Quote from: Hog on 12/17/2019 02:22 amYet the law states that a 130mT to LEO capability is still the requirement. With 4 core engines and BOLE' Boosters we're only getting 113mT to LEO.It seems to be at a dead end with solids and 4 core engines. Get each RS25 to run at 120%-RPL and that claws back 80%.They should specify TLI performance not LEO, as SLS is designed for BLEO missions.
Yet the law states that a 130mT to LEO capability is still the requirement. With 4 core engines and BOLE' Boosters we're only getting 113mT to LEO.It seems to be at a dead end with solids and 4 core engines. Get each RS25 to run at 120%-RPL and that claws back 80%.
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.(C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.(D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/17/2019 02:30 amQuote from: Hog on 12/17/2019 02:22 amYet the law states that a 130mT to LEO capability is still the requirement. With 4 core engines and BOLE' Boosters we're only getting 113mT to LEO.It seems to be at a dead end with solids and 4 core engines. Get each RS25 to run at 120%-RPL and that claws back 80%.They should specify TLI performance not LEO, as SLS is designed for BLEO missions.What do you expect from a bunch of politicians that have never designed a rocket before? Specifically Senate Bill S.3739 stated for Minimum Capability Requirements:Quote(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.(C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.(D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations.So to summarize, 130 tons or more to LEO, that is the requirement. As to how things move from LEO, that was undefined. Maybe an upper stage is part of that 130 tons, or maybe some other transportation system was supposed to move the 130 ton payload from there.This is the problem when you have with politicians designing rockets without input from the entity that will be using them - confusion over what the requirements are.
... the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall use the Space Launch System as the launch vehicles for the Jupiter Europa missions, plan for an orbiter launch no later than 2025....
I still am baffled that congress or someone decided to use 4 engines instead of 5 and not put a decent upper stage on the thing. All the years spent, and money spent, and it still will not be able to get 130 tons as required by congress to begin with.
Quote from: Proponent on 12/09/2019 08:41 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 12/07/2019 03:10 amQuote from: joek on 12/07/2019 02:14 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 12/07/2019 01:39 am... There was money available. ...From where?NASA's traditional budget amount? NASA's traditional share of the federal budget? Take your pick...There was a jaw-dropingly nutty House space subcommittee markup circa 2013 where the chairman, Rep. Palazzo, both criticized the administration for under-funding Orion/SLS and presented charts showing that NASA's budget could not increase in the future because entitlement spending was going to eat the federal budget. In other words, he was pretty much saying that there was not going to be money for anything like a lander. At another meeting in that era, a motion to increase NASA's budget introduced by a minority member of the subcommittee was defeated by the majority, including Palazzo, on the grounds that federal spending had to be curtailed.He was criticizing mandatory spending, not NASA funding. In fact, he specifically says that funding NASA is not a problem. It isn't logically inconsistent.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 12/07/2019 03:10 amQuote from: joek on 12/07/2019 02:14 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 12/07/2019 01:39 am... There was money available. ...From where?NASA's traditional budget amount? NASA's traditional share of the federal budget? Take your pick...There was a jaw-dropingly nutty House space subcommittee markup circa 2013 where the chairman, Rep. Palazzo, both criticized the administration for under-funding Orion/SLS and presented charts showing that NASA's budget could not increase in the future because entitlement spending was going to eat the federal budget. In other words, he was pretty much saying that there was not going to be money for anything like a lander. At another meeting in that era, a motion to increase NASA's budget introduced by a minority member of the subcommittee was defeated by the majority, including Palazzo, on the grounds that federal spending had to be curtailed.
Quote from: joek on 12/07/2019 02:14 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 12/07/2019 01:39 am... There was money available. ...From where?NASA's traditional budget amount? NASA's traditional share of the federal budget? Take your pick...
Quote from: ncb1397 on 12/07/2019 01:39 am... There was money available. ...From where?
... There was money available. ...
I still am baffled that congress or someone decided to use 4 engines instead of 5 and not put a decent upper stage on the thing. All the years spent, and money spent, and it still will not be able to get 130 tons as required by congress to begin with. I guess they will just fly it without a decent upper stage just to get Orion to the moon, then fly another one to get the lander to the moon. Saturn V did it with one rocket. Or, they will ask congress for more billions of taxpayer dollars and upgrade the thing with 5 engines and a decent upper stage, and maybe another 10 years. Then change the boosters to liquid boosters in another 10 years. Then finally decide they need reusable boosters, etc, etc. The money pit never ends. I want to see results in my lifetime, not long drawn out projects that cost too much for what they achieve. In the meantime, I am rooting for SpaceX with Starship/SH, and with Blue Origin for New Glenn, both not using taxpayer money for rocket development. Yes, both took some money to develop Raptor and BE-4, but the rockets these engines will fly will be much better and lower cost/kg to orbit than SLS ever will be.
I don't doubt that Palazzo was critical (in the abstract, anyway) of mandatory spending. That notwithstanding, his point is that NASA's budget prospects are grim because of it.
Boeing's 737 Max debacle could cut 0.5 percentage points from US GDP
Quote from: Proponent on 12/17/2019 01:39 pmI don't doubt that Palazzo was critical (in the abstract, anyway) of mandatory spending. That notwithstanding, his point is that NASA's budget prospects are grim because of it.Things would presumably come to a head before the spending on "autopilot" eats the federal government if that was indeed an eventuality. Whether that is changing inflation calculations to use so called "chained CPI", lifting income caps on social security contributions or some other adjustment. But it probably isn't a good argument to say that NASA can't fund both SLS and a human lunar lander the day after that exact thing just happened.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 12/17/2019 08:09 pmQuote from: Proponent on 12/17/2019 01:39 pmI don't doubt that Palazzo was critical (in the abstract, anyway) of mandatory spending. That notwithstanding, his point is that NASA's budget prospects are grim because of it.Things would presumably come to a head before the spending on "autopilot" eats the federal government if that was indeed an eventuality. Whether that is changing inflation calculations to use so called "chained CPI", lifting income caps on social security contributions or some other adjustment. But it probably isn't a good argument to say that NASA can't fund both SLS and a human lunar lander the day after that exact thing just happened.My point in bringing up Palazzo's remarks was merely to refute the suggestion that the Obama administration could easily have found the money for a lunar lander had it wanted to.
Quote from: Proponent on 12/17/2019 10:48 pmMy point in bringing up Palazzo's remarks was merely to refute the suggestion that the Obama administration could easily have found the money for a lunar lander had it wanted to.There are NO constitutional limits to how much of the budget NASA gets. None. And NASA's budget is not tied to how much other agencies and departments get, or how much the deficit is.So if we as a nation decided that we needed to have a lunar lander, then Congress could enact a law funding such a thing....
My point in bringing up Palazzo's remarks was merely to refute the suggestion that the Obama administration could easily have found the money for a lunar lander had it wanted to.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/17/2019 11:26 pmQuote from: Proponent on 12/17/2019 10:48 pmMy point in bringing up Palazzo's remarks was merely to refute the suggestion that the Obama administration could easily have found the money for a lunar lander had it wanted to.There are NO constitutional limits to how much of the budget NASA gets. None. And NASA's budget is not tied to how much other agencies and departments get, or how much the deficit is.So if we as a nation decided that we needed to have a lunar lander, then Congress could enact a law funding such a thing....I agree. I was just disagreeing with the notion that the Obama administration could have gotten funding for a lander simply by asking for it. In fact, if you have a look at the video link now added to my earlier post, you'll see, from about 22:30, Republican members, some of SLS's strongest supporters among them, voting down an amendment to authorize more money for exploration on the grounds of controlling federal spending.
But it probably isn't a good argument to say that NASA can't fund both SLS and a human lunar lander the day after that exact thing just happened.
Well you do have people in congress that believes Guam will tip over with too many marines, and one who thinks we have already gone to Mars.
I mean, fundamentally, all your arguments are predicated on the assumption that Congress will go into cutting mode on NASA in the midst of a recession
NASA doesn't need the funding boost for Artemis, it needs it for Artemis landing by 2024.
