Author Topic: SLS Policy Discussion  (Read 57176 times)

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
SLS Policy Discussion
« on: 12/17/2019 02:31 am »
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. 
« Last Edit: 12/18/2019 04:39 am by gongora »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #1 on: 12/17/2019 03:43 am »
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%.
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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2 on: 12/17/2019 06:47 am »
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%.

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.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2019 12:08 pm by woods170 »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #3 on: 12/17/2019 07:45 am »
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%.
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.

Technically, for NASA's design reference mission for Mars (2009)...everything departs from LEO. So, using LEO as the benchmark is actually supported by contemporaneous documentation from NASA.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2019 07:46 am by ncb1397 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #4 on: 12/17/2019 01:16 pm »
Quote from: House bill, pp. 248-249
... 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....

In the four years since it became law that Europa Clipper would fly on SLS in 2022, the launch date will have slipped three years if the House bill becomes law.  That's not such good going when the major selling point spending hundreds of millions more to launch on SLS was saving, at best, five years' transit time.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #5 on: 12/17/2019 01:24 pm »
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.

There are only two (2) ways to make a vehicle of this size reach that kind of lift capacity specified as the minimum requirement:

1. Stick with the LH2-powered core stage and change the strapon booster design to hydrocarbon-powered LRBs.

[preface]
The entire concept for a HLV that had a LH2-powered core is deeply flawed from the very beginning. Having already designed what was to become known as the Ares-V while he headed the Planetary society, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin convinced Congress to go with a Shuttle-derived HLV using a LH2-powered core and solid SRB strapon boosters. He called it the 1.5 launch architecture because the SRBs were to be dual use: strap-on boosters for the LH2-powered core and coupled with a LH2-powered upper stage, a satellite and crew launch vehicle for the Orion spacecraft. After years of time and billions of dollars expended, physics finally proved beyond doubt the limitations of his HLV design approach. It seemed like a good idea at first, but like a lot of good ideas, it was no match for actual physics. As good as LH2 is, it can't lift massive weight off the ground without side boosters to make up for the T/W deficiency, and the STS SRBs were pretty much already at the maximum capacity solids could provide. Even with 5 segments and a more energetic propellant mix, 130mt was just too much to ask for SRBs because they had reached the point where the larger they got, the less they could lift. They were just too heavy.

LH2 is the perfect propellant for high efficiency needs, like upper stages and deep space exploration, but a hydrocarbon propellant, like RP-1 or CH4  is much, MUCH better at lifting massive weight off the ground and getting it moving spaceward. So the 2nd way to provide that kind of lift capacity is:
[/preface]

2. A hydrocarbon-powered core, using either RP-1 or CH4 as propellant, and a LH2-powered upper stage.
It can be done in one of two ways:
....2a. A very large LV, like a Saturn-V. With today's capabilities, it is likely this could be done as a TSTO design.
....2b. A little smaller, but still large LV that uses 2 LRBs in a 1.5 architecture like Mr. Griffin envisioned. They, like his dreams for ATK's SRBs, would be dual use; strapon boosters for the HLV core and with a LH2-powered upper stage, a CLV for the human spacecraft or independent satellite launcher.

Were we to be given the luxury of a do-over, my personal preference would be for 2b, because that would provide the maximum ROI for the vehicles developed. But because we don't get to go back and do it over, I would opt now for option 1. Like 2b, the LRBs, coupled with a LH2 upper stage, could be dual use, allowing the spacecraft to not need the HLV every time a crew needed to enter LEO. At least with this option we would get some actual use out of the SLS. But hamstrung with the solids as it is, I fear that this vehicle will not see much action and will eventually be replaced entirely with commercially available options that will rapidly displace it, in both cost per kg to orbit and overall lift capacity.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2019 01:36 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #6 on: 12/17/2019 01:39 pm »
... 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.

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.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #7 on: 12/17/2019 03:00 pm »
I think the FH performance on Steve's chart is old.  Isn't it now closer to 20 tons + to TLI in fully expendable mode. 

Also, I don't think ULA is going to do ACES unless NASA doles out some money for them.  However it may have to be done to deliver supplies or lighter modules, landers, or fuel. 

As of right now, SLS will not be able to do the lunar station alone as it is too expensive.  There will be a need for commercial for supplies and other stuff. 

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #8 on: 12/17/2019 05:35 pm »
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.
Then they would have been constructing Ares V. With the change the contractors get "a second bite at the apple" and charge new development costs for a seemingly "new" LV...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #9 on: 12/17/2019 08:09 pm »

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.

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.

But as always, there are bigger things at play here. For instance, this came out today:

Quote
Boeing's 737 Max debacle could cut 0.5 percentage points from US GDP
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/boeings-737-max-pause-to-cut-us-annualized-gdp-growth-2019-12-1028769614

The US government and US economy can't afford to allow Boeing to fail, which is why they get somewhat favored treatment. If it were to fail, the burden of mandatory spending would be that much greater. And directly state sponsored and financed competition is coming to end it all just as it has for many other U.S. industries...


Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #10 on: 12/17/2019 10:48 pm »

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.

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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #11 on: 12/17/2019 11:26 pm »

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.

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.

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.

However we have to remember that the MOST expensive way to fund a program is by funding a flat budget profile, since that will not mirror when a program needs to consume money as it goes from proposal, to development, through test, into production, and then onto being used in a mission.

The SLS program was never budgeted properly because the Senate bypassed the normal RFP/RFQ process, which would have identified not only the design that would be built, but also the budget profile that would be required to be as cost effective as possible. Or the budget profile for the quickest result, depending on what the needs were.

But funding NASA programs is NOT, in any way, tied to how much entitlement programs consume, or what the budget deficit is. Those are artificial excuses created by politicians to explain why they don't want to fund something.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #12 on: 12/17/2019 11:50 pm »
It's worse than that. Back in the days when I roamed the halls of Congress for another program, a professional congressional staffer told me "it's only money. If we need more we'll just print it". And he was dead serious.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #13 on: 12/18/2019 01:59 pm »
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.

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.

Online SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #14 on: 12/18/2019 04:23 pm »
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.

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.

Without digging too much into politics, it's worth noting that Republican members of congress only appear to desire to control federal spending when there is Democratic control of any of the House, Senate, or Executive branch.  When Republicans have all three, all that rhetoric disappears.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #15 on: 12/19/2019 01:43 am »
Even when they have all three, you need 60 votes in the Senate for Appropriations bills. But, yes spending never goes down. 
« Last Edit: 12/19/2019 10:49 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #16 on: 12/19/2019 01:42 pm »
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.

I would say that what Congress has just done is under-fund a human lunar lander: only a fraction of the $1.6 billion that Bridenstine was talking about has been provided.  And while we don't know what the demand will be in FY 2021 and beyond, we can be sure it will be a lot more.  Congress is good at providing some money but not enough to accomplish much -- that's whole history of CxP.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #17 on: 12/19/2019 01:50 pm »
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 guess too many Hollywood movies. 

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #18 on: 12/19/2019 01:52 pm »
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 have wondered if it had something to do with being able to eke out one more flight before needing new RS-25s.  Or, if you look back to the budget scenarios that leaked in 2011, you'll see that the 70- and 100/130-tonne versions of SLS, as they were then, were to use three and five engines respectively.  That's an average of four per flight. which might be relevant (Case 4a).

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #19 on: 12/19/2019 02:03 pm »
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.

Who thinks we've already gone to Mars?  I ask, because he or she might be a deserving candidate for the Mo Brooks award.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #20 on: 12/19/2019 07:15 pm »
Sheila Jackson-Lee from Houston, Texas mis-spoke many times about us already going to Mars.  She was corrected, but.  I saw this a few years ago during some NASA appropriation committee meeting in congress. 

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Liked: 4664
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #21 on: 09/06/2020 08:06 pm »
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

No, my argument is that the new or reelected Administration will be seeking cuts across nearly all of the discretionary budget (which NASA is part of), Orion/SLS are more vulnerable than they’ve been to such cuts, and, for reasons internal and external to Orion/SLS, interested members of Congress will have more difficulty this time around restoring those cuts.

Quote
NASA doesn't need the funding boost for Artemis, it needs it for Artemis landing by 2024.

No, Artemis, specifically HLS, requires funding over and above NASA’s topline, regardless of how it’s phased.  The work designing, building, and testing the lander does not disappear within NASA’s topline because the delivery date changed.  The NASA topline has to come up in order to pay for the work, whether the landing is 2024, 2026, or 2028.

To afford Artemis, the only alternative to a multi-year, multi-billion dollar plus-up is to create an offset within NASA’s topline by making a multi-year, multi-billion dollar cut elsewhere.  That again points to Orion/SLS.

Way too much politics in this thread, posted by members who should know better.

Message received.

[zubenelgenubi: Split/merge from SLS General Discussion Thread 5 to SLS Policy Discussion thread begins with this post.]
« Last Edit: 09/13/2020 08:19 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #22 on: 09/06/2020 09:08 pm »
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.

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.

