Author Topic: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS  (Read 91252 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #240 on: 10/03/2010 12:12 pm »
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.



Hi Luc
Please allow me to present the other side of your coin.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #241 on: 10/03/2010 01:34 pm »
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.



Hi Luc
Please allow me to present the other side of your coin.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Amen!

Clongton hit the nail on the head! I am impressed! He really knows the human spaceflight and exploration game we are playing.

I suggest that anyone who is a critic of the SLS reread Clongton's post a few times. He lived through the Cold War and learned from it. He also has a pretty clear crystal ball and knows the future. And the future of the human species is good.

Cheers!   :)

 
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline moose103

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #242 on: 10/03/2010 02:20 pm »
I agree, an international habitation and exploration architecture should happen with ISS partners.  Augustine said pay for exploration by putting international partners on the critical path. 

But without NASA and Congress saying the same thing, it's just a dream.  They aren't saying the same thing at all.

S.3729 buys part of an architecture that can explore.  We're filling in the rest with our imagination, not reality...

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #243 on: 10/03/2010 03:01 pm »
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.

This is exactly what is needed next.  Legislation directing NASA to git back to the Moon first; study Mars with multiple rovers and unmanned orbital support for the determination of exobiology; long term development and implementation of L1 research station/depot/hotel.  That's what SLS is for.  No changes to this general outline.

This legislation should be crafted in such a way to ensure continuity over multiple administrations, such that it would take the Supreme Court to override the legislation.

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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #244 on: 10/03/2010 04:39 pm »
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.

I understand your irony, but it diminishes what clongton was saying.  Having lived through the sixties, I readily identify with his premise. Our local newspaper had front page stories on how to build fallout shelters. My father would take us on Sunday afternoon tours of shelters that had been built around town, getting ideas. He eventually put goods and cots in our cellar as a poor man's hedge against the uncertainty of the times. I don't recall the Cuban missile crisis as news, but I recall thinking how a distant thunderstorm looked like the mushroom clouds I had seen pictured. The  rift between America and the Soviet Union and its allies was absolutely the normal order.

Symbolism counts as much in human memory as the events themselves. The geo-political changes symbolized by the legacy of Apollo-Soyuz to ISS have been astounding. So I fully embrace the symbolism of the unity of crews at ISS as the spirit by which any further space exploration milestones beyond LEO are going to happen. We need a theme and a vision like that. Furthermore, insofar as ISS was a huge leap from where the world was at in 1961, it is the symbolic baseline upon which I hope that future HSF endeavors will be compared. I've never been so sure as I am now that, finally, we ARE going beyond BTDT.
--
Don Day

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #245 on: 10/03/2010 06:22 pm »
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.



Hi Luc
Please allow me to present the other side of your coin.

Quote
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.

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.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #246 on: 10/03/2010 08:01 pm »
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.



Hi Luc
Please allow me to present the other side of your coin.

Quote
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.

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.
You do realize that a large reason for the "fall of communism" was due to the space race.  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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #247 on: 10/03/2010 08:51 pm »
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #248 on: 10/03/2010 09:25 pm »
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.
   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.)

See my response in the other thread.

"Large margins" in particular was one of the things that had Ross quite steamed; apparently they added their generous margins uniformly regardless of whether or not they were appropriate (we already know what Shuttle costs to operate, for instance), without removing DIRECT's pre-existing margins first.

I suppose this could have been a calculated falsehood by Ross to hide the fact that DIRECT has been lowballing their costs...  It could also have been a misunderstanding.  But the information I have right now says Augustine's numbers for SD-HLV are too high.

Quote
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?

I wasn't quite correct above; see my response in the other thread for more details.

Quote
   c) Please show where I supposedly wrote what you put in quotation marks.

...I can't find it.

I could have sworn that was you...

Anyway, someone was in an argument and allowed that you might be able to save a billion here and there, but that it wouldn't make any difference.  I say that if your shortfall is $15B over 20 years, and you save $750M a year, that about handles the situation.

Quote
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?

Well, it's largely Ross' comments on politics and "follow the money", plus what many people have noted about "pork" in general (smaller amount = less support), plus Congress' apparent vehement support for Shuttle-derived, plus the thing about ATK being the big dog with facilities all over the union and (apparently) enough clout to override all the other STS contractors combined.

I don't think it would definitely happen.  I think it's enough of a risk that all-Commercial shouldn't be sold as a panacea with no downside.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2010 06:45 am by 93143 »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #249 on: 10/04/2010 12:54 am »
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.