Way too much politics in this thread, posted by members who should know better.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/05/2020 04:06 pmHere I differ. Lacking evidence that Biden has the stomach for a fight with Congress over a peripheral issue like space, I think he would likely invoke the same rationale used by Democrats in the House in refusing a $2.6-billion budget boost for Artemis for FY 2021, namely that there is no need to accelerate the moon landing from 2028.I explained this above, but to reiterate, Congressional appropriations makes decisions one year at a time while the Administration and OMB make multi-year decisions in the President’s Budget. So if Biden is sworn in next January, NASA will shortly hand his White House a bill not for an extra $3.0B (or $2.6B or fraction of whatever it is) in FY 2021. NASA will hand the Biden White House a bill for an extra $6-7B thru FY 2024 (or whenever it tails off). If NASA relaxes the timeline to 2028, the number is just going to go up (maybe double) due to the standing army effect. Either way, NASA will be asking for a multi-billion dollar plus-up to its topline budget. That plus-up decision forces a Biden Administration to deal with Artemis and all its related elements one way or another. Call me crazy, but in this environment — historic pandemic, historic recession/depression — asking for a multi-billion plus-up to an agency’s topline to put a couple astronauts on the Moon is a non-starter. That option will be laughed or thrown out of the White House complex.
Here I differ. Lacking evidence that Biden has the stomach for a fight with Congress over a peripheral issue like space, I think he would likely invoke the same rationale used by Democrats in the House in refusing a $2.6-billion budget boost for Artemis for FY 2021, namely that there is no need to accelerate the moon landing from 2028.
In between OMB and COTS, I got to write the VSE (maddening timeline chart and all). In point of fact, it did not dictate EELVs (although they were the obvious option at the time) or spiral development (that was Steidle’s spin on CEV).It’s not a perfect piece of policy. It is especially lacking any rationale, justification, context, or tie to the nation’s larger challenges (like the Cold War was for Apollo). But it injected a little new thinking and reestablished deep space as a goal for the civil human space flight program where other studies and policy initiatives had failed.
But...Quote from: woods170 on 09/05/2020 07:47 pm“...then Griffin and Congress".
“...then Griffin and Congress".
Am I correct in suspecting that Mike Griffin went for what he knew to be an outrageously expensive Shuttle-derived architecture because he believed Shuttle-state legislators would see that it was funded, only to be double-crossed when they funded only Ares and Orion?
Quote from: su27k on 09/06/2020 03:42 am3. Gateway construction changed from mostly launched using SLS/Orion co-manifesting to using Commercial Launch Vehicles One module moved. Two if you want to be generous.Not coincidentally, this combined module has propulsion, communication, and navigation systems as part of its main function (MHM, when it was still separate, had them simply for schedule reasons). It's not unreasonable to think that avoiding the mass and cost penalties of slapping totally redundant spacecraft systems that will only be used once onto each Gateway module, can actually justify co-manifesting on a Block 1B flight, especially since as long as SLS/Orion remains the only crew transport for Artemis, such flights will "already be paid for." A Gateway module that goes up as Block 1B CPL does not need independent thrusters, power systems, control systems, and communication systems. A module that goes up on a CLV does.
3. Gateway construction changed from mostly launched using SLS/Orion co-manifesting to using Commercial Launch Vehicles
Quote from: su27k on 09/06/2020 03:42 am5. Boeing got kicked out from both GLS and HLS competition6. Starship was selected into both CLPS and HLS, now officially part of ArtemisAbsolutely zero to do with Pence or Trump. Boeing dug their own grave here, allowing SpaceX to get in by default.
5. Boeing got kicked out from both GLS and HLS competition6. Starship was selected into both CLPS and HLS, now officially part of Artemis
Quote from: su27k on 09/06/2020 03:42 amit's not impossible to come up with a SLS replacement package that will send the same amount of money to Alabama.Now demonstrate the same for Florida, Utah, Louisiana, Colorado, Texas and California! Also to a lesser extent Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia. All of those states are explicitly mentioned in "Re-Scoping and Revitalizing Institutional Capabilities - (Sec. 1101)" of S.3729, the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.That coalition of states created Shuttle and is now creating the explicitly shuttle-derived SLS.
it's not impossible to come up with a SLS replacement package that will send the same amount of money to Alabama.
The only thing left is to figure out what what Elon need to open a 2nd Starship production line at Michoud.
Quote from: jadebenn on 09/06/2020 06:06 amAbsolutely zero to do with Pence or Trump. Boeing dug their own grave here, allowing SpaceX to get in by default.It's not what the administration did, it's what they didn't do, they didn't try to help Boeing out of the grave it dug for itself. Loverro tried to help Boeing, and administration kicked him out promptly.
Absolutely zero to do with Pence or Trump. Boeing dug their own grave here, allowing SpaceX to get in by default.
And SpaceX didn't get in because of Boeing's failure, we know SpaceX initially bid 3-stage lander in HLS, and only changed to Starship later, this can only mean NASA specifically asked for Starship. That's bold leadership and vision, especially given the fact that at the time Starship had multiple consecutive test failures.
Griffin had previously developed the 1.5-launch Shuttle-derived lunar architecture while consulting for The Planetary Society, and he brought the proposal with him when he was appointed NASA Administrator. He commissioned the ESAS study to put NASA's rubber-stamp of approval on it and then pitched it to a very receptive Congress.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/05/2020 04:06 pm... after a year and a half we have a read on Pence's willingness to take on this monster, and it's not good. He's accomplished just about nothing -- neither much of a funding bump, nor any action at all on the threat implicit in "by any means necessary," even as the delays and overruns grow apace. Furthermore I just cannot imagine a vice president obviously angling for the presidency himself would take on one of the very most powerful senators of his own party, namely Sen. Shelby, even if said senator is demoted to being "merely" the ranking member of the appropriations committee come January.Exploration research and development funding increased from 2018's $395M to 2020's $1,435M, I wouldn't call that nothing.
... after a year and a half we have a read on Pence's willingness to take on this monster, and it's not good. He's accomplished just about nothing -- neither much of a funding bump, nor any action at all on the threat implicit in "by any means necessary," even as the delays and overruns grow apace. Furthermore I just cannot imagine a vice president obviously angling for the presidency himself would take on one of the very most powerful senators of his own party, namely Sen. Shelby, even if said senator is demoted to being "merely" the ranking member of the appropriations committee come January.
What else happened since 2018?1. Administration repeatedly tried to postpone EUS
2. Administration repeatedly tried to move Europa Clipper off SLS
4. Human lunar lander changed from NASA building ascent stage and acting as integrator to public private partnership with NASA acting as customer only.
5. Boeing got kicked out from both GLS and HLS competition[6. Starship was selected into both CLPS and HLS, now officially part of ArtemisI'd say this is a pretty impressive list, and that the current administration has done everything they can to support commercial space in BLEO exploration, without directly confronting SLS/Orion itself.
As for Shelby, I don't think his position on SLS is unmovable, he's not dumb, and he's not interested in SLS itself, he's only interested in the dollars it can bring to Alabama. If SLS is a sinking ship, and there're other ways to accomplish the same thing, he's going to jump ship. Remember both ULA and Blue Origin has factory at Alabama, and one of the HLS provider is also from Huntsville, and Congress is warming up to nuclear propulsion which Marshall has done a lot of research on. Adding all these together, it's not impossible to come up with a SLS replacement package that will send the same amount of money to Alabama.
I understand that if a Biden administration defers full funding of Artemis, it only steepens the fiscal mountain to be climbed in the long run. But isn't that exactly what the Bush Jr.'s administration did with Constellation? Defer and defer and leave a mess for the next administration to deal with.
Wouldn't that be the path of least resistance for a Biden administration, at least through the 2022 election?
You can easily preserve the lunar landing and gateway in a a multiyear flat budget (FY 2020 Exploration appropriation + 2% inflation per year averaged over time)
Again, the binary choice of burning everything to the ground or add billions to the budget is a false dilemma.
developing a singular lunar landing system rather than two dissimilar redundant systems
... what was the "maddening timeline chart and all"?
39. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.
Quote from: su27k on 09/07/2020 03:47 amThe only thing left is to figure out what what Elon need to open a 2nd Starship production line at Michoud.I think he'd need a lobotomy to get him to do that.
Quote from: su27k on 09/07/2020 03:47 amAnd SpaceX didn't get in because of Boeing's failure, we know SpaceX initially bid 3-stage lander in HLS, and only changed to Starship later, this can only mean NASA specifically asked for Starship. That's bold leadership and vision, especially given the fact that at the time Starship had multiple consecutive test failures.SpaceX "initially bidding a 3-stage lander" is an assumption. It was never confirmed.
NASA asking for Starship to be bid is another assumption. In fact NASA could NOT ask for a specific product under HLS RFP and award rules.
Quote from: su27k on 09/06/2020 03:42 amQuote from: Proponent on 09/05/2020 04:06 pm... after a year and a half we have a read on Pence's willingness to take on this monster, and it's not good. He's accomplished just about nothing -- neither much of a funding bump, nor any action at all on the threat implicit in "by any means necessary," even as the delays and overruns grow apace. Furthermore I just cannot imagine a vice president obviously angling for the presidency himself would take on one of the very most powerful senators of his own party, namely Sen. Shelby, even if said senator is demoted to being "merely" the ranking member of the appropriations committee come January.Exploration research and development funding increased from 2018's $395M to 2020's $1,435M, I wouldn't call that nothing.I wouldn't call it nothing either, but it's small potatoes compared to what NASA will need to land in 2024. And the real question is, what has Pence accomplished since March 2019, when he announced the 2024 goal?
Quote4. Human lunar lander changed from NASA building ascent stage and acting as integrator to public private partnership with NASA acting as customer only.We don't know that, since only study contracts have been issued thus far. My hunch is that House bill H.R. 5666, which would require a government-owned lander, will not become law despite bipartisan sponsorship, but still, we don't know yet.
Quote5. Boeing got kicked out from both GLS and HLS competition[6. Starship was selected into both CLPS and HLS, now officially part of ArtemisI'd say this is a pretty impressive list, and that the current administration has done everything they can to support commercial space in BLEO exploration, without directly confronting SLS/Orion itself.Yeah, but, where's the money? To the extent that some of the six items above are modest positives, it still doesn't matter unless NASA gets a lot more money soon.
QuoteAs for Shelby, I don't think his position on SLS is unmovable, he's not dumb, and he's not interested in SLS itself, he's only interested in the dollars it can bring to Alabama. If SLS is a sinking ship, and there're other ways to accomplish the same thing, he's going to jump ship. Remember both ULA and Blue Origin has factory at Alabama, and one of the HLS provider is also from Huntsville, and Congress is warming up to nuclear propulsion which Marshall has done a lot of research on. Adding all these together, it's not impossible to come up with a SLS replacement package that will send the same amount of money to Alabama.If SLS were sinking, sure, I can imagine that Shelby might well make the best of a bad situation and back, for example, anything Blue Origin builds in Alabama as a replacement. But who says SLS is sinking?
You can easily preserve the lunar landing and gateway in a a multiyear flat budget (FY 2020 Exploration appropriation + 2% inflation per year averaged over time) simply by reducing the scope of Artemis by eliminating ACSC and developing a singular lunar landing system rather than two dissimilar redundant systems.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/07/2020 08:06 amSpaceX "initially bidding a 3-stage lander" is an assumption. It was never confirmed.From the NSF article HEO Committee Outlines TDRS Replacement, Improved Artemis Testing: "SpaceX’s proposal, which has resulted in a variant of their Starship vehicle with an airlock 26 meters above the surface, originated with a three element design. SpaceX has since evolved the proposal to a single element Starship vehicle.", I assume the author has a source for this.
SpaceX "initially bidding a 3-stage lander" is an assumption. It was never confirmed.
NASA could not ask for Starship if SpaceX hasn't proposed it, but if SpaceX proposed both a 3-stage lander and Starship, NASA could very well pick one of them.
And SpaceX didn't get in because of Boeing's failure, we know SpaceX initially bid 3-stage lander in HLS, and only changed to Starship later, this can only mean NASA specifically asked for Starship.
VSECOTSPE already listed the headwinds SLS is facing in this post, and I'll add to that the biggest elephant in the room: Starship. Note all the changes I listed happened after 2018, what's so important about 2018? Well, Falcon Heavy flew for the first time. Now just imagine what changes a successful orbital launch of Starship will bring, on top of the issues SLS is already facing.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 09/06/2020 09:15 pmYou can easily preserve the lunar landing and gateway in a a multiyear flat budget (FY 2020 Exploration appropriation + 2% inflation per year averaged over time) simply by reducing the scope of Artemis by eliminating ACSC and developing a singular lunar landing system rather than two dissimilar redundant systems.What is ACSC?
Quote from: Proponent on 09/06/2020 09:08 pmI understand that if a Biden administration defers full funding of Artemis, it only steepens the fiscal mountain to be climbed in the long run. But isn't that exactly what the Bush Jr.'s administration did with Constellation? Defer and defer and leave a mess for the next administration to deal with.Nope. They approved a plus-up to NASA’s topline for the VSE. That plus-up, combined with the original STS phaseout, opened an Apollo-sized budget wedge, adjusted for inflation, for a human lunar return. STS cost increases and Ares I/Orion ate the wedge.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/06/2020 09:08 pmWouldn't that be the path of least resistance for a Biden administration, at least through the 2022 election?They can’t kick the can down the road because NASA needs a multi-year, multi-billion dollar plus-up to its topline for Artemis. Because the budget decisions they make will be multi-year — well beyond 2022 — they either buy into Artemis or they don’t.
VSECOTSPE already listed the headwinds SLS is facing... and I'll add to that the biggest elephant in the room: Starship.
What am I missing?
What I don't understand is how an administration could be bound to ask for that money,
“Don't worry, next year we promise we'll ramp it up."
I realize a funding plan for Artemis now exists, but I don't see why a future administration would be bound to attempt to follow it.
it doesn't want a fight with Shuttle-state politicians
...aside from the illogic of spending billions to return a couple astronauts to the Moon in a time of national crisis, the poor performance and management of the Orion and SLS programs will give the detractors arguing for their own programs plenty of ammunition.
we’ve been waiting for decades for the “detractors” to act. And they haven’t. They never will.
A related note: in the past when it has seemed like NASA lunar programs might be at risk, various stakeholders have "played the China card." The clear goal of Artemis is to assure that the next man and first woman on the lunar surface are from the United States, and certainly not from China. Isn't that card even more powerful now than it has been in the past?
Quote from: punder on 09/10/2020 05:40 amwe’ve been waiting for decades for the “detractors” to act. And they haven’t. They never will.I think that will change when hundreds and hundreds of projects across the discretionary budget are terminated or cut to help pay for pandemic public health measures, the economic recovery, and to bring the deficit under control. Congress-critters looking out for their own projects are going to attack each others’ projects within a smaller discretionary budget. That’s what I referred to as a “bloodbath” above. NASA programs won’t be an exception to these attacks and certain NASA programs will be especially vulnerable to such attacks given their performance (or lack thereof) and disconnect from any national priority.
VSECOTSPE, your view is that the US government response to the pandemic, etc., will be "austerity" measures? Another distinct possibility is government continuing its massive spending program as "fiscal stimulus." In that case NASA in general and SLS/Orion in particular could be a beneficiary of increased government largesse.
Quote from: punder on 09/10/2020 05:40 amwe’ve been waiting for decades for the “detractors” to act. And they haven’t. They never will.I think that will change when hundreds and hundreds of projects across the discretionary budget are terminated or cut to help pay for pandemic public health measures, the economic recovery, and to bring the deficit under control.
VSECOTSPE, your view is that the US government response to the pandemic, etc., will be "austerity" measures?