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?  With Sen. Shelby quite possibly riding off into the sunset at that time, I can imagine that Orion and SLS will be vulnerable then.  But but until then, I'm not seeing it.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2020 02:50 am by Proponent »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #23 on: 09/06/2020 09:15 pm »
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. The only assumption is that developing and maintaining a singular system will be half as expensive as two redundant programs, which is a fairly safe assumption. All numbers are from the FY 2021 budget submission linked below. Yes, there is a small bump in funding in the 2021-2024 period, offset by savings in the 2025+ period.

Again, the binary choice of burning everything to the ground or add billions to the budget is a false dilemma.

See FY 2021 budget submission: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2021_congressional_justification.pdf

See linked spreadsheet...

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #24 on: 09/06/2020 09:25 pm »
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.

A bit OT, but as something of a fan of the original VSE before it was instantiated as Constellation, what was the "maddening timeline chart and all"?

Quote
But...

“...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?

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #25 on: 09/06/2020 10:01 pm »
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?
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.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #26 on: 09/07/2020 03:47 am »
3. 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.

HALO was going to have its own propulsion and docking system and launched separately on FH, before it got combined to PPE. So adding propulsion and other systems just for launching on CLV is not unprecedented.

Also need to consider the administration has repeatedly tried to postpone EUS, this means they have no near term plan to use the co-manifest capability.

Quote
5. Boeing got kicked out from both GLS and HLS competition
6. Starship was selected into both CLPS and HLS, now officially part of Artemis
Absolutely 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.

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.

it'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 that hard to do a divide and conquer on the coalition. SpaceX already has heavy presence in Texas and California, ULA HQ is in Colorado, and Blue is investing heavily in Florida. Utah won't be covered, but they should be content with the huge ICBM contracts DoD will hand out. The only thing left is to figure out what what Elon need to open a 2nd Starship production line at Michoud.

The rest of the states are just subcontractors, there will be some shuffling, but in the end the SLS money didn't disappear, it still goes to primes who will still need subcontractors, so I don't see a big problem here.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #27 on: 09/07/2020 03:56 am »
The 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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #28 on: 09/07/2020 08:06 am »
Absolutely 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.

Which was the only thing NASA and the Administration could do because Loverro's actions were illegal. There is a criminal probe running into this affair right now.



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.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2020 08:08 am by woods170 »

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11160
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7392
  • Likes Given: 72419
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #29 on: 09/07/2020 07:50 pm »
Way too much politics in this thread, posted by members who should know better.
Our fearless leader posted this on September 6. It's still true on September 7.
We have a Space Policy sub-forum.
And some politics is general-purpose politics and is not cogent to the NSF forums.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2020 07:52 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #30 on: 09/08/2020 02:51 am »
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.

That doesn't mean that Griffin wasn't thinking about Congress while developing the architecture, does it?

Regardless of when Griffin originally devised the 1.5-launch architecture, what he proposed in 2005 was ridiculously expensive.  Just look at the out-year budget growth needed at the time of the Augustine report (attached).
« Last Edit: 09/08/2020 01:47 pm by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #31 on: 09/08/2020 03:27 am »
... 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?

Quote
What else happened since 2018?
1. Administration repeatedly tried to postpone EUS
Tried, yes, but with even the president's party in the House supporting EUS, I'll be very surprised if the administration succeeds in postponing it.

Quote
2. Administration repeatedly tried to move Europa Clipper off SLS
Again, "tried to," not "did."  I'll admit I actually do think Artemis would get priority on SLS over Clipper if there were a risk of a conflict.

Quote
3. Gateway construction changed from mostly launched using SLS/Orion co-manifesting to using Commercial Launch Vehicles
OK, I'll go along with that too, though it had also been suggested that the gateway wasn't needed for 2024.

Quote
4. 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.

Quote
5. Boeing got kicked out from both GLS and HLS competition[
6. Starship was selected into both CLPS and HLS, now officially part of Artemis

I'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.

Quote
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.

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?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #32 on: 09/08/2020 01:21 pm »
The 1.5 architecture would have been great.  The only engine to be developed was the re-startable SSME.  For some reason they thought it was too hard to do.  The original architecture didn't require a 5 seg solid, or monkeying around with RS-68.  Money that could have been used to make the SSME a second stage engine was wasted on developing the 5 or 5.5 segment solids and making the J2X. 

The 1.5 architecture made more sense.  Same upper stage engine on both the Ares V and Ares 1.  I think ATK at the time was really pushing for money to develop the larger solids.  The 4 seg steel solids were at least reusable on both vehicles. 

What a waste of years and money for a rocket not really big enough and too expensive to operate at least quarterly. 

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Liked: 4664
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #33 on: 09/08/2020 03:22 pm »
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.

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.

Wouldn'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.  Based on my experience being in the hot seat through seven years of those budget reviews, they won’t buy into Artemis given the environment the nation is facing.  But again, anything is possible.

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)

You can’t.  Your own spreadsheet still requires a $3B plus-up over four years.  On top of a 2% annual increase.

Nearly all discretionary departments and agencies will be required to submit terminations and reductions that reduce their topline by some substantial percentage.  I’d guesstimate between 5% and 7%.  Most of these will be acted upon.

There won’t be inflationary increases.  There won’t be flat budgets.  Department and agency budgets will start in the hole, and their OMB examiner will have to argue their way back in.  Very few will succeed.

Again, the binary choice of burning everything to the ground or add billions to the budget is a false dilemma.

There are no realistic choices that add billions to the NASA topline in the middle of the worst pandemic in a century and what may be the worst economic depression in 90 years, when the federal budget is running its worst deficit in 70 years.  Certainly not to return a couple astronauts to the Moon.  No one will be able to make that argument with a straight face.

As I described upthread, there may be a realistic middle ground option at or below the NASA topline that retains Artemis (HLS, Gateway).  But that points to Artemis shedding its most expensive elements (Orion, SLS) in favor of less expensive transportation.

developing a singular lunar landing system rather than two dissimilar redundant systems

Worked 50 years ago in a different industry environment to achieve a short-lived goal.  Not a good idea in today’s environment, especially if the goal is to go back for longer.

... what was the "maddening timeline chart and all"?

The milestone chart on pages 4-5.  Elements were repeated in the relevant sections.  Done in PowerPoint, not scheduling software.  Maddening...

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?

Griffin despised the ULA consolidation.  He didn’t want to be beholden to EELV pricing.  So he sought an alternative.

While creating a medium-lift alternative to EELV was a noble goal, it wasn’t the point of the VSE, which directed NASA _not_ to develop new launch vehicles unless absolutely necessary.  (Necessary was assumed to be some form of heavy lift back then.)  It was not Congress’s fault that Griffin wasted his term and budget needlessly trying to reinvent the medium-lift wheel with Ares I when that was never his assignment.

Ares I and Orion did not fit budgetarily from the beginning.  Griffin cut the budget for COTS in half along with most microgravity research work and nuclear development just to amass enough budget for ESAS to make Ares I and Orion appear viable.  It was not Congress’s fault that Griffin started from such an overextended budget.

ESAS made architectural and system-level decisions in three months that took Apollo two years to make.  Before ESAS, only a few astronauts and JPLers had taken a cursory look at what became Ares I in that LPI paper with Griffin.  As a result, the requirements and designs for Ares I and Orion were suspect and highly unstable from the beginning (4-seg vs. 5-seg, air-started SSME vs. J-2X, 5.5m vs. 5.0m diameter, water vs. ground landing, etc.), further driving up the development costs of systems that were already breaking the bank.  It’s not Congress’s fault that the analysis that went into the Ares I decision was limited, rushed, and shoddy.

After ESAS, Griffin installed an ex-astronaut with no large aerospace systems development or large engineering workforce management experience — and with obvious conflicts to boot — to lead the organization that would be responsible for developing Ares I and Orion.  It’s not Congress’s fault that there was no experienced, conflict-free adult to control the costs of that sole-sourced circus after ESAS.

Griffin also allowed STS costs to rise when it should have been in flyout mode, further eroding his budget and schedule.  There was certainly pressure from STS supporters in Congress, but Griffin made the decisions to add budget back to STS, not Congress.

I have not run the numbers in years, but I’m sure appropriations failed to live up to the VSE budget.  But Griffin still had years and billions of dollars to get some actual lunar exploration hardware underway.  Instead, he frittered it away doing the things that the VSE told him not to do, and doing them poorly.  None of that was not Congress’s fault.

I’ll quote Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design:

Quote
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.

It was not Congress’s fault that Griffin did not exercise such common sense wisdom as NASA Administrator.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #34 on: 09/09/2020 03:46 am »
The 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.

I'm pretty sure Elon mentioned Michoud as a possible location for ITS production in 2016. I mean it can't worse than LA port, can it?

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.

SpaceX "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.

Quote
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.

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.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #35 on: 09/09/2020 04:16 am »
... 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?

$1B funding increase is not that small, another $1B increase on top of this would be enough for NASA to fund the cheapest two HLS providers.

Quote
Quote
4. 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.

