Author Topic: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)  (Read 28434 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #20 on: 06/25/2012 06:33 am »
The point is that if the SLS program will specify that the upper stage be Centaur-like in its design intent rather than DCSS-like, and if it will employ LM's cold technology rather than the Boeing's cryo-management system, then the vehicle, when viewed as a system, will provide much better performance overall and be capable of sending much more mass thru TLI than otherwise. Practically speaking, Boeing needs to have LM design and build the upper stage. Whether or not that will actually happen remains to be seen. Do we want a Boeing conglomerate LV or the best one we can get? It will be a political decision, not a technical decision, which distresses me greaatly

Hopefully NASA will compete the stage to get the best design, whatever that may be.  Centaur is terrific, but its balloon tank design won't provide as much performance increment for heavier payloads, when the stage dry mass becomes less important. ....
Stage dry mass is important for any higher energy trajectories. To LEO, maybe not, but to anywhere else interesting, absolutely important. Even more so for Mars.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Schaffer_5-16-12/Schaffer_5-16-12 Rev A.pdf
« Last Edit: 06/25/2012 06:33 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #21 on: 06/25/2012 10:44 am »
As for Dr. Griffin:  I found him to be a good spokesman for space exploration while head of NASA.  I don't question his motives--I don't think his desire for CxP was to kill HLV/HSF.

To be fair to Dr Griffin, killing HLV/HSF was not his desire. The opposite in fact  is true. Where his actions (I will not speak to motive) fall short is his desire to advance a preconceived launch architecture even after its technical shortcomings would have disqualified it under any other Administrator. He refused to be informed by the facts if they did not support his notion, especially if they would change the LV concept.

Where this comment ties back in to the topic is that the current Administrator appear to be willing to follow the numbers and be informed by them. He is also a non supporter of this HLV, for completely different reasons, but has at least decided to not stand in the way of what his engineering teams are telling him. As a result, SLS is slowly becoming a more rational vehicle as decisions are made such as to stick with 4 RS-25's vs 5, potentially use RL-10's in lieu of J-2X, etc. In a convoluted way, past experience is driving the evolution of this LV, supported by solid engineering.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #22 on: 06/25/2012 03:26 pm »
As for Dr. Griffin:  I found him to be a good spokesman for space exploration while head of NASA.  I don't question his motives--I don't think his desire for CxP was to kill HLV/HSF.

To be fair to Dr Griffin, killing HLV/HSF was not his desire. The opposite in fact  is true. Where his actions (I will not speak to motive) fall short is his desire to advance a preconceived launch architecture even after its technical shortcomings would have disqualified it under any other Administrator. He refused to be informed by the facts if they did not support his notion, especially if they would change the LV concept.

Where this comment ties back in to the topic is that the current Administrator appear to be willing to follow the numbers and be informed by them. He is also a non supporter of this HLV, for completely different reasons, but has at least decided to not stand in the way of what his engineering teams are telling him. As a result, SLS is slowly becoming a more rational vehicle as decisions are made such as to stick with 4 RS-25's vs 5, potentially use RL-10's in lieu of J-2X, etc. In a convoluted way, past experience is driving the evolution of this LV, supported by solid engineering.

I think each admin has their favorite flagship program. SLS/Orion is not this admins favorite, commercial crew is. It's a shame that two programs can't operate independently , but politically SLS can't fly before commercial crew is certified for ISS access. So NASA has to pay to support an army of contractors just waiting to build something, but they have to sit on their hands for a few years due to artificial delays.

The law said use shuttle and CxP technology because that was the quickest path. Maybe not the best rocket

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #23 on: 06/25/2012 03:29 pm »
Arghh... Mobile browser

Not the best rocket, but good enough and gets us back into space.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #24 on: 06/25/2012 03:45 pm »
Arghh... Mobile browser

Not the best rocket, but good enough and gets us back into space.

But for how long?

I'd prefer something that is affordable and can operate long term, and rapidly, rather then something that flys once every 4 years and is 5 years away at the earliest.

Also, no flags and footprints please.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Periander

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #25 on: 06/25/2012 03:50 pm »
It's a shame that two programs can't operate independently , but politically SLS can't fly before commercial crew is certified for ISS access. So NASA has to pay to support an army of contractors just waiting to build something, but they have to sit on their hands for a few years due to artificial delays.

Good grief. From where are you getting this?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #26 on: 06/25/2012 04:02 pm »
It's a shame that two programs can't operate independently , but politically SLS can't fly before commercial crew is certified for ISS access. So NASA has to pay to support an army of contractors just waiting to build something, but they have to sit on their hands for a few years due to artificial delays.