Let's remember that the last time the nation was in a recession, congress' response wasn't to cut NASA programs, but to create/turn-Ares V-into SLS. I don't see why this recession would be any more of a threat to SLS than the last one was to the Ares V, especially since flight hardware of SLS now exists.
SLS is shovel ready, some bridge that hasn't even been planned/designed/permitted isn't.
... China. Isn't that card even more powerful now than it has been in the past?
‘SLS will go away’: Boeing’s Space Launch System rocket could face trouble though, regardless of who is in office in 2021, he predicts. “SLS will go away. It could go away during a Biden administration or a next Trump administration … because at some point commercial entities are going to catch up,” he said. “They are really going to build a heavy lift launch vehicle sort of like SLS that they will be able to fly for a much cheaper price than NASA can do SLS. That’s just the way it works.”
Bolden talks expectations for Biden’s space policyBy JACQUELINE FELDSCHER 09/11/2020 07:00 AM EDT
SLS will go away’: Boeing’s Space Launch System rocket could face trouble though, regardless of who is in office in 2021, he predicts. “SLS will go away. It could go away during a Biden administration or a next Trump administration … because at some point commercial entities are going to catch up,” he said. “They are really going to build a heavy lift launch vehicle sort of like SLS that they will be able to fly for a much cheaper price than NASA can do SLS. That’s just the way it works.”
Same man who's 4-6 years ago was not a big fan of commercial heavy lifter, and 'SLS is real' (probably because of Congress watching when still in charge)https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-space/2020/09/11/bolden-talks-expectations-for-bidens-space-policy-490298Quote‘SLS will go away’: Boeing’s Space Launch System rocket could face trouble though, regardless of who is in office in 2021, he predicts. “SLS will go away. It could go away during a Biden administration or a next Trump administration … because at some point commercial entities are going to catch up,” he said. “They are really going to build a heavy lift launch vehicle sort of like SLS that they will be able to fly for a much cheaper price than NASA can do SLS. That’s just the way it works.”
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 09/11/2020 03:40 pmSame man who's 4-6 years ago was not a big fan of commercial heavy lifter, and 'SLS is real' (probably because of Congress watching when still in charge)https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-space/2020/09/11/bolden-talks-expectations-for-bidens-space-policy-490298Quote‘SLS will go away’: Boeing’s Space Launch System rocket could face trouble though, regardless of who is in office in 2021, he predicts. “SLS will go away. It could go away during a Biden administration or a next Trump administration … because at some point commercial entities are going to catch up,” he said. “They are really going to build a heavy lift launch vehicle sort of like SLS that they will be able to fly for a much cheaper price than NASA can do SLS. That’s just the way it works.”I mean, I certainly don't think SLS will live to see 2030, but I do think it probably has one more presidential term in it before it finally kicks the bucket. I suspect the government will happily throw money at an overpriced federal rocket over cheaper, equivalent commercial options for at least a few years before there are enough new representatives to bring SLS down.
Right now Congress isn't doing anything.
We should have been back to {moon} base-ics 30 or forty years ago...
The last thing we need now is another dumb commission, another lame "Study" or more goofing over Mars vs. Moon vs. Asteroid.
But careful reading of my very intellectual post reveals I used the words "in the Interim". ie., before it is overtaken by much cheaper alternatives that become the norm - which is well underway now. They weren't available years ago.
Quote from: eric z on 09/12/2020 12:25 am We should have been back to {moon} base-ics 30 or forty years ago...The American taxpayer, who pays for these things, doesn't agree with you. Returning humans to the Moon is the last priority they have for doing things in space, not the first. Oh, and going to Mars is next to last, so they are pretty consistent with their views. You can see the 2018 survey here.QuoteThe last thing we need now is another dumb commission, another lame "Study" or more goofing over Mars vs. Moon vs. Asteroid.We have to remember that NSF members don't represent the average American, but average Americans have a say in how their money is spent. And they do that through the President and the Congress. So even though NSF members are biased towards doing lots of stuff in space, regardless the U.S. national ROI that it produces, that may not be how our elected representatives see it.So doing a review of current programs in order to ensure that they will produce value to the American public should not be viewed as a bad thing. Not unless there is a program you think is likely to be shown to NOT providing enough ROI for it to continue...
Quote from: Hog on 12/17/2019 02:22 amYet the law states that a 130mT to LEO capability is still the requirement. With 4 core engines and BOLE' Boosters we're only getting 113mT to LEO.It seems to be at a dead end with solids and 4 core engines. Get each RS25 to run at 120%-RPL and that claws back 80%.Emphasis mine.And how exactly do you suppose US Congress is going to enforce that requirement?[snark]Have an armed cop watch over Jim B. as he reworks the SLS design?[/snark]Not-so-snarky answer: US Congress does not actually have a means to enforce 130mT. Nor does it wish to. The 130mT is an arbitrarily chosen figure. IF and when SLS goes Block 2 the "written-in-law" performance requirement will be re-written-in-law to precisely match the ultimate performance number of Block 2.In other words: 130 mT is not a concrete number. It will eventually go away IMO.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/12/2020 02:21 amWe have to remember that NSF members don't represent the average American, but average Americans have a say in how their money is spent. And they do that through the President and the Congress. So even though NSF members are biased towards doing lots of stuff in space, regardless the U.S. national ROI that it produces, that may not be how our elected representatives see it.So doing a review of current programs in order to ensure that they will produce value to the American public should not be viewed as a bad thing. Not unless there is a program you think is likely to be shown to NOT providing enough ROI for it to continue... That isn't exactly representative democracy works. Politicians are selected for and selected against not based on their views or behaviors on a particular subject with regards to the entire population, but in regards to the views of the population that votes on that issue.
We have to remember that NSF members don't represent the average American, but average Americans have a say in how their money is spent. And they do that through the President and the Congress. So even though NSF members are biased towards doing lots of stuff in space, regardless the U.S. national ROI that it produces, that may not be how our elected representatives see it.So doing a review of current programs in order to ensure that they will produce value to the American public should not be viewed as a bad thing. Not unless there is a program you think is likely to be shown to NOT providing enough ROI for it to continue...
NASA didn't go this route even though congress said a minimum of 70 tons then upgrade to 130 tons.
I disagree that public perception will have any noticeable impact on program choice. It had little impact on the cancellation of Apollo (which anyone would argue had MUCH more public perception than SLS, and a vastly more positive perception) or STS (again, MUCH positive public perception than SLS). No reason anyone will shed an actionable tear for Artemis before it has yet to even blow smoke at Stennis, let alone launch. As stated upthread: The SLS programme exists in the form it does for the same reason Constellation, STS, and Apollo did: spreading as much aerospace industry work as possible across as many states as possible. That is its primary goal, any hardware produced is secondary. Any SLS replacement programme has to first fulfil that purpose of spreading a comparable amount of work across the same states (and ideally the same companies and locations, e.g. 'build it in the MAF' or 'strap some solid boosters to the side') as previous programmes. After that requirement is fulfilled, decisions can be taken on minutae of the programme such as 'what is the system architecture?' or 'what are the goals of the programme?'.
Quote from: spacenut on 09/13/2020 04:01 amNASA didn't go this route even though congress said a minimum of 70 tons then upgrade to 130 tons.With such a large payload difference, NASA was being effectively asked to build two different rockets. I think it would have been better if Congress just specified the 130 t version and funded it accordingly.
The SLS facility had the capability of making the 10m Saturn V, and I think even a 12m NOVA rocket.
The American taxpayer, who pays for these things, doesn't agree with you.
So even though NSF members are biased towards doing lots of stuff in space, regardless the U.S. national ROI that it produces, that may not be how our elected representatives see it.
Starship, Vulcan, and New Glenn operational within 2 years puts the nails in the coffin of SLS. All three lower cost mass movers. Starship fully reusable and can be refueled in space. Vulcan a simple mass mover that will probably be the cheapest expendable rocket. And, New Glenn which is initially to be booster reusable, but in the heavy lift category. There is already F9/FH available and FH will soon be getting a larger fairing. (I do wish they would make a metholox upper stage with a small scaled Raptor for greater lift capability). SLS is a dead man walking right now.
