexing the HEFT numbers for inflation. I think you'll find the gap narrows considerably when comparing apples and apples. b) Where is your "probably" from? Source? Explain?
Done right, SLS should probably have fixed costs not much more than half what the HEFT study assumes, and the difference between consuming 60% of the available BEO HSF budget on an ongoing basis and consuming 30% of it is not something alexw should be dismissing as "a billion here and there" that "won't make any difference".
c) Please show where I supposedly wrote what you put in quotation marks.
We can't automatically assume that an all Commercial architecture would inevitably result in large-scale defunding of NASA HSF. It's possible, and worth discussing. What aspects that you read have most strongly led you to that conclusion?
Quote from: Downix on 10/03/2010 08:01 pmQuote from: gospacex on 10/03/2010 06:22 pmQuote from: clongton on 10/03/2010 12:12 pmYou have to realize what has been happening here. At the end of the Apollo era the nations were divided into power blocks, with everyone, and I do mean everyone, jockeying for position to make themselves more powerful/important than the others. That includes the United States. The world was very much divided and as such humanity was going nowhere wrt space exploration - it is just way too expensive for any nation, including even the United States, arguably the wealthiest nation on earth, to fund. The ISS appears to be classified by you as a non-worthy goal but I submit it is perhaps the most worthy thing we have ever done. It is a foundation for humanity to venture into space. By building and operating the ISS together, many nations, including arch adversaries from the Apollo era, learned how to cooperate in a very technically challenging endeavour.The change you talk about was brought by fall of communism, not by space program.If you think Putin (or Obama) gives a damn about international cooperation via ISS, I bet you are seriously mistaken. ISS is peanuts in the global scheme of things. It can disappear tomorrow and nothing will change in US-Russia relations.You do realize that a large reason for the "fall of communism" was due to the space race.No, the fall of communism was caused by it being inherently economically less efficient society than Western one.In itself, both Soviet and US space programs were rather similar - big, government (thus inefficient and eventually failing) programs. US program simply had more money because US private business-based economy was working better than Soviet centralized one.QuoteThe Soviet Union kept trying to persue parity with the US space program, and only gave up on it's parity quests when we gave up on them. (N1 was persued until such time as we abandoned Apollo, and even then, it's follow on Vulkan was kept on as Energia, in case we ever build the NLS) This attempt, and failure, for parity is one of the underlying causes of the Soviet Unions collapse.No, Soviet space program failed because Soviet Union bankrupted itself economically. Their space program ran out of money, because their economy was producing less money in the first place.QuoteNot the sole reason, but a very large reason. The Space Shuttle and Star Wars together fueled into the Soviet paranoia, and with the resulting buildup of technologies they could not support, economically. While not planned that way, it is how things went.
Now we are getting a SLS/HLV. Let's use it to help us stay open to the best ideas of the world and grow and change. Let's use the SLS/HLV to further integrate our economy with the growing space based economy.Cheers!
Quote from: HappyMartian on 10/04/2010 12:54 amNow we are getting a SLS/HLV. Let's use it to help us stay open to the best ideas of the world and grow and change. Let's use the SLS/HLV to further integrate our economy with the growing space based economy.Cheers! Except that SLS is a closed system, which is removed from the space based economy, and you are locking yourself into that closed system. If you want to integrate with the space based economy, it is you that has to move into that system. SLS is as isolated as the Shuttle was.Does the SLS benefit/build off of the monies invested in COTS/CRS? No. Does the COTS/CRS system benefit from NASA's exploration demand in the SLS world. No. Does SLS benefit/build off of the monies expended in buying rides for science? No. Does the actual existing science system benefit from monies spent in SLS based NASA exploration? No. Does SLS benefit from the DoD's space demand? No. Does DoD space program benefit from the SLS based NASA's exploration program? No. Does SLS benefit from the commercial satellite launch demand. No. Does commercial satellite launch demand benefit from a SLS based exploration program. No. Do future possibilities like new industrialists joining the fray, or new commercial ventures arising, the building of commercial industries, those unpredictable future unknown events, benefit from the SLS based exploration program? Not likely. Can NASA benefit from those things when it has committed to SLS? Not likely.The answer to those questions are yes if NASA's exploration makes use the commercial launch industry, as those other space economy players do.Playing in your own sandbox is not playing with others. Go to their sandbox.Before you waste a reply to me, I am talking about the breadth of the widespread space economy that is existent and will continue to exist, not your fantasies that only exist as wishful thinking, and those fantasies are still separate from the breadth of the existent widespread space economy.
COTS/CRS is a direct result of the investment in STS/ISS and would not exist otherwise. It is not too radical a leap of imagination to think that any permanent exploration objects created by SLS would eventually be serviced by commercial entities too. Science and DoD will also clearly use the much greater capability of SLS once freed from the sub 30mT limit forced upon them by relying on LVs derived from commercial satellite launchers. Bigelow has also said he will make use of this new capability.
Quote from: marsavian on 10/04/2010 05:26 amCOTS/CRS is a direct result of the investment in STS/ISS and would not exist otherwise. It is not too radical a leap of imagination to think that any permanent exploration objects created by SLS would eventually be serviced by commercial entities too. Science and DoD will also clearly use the much greater capability of SLS once freed from the sub 30mT limit forced upon them by relying on LVs derived from commercial satellite launchers. Bigelow has also said he will make use of this new capability. Science has little use for a large rocket due to budget (i.e. how many Cassini sized budgets are there?). DOD, nope and they have the budget to build it themselves. Bigelow sure, but he needs to get his LEO station up first. He won’t be in that position for a very long time. NASA needs something that allows you to have the budget to develop payloads in a timely manner. SLS drains so much out the budget that payload development gets delayed into the far future. My nightmare is an American moon landing via chemical rockets in 2030 that is just in time to see Chinese warp drive tests from Luna. Our technology being sacrificed in the name of exploration.
The Science budget to use SLS would not be radically different if it had used a MLV, a more capable payload/mission is produced which if JWST is any indication would probably be simpler and cheaper overall. The DoD is not going to spend tens of billions on a LV when it can just get by but that doesn't mean it will not take advantage of this essentially free development once built as NASA has of the DoD developed EELVs.
Quote from: marsavian on 10/04/2010 05:50 amThe Science budget to use SLS would not be radically different if it had used a MLV, a more capable payload/mission is produced which if JWST is any indication would probably be simpler and cheaper overall. The DoD is not going to spend tens of billions on a LV when it can just get by but that doesn't mean it will not take advantage of this essentially free development once built as NASA has of the DoD developed EELVs. Exactly. And its not just the DOD ethier. I would point again to the renewed interest in SBSP among other things.