Good grief. From where are you getting this?

Based on the delaying actions of NASA and the OMB administrators

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #27 on: 06/25/2012 04:35 pm »
SLS is far too much rocket, even though it is based on our work. Having said that we should all support its development and deployment because if SLS goes down, so will NASA. This is quite literally NASA's last chance to pull a rabbit out of the hat. If they screw this up, Congress will no longer support the agency with anywhere near enough to have a viable government HSF program.

I think there's some confusion as to exactly why NASA is developing this heavy lift rocket.

It's not a moon program.

Even if NASA wants it to be a moon program it isn't.

The only reason SLS is being built is to go to Mars. If a moon program is required it can be done cheaply with existing launchers. Mars would be much more difficult to do with medium lift. Would take forever just waiting for all the launch delays and by that time you'll miss the Mars conjunction you're aiming at.

Please correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure many out there will) but with SLS, NASA has two rockets in one, a 70mt and a 130mt.

How much cheaper will Spacex’s Falcon Heavy really be, for slightly less tonnage to space, compared to the SLS 70mt version when only considering launch costs and not development costs?

Near term I believe the 70mt SLS will have more viable missions but for really deep space missions a decade from now (hopefully when funds are available) the 130mt makes more sense.
SpaceX has become what NASA used to be in the '60's, innovative and driven.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #28 on: 06/25/2012 04:41 pm »
Having said that we should all support its development and deployment because if SLS goes down, so will NASA. This is quite literally NASA's last chance to pull a rabbit out of the hat. If they screw this up, Congress will no longer support the agency with anywhere near enough to have a viable government HSF program.

Unsubstantiated.

Anyways, what is wrong with the RSA/Energia conop?
« Last Edit: 06/25/2012 04:42 pm by Jim »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #29 on: 06/25/2012 04:47 pm »
Having said that we should all support its development and deployment because if SLS goes down, so will NASA. This is quite literally NASA's last chance to pull a rabbit out of the hat. If they screw this up, Congress will no longer support the agency with anywhere near enough to have a viable government HSF program.
Unsubstantiated.
I see that as an unlikely scenario also.  Or maybe your definition of "viable government HSF program" varies from mine.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #30 on: 06/25/2012 06:24 pm »
Re: Viable Government HSF program:

In the view of the Congress this means that not only the in-space spacecraft but also the launch vehicles and launch facilities are government owned and operated in the same mold as the military services. Space missions will be designed by, partially built by and executed by NASA personnel. NASA will be the pride of the United States, doing things that no other nation on earth can even dream of. It is the intent of the Congress to maintain this "viable government HSF program", in the SLS/Orion combination. The trouble is that the Congress will not fund its own vision of what a viable HSF program is and has been slowly starving it to death for nearly 30 years now. American HSF in general and NASA in particular have become a political football to be tossed about for vote-getting. NASA now has one last eye-popping program, one last chance to get the American public behind it, which will drive up political funding support in the Congress. SLS is the last chance NASA has, imo, to maintain itself for what most of us here on NSF have viewed her as. Congressional support is already slipping badly due to the lack of support from the voters back home that no longer are financially supported by STS-related jobs. Without that widespread public support, Congressional Legislators have little interest in providing meaningful funding to NASA. NASA budgets will begin to shrink and then free-fall to somewhere around 1/2 to 1/3 its current size. At that point, NASA will undergo a major change, shifting from being a government agency that does things on the bleeding edge of space technology development to a government agency that is essentially a consumer of commercial services. NASA will design missions, outsource everything and receive back reports on the results. NASA will not be the executer of the missions. There will be few, if any, NASA astronauts. They will all be corporate employees. NASA will not own nor operate any spacecraft, launch vehicles or launch facilities. They will all be corporate owned and operated. You will see nearly all the NASA centers close as commercial companies step in to assume the mantle. NASA as we have known it for 50 years will no longer exist. In its place will be a much smaller government agency, likely existing in a single location with a few rented satellite offices here and there employing between 500 to a thousand people at most. It will be smaller than what Mitt Romney describes as a "small business".

If this is not the vision you have for NASA’s future then pray that SLS actually gets to fly and do things that can capture the American imagination because if it doesn’t, it will be NASA’s last hurrah.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #31 on: 06/25/2012 06:31 pm »
SLS is far too much rocket, even though it is based on our work. Having said that we should all support its development and deployment because if SLS goes down, so will NASA. This is quite literally NASA's last chance to pull a rabbit out of the hat. If they screw this up, Congress will no longer support the agency with anywhere near enough to have a viable government HSF program.