SLS and Artemis.Artemis does not need SLS to survive.
Taking a page from history.Shuttle and ISS were linked and it looked like that ISS would not continue to exist without Shuttle. But that changed once the construction phase ended and the plain operation phase started. Increasing emphasis that ISS was more important than Shuttle. This was because of all the international participation and State Department international diplomatic importance attached to the ISS but not to Shuttle. Alternate methods of access to ISS were developed that enhanced the gains for the costs of operating ISS. Artemis is head down that same path. Right now it looks as if Artemis cannot exist without SLS/Orion. Some of that is true but only from the standpoint of getting Artemis started. Once started Artemis and its goals will supercede the secondary jobs program goals that kept SLS and Orion alive. So until there is sufficient alternate methods of access to Lunar Orbit (2 additional capabilities for crew and cargo transports) then SLS/Orion will remain. But unlike the Shuttle ISS predecessor the timeframe before SLS/Orin gets replaced looks to be a lot shorter. But as mentioned several times the time duration is not likely shorter than SLS/Orion replacement before 2024/2025.
Once started Artemis and its goals will supercede the secondary jobs program goals that kept SLS and Orion alive.
...If it wasn't for Space X and the other new space ventures, this tiresome and sad cycle could repeat indefinitely.
Quote from: tea monster on 06/12/2021 10:04 am...If it wasn't for Space X and the other new space ventures, this tiresome and sad cycle could repeat indefinitely.Generally agree, although China may provide some additional political impetus to help sustain Artemis et al. Beyond that, best we can hope for is that commercial ventures start to fill the void and carry on as you suggest. We are getting a potential glimpse of that in LEO with Inspiration4, Axiom, and Space Adventures. Can only hope that pattern is sustainable and extends to Luna and beyond.
Quote from: joek on 06/12/2021 10:21 amQuote from: tea monster on 06/12/2021 10:04 am...If it wasn't for Space X and the other new space ventures, this tiresome and sad cycle could repeat indefinitely.Generally agree, although China may provide some additional political impetus to help sustain Artemis et al. Beyond that, best we can hope for is that commercial ventures start to fill the void and carry on as you suggest. We are getting a potential glimpse of that in LEO with Inspiration4, Axiom, and Space Adventures. Can only hope that pattern is sustainable and extends to Luna and beyond.Only needs a pure commercial method to get from Earth to the Lunar surface and back. Oh wait there is a method. Just need the Lunar starship to work which is dependent on Starship in general to work. Such that it will be a few more years. As long as the Government program Artemis lasts long enough to prove out the essential element (Lunar Starship). Then commercial trips to the Lunar surface are the next ultimate Billionaires trip. But don't hold your breath though. You might turn blue! Like was the case with commercial crew. Taking a couple of extra years to do it's first manned flight.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/12/2021 11:09 pmQuote from: joek on 06/12/2021 10:21 amQuote from: tea monster on 06/12/2021 10:04 am...If it wasn't for Space X and the other new space ventures, this tiresome and sad cycle could repeat indefinitely.Generally agree, although China may provide some additional political impetus to help sustain Artemis et al. Beyond that, best we can hope for is that commercial ventures start to fill the void and carry on as you suggest. We are getting a potential glimpse of that in LEO with Inspiration4, Axiom, and Space Adventures. Can only hope that pattern is sustainable and extends to Luna and beyond.Only needs a pure commercial method to get from Earth to the Lunar surface and back. Oh wait there is a method. Just need the Lunar starship to work which is dependent on Starship in general to work. Such that it will be a few more years. As long as the Government program Artemis lasts long enough to prove out the essential element (Lunar Starship). Then commercial trips to the Lunar surface are the next ultimate Billionaires trip. But don't hold your breath though. You might turn blue! Like was the case with commercial crew. Taking a couple of extra years to do it's first manned flight.Think "there is a method" is a bit optimistic at this time. In any case, not holding my breath.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/08/2021 06:07 pmOnce started Artemis and its goals will supercede the secondary jobs program goals that kept SLS and Orion alive. Sadly, I don't agree. Apollo was going from strength to strength and there were grand plans for the future when it was cancelled. There is nothing stopping this from happening again after the first few landings of Artemis.
NASA needs to put accomplishment before profit.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/13/2021 01:38 pmNASA needs to put accomplishment before profit.NASA and the USG have no real reason for a lunar base.
Quote from: Jim on 06/13/2021 01:58 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 06/13/2021 01:38 pmNASA needs to put accomplishment before profit.NASA and the USG have no real reason for a lunar base.Potential political reasons, if another nation - or corporate entity - starts to be seen as "occupying" the place.
The USG spends a lot of money sailing ships through certain seas just to show the flag, for example.
So for it to happen in 5 years is definitely possible. But still requires the government to be the accelerator. Without the government. SpaceX could do it but it will likely add a couple of years.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/13/2021 02:18 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/13/2021 01:58 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 06/13/2021 01:38 pmNASA needs to put accomplishment before profit.NASA and the USG have no real reason for a lunar base.Potential political reasons, if another nation - or corporate entity - starts to be seen as "occupying" the place.Emphasis on "potential", because currently there isn't a "real" reason.America is the most capable space nation, and even we have challenges getting back to the Moon. So thinking Russia or China will somehow colonize the Moon in the next few years, for no direct economic benefit, is not being realistic.QuoteThe USG spends a lot of money sailing ships through certain seas just to show the flag, for example.We already have ships that sail near that area, so changing their course is not really an extra cost. In comparison we don't have any spacecraft traveling beyond LEO as of today, so transporting humans to the Moon to strut around to lay claim to territory would be a significant extra cost.
Artemis needs SpaceX as an accelerator.
The SLS constituency sees no added benefit from lunar landings.
...quietly ruling out landings as politically untenable in the same way the post-Apollo / Shuttle contractor base had ruled out returning to the Moon.
Fortunately, NASA called the bluff by sole-sourcing to SpaceX, and Congress is now trying to hide their nakedness by appropriating more money after the fact.
Neither you, Ed, nor Jim acknowledge that accomplishment over profit applies to SLS, as one example. Dunno why y'all are so anti-lunar base.
Quote from: RoadWithoutEnd...quietly ruling out landings as politically untenable in the same way the post-Apollo / Shuttle contractor base had ruled out returning to the Moon.Well, Nixon and the pols ruled out returning to the Moon.
same way the post-Apollo / Shuttle contractor base had ruled out returning to the Moon.
ISS is also similarly of that same vein. In that there are cheaper ways to do the research in orbit than on a International station that costs >$3B/year plus it's cost in development. Jim is correct in that for both the ISS and a Moon Base the cost benefit just does not add up to a need for such as a Moon base or even an ISS.......But as ISS turns more toward comercial a new forefront goodwill icon is needed. The world has latched onto to International participation into a Moon Base as the replacement. Gateway is just a small support element. It is the Moon Base concept that is the key. Without a reason for existence. In this case a world political one. The US really has no reason for spending any money on the return and establishment of a International Moon Base. ....
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/17/2021 06:44 pmISS is also similarly of that same vein. In that there are cheaper ways to do the research in orbit than on a International station that costs >$3B/year plus it's cost in development. Jim is correct in that for both the ISS and a Moon Base the cost benefit just does not add up to a need for such as a Moon base or even an ISS.......But as ISS turns more toward comercial a new forefront goodwill icon is needed. The world has latched onto to International participation into a Moon Base as the replacement. Gateway is just a small support element. It is the Moon Base concept that is the key. Without a reason for existence. In this case a world political one. The US really has no reason for spending any money on the return and establishment of a International Moon Base. ....There is even less political reasons for the gov't to establish a lunar base.