Note we're discussing what the current administration has accomplished, not what might happen in the future. Maybe you're not aware, but at one time NASA was going to own the lander, that was the plan, and some faction in NASA was pushing for this. But it was defeated, and we got HLS which is a public private partnership with companies own the lander. While it is true that this may change again in the future (<1% chance in my estimate), we shouldn't discount what administration has accomplished, which is to change HLS procurement to public private partnership, for now. What you're saying is administration still needs to defend their winning in the future, but that doesn't diminish the win itself.

BTW the current HLS contract is not just for study, it covers hardware development, I commented on this in another thread.

Quote
Quote
5. Boeing got kicked out from both GLS and HLS competition[
6. Starship was selected into both CLPS and HLS, now officially part of Artemis

I'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.

Well the money is in SLS of course ;)

Let's not forget how this line of argument started in the first place: VSECOTSPE suggested that if current administration gets a 2nd term, they may try to cancel SLS and use its funding for lunar landers. You were saying "no, current administration hasn't done anything worthwhile, no reason to believe they can do anything in 2nd term", I'm saying "actually the current administration has done a lot in recent years", so canceling SLS to fund lunar lander as their next step is not that far fetched.

Quote
Quote
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.

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?

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.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #36 on: 09/09/2020 06:22 am »
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.

What is ACSC?
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #37 on: 09/09/2020 08:38 am »
SpaceX "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.

The author has a source for this and its on L2. But it is indirect information and was never publically confirmed. As such SpaceX supposedly initially proposing a "three element design" (which btw cannot directly be translated into your "3-stage lander") is what it is: an assumption.



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.

Yes, pick, as in "select". But picking is done at contract award. NASA at that time selected an option.

But your original post had NASA "specifically asking" for Starship:
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.

Specifically asking for a specific product or solution, prior to contract award, is a very major NO NO, given that it would imply a biased preference for a particular product, and by extension its supplier. Which under federal procurement rules is illegal. Just look at the mess Loverro is currently in.

Would the other bidders find out that NASA had specifically asked SpaceX to bid Starship, than NASA would now be knee-deep in lawsuits.

The whole purpose of an RFP is to lay down a framework of requirements and it is then up to the bidders to propose a solution or product to cover those requirements. But NASA specifically asking a supplier to bid a specific product is - both legally and morally - out of the question.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2020 08:44 am by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #38 on: 09/09/2020 08:53 am »
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.

Emphasis mine.

The answer is: NONE. Starship doesn't ship pork to certain states whereas SLS does.

To me it is incomprehensible that some people still don't understand what the true purpose of SLS is: a nation-wide jobs program.

That is the very reason why US Congress and the SLS prime contractors made d*mn sure that SLS contractros are in all 50 US states. By spreading the job benefits all over the country, and thus over pretty much all senators, it becomes almost impossible to kill SLS without an equally beneficial progam being ready to replace it. It is one of the lessons applied in 2004 and relearned in 2011. Nothing has fundamentally changed to prevent it from happening again.

Cancelling SLS will therefore IMO not result in a boatload of federal dollar becoming available for building lunar landers. Because those dollars will IMO be routed by US Congress to their next pet spaceflight project. Which is not Artemis btw, nor lunar landers.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2020 08:57 am by woods170 »

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #39 on: 09/09/2020 10:50 am »
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.

What is ACSC?

ACSC - Advanced Cislunar and Surface Capabilities (A NASA program)

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #40 on: 09/09/2020 01:38 pm »
For you younger guys information.  President Johnson spread NASA facilities around all over the country to get support in Congress and the Senate for NASA goals and objectives.  For instance, he moved their headquarters to Houston (Johnson was from Texas).  Then had facilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, California, etc.  The Saturn V was built all over the country. 

So, this has gone on for years.  It is not cost effective, but vote effective.  The set up in turn, has bogged down NASA.  Seems like all government agencies work this way to keep milking money from the government to stay in place by spending money in various states to keep from being cancelled.  Jobs in various states are the main reason for various government bureaucracies. 

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #41 on: 09/09/2020 05:24 pm »
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.

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.

I struggle to reconcile three different things:

    1. Your statement;

    2. Augustine Section 4.3.2, which reads, in part:

    Since Constellation’s inception, the program has faced a mismatch between funding and program content. Even when the program was first announced, its timely execution depended on funds becoming available from the retirement of the Space Shuttle (in 2010) and the decommissioning of the ISS (in early 2016). Since those early days, the program’s long-term budget outlook has been steadily reduced below the level expected by NASA. As shown in Figure 4.3.2-1, the Exploration Systems Architecture Study of 2005 assumed the availability of a steady-state human spaceflight budget for exploration of about $10 billion per year. In the subsequent FY 2009 and FY 2010 budgets, the long-term projections for funding have decreased. The FY 2010 President’s Budget Submittal suggests a steady state funding of about $7 billion per year.

    The shorter-term budget situation has had mixed impact on Constellation. The formal first post-ESAS budget was the FY 2007 budget, in which the funds available to Ares I and Orion were significantly lower than those anticipated during the time of ESAS. Subsequently, in the FY 2008 – FY 2010 budgets, the funds anticipated in the out years in the FY 2007 budget were made available to Ares I and Orion. In part this has been achieved by scope changes in other NASA programs.


    3. Augustine Figure 4.3.2-1, attached, which seems to show a shortfall of about $2 billion in FY 2009 (which was in progress at the time) and larger amounts in later years.

Section 4.3.2 seems to say there was a shortfall in FY 2007, full funding in FY 2009-10.  It's mum about FY 2008.  Figure 4.3.2-1 seems to indicate a large shortfall in FY 2009, which was already in progress.

What am I missing?

Quote
Wouldn'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.

I understand that if Artemis is to reach the moon, it's going to need a lot more money sustained over a number of years  What I don't understand is how an administration could be bound to ask for that money, much less how Congress could be bound to appropriate it.

Consider a hypothetical Biden administration is working on its FY 2022 budget.  Like most administrations since the early 1960's, it sees neither space in general nor Artemis in particular as a priority.  At the same time, it doesn't want a fight with Shuttle-state politicians.  So, it says, "Hey, everybody, we love Artemis, but because of Covid and everything, we are going to have to stretch it out a bit.  This year we'll fund Artemis at last year's levels, so there won't be any layoffs.  Don't worry, next year we promise we'll ramp it up."  Then, come FY 2023, some variation on the same theme occurs.  Why couldn't this happen, at least for the next couple of years?  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.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Liked: 4664
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #42 on: 09/10/2020 04:57 am »
VSECOTSPE already listed the headwinds SLS is facing... and I'll add to that the biggest elephant in the room: Starship.

Just to be clear since I was referenced in the same sentence, I don’t think Starship has or will have any impact on Orion/SLS.  SLS has never been competitively determined.  SLS has always been politically determined.

There have been legit A5/F9 and later F9H lunar architectures for many years, since shortly after the VSE, in fact.  They’ve never been pursued because NASA and the Administration did not refocus the STS workforce on the missing elements of those lunar architectures.  Instead, NASA and Congress have reflexively substituted a new launcher in place of A5/F9/F9H to keep the STS workforce employed.

As long as SLS or another launcher is being used to keep the STS workforce employed, competitive considerations — against A5/F9, F9H, VH, NG, Starship, or even real FTL starships — will have no bearing.

SLS lives and dies by its own performance and the political environment surrounding it.

What am I missing?

I’m probably not being clear enough.  Let me try again.

It’s not how much money you have.  It’s how you spend it.

If I give my kid my last $10 bill to visit the supermarket and buy $4 of milk and $4 of eggs for breakfast tomorrow, and he instead spends $7 on candy, then we’re not having breakfast tomorrow.

Griffin was given the task of building a human lunar exploration architecture:  a heavy launcher, a lander, and a modest crew capsule.  He was given a multi-billion dollar wedge that equaled the Apollo development budget plus inflation.

What did Griffin do instead with that budget wedge during the time he controlled it?  He tried to develop an unneeded new medium-lift launch vehicle and an unnecessarily large and complex crew capsule that were going to cost at least $30B through first flight to develop:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31717

Griffin bought candy instead of milk and eggs.  He bought a LEO launcher instead of actual lunar exploration elements.  That’s fundamentally why we don’t have a human lunar exploration program (or breakfast) today.

Even if it’s accurate, it really doesn’t matter that the long-term budget outlook for Constellation went from $10B/yr to $7B/yr in the deep outyears (2017+ in your Augustine chart), especially not when Griffin was spending his first $30B and his five-year tenure (from 2005-2009, almost all of which is not on that chart) reinventing the EELV.  Poorly.

Why spend $30B reinventing the EELV when, in the worst case, you can just buy a couple Delta IVs for $1B/yr, design your capsule to them, and get on with business of developing actual space exploration hardware and doing actual space exploration?  It’s just nutty.

I don’t know when or if NASA will get another chance.  But the next time the nation directs NASA to explore deep space with humans, NASA needs to bloody well get on with it using whatever tools the US has available.  Since the VSE, we’ve wasted nearly two decades and tens of billions of dollars on launcher and capsule sandboxes in a vain attempt to replicate existing capabilities that could have gotten us there years ago.

NASA needs to focus on the last mile.  Not repaving every mile.  It has to direct the bulk of its exploration budget and human resources towards the elements of the architecture that the nation is missing, not the elements that we already have.