I think there's some confusion as to exactly why NASA is developing this heavy lift rocket.

It's not a moon program.

Even if NASA wants it to be a moon program it isn't.

The only reason SLS is being built is to go to Mars. If a moon program is required it can be done cheaply with existing launchers. Mars would be much more difficult to do with medium lift. Would take forever just waiting for all the launch delays and by that time you'll miss the Mars conjunction you're aiming at.

Please correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure many out there will) but with SLS, NASA has two rockets in one, a 70mt and a 130mt.

How much cheaper will Spacex’s Falcon Heavy really be, for slightly less tonnage to space, compared to the SLS 70mt version when only considering launch costs and not development costs?

Near term I believe the 70mt SLS will have more viable missions but for really deep space missions a decade from now (hopefully when funds are available) the 130mt makes more sense.
Significantly less tonnage to BEO.  The Falcon Heavy is an LEO craft, the SLS as it is now (using the DCSS based iCPS) can throw 3 times as much to BEO as Falcon Heavy can.... in it's initial state. In its final form, it could throw twice even that number.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #32 on: 06/25/2012 06:40 pm »
Re: Viable Government HSF program:

In the view of the Congress this means that not only the in-space spacecraft but also the launch vehicles and launch facilities are government owned and operated in the same mold as the military services. Space missions will be designed by, partially built by and executed by NASA personnel. NASA will be the pride of the United States, doing things that no other nation on earth can even dream of. It is the intent of the Congress to maintain this "viable government HSF program", in the SLS/Orion combination. The trouble is that the Congress will not fund its own vision of what a viable HSF program is and has been slowly starving it to death for nearly 30 years now. American HSF in general and NASA in particular have become a political football to be tossed about for vote-getting. NASA now has one last eye-popping program, one last chance to get the American public behind it, which will drive up political funding support in the Congress. SLS is the last chance NASA has, imo, to maintain itself for what most of us here on NSF have viewed her as. Congressional support is already slipping badly due to the lack of support from the voters back home that no longer are financially supported by STS-related jobs. Without that widespread public support, Congressional Legislators have little interest in providing meaningful funding to NASA. NASA budgets will begin to shrink and then free-fall to somewhere around 1/2 to 1/3 its current size. At that point, NASA will undergo a major change, shifting from being a government agency that does things on the bleeding edge of space technology development to a government agency that is essentially a consumer of commercial services. NASA will design missions, outsource everything and receive back reports on the results. NASA will not be the executer of the missions. There will be few, if any, NASA astronauts. They will all be corporate employees. NASA will not own nor operate any spacecraft, launch vehicles or launch facilities. They will all be corporate owned and operated. You will see nearly all the NASA centers close as commercial companies step in to assume the mantle. NASA as we have known it for 50 years will no longer exist. In its place will be a much smaller government agency, likely existing in a single location with a few rented satellite offices here and there employing between 500 to a thousand people at most. It will be smaller than what Mitt Romney describes as a "small business".

If this is not the vision you have for NASA’s future then pray that SLS actually gets to fly and do things that can capture the American imagination because if it doesn’t, it will be NASA’s last hurrah.


Get real. NASA doesn't need a "monster rocket," fulfilling everyone's rocket fetish, to stay a viable space agency (heck, the Ahab-esque obsession with an agency-native launch vehicle has been its worst weakness since its foundation, and certainly since the end of Apollo...). They just need to have successes every now and then.

I'm not going to be vocally in opposition to SLS (even though it continues to do damage to the agency), but I don't understand this perspective that NASA is the only agency in the world that needs its own agency-exclusive-use launch vehicle (when there are SEVERAL domestic launch vehicles which work just fine!) or it will somehow be shut down. It's simply not true, and is an incredibly counter-productive idea.

Maybe SLS is helpful for beyond-LEO exploration, sure that's a fair argument. But it most certainly isn't necessary for NASA's continued existence as a viable agency.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2012 06:46 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #33 on: 06/25/2012 06:58 pm »

Please correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure many out there will) but with SLS, NASA has two rockets in one, a 70mt and a 130mt.

How much cheaper will Spacex’s Falcon Heavy really be, for slightly less tonnage to space, compared to the SLS 70mt version when only considering launch costs and not development costs?
Significantly less tonnage to BEO.  The Falcon Heavy is an LEO craft, the SLS as it is now (using the DCSS based iCPS) can throw 3 times as much to BEO as Falcon Heavy can.... in it's initial state. In its final form, it could throw twice even that number.

Not to mention that the so-called "70 t" version of SLS will be able to lift a lot more than 70 tonnes to LEO.  A lot more. 