Quote from: Jim on 06/17/2021 06:47 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/17/2021 06:44 pmISS is also similarly of that same vein. In that there are cheaper ways to do the research in orbit than on a International station that costs >$3B/year plus it's cost in development. Jim is correct in that for both the ISS and a Moon Base the cost benefit just does not add up to a need for such as a Moon base or even an ISS.......But as ISS turns more toward comercial a new forefront goodwill icon is needed. The world has latched onto to International participation into a Moon Base as the replacement. Gateway is just a small support element. It is the Moon Base concept that is the key. Without a reason for existence. In this case a world political one. The US really has no reason for spending any money on the return and establishment of a International Moon Base. ....There is even less political reasons for the gov't to establish a lunar base.I got the impression that from a political stand-point Chinese lunar ambitions were in some part help to drive the US return to the Moon. NASA Administrator Nelson has testified that the Chinese space program is a very aggressive competitor.
Quote from: Brovane on 06/17/2021 08:32 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/17/2021 06:47 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/17/2021 06:44 pmISS is also similarly of that same vein. In that there are cheaper ways to do the research in orbit than on a International station that costs >$3B/year plus it's cost in development. Jim is correct in that for both the ISS and a Moon Base the cost benefit just does not add up to a need for such as a Moon base or even an ISS.......But as ISS turns more toward comercial a new forefront goodwill icon is needed. The world has latched onto to International participation into a Moon Base as the replacement. Gateway is just a small support element. It is the Moon Base concept that is the key. Without a reason for existence. In this case a world political one. The US really has no reason for spending any money on the return and establishment of a International Moon Base. ....There is even less political reasons for the gov't to establish a lunar base.I got the impression that from a political stand-point Chinese lunar ambitions were in some part help to drive the US return to the Moon. NASA Administrator Nelson has testified that the Chinese space program is a very aggressive competitor. Nelson is pushing that story because he knows that FUD is a fairly good political motivator.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/17/2021 01:43 pmNeither you, Ed, nor Jim acknowledge that accomplishment over profit applies to SLS, as one example. Dunno why y'all are so anti-lunar base.It is a waste of resources and no real accomplishment.
I'm curious Jim, what do you think space policy should be broadly speaking?
Quote from: Slarty1080 on 06/18/2021 09:23 amI'm curious Jim, what do you think space policy should be broadly speaking?The gov't is there to enable and support and not do.
ISS is also similarly of that same vein. In that there are cheaper ways to do the research in orbit than on a International station ......And at the current spending is actually very cheap price for such a wide ranging and impactful goodwill program.
... [the lunar bas is] without a reason for existence. In this case a world political one. The US really has no reason for spending any money on the return and establishment of a International Moon Base. Almost all economic arguments about doing a Moon Base this way or that is missing the basic point. Establishment of a Moon Base has very little if anything to do with economics but with world politics. ...
Independent voice
I would not have done Commercial Crew in the same way that commercial cargo was done. NASA funded the program and yet gave up a large measure of control over what the designs were going to be and how they would be carried out. I don’t approve of such structures where public funds are involved.
In my judgment, they weren’t ready then, and since they didn’t fly until 2020, I think that judgment turns out to be correct.
Quote from: hektor on 09/21/2021 10:23 pmIndependent voiceQuote from: Mike GriffinI would not have done Commercial Crew in the same way that commercial cargo was done. NASA funded the program and yet gave up a large measure of control over what the designs were going to be and how they would be carried out. I don’t approve of such structures where public funds are involved.
Quote from: hektor on 09/21/2021 10:23 pmIndependent voiceQuoteIn my judgment, they weren’t ready then, and since they didn’t fly until 2020, I think that judgment turns out to be correct.He neglects to mention that funding in the initial years for commercial crew were severely underfunded which helped cause delays.https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1111/23commercialcrew/
The purpose of NASA was originally, and I think properly, to manage, to design, to orchestrate, to conduct, to carry out the publicly funded space program. SLS is an example of what NASA and other government agencies used to do: lay out the requirements for something that you want. In this case, a heavy-lift launch vehicle to accomplish space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. You run a competition and you hire a contractor to build it to your design, and the contractor is being paid public money to do a job in the public interest. So we’ve gone from that to an evolution where NASA competes a human lunar landing mission, and the contractors are not even being told what the specifications are, and they’re not building to government direction. So in that kind of an environment, there really isn’t a purpose for NASA.
Location and jobs would be inconvenient but doable...it would be an expensive chore for private industry to reinvigorate places that have depended for generations on no-strings-attached government largesse, but it can be done.
But people don't move because they are rooted in their communities, and our alternative interventions (usually governmental) just don't work. If you think of a wonderful new solution, please check to see what happened the last five times the solution was proposed.
...I don't expect NASA and Boeing to learn their lesson any better than Detroit and Chrysler did.
But SLS won't be able to compete, and so change is coming, whether they like it or not. And there will still be rockets made in the US, just by SpaceX in Brownsville, instead of Boeing in New Orleans.
First of all NASA has no say in anything. NASA works for the President, and is funded by Congress. So any big political decisions are handed down to NASA, like being told to build the SLS without being asked if they wanted it.
As for Boeing, they will go where the money is. Government contractors are concerned about being able to hire the talent they need for the contracts they win, but there is a percentage of the workforce that is mobile.
The SLS was not created to "compete", and in fact NASA has no option but to use the SLS for launching the Orion MPCV. But the SLS is so big and costly that the Orion MPCV is likely to ever be the payload for an SLS, so the future of the SLS is really tied to missions that require the Orion MPCV. Eliminate the Orion MPCV and the SLS goes away too...
The power problem is stickier. This handful of politicians from poorly-developed states should not have veto power over the national space program like that, so it just has to go. The Center system created in the Space Race has to be reconfigured to some more closely aligned with economic reality.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/06/2021 06:10 pmFirst of all NASA has no say in anything. NASA works for the President, and is funded by Congress. So any big political decisions are handed down to NASA, like being told to build the SLS without being asked if they wanted it.Sure, but this all applies equally to every government department in Detroit...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/06/2021 06:10 pmAs for Boeing, they will go where the money is. Government contractors are concerned about being able to hire the talent they need for the contracts they win, but there is a percentage of the workforce that is mobile.This was true for Chrysler too.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/06/2021 06:10 pmThe SLS was not created to "compete", and in fact NASA has no option but to use the SLS for launching the Orion MPCV. But the SLS is so big and costly that the Orion MPCV is likely to ever be the payload for an SLS, so the future of the SLS is really tied to missions that require the Orion MPCV. Eliminate the Orion MPCV and the SLS goes away too...Well, it wasn't made to "compete" anymore than Detroit ever really thought it was in competition with Georgetown.
You like conflating things that are NOT related.
QuoteThis was true for Chrysler too.No, it isn't. Boeing is an international company, and the SLS program constitutes a small fraction of the total revenue Boeing brings in. If the SLS program goes away at this point, the people on the SLS program can probably find replacement jobs within Boeing as long as they are willing to move.Chrysler, and GM to a degree, are/were companies that had fundamental problems with their products that made them uncompetitive in the marketplace. Notice how that is NOT the situation with Boeing?
This was true for Chrysler too.
And the private sector (i.e. ULA, SpaceX, etc.) has not been hurt by the SLS per se, since the SLS does is not a candidate for the vast number of U.S. Government payloads that need to be moved to space.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 12/06/2021 03:52 pmBut people don't move because they are rooted in their communities, and our alternative interventions (usually governmental) just don't work. If you think of a wonderful new solution, please check to see what happened the last five times the solution was proposed.This just isn't true: Detroit has shrunk by a factor of 3 since 1950. And, Georgetown, Kentucky has increased by a factor of 3 since the Toyota factory was established there in the 1990s. So people are clearly moving to find good jobs elsewhere. But those jobs are clearly being established by different corporations, and in different cities, then where the jobs are failing. So the old corporations and governments are not learning the right lessons, but are simply being out-competed and replaced. The old companies go bankrupt or get bought, and the cities shrink to irrelevance. Of course, as with every transition, there are people left behind. And they matter, and their suffering matters - but the interventions they favor don't work.So, given real-world politics and real-world economics, the only solution that will work for the American space industry is the same as the only solution that worked for the Amercian car industry - getting out-competed and replaced. There are still lots of cars made in the US. But they are mostly made in new places by new corporations - Toyota in Georgetown and Tesla in Fremont, rather than Chrysler in Detroit. I don't expect NASA and Boeing to learn their lesson any better than Detroit and Chrysler did. But SLS won't be able to compete, and so change is coming, whether they like it or not. And there will still be rockets made in the US, just by SpaceX in Brownsville, instead of Boeing in New Orleans.