Hope those numbers, analogies, and explanations help. 

Quote from: Proponent
What I don't understand is how an administration could be bound to ask for that money,

They’re not bound by the budgets of prior Administrations.  It’s just not how Administrations in general make budget decisions.

Unlike congressional appropriators, OMB and the White House make _multi-year_ budget decisions.  They see, know, and consider long-term implications.  That’s a big disincentive to camel’s-nose-under-the-tent and/or kick-the-can-down-the-road thinking.

Either they think they can afford the entire thing within the multi-year economic and budgetary parameters they’ve set or not.  To the extent possible, they don’t work in half-measures.  It’s not an honest way to deal with taxpayer money and government programs. 

If they can help it, they’re not going to fund Artemis at some suboptimal level for years, driving up its total costs.

If they can avoid it, they’re not going to wastefully fund Orion/SLS at a handful of billions of dollars per year with nowhere to go.

And, in fact, they’re not going to be interested in level-funding Artemis or NASA at all.  They will be looking for cuts.  Big ones.

The federal budget is running a deficit that it has not seen since the end of WWII.

Suggestions about massaging the Artemis plus-up to make its profile more acceptable or about passing the buck for a year or two are missing the point about the environment that these decisions will be made in early next year and going forward for some time to come.

Quote from: Proponent
“Don't worry, next year we promise we'll ramp it up."

First, there are anti-deficiency laws against making these kinds of “we’ll-fix-it-next-year” commitments.  You can’t commit a future congress to future liabilities when they have not been elected, convened, or voted on said liabilities yet.

But even if there wasn’t a legal issue, I don’t think this would happen because the Administration won’t have a handle on the pandemic by early next year, nevertheless the longer-term economic fallout.  They won’t know for some years, plural.

The historical magnitude of the budget deficit and the pandemic and economic uncertainty surrounding it will drive historically conservative budget decisions for most discretionary programs for some time to come.

Quote from: Proponent
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.

They’re not bound by it.  But any way you massage Artemis, it still requires a multi-year, multi-billion dollar add to NASA’s topline when the Administration will be looking to reduce NASA’s topline.

Given the pandemic that will still be ongoing, given the economic fallout that will be large but still unbounded, and given the deficits that the federal budget is already running, I think the Artemis plus-up for HLS gets zeroed and its other elements (Gateway, Orion, SLS) are taken to the woodshed to get NASA in line with other reductions across most discretionary departments and programs.

I think the only way this can be avoided is if Artemis is rethought to bring its costs down dramatically.  I think that means retaining HLS and Gateway in some form while pursuing less expensive alternatives to Orion and SLS.  Hopefully Bridenstine or Lueders has someone working on such alternatives and/or hopefully the relevant OMB examiner is talented and caring enough to bring such an option forward.  But those are unknowns.  We can’t bet on either.

Quote from: Proponent
it doesn't want a fight with Shuttle-state politicians

Regardless of whether the Administration terminates some or all of Artemis, I think its supporters in Congress will have a hard time restoring the cuts given the highly competitive bloodbath that will be occurring across most discretionary accounts, given the recent SLS breach, and given years of poor performance and management on Orion and SLS documented in report after report.  Even more so if Shelby’s status is reduced and/or Orion/SLS have more delays or high-visibility failures.  And especially since NASA will be competing against health R&D plus-ups related to the pandemic

I don’t think the Administration will have to do much to see these NASA cuts through.  I think all the sharks competing for a piece of a smaller pie in that congressional appropriations bloodbath will do it for them.  And 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.

Hope this makes things clearer.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1436
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #43 on: 09/10/2020 05:40 am »
...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.

Although I haven’t gone back very far in this thread, I did notice the logic of your last post... But we’ve been waiting for decades for the “detractors” to act. And they haven’t. They never will. This issue just doesn’t loom large enough in their personal schemes of greed and avarice. The FUNDAMENTAL mistake we make about the representatives we elect is that they have some goal other than their own enrichment and empowerment. The only way to explain the current situation vis. NASA is that our elected representatives are deeply uninterested in the things you and I care about. In fact they don’t give a good expletive-deleted for the future of humanity in space, much less the most cost-effective way to ensure it. Sad but true. The only way out is a “madman” with sufficient resources to act independently of the ruling political paradigm. It’s a risky play, yes. Most definitely not a guaranteed win. But, logically, the only alternative to stasis.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Liked: 4664
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #44 on: 09/10/2020 03:55 pm »
we’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.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2020 04:03 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #45 on: 09/10/2020 04:28 pm »
So the SLS has become a political football.  Too many jobs to cancel.  Too big for most launches. Too expensive.  Not enough funding to be successful.  Too much funding for real results.  No one in congress or senate wants to touch it. 

Reality will kick in within the next 5 years.  The Federal government is in really deep debt.  We are either going to have hyperinflation (budget cuts), or high taxes to offset debt payments.  High taxes will suck any growth out of the economy.  Hyperinflation will suck money out of peoples expenses.  If we go "socialist" we may have price fixes, then shortages of basic items because manufacturers can't afford to make them (Venezuela).  The only real way out is for the economy to grow faster than government spending. 

Any way you look at it SLS is doomed to only a few launches, then canned like Saturn V.  So, why continue with the SLS spending madness?  Can it now and shift to distributed launch.  Then more people and companies will have a stake in any success and may be able to ride out possible future economic hard times. 

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #46 on: 09/10/2020 04:54 pm »
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.

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?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #47 on: 09/10/2020 06:00 pm »
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?

Given the glacial pace of China's human spaceflight program (6 flights in 17 years) and the fact that it seems to be concentrating on LEO stations for the time being, I think it's going to be a while before China puts people on the moon.  Of course, that doesn't mean that the China card won't continue to be played.

Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #48 on: 09/10/2020 06:01 pm »
we’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.

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.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #49 on: 09/10/2020 06:46 pm »
we’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.

You don't necessarily terminate programs in order to "pay for the economic recovery". That is just shooting yourself in the foot. SLS is shovel ready, some bridge that hasn't even been planned/designed/permitted isn't.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Liked: 4664
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #50 on: 09/10/2020 09:25 pm »
VSECOTSPE, your view is that the US government response to the pandemic, etc., will be "austerity" measures?

No.  There will be more spending for public health measures and R&D in response to the pandemic.  There will be more spending to help households and businesses survive the economic downturn.  There will eventually be economic stimulus spending.  Spending in those areas will not be “austere”.

But spending in those areas in combination with dramatic declines in tax revenues from the economic downturn has driven the federal deficit to levels not seen since the US was waging the final campaigns of WWII.

That magnitude of deficit cannot be sustained.  It forces the federal government to borrow at levels that crowd out investment in state/local governments and private stocks and bonds.  And that’s really dangerous to the economy.

So there will be austerity in other discretionary programs and accounts to bring the deficit back into some semblance of economic balance.  NASA will fall into that category.

Austerity is not an either/or question.  It’s a question of where.  There can be, and often is, profligate spending on the national priorities of the time while other federal spending is held back or reduced.

For example, even in the federal R&D budget, there are clear priorities in each era.  Space was far and away the federal R&D budget priority in the 1960s, and NASA benefitted accordingly.  In the 1970s, it was the Energy Crisis and the Department of Energy was the golden child.  In the 1980s, it was defense R&D and related accounts at the Department of Defense.  And so on.

The 2020s, or at least a good part of them, will be defined by the pandemic and its economic fallout.  It’s hard to see how a human lunar return effort would be a priority in that era.

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.

This argument has been mentioned upstream.  I think it fails to recognize how the economic environment is different this time.  The scale of the federal deficit, the scale of the economic damage so far, and the ongoing uncertainty about the pandemic’s duration and ultimate economic toll make this turn on the economic merry-go-round fundamentally changed from the last one.

I think this argument also fails to recognize that SLS was new and unblemished back then.  There really was no Ares V program beyond some paper studies.  What Congress actually did was maintain Ares I contracts until they could be repurposed into a new HLV.  Back then, Ares I was Griffin’s wasteful detour into a medium-lift LEO launcher, while SLS would finally get NASA on the proper heavy lift path to human deep space exploration.  After years and years of delays, overuns, breaches, and well-documented mismanagement, SLS has accrued lots of warts.  It no longer has that new car smell.

Will these factors and others be enough to effect reform or bring about termination?  I think there’s a good shot.  But we’ll see.

SLS is shovel ready, some bridge that hasn't even been planned/designed/permitted isn't.

SLS is the opposite of a “shovel-ready” government project that increases employment in support of an economic recovery.  Even if it’s kept around, SLS will shed, not increase, jobs over the next year or two as it transitions from development phase to production/operations.  Same goes for Orion. 

I have no idea if infrastructure spending will be part of an economic recovery package (certainly seems reasonable).  But the argument for making Orion/SLS part of such a package doesn’t make sense:

Option 1) Continue to spend billions each year on a couple ailing NASA programs that have to to lose jobs anyway and that require billions more in NASA spending to actually get a couple astronauts on the Moon, an achievement that will have little or no economic impact, or

Option 2) Redirect billions to projects that will need to dramatically ramp up employment and that could reduce infrastructure inefficiencies that have long held back US economic growth.