But why was it the, "inherently economically less efficient society"? Why did it have trouble moving into the high tech and soft power projection and information rich areas? If my memory serves me, the best experts of the very early 1970's said the Soviet empire would eventually come apart due to that system's inability to allow, or cope with, the flood of information that modern societies need in order to be efficient. In short, a rigid political system takes you to economic nowheresville. Openess to new ideas is the key to changing and growing. Closed political systems are not open by definition, hence they have trouble competing in a dynamic and ever changing modern world.

The "US program simply had more money because US private business-based economy was working better than Soviet centralized one." Or you could say that the US had both more money and the ability to keep on earning more money than the Soviet Union because America's economic system was more open to world competition and the explosion of new ideas that would generate new technologies and businesses. The Soviet Union tried hard, but it couldn't compete against the best ideas from the whole world and it couldn't absorb those ideas without political changes that were unacceptable to the Soviet leaders. Their empire died. Such is life.

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!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #250 on: 10/04/2010 02:29 am »

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!

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.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2010 02:32 am by libs0n »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #251 on: 10/04/2010 03:31 am »

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!

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.


Reportedly Mr. Bigelow likes the SLS. Maybe some other business folks that have imaginations, and can see the business opportunities the SLS offers, like it too.  :) :) :)

I play far outside of the "sandbox" where I grew up... Perhaps it is you who needs to get out of your "sandbox"... ;)

As far as being an open system is concerned, the J-130/SLS has great flexibility. The J-130/SLS is going to have many growth options. The J-130 may also connect with the commercial Atlas launcher via the AJAX launcher or other possible evolutions of the SLS system. Time will tell.

Both the LEO and beyond Earth orbit options provided by the SLS are impressive. Thanks to the SLS, the Moon will soon be available again to our Earth's civilization. A NEO is headed our way. It may arrive sooner rather than later, and despite all of your no answers, the SLS could be useful in saving our modern world civilization. Your inability to see any useful roles for the SLS may speak more about your imagination's limitations than it does about any of the limitations of the SLS...

Cheers! :)
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #252 on: 10/04/2010 05:26 am »

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!

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.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2010 05:27 am by marsavian »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #253 on: 10/04/2010 05:38 am »

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!

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.
Wrong on all counts. A stated previously, COTS/CRS would not exist without ISS, which was built by STS a government LV. Stop using straw-man arguments to explain away something you don't agree with and find some facts instead.

And yes, "if you build they will come" applies here, especially for L1/L2 gateway stations or activities (likely at this point to be our first missions).
« Last Edit: 10/04/2010 05:40 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #254 on: 10/04/2010 05:41 am »
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.

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.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #255 on: 10/04/2010 05:50 am »
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.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2010 05:51 am by marsavian »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #256 on: 10/04/2010 05:53 am »
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.

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.

If thats true I could say the same for commercial. After all, what use does science have for 40-65 mt commercial launchers either?

By the way your forgetting something. If we had gone with Obama Space, these "commercial" companies would still have been paid to provide everything NASA will provide with SLS with the same taxpayer dollars!

The only difference is that there is no track record for any of the commercial hardware except for Atlas and Delta, and the phasing programs to get them up to the 40-65 mt range would be nearly as expensive if not more so than SLS, and Spacex has no track record, whereas STS hardware as 30 years to go on and all facilities already in place, with most of the flight hardware already in operation.

Same amount of money, less certainty with commercial. That may change in a few years, but thats not the case now.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2010 05:54 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #257 on: 10/04/2010 05:55 am »
There are also commercial payloads which could utilize such a HLV, due to size if nothing else.  I am thinking of the potential for solar power array, gigantic ones.  Or for asteroid mining, as a single one could bring in more wealth than a whole countries GDP.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #258 on: 10/04/2010 05:55 am »
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.

Exactly. And its not just the DOD ethier. I would point again to the renewed interest in SBSP among other things.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: A thread for those opposed to Direct/SLS
« Reply #259 on: 10/04/2010 06:08 am »
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.

Exactly. And its not just the DOD ethier. I would point again to the renewed interest in SBSP among other things.

Sorry SBSP is not going to happen with current technology. That was one of the missions the shuttle was supposed to do build arrays in orbit. At the time I thought that was a great use of the shuttle, but  from what I can tell the economics don't add up. You lose too much power in transmission.  I don’t see SLS changing that equation.

And the DOD has a much larger budget than NASA with a lot more pull in congress If they thought they needed it they could get it built a lot easier than NASA.

Tags:
 

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