Quote from: HoratioNelson on 12/06/2021 05:52 pmSo, given real-world politics and real-world economics, the only solution that will work for the American space industry is the same as the only solution that worked for the Amercian car industry - getting out-competed and replaced. There are still lots of cars made in the US. But they are mostly made in new places by new corporations - Toyota in Georgetown and Tesla in Fremont, rather than Chrysler in Detroit. I don't expect NASA and Boeing to learn their lesson any better than Detroit and Chrysler did. But SLS won't be able to compete, and so change is coming, whether they like it or not. And there will still be rockets made in the US, just by SpaceX in Brownsville, instead of Boeing in New Orleans.The jobs "move": that is, old jobs are abolished in one place and new jobs are established another. Only a relatively few of those new jobs are taken by folks who moved from the old locations. So Detroit shrinks over a period of two working lifetimes because new young families don't start there, and Georgetown grows because new young families do start there and the infrastructure in Detroit decays due to a shrinking tax base, [...]
So, given real-world politics and real-world economics, the only solution that will work for the American space industry is the same as the only solution that worked for the Amercian car industry - getting out-competed and replaced. There are still lots of cars made in the US. But they are mostly made in new places by new corporations - Toyota in Georgetown and Tesla in Fremont, rather than Chrysler in Detroit. I don't expect NASA and Boeing to learn their lesson any better than Detroit and Chrysler did. But SLS won't be able to compete, and so change is coming, whether they like it or not. And there will still be rockets made in the US, just by SpaceX in Brownsville, instead of Boeing in New Orleans.
However, by the 1980 census, white people had fled at such a large rate that the city had gone from 55 percent to 34 percent white within a decade. The decline was even starker than this suggests, considering that when Detroit's population reached its all-time high in 1950, the city was 83 percent white.
[...] and people suffer. And no, I don't have a better solution either.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/06/2021 06:10 pmYou like conflating things that are NOT related.This is an ad hominem...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/06/2021 06:10 pmQuoteThis was true for Chrysler too.No, it isn't. Boeing is an international company, and the SLS program constitutes a small fraction of the total revenue Boeing brings in. If the SLS program goes away at this point, the people on the SLS program can probably find replacement jobs within Boeing as long as they are willing to move.Chrysler, and GM to a degree, are/were companies that had fundamental problems with their products that made them uncompetitive in the marketplace. Notice how that is NOT the situation with Boeing?I think the situations are fairly similar, actually...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/06/2021 06:10 pmAnd the private sector (i.e. ULA, SpaceX, etc.) has not been hurt by the SLS per se, since the SLS does is not a candidate for the vast number of U.S. Government payloads that need to be moved to space.This is true. But they are in competition with every other program for the tax payer's dollar.
To recap,...Likewise, the only way I see to go to the moon cheaper than SLS, is to go on a rocket designed by someone new, someone incentivized to make it cheaper...
Sorry, but no, me saying you are conflating two issues is not an attack on you, just my feedback on what you wrote. If people can't respond and disagree with others, then you can't have a discussion...
For instance, the car industry in Detroit unable to compete with foreign competitors is NOT related to the SLS program in any substantial way. That why I say you are conflating two issues.
QuoteThis is true. But they are in competition with every other program for the tax payer's dollar.No, they are not. There are no constitutional limits to how much money NASA as a whole, or NASA programs, can be allocated. The SLS program has routinely received more money that President Obama or President Trump asked for, so if there has been a competition the SLS has been winning for 11 years... [snip]Commercial launch providers existed when the SLS was created, yet Congress didn't care. Why? Because Congress wanted to create jobs, not capabilities.The SLS will exist as long as Congress wants to shovel money to the right companies in the right states, regardless of whether it is needed or not. That has been the situation for the last 11 years...
This is true. But they are in competition with every other program for the tax payer's dollar.
Yes, and that is called "commercial launch providers". They already exist, such as ULA and SpaceX, and others are planning to join them.
Even if you assume that the SLS programme is analogous to the amorphous car manufacturing industry (a stretch) and that changes in car manufacturing locations involved moving of workforces, that still does not address the core issues of cancellation of the SLS programme:- Continuation of jobs and funding flow to states housing parts of the SLS programme- Finding something to do for a workforce with a very specialised skillsetBoth of those factors is why in the wake of the end of the STS programme the Constellation programme sprang up using the same facilities in the same locations, again manufacturing large SRBs, large diameter Hydrogen tanks, etc. And when Constellation was cancelled, why SLS then sprang up as a near carbon copy, using the same facilities in the same locations, again manufacturing large SRBs, large diameter Hydrogen tanks, etc. If SLS is cancelled, the exact same process will occur until those two issues are tackled.
It's not an impossibility, but it requires burning a lot of political capital and financial capital, which means any replacement that isn't a near carbon copy of SLS needs to be of the utmost importance and priority at a national level and from the top down, at a minimum on the level the Apollo programme was.
My second point was that when a system gets "stuck" like this, others continue to improve and outpace the old system until it becomes truly unsustainable. Over time, others ( SpaceX?, Blue Origin?, Someone else?) will build better rockets, that can do what SLS does. And continue building them, and flying them, to the moon and elsewhere. And there will be SLS, many times as expensive and with very few flights that don't do anything others can't do. And the political talk about cost and "pork barrel spending" will rise again, and NASA's launch vehicle budget will be shuttered for good. And that is how SLS will be "replaced". Moon rockets will still be made in the US, but not by NASA.
The problem is there is no requirement whatsoever for SLS to 'compete' with any other launch system, just a Constellation was uncompetitive from birth. It's not at all like a commercial industry such as motor vehicle manufacture. SLS need not ever launch a single vehicle for the programme to be a 100% success in the eyes of those who conceived of it and currently drive it, just a Constellation was before it.'Competition' will never kill SLS.
I've tried to explain this several times; let me try again . I'm not saying competition will kill SLS, but that it will make SLS more and more unpopular. Normal people, non-space people, will watch SpaceX fly to the moon with tourists. They will watch astronauts go to private space stations like Orbital Reef, on private rockets like New Glenn. Other, better, rockets will make the SLS program look ridiculous to common people. And they will be angry because even they know SLS is expensive and useless. And they will vote to reduce spending, to reduce their taxes.
Quote from: spacenut on 12/09/2021 02:40 am...RS-25 should have been the re-designed SSME, like new versions of Raptor with less parts, and faster and easier manufacturing, but it wasn't. A little late for 3D printing of RS-25 parts. ...Already has...https://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-successful-space-launch-system-rocket-engine-test-seriesCost reduction of 30% already declared. Just a bit more to do and the 50% goal for a commercial SLS becomes realized.
...RS-25 should have been the re-designed SSME, like new versions of Raptor with less parts, and faster and easier manufacturing, but it wasn't. A little late for 3D printing of RS-25 parts. ...
Senator Shelby is over 80 year old and 2022 is his last year in office. He has said he will not be running again. We will get a new senator here. Leading candidate right now is Mo Brooks, a career politician and current congressman. I think he is from Mobile.
$400 million for one SLS can buy 200 Raptor engines. 200 Raptor engines can build 4 Starship/Superheavy combos + some. Then you have the solids at $300-400 million each. That would build an several entire Starship stacks. Even if Starship/Superheavy is EXPENDABLE, and with no reuse, it should get 200-250 payloads to LEO. Reusable cuts it back to 150 tons, with extra fuel, TPS, legs on Starship etc.