The preferred option seems obvious.

Quote from: sdsds
... China. Isn't that card even more powerful now than it has been in the past?

IMO, no, the “beat China back to the surface of the Moon” argument is not compelling to most US decision makers, for a few reasons.

One, the US achieved that goal 50 years ago.  Or 60+ years ago by the time China lands a couple taikonauts on the Moon.  It’s not a race to be first the way it was against the Soviets.

Two, there’s no competition with China in the kind of rocketry that is needed to put astronauts on the Moon the way there was with the USSR during the Cold War.  Apollo was war by other means.  After Sputnik and Gagarin, Apollo showed that the US had the technical and organizational capability to launch bigger, more powerful, and more accurate rockets than the USSR of the general kind that could also used to put nuclear warheads on targets.  No doubt, the US and China are competing today in military technologies like long-range hypersonic cruise missiles.  But the days of Cold War ballistic missile competition are long gone.

Three, who knows when or if China will actually mount a human lunar effort.  Last year, their space agency head talked about a 2029-2030 landing.  But there’s still no lunar effort in China beyond the robotic Chang’e missions.  Moreover, what’s actually on China’s human space program books is another LEO space station, which seems incongruous with a human lunar landing in a decade, especially given China’s historically low taikonaut mission rate and slow, deliberate pace.

All that said, I think competition or cooperation with China could be a sustaining justification for the US civil space program.  But first, the US has to have a coherent foreign policy with respect to China.

If we want to compete with China, then greater US/western cooperation with South China Sea and Pacific Rim countries on China’s periphery would make a lot of sense.  Bringing countries like India, Australia, and Indonesia into our traditional western civil space alliance, along with a more central role for Japan, could bring benefits to the geopolitical competition in that area of the world that would justify a bigger NASA program.

Alternately, if we want to cooperate with China, then there’s probably no better way to obtain greater transparency and insight on China’s rather opaque space programs than to start working with them.

The right overall US foreign policy approach to China is beyond my ken, training, and pay grade.  But if we had a coherent approach, there’s probably a role for NASA.  But I don’t think NASA’s role would be spoiling a Chinese effort to replicate Apollo 60+ years later, assuming China actually ever mounts such an effort.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2020 09:27 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1436
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #51 on: 09/11/2020 03:26 am »
There absolutely will NOT be austerity in federal spending, no matter the rational basis for it. Such a thing is politically impossible. In the modern political and media environment (but I repeat myself) a politician can only be castigated for NOT spending money.

NASA funding will be cut, but only for those programs that actually appear promising to a rational observer. The least promising programs will actually receive more money.

No, I am not a Kafka fan. But we are living in Kafka World. Think I'm exaggerating? Look at the funding histories for Commercial Crew and SLS versus results, look at the funding differential between Orbital and SpaceX for commercial resupply versus results and capabilities, look at the funding differential between Boeing and SpaceX for commercial crew versus results, look at the funding differential for the three HLS study contractors versus who has flown and who hasn't, look at the funding differential in the recent DoD launch contracts versus which rocket has flown and which hasn't, and... just keep watching. And continue to be amazed.

Offline Alvian@IDN

Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #52 on: 09/11/2020 03:40 pm »
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-490298
Quote
‘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.”
« Last Edit: 09/11/2020 03:40 pm by Alvian@IDN »
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48150
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81636
  • Likes Given: 36932
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #53 on: 09/11/2020 09:18 pm »
Some thoughts from the former NASA administrator about what may happen if there’s a new administration (he stresses he has no formal role on the campaign):

Quote
Bolden talks expectations for Biden’s space policy
By JACQUELINE FELDSCHER  09/11/2020 07:00 AM EDT

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-space/2020/09/11/bolden-talks-expectations-for-bidens-space-policy-490298

I’m posting in this thread due to this quote:

Quote
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.”


Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #54 on: 09/11/2020 10:43 pm »
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-490298
Quote
‘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.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #55 on: 09/11/2020 11:21 pm »
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-490298
Quote
‘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.

As (much) lower cost transportation systems become operational the more glaring the difference in cost will be.

But the SLS has one advantage besides the ability to throw mass into space - it will be the only vehicle "certified" to carry the Orion spacecraft. So if there is no need for the Orion, or the Orion can hitch a ride on something else, then the reason to keep the SLS becomes less likely.

Still, cancelling the SLS requires Congress to take an affirmative action, and so far it has been reluctant to even review the SLS program. The latest program cost increase has triggered a mandatory Congressional review so that may be the first inkling we get as to what the wishes of the next Congress will be.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #56 on: 09/11/2020 11:53 pm »
Right now Congress isn't doing anything.  Even another Covid relief bill can't be made.  I don't foresee anything happening as far as NASA is concerned until after the first of the year. 


Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #57 on: 09/12/2020 12:25 am »
 We should have been back to {moon} base-ics 30 or forty years ago, so let's keep things rolling! The last thing we need now is another dumb commission, another lame "Study" or more goofing over Mars vs. Moon  vs. Asteroid.
  Stick to a program - but, sure later in the decade the switch to other methods will naturally occur. In the interim, I, If I was in charge  ::) would use SLS to get pre-outfitted lunar base stuff in orbit; and to put large new ISS-Beta modules in orbit. Meantime ppp and pure commercial can do the space tug things, etc. and get those big pieces where they need to go. Artemis-? I'm not the biggest fan, but let's give it a quick make-over and at least try hard to hold to 2024-2025 range. Money ? Seriously ? ! We just created a few trillion $ slush fun- Double NASA's budget, give a $ boost to New Space, and No One will even notice the difference. Revitalize unmanned probes and earth/solar observing for fun , and for damn good ecological survival reasons. Put NASA-TV on all cable outlets and OTA tv in every market you can...
  Go SpaceX, but I don't think the Big Boy is going to be ready as fast as most people seem to think.
 This member of the public wants excitement, and a quick build-up to 50 or more people living up there, a la Antarctica.
Enough screwing around already- no more damn studies. What's up with "we will man-rate [such and such ] big rocket later? Why not rate these things that way from the beginning ? We need flexibility. We are so vehicle or organization oriented that we can't see the forest for the trees.
 Well, that's my 75 cents tonight. PS, you wouldn't believe how many times I had to use spell-checker.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #58 on: 09/12/2020 01:29 am »
Right now Congress isn't doing anything.

People are likely assuming the President elected in November 2020 will present a 2022 budget proposal to Congress in February or March of 2021. Congress will then completely disregard that proposal and start working on a budget of its own.... That's when the SLS/Orion line items could potentially get zeroed out.

H.R. 1158 is providing funding for NASA now. It appropriated $1.4B for Orion, $2.6B for SLS and $0.6B for Exploration Ground Systems supporting SLS. Combined those total approximately 1000 times less than the cost of the Covid relief measures.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2020 01:31 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #59 on: 09/12/2020 02:12 am »
Give SLS its far better upper stage, bring up it's flight rate to (partially) justify the expense - or cancel it. Let it try and do what it is best at doing - shifting big payloads beyond Earth - and let it eventually be superseded by superior machinery. Or kill it now to save big bucks later. There appears to be no middle ground with this thing... :(
« Last Edit: 09/12/2020 07:29 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #60 on: 09/12/2020 02:21 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.

Quote
The 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...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #61 on: 09/12/2020 06:33 am »
Well, thanks to Gen. Bolden, I no longer need to type a super long response. Will Starship has impact on SLS?  “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.”, the answer couldn't be clearer.

Just to add some quick points before mods get angry:
1. Spreading work around the country is not some high technology that only Boeing/LM can do, SLS is not the only program which can do this. Just because one specific new space company avoided doing this doesn't mean others couldn't do it, in fact we're seeing others do exactly this.
2. As for what comes after SLS, that's for another thread. But I need to point out that after Constellation and Shuttle, all the pork money didn't go into new pork program (SLS/Orion), a small but significant portion of the money went to technology development and Commercial Crew, as the compromise between congress and administration dictated. So I don't expect all the money from SLS/Orion went to another pork program, the balance of power is changing, so will the distribution of the money.
3. Politics are not done in vacuum, it will be impacted by reality, as the pandemic shows very clearly, congress can pontificate all they want, but when covid comes, they have to change their behavior to adapt to it, because it is a force of nature and won't adapt to congress. The same applies to Starship, there's no ignoring it, because it's going to be loud, both literally and figuratively.

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #62 on: 09/12/2020 10:15 am »
 I would just like to clarify a couple things. First, I full agree that SLS, or "the Moose" as I like to call it has been an ill-conceived, mis-managed program from the start. I got it! 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. All I'm saying, if chances are you are gonna get 4 to 10 flights out of the thing - get something of value out of the deal, why waste them-make them count! I fully agree with Matt on the ridiculous "Flight-rate" issue, it's truly crazy.
 Most people I ran into on a daily basis, pre-covid, supported a strong space program. If told a moon base prevents junior from getting a good teacher at their school, or prevents the potholes being fixed, to use an eternal cliche, of course they will say it's a lower priority! I have a close family member with a doctorate in public administration who spent lengthy periods of her career involved in surveys and polling issues and she says you can make them come out however you need them to fit your agenda. Political will and leadership is required to achieve big things, and this was sorely lacking in the Ares into SLS fiasco.
  I do stand by my belief that the BFS/Starship/Big Boy will take a good bit longer to get where everyone thinks it is going- it's going to be very tough. It will be great when it does eventually get there though. 