Or that Falcon Heavy, at least in its initial, announced form, can't possibly lift 53 tonnes to LEO.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/25/2012 06:59 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #34 on: 06/25/2012 07:06 pm »

Please correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure many out there will) but with SLS, NASA has two rockets in one, a 70mt and a 130mt.

How much cheaper will Spacex’s Falcon Heavy really be, for slightly less tonnage to space, compared to the SLS 70mt version when only considering launch costs and not development costs?
Significantly less tonnage to BEO.  The Falcon Heavy is an LEO craft, the SLS as it is now (using the DCSS based iCPS) can throw 3 times as much to BEO as Falcon Heavy can.... in it's initial state. In its final form, it could throw twice even that number.

Not to mention that the so-called "70 t" version of SLS will be able to lift a lot more than 70 tonnes to LEO.  A lot more. 

Or that Falcon Heavy, at least in its initial, announced form, can't possibly lift 53 tonnes to LEO.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed how much do you estimate, I always had this odd feeling that direct and Sls by association would actually achieve about 50% more than advertised just to build in a huge margin for anything completely unexpected.  I actually like that way of doing things.  Shoot for more but plan for less.  If in the end you do get more then pat yourself on the back for being a government agency that didn't actually over sell something for once.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #35 on: 06/25/2012 07:09 pm »
It isn't about staying viable as a space agency, it is about staying funded as a government agency. Sharing a prestige-winning launcher with another agency, much less another country, is not fundable.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #36 on: 06/25/2012 07:24 pm »
Get real. NASA doesn't need a "monster rocket," fulfilling everyone's rocket fetish, to stay a viable space agency (heck, the Ahab-esque obsession with an agency-native launch vehicle has been its worst weakness since its foundation, and certainly since the end of Apollo...). They just need to have successes every now and then.

I'm not going to be vocally in opposition to SLS (even though it continues to do damage to the agency), but I don't understand this perspective that NASA is the only agency in the world that needs its own agency-exclusive-use launch vehicle (when there are SEVERAL domestic launch vehicles which work just fine!) or it will somehow be shut down. It's simply not true, and is an incredibly counter-productive idea.

Maybe SLS is helpful for beyond-LEO exploration, sure that's a fair argument. But it most certainly isn't necessary for NASA's continued existence as a viable agency.

I am real. My perspective is based on spending years in industry, comparing notes with hundreds of people, talking to legislators in Congress many times, in their offices, meeting with corporate executives, and having an acute understanding of how publicly financed budgets work. I have been there and done that – many times. That is where my perspective comes from Chris – the school of hard knocks.

What are your professional qualifications to take my hard learned lessons and toss them aside? How much experience do you have? How long have you been out of college? Are you out of college? How many years of experience do you have in industry? Do you work at the managerial or executive level yet? What’s the largest commercial budget you’ve ever managed? How many times have you sat in any of your Congressmen’s or Senator’s offices in Washington and talked about the prospects for NASA or how to fund it? How many corporate executives have you spent time with, going over budgets and projections, trying to distinguish between what’s wanted, what’s needed and what’s possible? How many thousands of miles have you logged shuttling between corporate offices? How many Aerospace executives do you maintain a professional relationship with? I’ve been there and done all those things. Have you?
« Last Edit: 06/25/2012 07:42 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #37 on: 06/25/2012 07:40 pm »
Not to mention that the so-called "70 t" version of SLS will be able to lift a lot more than 70 tonnes to LEO.  A lot more. 

Or that Falcon Heavy, at least in its initial, announced form, can't possibly lift 53 tonnes to LEO.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed how much do you estimate, I always had this odd feeling that direct and Sls by association would actually achieve about 50% more than advertised just to build in a huge margin for anything completely unexpected.  I actually like that way of doing things.  Shoot for more but plan for less.  If in the end you do get more then pat yourself on the back for being a government agency that didn't actually over sell something for once.

My guess for a pure 1.5 stage SLS Block 1 is 85-95 tonnes to LEO.  That's based on my own modeling, and on numerous designs described in ESAS, in Boeing papers, and on the well-reported Direct results.  Remember that the original plan was for a "Block 0" SLS (four segment boosters and only three RS-25 engine) to do the 70 tonne mark.  Remember also that SLS injects its payload into a slightly suborbital trajectory, just short of LEO velocity, so that the core can safely splash down in the Indian or Pacific Oceans.