Here's a food thought thing that has maybe gone by the wayside recently.What happens if the first LV fails? After so much time and money spent? There's already been some hard questions being asked about the extension of the integrated stack time of the SRMs and the flight rationale being used to justify that and what may happen to the seals...Then there is the rat's nest of plumbing in the boat tail. So for policy specifically what happens if Artemis one blows up? This was briefly touched on a few years ago but that was before there was a full stacked vehicle in the VAB. It's a serious question now. Artemis one it seems to me is do or die more than an actual "test" flight because if it fails I don't see this vehicle retaining any of its ever dwindling list of congressional allies.
I think when Starship is launching regularly and gets the Lunar Starship working, congress may see the need or even NASA may request the scrap SLS in favor of commercial launchers. This may not happen until 2030 or so, depending on how many Starships and boosters are built and how much SpaceX charges to launch stuff for NASA. Also depends on Starship being human rated and deep space rated.
Spacenut: You're right, from an economic perspective... but everyone else is telling you that Congress doesn't think that way. It may very well be that SLS remains active indefinitely. Because economics are not usually how Congress decides things.(Whether that is a good thing, or even WHY it's true? Firmly off topic)
In 1957, the race to orbit the first satellite was between the US Army and the US Navy, due more or less to politics, which favored the Navy, to the extent that the Army was required to allow the Navy to verify that one particular suborbital Explorer flight had sand instead of fuel in its kick stage so it could not orbit a payload. Then sputnik launched, and suddenly the Explorer program was restarted and launched the first US satellite.
Here's a food thought thing that has maybe gone by the wayside recently.What happens if the first LV fails? After so much time and money spent?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 12/30/2021 08:32 pmIn 1957, the race to orbit the first satellite was between the US Army and the US Navy, due more or less to politics, which favored the Navy, to the extent that the Army was required to allow the Navy to verify that one particular suborbital Explorer flight had sand instead of fuel in its kick stage so it could not orbit a payload. Then sputnik launched, and suddenly the Explorer program was restarted and launched the first US satellite.The Navy verification and the army-Navy race are not true. The Navy was the US choice. Once the Soviets launched, the Army was allowed to prepare. It was not given a go until the Navy faltered. There was no verification of the Jupiter-C first payload.
So really the question is whether the Artemis program could survive a long delay caused by an SLS launch failure?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/30/2021 11:59 pmSo really the question is whether the Artemis program could survive a long delay caused by an SLS launch failure? That's an easy "Yes", given it has survived every other delay for the last decade.Remember that SLS (and Orion) exist orthogonal to any technical capability. Launching, successfully or otherwise, with payload or otherwise, is of little concern to Congress when it comes to funding the programme.
ISS was built with 20 tons and less modules. Things larger than ISS could be built with 40 ton launchers like FH, and New Glenn, even a Vulcan Heavy without Starship. Things like the Artemis station, a large mother ship to go to Mars, or a commercial space station. SLS just eats up too much money and doesn't allow these things to be put on fast track. ...Without SLS, and using the SLS money, NASA could have already tried fuel depots, in space refueling, building a large mother ship, or having a viable cis-lunar program, using distributed launch.
I have a different view. The SLS and Orion MPCV programs have survived over the past decade, but the Artemis program is relatively new - proposed in 2017, and never fully funded, nor have the Trump Administration schedule goals been agreed to by Congress.So while there has been plenty of support to spend money on the SLS, there has not been as much support for the program that needs the SLS. That is the weak point for the SLS...
Quote from: edzieba on 12/31/2021 09:23 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 12/30/2021 11:59 pmSo really the question is whether the Artemis program could survive a long delay caused by an SLS launch failure? That's an easy "Yes", given it has survived every other delay for the last decade.Remember that SLS (and Orion) exist orthogonal to any technical capability. Launching, successfully or otherwise, with payload or otherwise, is of little concern to Congress when it comes to funding the programme.I have a different view. The SLS and Orion MPCV programs have survived over the past decade, but the Artemis program is relatively new - proposed in 2017, and never fully funded, nor have the Trump Administration schedule goals been agreed to by Congress.So while there has been plenty of support to spend money on the SLS, there has not been as much support for the program that needs the SLS. That is the weak point for the SLS...
W/o the ISS there is a good chance there would have been no American human presence in space for a very extended period.Not many were predicting a generational figure like Mr. Musk. No refueling depots, no R&D on this or that, maybe nothing.
Some would love it to return to it's NACA roots. No operational programs.
The budget would get used up for whatever wasteful, or even perhaps useful, spending the political big-shots felt they needed to throw cash at.
Quote from: eric z on 12/31/2021 08:09 pmThe budget would get used up for whatever wasteful, or even perhaps useful, spending the political big-shots felt they needed to throw cash at.Um, $20B and 11 years have been spent building the SLS, and it has yet to launch anything useful into space. If that isn't an example of waste, I don't know what is...
Another generation will have gone by before anything substantial is achieved with SLS/Orion.
This is over 16 Falcon heavies at $250 million each and at 40 tons each reusable mode
Based on decades of track record I don't think there will be any landings until ... There is almost no motivation to accomplish anything in a timely manner. In fact there is a tremendous amount of incentive to never finish the program but to drag it out as long as possible. ...
Quote from: randomly on 01/11/2022 05:26 amBased on decades of track record I don't think there will be any landings until ... There is almost no motivation to accomplish anything in a timely manner. In fact there is a tremendous amount of incentive to never finish the program but to drag it out as long as possible. ...Profit before accomplishment. Why, tho? This is the big mystery to me. Or is the "why?" simply a matter of perverse incentive?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
The primary customer for OldSpace is the government,
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/11/2022 08:25 pmThe primary customer for OldSpace is the government,Not true. See Maxar, NG Orbital, BSSLaunch vehicle yes, spacecraft no
...The primary customer for OldSpace is the government, and the money comes from Congress. These companies have spent decades ensuring that Congress funds them so they can continue to make a profit. The companies do what their customer wants them to do. Their customer wants them to spend much of the money in the appropriate congressional districts: there is no other actual goal, because there is no vision at the corporate level.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 01/11/2022 01:15 pmOr is the "why?" simply a matter of perverse incentive?You ask "Why?"Organizations exist to survive. An organization that does not have survival as its central requirement will eventually cease to exist, leaving only those organizations with this central goal remaining. Pure Darwinian selection. This is so fundamental that this goal is almost never explicitly stated.The primary customer for OldSpace is the government, and the money comes from Congress.
Or is the "why?" simply a matter of perverse incentive?
Quote from: RoadWithoutEnd on 12/06/2021 10:49 amThe power problem is stickier. This handful of politicians from poorly-developed states should not have veto power over the national space program like that, so it just has to go. The Center system created in the Space Race has to be reconfigured to some more closely aligned with economic reality.A lot more than just "poorly-developed" states are involved. Houston is in Texas. Launch facilities in Florida, Jet Propulsion lab is in California, Construction of SLS and engines are in Louisiana, Alabama, and Utah, test facilities in Mississippi. California, Texas, and Florida are 3 of the 4 largest states by population and congressional delegations, then add the 4 smaller states and you have a majority of congresspersons in congress. Doesn't take much. Both parties want things to remain in their states.
[The Center system is more trouble than it's worth these days.
NASA was created to serve a function. Over a half century, that function seems to have gone by the wayside regarding HSF. It is the perverse incentives that have resulted in "survival" as the primary function of the organization. It is a form of directed evolution, not "pure Darwinian selection".But that's the "how", not the "why".As to the "primary customer", you are broadly correct, even tho there may be some technical excuses to the contrary.
Quote from: RoadWithoutEnd on 01/15/2022 08:26 pm[The Center system is more trouble than it's worth these days. That is nonsense. Show how any govt agency works without distributed organizations around the country.
... The EELV could launch both crew and cargo, all you needed to do is develop the spacecraft to do it. Bush II challenged NASA to go to the moon developing only what was needed but instead NASA decided to develop the Ares-1. ...