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #63 on: 09/12/2020 03:47 pm »
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.

The SLS is just a mass mover, like all the other mass movers currently moving mass to space. I have no doubt that NASA and Boeing can build a safe mass mover, but it's just yet another mass mover. So yes, there have always been alternatives. The one I cite the most is the 2009 study ULA did:

- A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture

One of the justifications many people have for the SLS is that it can carry ~8m diameter cargo, which is nice of course, but there is no law that says we need to base our exploration hardware on 8m diameter hardware. The 450mT ISS was built out of modules that can fit inside of a 5m diameter fairing, so obviously our existing fleet of commercial launchers could support any goals we have in space if we use in-space assembly and refueling.

And of course Congress did not do a study of alternatives when they created the SLS, so there is literally no justification for building the size rocket that NASA is currently building.

But because the SLS is just a mass mover it can do all the things that are required of mass movers, and it has the unique advantage of being deemed good enough to carry humans.

However, to your original assertion, we have always had alternatives...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #64 on: 09/12/2020 04:33 pm »
 Ron, I'll cry uncle, you are getting me on a technicality. The mindset of the big-shot class, [excuse the pun], was that we need a heavy lifter; and that it was probably a good thing for Marshall to be in charge of it. :'(

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 3534
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #65 on: 09/12/2020 04:58 pm »
Way too much politics in this thread, posted by members who should know better.
This was posted 3 pages ago, y'all.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2020 04:58 pm by jadebenn »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #66 on: 09/12/2020 06:29 pm »
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.

Quote
The 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...  ;)

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. The greater the weight a particular voter places on a subject, the more weight that viewpoint carries. As such, the ~40,000 people that have posted here will have significantly more weight on this subject than a random sample of 40,000 citizens. For instance, the majority may think that human space flight should not be funded or it should be low priority, but if they don't use their votes to enforce it and instead are voting on some other issue, their viewpoint will have little or no effect. Unfortunately, the poll you link doesn't try to gauge how likely each individual who holds each stance will factor that into a voting decision. For all we know, the few percentage of polled people that think that landing on the moon should be a top priority are single issue voters in which case you will likely lose if you go against their minority viewpoint. That may, at first glance, seem "unfair", but the single issue space voters have less or no weight in other areas of public policy.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2020 06:34 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #67 on: 09/13/2020 04:01 am »
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%.

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.

The Direct guys years ago, said you could start with 3 SSME's and 2 4seg solids and get 70 tons to LEO with no upper stage.  Direct was to be upgraded to 5 core engines, 2 4seg solids, with 1 J2X upper stage and get 130 tons to LEO.  So this is what Congress mandated. 

Instead, NASA was afraid if they went with the smaller version first, they wouldn't get the 130 ton version.  So they compromised with 4 engine core, but 5 seg solids.   The Direct people had it figured out.  Safe, simple, soon was easy.  Take the 3 engines off shuttle, put them on the core, then put Orion on top and you can get it to orbit, or 70 tons of cargo.  The 3 engines would have been in a diagonal, with 2 engines added later on the other diagonal to make the square with a center engine.  Even 5 seg solids could be added later with the upper stage for large cargo loads.  NASA didn't go this route even though congress said a minimum of 70 tons then upgrade to 130 tons.  SLS does neither.  Too expensive for just an Orion launch to LEO.  Not enough for the cargo carrier they wanted.  So they had to stretch the core for one more engine instead of a future 2 more engines.  They had to go with 5 seg solids because ATK, now NG did away with the 4 seg tooling.  Lots of mistakes along the way. 

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #68 on: 09/13/2020 04:54 am »
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...  ;)

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.

Let me cut to the chase here - no one votes for a Representative or Senator primarily because of their views on NASA or space exploration. No one voted for or against Trump because of his views about NASA, nor do I suspect anyone will vote for or against Biden for the same.

NASA and space exploration are not primary issues that concern Americans.

So no one is going to start a recall effort if Trump or Biden create a commission to review where NASA is currently at. Again, for those programs that are creating value for America there should be no concern...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #69 on: 09/14/2020 11:25 am »
I will slightly disagree with the above.
It is correct to say that spaceflight is not a PRIMARY concern or PRIMARY voting issue for most Americans.
However, it is a major concern. Thanks to a rather historically interesting combination of factors ranging from the existence of SpaceX, to climate change, to over population concerns, to neo progressive anti humanist theory, to nationalist alt right theory, and to concern about Chinese dominance of the world economy, the truth is interest and concern over space exploration plans is high and is growing every year.

Also thanks to increasing integration of social media, new forms of technology reporting such as tech YouTubers, and increased availability of in depth reporting from media outlets like NSF Ars technica and many others, it is now very easy for the average person to have major space news shoved in front them based off algorithm alone.

My point here is that if you pull the plug on all of Artemis people are going to see it and people are going to be mad about it. They don't care about things like the launch vehicle or the details or minutia that we as users here know are all key items, but they DO care about whether we are actually going to do something off planet or not.

A cancelation of BEO efforts by NASA by a future administration would be immensely unpopular, would make an enemy of many in Congress, and would be political fuel for your opponents during your re-election.
And this is even true under possible austerity conditions in the not so distant future.

I do not think that the BEO program will be canceled anytime soon or in the next decade, it may radically change shape and scope (and launch vehicle of course) but too many people are watching now and too many other powerful interests are invested in it both public and private sector.

So short version: it's not a primary concern but if you came along as a future president and canceled all off world HSF planning you'd probably not win re election just due purely to how many political enemies you'd make and how much fuel you'd give to the other side. You would forever be that "guy who killed NASA" ect.
My two cents only ofc.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #70 on: 09/14/2020 11:42 am »
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?'.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #71 on: 09/23/2020 09:29 am »
NASA 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.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #72 on: 09/23/2020 12:18 pm »
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?'.

I would disagree only as to Apollo's major purpose:  putting an American on the moon before the Soviets did so really was a high-priority goal.  There were plenty of pork-barrel interests in the program too, but the stated objective really did matter to powerful people.  Apollo also had the advantage that since so many of the facilities needed did not yet exist, pork-barrel politics could play out through decisions as to where to build the right facilities.  Now, on the other hand, existing facilities must be used whether they're right for the job or not.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #73 on: 09/23/2020 03:03 pm »
NASA 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.

It's almost like they didn't care what it did, only that it be big...  ;)

Let's also remember that the Senate, where the SLS was created, never asked NASA what it needed, and never held hearings to find out what a SHLV should be. Rumors at the time said that Michael Griffin was providing input privately, which wouldn't be surprising, but I've never seen anything to substantiate that happening.

Still, the Senate created some very specific requirements for the SLS, without NASA input or concurrence, so it should not be a surprise if any of those time and capability specifications turned out to be wrong.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #74 on: 09/23/2020 03:17 pm »
SLS is like the "Stick".  It is taking a long time to die.  In 5 years or so, you will have not only Starship, but Vulcan and possibly Vulcan heavy, New Glenn, and it is quite possible that Blue Origin starts development on New Armstrong.  I wouldn't be surprised if Blue took over the tooling for SLS core and adapted it for a New Armstrong with as many BE-4 engines as they could get under it.  The SLS facility had the capability of making the 10m Saturn V, and I think even a 12m NOVA rocket.  It would keep Louisiana congressmen and senators happy as well as Alabama delegation since the BE-4 is being made in Huntsville.  Solids would be out though so Utah wouldn't be happy. 

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #75 on: 09/24/2020 09:35 am »
The SLS facility had the capability of making the 10m Saturn V, and I think even a 12m NOVA rocket.

Ceiling height at Michoud is 12.2 m (40 ft) which was considered to be too low for Nova (Saturn C-8), which was 14.6 m (48 ft) wide.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollomon/apollo6.pdf

« Last Edit: 09/24/2020 09:36 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline RoadWithoutEnd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #76 on: 05/16/2021 07:26 pm »
The American taxpayer, who pays for these things, doesn't agree with you.

The American taxpayer is unaware of how inexpensive NASA programs are, both as a fraction of the total budget, and in comparison to other spending.  When informed, they tend to be much more amenable.

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.

Our elected representatives could not care less how the average American feels about spending priorities.  The public barely exists in the political calculations that determine space policy.  Good policies happen from philosophical people who recognize the value of space to this country and the world; bad policies happen from narrow-minded bureaucrats and corporate gamers playing angles for money; and none of them are motivated by polls.

Because voters don't vote for or against space.  It's too far removed from their intuition and experience.

That will, hopefully, change in coming years. 
Walk the road without end, and all tomorrows unfold like music.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #77 on: 06/02/2021 04:50 pm »
SLS and Artemis.