As things currently stand, SLS Block 1 will never actually fly a pure 1.5 stage mission to a traditional LEO parking orbit, so we may never see the real LEO capability demonstrated.  Which is a good thing, because LEO is not the goal.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/25/2012 07:43 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #38 on: 06/25/2012 07:49 pm »
Not to mention that the so-called "70 t" version of SLS will be able to lift a lot more than 70 tonnes to LEO.  A lot more. 

Or that Falcon Heavy, at least in its initial, announced form, can't possibly lift 53 tonnes to LEO.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed how much do you estimate, I always had this odd feeling that direct and Sls by association would actually achieve about 50% more than advertised just to build in a huge margin for anything completely unexpected.  I actually like that way of doing things.  Shoot for more but plan for less.  If in the end you do get more then pat yourself on the back for being a government agency that didn't actually over sell something for once.

My guess for a pure 1.5 stage SLS Block 1 is 85-95 tonnes to LEO.  That's based on my own modeling, and on numerous designs described in ESAS, in Boeing papers, and on the well-reported Direct results.  Remember that the original plan was for a "Block 0" SLS (four segment boosters and only three RS-25 engine) to do the 70 tonne mark.  Remember also that SLS injects its payload into a slightly suborbital trajectory, just short of LEO velocity, so that the core can safely splash down in the Indian or Pacific Oceans.

Your estimates are pretty close Ed, prety darn close.

Quote
As things currently stand, SLS Block 1 will never actually fly a pure 1.5 stage mission to a traditional LEO parking orbit, so we may never see the real LEO capability demonstrated.  Which is a good thing, because LEO is not the goal.

 - Ed Kyle

Agreed. SLS should only be dropping off spacecraft to LEO to a parking orbit in preparation for a BEO burn, or the occasional really massive payload that the Delta-IV, Atlas-V or Falcon-9 can't handle. Those will be rare birds indeed.

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

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS General Chat Thread (Splinter Thread)
« Reply #39 on: 06/25/2012 07:57 pm »
Get real. NASA doesn't need a "monster rocket," fulfilling everyone's rocket fetish, to stay a viable space agency (heck, the Ahab-esque obsession with an agency-native launch vehicle has been its worst weakness since its foundation, and certainly since the end of Apollo...). They just need to have successes every now and then.

I'm not going to be vocally in opposition to SLS (even though it continues to do damage to the agency), but I don't understand this perspective that NASA is the only agency in the world that needs its own agency-exclusive-use launch vehicle (when there are SEVERAL domestic launch vehicles which work just fine!) or it will somehow be shut down. It's simply not true, and is an incredibly counter-productive idea.

Maybe SLS is helpful for beyond-LEO exploration, sure that's a fair argument. But it most certainly isn't necessary for NASA's continued existence as a viable agency.

I am real. My perspective is based on spending years in industry, comparing notes with hundreds of people, talking to legislators in Congress many times, in their offices, meeting with corporate executives, and having an acute understanding of how publicly financed budgets work. I have been there and done that – many times. That is where my perspective comes from Chris – the school of hard knocks.

What are your professional qualifications to take my hard learned lessons and toss them aside? How much experience do you have? How long have you been out of college? Are you out of college? How many years of experience do you have in industry? Do you work at the managerial or executive level yet? What’s the largest commercial budget you’ve ever managed? How many times have you sat in any of your Congressmen’s or Senator’s offices in Washington and talked about the prospects for NASA or how to fund it? How many corporate executives have you spent time with, going over budgets and projections, trying to distinguish between what’s wanted, what’s needed and what’s possible? How many thousands of miles have you logged shuttling between corporate offices? How many Aerospace executives do you maintain a professional relationship with? I’ve been there and done all those things. Have you?

Respectfully, Chuck: 1 Timothy 4:12.

I call things as I see it, and I don't back down because of appeals to authority. I'll respond to truth and being shown wrong with evidence. SLS is not the end-all-be-all of NASA, and EVERY attempt to produce a new NASA launch vehicle post-Shuttle has ended in failure and each attempt has damaged the agency... Using already-working launch vehicles would show success with far greater probability and would restore NASA's reputation for exploration. NASA can not only survive without SLS, but (I argue) would be FAR better off. NASA was doing pretty good as an agency during Gemini, as well (a non-NASA rocket), and the rockets we have now are far better than the Titan at that time.

Orion can and will survive SLS, and Congress is already getting used to launching Orion on a Delta IV Heavy (rumors say they called it the first SLS launch) in a couple years.

EDIT:But I'm sure NASA will survive /with/ SLS as well. There's a big opportunity cost, but it'll be fine. I am encouraged by the tentative changes like the transition to RL-10-based upper stage, which increases the viability of SLS.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2012 08:03 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1