Hi Space-People: Sorry to butt-in but where does the figure that CC is 10x safer than Soyuz come from, especially since CC hasn't flown yet? Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive.
Quote from: Bubbinski on 12/06/2017 12:46 pmSome chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive."Too big to fail" at this point.
Quote from: whatever11235 on 12/06/2017 01:25 pmQuote from: Bubbinski on 12/06/2017 12:46 pmSome chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive."Too big to fail" at this point.Nope.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/06/2017 01:28 pmQuote from: whatever11235 on 12/06/2017 01:25 pmQuote from: Bubbinski on 12/06/2017 12:46 pmSome chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive."Too big to fail" at this point.Nope.You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane! Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop and 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept...
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 12/06/2017 11:38 pmIf it is 2023; then that has become literally insane! Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop and 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept...All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.
Quote from: Formica on 12/07/2017 01:16 amAll viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.Not understanding how ditching SLS and keeping Orion would placate Shelby, who's all about the booster, not the spacecraft (which is built in somebody else's district).
All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.
He clarified in follow on tweets, yes he does mean EM-1. Obviously this is just one guy's opinion, not a fact. But if you want to see where the opinion comes from, go back to page 1 of this thread and take a look. Back in July 2015 they're expecting EM-1 to happen in July 2018, i.e. 3 years out. Now we're in December 2017 and new EM-1 date is June 2020, still 2.5 years out, you can calculate the time dilation factor here.
If this thing about 2023 is indeed valid, what would be driving this delay from 2019-20?
Quote from: Formica on 12/06/2017 10:48 pmQuote from: AncientU on 12/06/2017 01:28 pmQuote from: whatever11235 on 12/06/2017 01:25 pmQuote from: Bubbinski on 12/06/2017 12:46 pmSome chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive."Too big to fail" at this point.Nope.You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.Just to add a little precision to these discussions. On page 460 of the FY 2018 NASA Budget Request document(linked below), they have a total showing SLS program costs including formulation and development stages. Adding the Prior to 2016 amount to the 2016 actual amount and the 2017 enacted amount yields a figure of 9.923 billion through October 1, 2017(2 months, 5 days ago). Doing the same for Exploration Ground Systems(which is attributable to both Orion and SLS ground support costs) yields a number of 2.068 billion. Total "sunk costs" For SLS are therefore <$12 billion as of 8 weeks ago.There is some discrepancy between what NASA spent and what was allocated by Congress. For instance, in FY 2016, NASA was allocated $2 billion even for SLS but this newer budget document seems to indicate that $1.922 billion was spent(~96% of appropriations for that year, other years could be less). This partly explains the disconnect between the perceived cost of the SLS program and the actual cost of the SLS program. The budget bills are the only things that make headlines every year, not NASA accounting of the year after the fact. Other explanations for the discrepancies lie with taking the most recent figures and extrapolating figures back to ~2010 when it was in the infancy and conflating constellation costs with the SLS program.https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf
Do it