Artemis does not need SLS to survive.

By 2025 there should be 3 SHLV's (a launch vehicle with >50mt of payload capability to LEO) available besides SLS: FH, NG and Starship. Any one can handle the transport problems with a little encouragement. Vulcan can also handle many of the same problems such as crew transport from Earth to Lunar NRLO. Just need that ACES like upper stage features for long duration cryo storage on the Centaur. Such that a Centaur is launched as a payload loaded with 30mt of prop on one flight. Then sits in orbit awaiting the launch of another Vulcan carrying the Orion. The Centaur docs nose to nose with the Orion then the existing Centaur that the Orion launched with which is still attached fires and runs to prop completion then detaches. The stack reverses and the Centaur on the nose then fires to finish TLI. For simple Orion delivery to NRLO. 2 Vulcan launches are likely to cost in total <$400M. It does not really require SLS. And especially later with Vulcan, FH, NG, and Starship. All capable with as I put it a little encouragement as in the engineering and then actual adapter hardware being built to accomplish the missions.

It is always possible that some pure commercial BEO crewed capability to Lunar orbit is built that replaces Orion and encompases an easier integration and mission scenario as well as cheaper. This could also happen in the post 2025 timeframe.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2021 04:59 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #78 on: 06/02/2021 06:00 pm »
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. 

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #79 on: 06/02/2021 09:46 pm »
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.
If the criteria were based on economics and logic for sure you are right. But if that was the case shouldn't SLS have been dropped a long time ago? The trouble is SLS is a political beast and the critters are very good at half truths, grandstanding, arm waving and pork pumping. I hope SLS flies at least a few times, but after that it really would be best for it to be retired. My fear is that it will just continue on with ever more outlandish reasoning. There again perhaps there is a certain critical mass of reality that will defeat even the critters...
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #80 on: 06/05/2021 04:05 pm »
The key item that has yet to happen is a plethora of commercial SHLVs operational existence. At the moment only FH is operational. And it has because of the prop used in it's US limited BEO "legs" to compete head to head with SLS. But once such LVs become operational as New Glen, Starship, and a distributive launch capability on Vulcan and that head to head BEO capability competition becomes a reality. It is just that these others are just as close to operational status as SLS. By Q1 2022. BTW that is just 6 months from now.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2021 04:34 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #81 on: 06/05/2021 06:30 pm »
No one was developing super heavy, much less heavy launch vehicles back when Constellation started.  Even when SLS was started, there was only Delta IV heavy at what 25-28 tons to LEO?  During the foot dragging by Boeing for SLS, FH was developed, Vulcan is now being developed, New Glenn is delayed, but still in the mix.  Now Starship is being developed.  The Superheavy booster SpaceX is developing could launch other things beside Starship.  It gives us a booster more powerful than SLS and with a stripped down Starship made into a second Stage, could launch at least 150-200 tons to LEO at a much lower price. 

Yes, they are almost complete with SLS, but so is SpaceX almost ready to go orbital with Starship.  Getting New Glenn and Vulcan orbital should be a priority for NASA, just because it gives them more competition and redundancy in case something goes wrong.  What is something goes wrong with SLS, will there be a long stand down like twice with the Shuttle?  With other launchers and distributed launch, it makes NASA's job easier to keep going.  Antares had Atlas V to fall back on for ISS supply, or they could have doubled up SpaceX's launches. 

Remember some of the older congressmen and senators though only the government could build big things and private companies wouldn't do it if there wasn't a profit.  Musk and Bezos to a certain extent, have other goals, that couldn't be done several years ago.  This is kind of like WWII.  We built big bombers, which the government financed.  Then after the war, the companies switched to large passenger airliners, unheard of before the war. 

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #82 on: 06/05/2021 07:57 pm »
The tooling and tech has been just sitting there for a couple of decades. It had been waiting for someone to apply it. Not is there only one but several.

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #83 on: 06/07/2021 02:29 pm »
SLS and Artemis.

Artemis does not need SLS to survive.
Counterpoint: Artemis needs SLS to survive, because Artemis for all intents and purposes is SLS.

'Artemis' is three existing programmes (SLS, Orion, and DSH/DSG/LOP-G/Gateway) with a new brand-name stuck above all three. Orion and SLS go hand in hand: killing the Big Booster and leaving Orion intact was tried already with Constellation, and SLS sprang up almost immediately as a totally-not-Aries-V substitute for Orion. Gateway exists as a destination for launching Orion. To kill off SLS means killing Orion, or you just end up creating the 'Future Launch System' that just happens to use a pair of solid boosters attached to a core composed of an 8.4m diameter LH2/LOX tank constructed at Michoud. And without SLS and Orion, Gateway and HLS have no reason to exist in and of themselves. Returning to the moon, launching Orion on SLS, or even launching SLS isn't the programme goal: the programme goal is to ensure companies and institutions across multiple states remain employed. Any rockets that launch as a result are purely secondary. The people employed may very much want to see their work actually accomplish something, but the history of NASP, Venturestar, ALS, NLS, SLI, OSPP, and so on does not bode well for even multi-billion-dollar space vehicle programmes actually producing flight hardware.
If you manage to spend to political capital to actually cancel SLS, concerns 1, 2, and 3 of Congress will be to figure out how to keep the billions slated for various contractors and NASA sites flowing, and somewhere at the bottom of the list of concerns will be "HLS? Oh, that's just a rounding error to programme costs, cancel it until we get this mess sorted out".

SLS was not borne out of technical merit, it cannot be killed pure by technical deficiency.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #84 on: 06/08/2021 06:07 pm »
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.

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #85 on: 06/08/2021 09:05 pm »
NASA is also encouraging commercial involvement. We haven't seen a clear plan laid out for what a commercial mission would look like, but it is probable that SLS won't be involved since SLS missions are spoken for, no?
« Last Edit: 06/08/2021 09:06 pm by DigitalMan »

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Liked: 1197
  • Likes Given: 3417
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #86 on: 06/08/2021 09:33 pm »
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.

I tend to agree with your framing of the SLS situation. 

One part of your metaphor that may/maynot apply ...  Shuttle got canceled well before a proper replacement(s) arrived.    It's hard to predict if/when SLS runs out of steam as a program, but I'm not convinced that having a one for one replacement for SLS is necessary.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #87 on: 06/12/2021 10:04 am »
Once 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. Congress has always viewed HSF as a political football to be used for jobs programs and electioneering. Nothing has changed this perception of government to human spaceflight.

The ability of the US to send people to space with their own vehicles safely and economically should be a national priority the same as their access to the air and the seas. Instead, the US wilfully relinquished this ability for years at a time - twice. Once after Apollo and again after the shuttle.

People saying that Artemis has any kind of inertia as a program to land people on the moon are blindly ignoring the majority of attempts at developing human space flight in the US. Artemis is 'safe' until the first few landings. After that, there is nothing to stop Congress from cancelling it and we wait yet another fifty years for the next chapter in human spaceflight to occur.

If it wasn't for Space X and the other new space ventures, this tiresome and sad cycle could repeat indefinitely.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2021 10:05 am by tea monster »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #88 on: 06/12/2021 10:21 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.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #89 on: 06/12/2021 11:09 pm »
...
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.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2021 11:10 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #90 on: 06/12/2021 11:34 pm »
...
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. :)

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #91 on: 06/12/2021 11:52 pm »
...
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. :)
In 2016 it was also very optimistic to believe that there would be multiple tourist flights per year to LEO. But it happened. 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.

Sorry we are wandering to far away from SLS policy. But having a viable alternative is a direct impact on future policy.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2021 11:54 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #92 on: 06/13/2021 01:38 pm »
Once 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.

Sadly, I agree.  It seems like Apollo was cancelled to free up funds for elective war in Vietnam, a profit center for many companies in the aerospace industry.  Elective war by the USG has continued in nearly all subsequent administrations, effectively starving our space industry.

Hopefully, SpaceX and the other private companies can demonstrate the profit potential in space tourism.  Hopefully, we'll have a hotel on a lunar base before too long.

NASA needs to put accomplishment before profit.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #93 on: 06/13/2021 01:58 pm »

NASA needs to put accomplishment before profit.

NASA and the USG have no real reason for a lunar base.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #94 on: 06/13/2021 02:18 pm »

NASA 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.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #95 on: 06/13/2021 02:31 pm »

NASA 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.

Quote
The 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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #96 on: 06/13/2021 05:46 pm »
Recent NASA-related legislation and communications have more prominently featured China. Nelson played that card in testimony, and is mentioned in, e.g., the Endless Frontiers Act and related legislation. If there is an impetus beyond "realistic" need to support Artemis et. al., there are the clues.

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #97 on: 06/13/2021 06:41 pm »
I think because Artemis is favoring sustainable missions and commercial involvement, I don't think it is possible to know what the outcome regarding bases/longer-term presence will be at this stage (as opposed to a couple weeks), since NASA might be only one part of the equation.

Offline RoadWithoutEnd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #98 on: 06/14/2021 01:22 pm »
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.

I would say it's the other way around.  Artemis needs SpaceX as an accelerator.  Without SpaceX, Artemis would default to just the Gateway program with no landings.  By partnering with NASA on HLS, SpaceX is taking responsibility to drag the Program of Record kicking and screaming toward actually doing what it claims, and in the process will probably be delayed by the brittleness of political requirements.

The SLS constituency sees no added benefit from lunar landings. Gateway assembly, supply, and crew is as far as their financial interest runs, so they would probably have forced the program to stop there, quietly ruling out landings as politically untenable in the same way the post-Apollo / Shuttle contractor base had ruled out returning to the Moon.  Lander funding would be kept low enough to never let the schedule converge, since having such a thing would publicly highlight the irrelevance of both Gateway and SLS/Orion. 

Even other contractors would make that painfully obvious, since SLS is impossible to use in any bid where cost is a factor, so the idea was to keep any lander program trapped in endless budget loops until quietly canceled as unsustainable.  That's what Congress was trying to do when they intentionally underfunded HLS: They thought their budgets determine whether lunar landing will happen at all, but found out that it will actually just determine their own relevance in setting the lunar agenda. 

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.
« Last Edit: 06/14/2021 01:25 pm by RoadWithoutEnd »
Walk the road without end, and all tomorrows unfold like music.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #99 on: 06/14/2021 04:46 pm »
I didn't think of it, but this whole short-changing Artemis could be a precursor to cancelling the whole program. If not that, then they would trickle funds to keep various jobs going. That this approach would stretch the program out by years would not be a big deal to Congress (based on previous incidents - i.e.: commercial crew). The right money was going to the right constituents, so flying hardware was just something that happened as a by-product to all this.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #100 on: 06/16/2021 07:33 pm »
There is one fear I do have and that is if Artemis I SLS fails on launch. What political firestorm will result and will all the associated pieces survive? Orion, Gateway, HLS... And of course would SLS survive?

Considering that In order to get Orion to the Moon only takes 3 Vulcan launches: 2 with a Centaur DEC as a payload (used currently as the US on Atlas V fro Starliner) with a few simple mods to extendon orbit cryo storage and a docking capability to the Orion and to another Centaur DEC. The Vulcan can launch the 2 Centaur DEC's in the 2 previous months to the launch of the Orion. The Centaurs then sit full of prop after docking with each other until Orion is launched and then docks with them. The 2 Centaur DEC's and Orion as payload has a 4+kmDV capability. Such that not only can it do TLI it can also do the Lunar orbit insertion with the Centaur DEC. Once a Centaur DEC has exhausted it prop it detaches and the next finished the burn. Once in Lunar orbit the the second DEC detaches. Total Cost of launch ~$750M ($250M each for NASA launch price of all up maxed out Vulcan).

So it is not like there is not an alternative to SLS. But this one still needs Orion because at the moment no other capsule is BEO capable/rated.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #101 on: 06/17/2021 01:40 pm »

NASA needs to put accomplishment before profit.

NASA and the USG have no real reason for a lunar base.

Hey!  Good to see you're still on the job!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #102 on: 06/17/2021 01:43 pm »

NASA 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.

Quote
The 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.

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

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #103 on: 06/17/2021 01:51 pm »
  Artemis needs SpaceX as an accelerator.

Quote from: RoadWithoutEnd
The SLS constituency sees no added benefit from lunar landings.

Which is just weird, right?  The biggest rocket in town for the moment, and they don't want to use it.

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.

Quote from: RoadWithoutEnd
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.

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #104 on: 06/17/2021 02:14 pm »

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.

It is a waste of resources and no real accomplishment.
« Last Edit: 06/17/2021 02:15 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #105 on: 06/17/2021 02:15 pm »


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.



And rightly so

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #106 on: 06/17/2021 02:16 pm »
same way the post-Apollo / Shuttle contractor base had ruled out returning to the Moon.   


Wrong.  It was not the contractor base.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #107 on: 06/17/2021 06:44 pm »
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.

ISS still exists because of it's International political ramifications and the ability to include nations and peoples around the world to be a part of Space. It is one of the great US political goodwill programs. And at the current spending is actually very cheap price for such a wide ranging and impactful goodwill program.

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.

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. It is just that economics is used in the Base location selection, access design decisions, and many other mundane engineering and operational considerations that would make it possible. Policy is not about economics but political reasons for doing something.

And there are political reasons for going to the Moon and establishing a Moon Base. And now without that set of policies that the SLS and Orion would have nothing more as reason for existence than as a jobs program for Space scientists and technicians, engineers and as a way to keep space industry companies doors open.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #108 on: 06/17/2021 06:47 pm »
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.

....


There is even less political reasons for the gov't to establish a lunar base.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #109 on: 06/17/2021 08:32 pm »
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.

....


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. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #110 on: 06/17/2021 09:08 pm »
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.

....


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.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #111 on: 06/17/2021 10:37 pm »
The only real reason for a lunar base is to search for minerals, and possibly water.  To me it would be a prospecting base from which future mining might occur.  Also study the effects of very low gravity on the human body and various plant and animal studies. 

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #112 on: 06/18/2021 01:44 am »
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.

....


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.

Well FUD and Politics go hand-in-hand. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #113 on: 06/18/2021 09:23 am »

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.

It is a waste of resources and no real accomplishment.
I'm curious Jim, what do you think space policy should be broadly speaking?
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #114 on: 06/18/2021 11:56 am »

I'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. 

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #115 on: 06/18/2021 01:41 pm »
The motivation for the ISS was to build a bridge over the atlantic. In that sense, the ISS was very successful as Russians and the West were cooperating on it despite all earthly problems. In my opinion it was a mistake to shut the door in the face of the Chinese.

With the moon base, we have the chance to make it an earth wide cooperation and maybe help to fix some of the earthly problems between US, China, Russia and Europe. Neither of these are angels and it would be good to overcome differences and cooperate on some stuff that effects all humans, like a Moon base, climate change and others. It absolutely escapes me why this is not part of the deal.

Or maybe I am a hopeless dreamer, in fact, I am sure I am.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #116 on: 06/18/2021 03:53 pm »

I'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.
Presumably you are talking about the civilian side, not the military.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #117 on: 06/18/2021 04:16 pm »

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.

It is a waste of resources and no real accomplishment.

Just SLS?  Or both the base and SLS?
« Last Edit: 06/18/2021 04:18 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #118 on: 06/18/2021 04:18 pm »

I'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.

"Not do".  The current state of SLS.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #119 on: 06/18/2021 04:26 pm »
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.

Color me confused.  Not only is ISS "very cheap", but you know that there's "cheaper ways" to duplicate its effort?  Dang.

Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy
... [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. ...

I continue to argue for a private hotel suite for two, figuring it would be launched on SLS.  The "economics" is to make an attempt at starting a cis-lunar economy.

Mod note: I assert that a key policy for SLS would be to support the construction of a lunar base.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #120 on: 06/18/2021 09:49 pm »
Although we see the end goal as an economic one where commercial entities compete and create a unending lowering cost of doing business in space including a LEO space station or a Lunar Base. What most politicians see is the political leverage with the world not the economics.

I may have overstepped with ISS a bit. At the time it was built and put on orbit there wasn't a cheaper way. But that chapter is beginning to close with NASA even advocating for the next station to be much more commercial and that NASA would just be one of a few tenants. As to whether that will come about. It is probably more dependent on industry and commercial space investors than on NASA.

So as far as SLS policy. It is a supporting role reason to the political reasons for a Lunar Base. Note here is that the other methods which are also not yet operational: Vulcan, Starship, New Glenn. So in the eyes of Congress which only has control over actually just SLS. SLS importance to the Lunar Base is one of without SLS then no Lunar Base. It is a chase your tail "chicken and egg" problem and argument. But because SLS already existed as a identified need (whether there really was such a need or not is actually imaterial) then SLS was the "egg" and Lunar Base is the "Chicken".  And since there is an identified need for the "chicken"  (Lunar Base) there is a need for the "egg" (SLS). They are linked at this time. But as to whether there will always be that linkage is something that may be very different in a little as just 2 years.


Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #121 on: 09/21/2021 10:23 pm »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #122 on: 09/21/2021 11:03 pm »
Independent voice

Quote from: Mike Griffin
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.

Offline JohnM

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #123 on: 09/21/2021 11:25 pm »
Independent voice

Quote
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.

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/
 

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #124 on: 09/22/2021 07:56 am »
Independent voice

Quote from: Mike Griffin
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.

The irony is that it was Griffin's decision to pursue Ares-I and an overweight 5.5 m diameter Orion that led to Commercial Crew! Had he pursued the common sense approach of using Atlas V to launch a 4.5 m capsule (the spec used by CST-100) then there would not have been a need for commercial crew. Now even the Lunar lander is going commercial. All good for SpaceX!
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #125 on: 09/22/2021 07:44 pm »
Independent voice

Quote
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.

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/
Mike Griffin was not ready then to be in a management role of any organization public or private.
And clearly he still isn't. Talk about absolutely clueless. He still understands nothing. His choice HIS CHOICE to force HIS pet vision of 1.5 LV architecture caused the entire mess to begin with. Not to mention firing and intimidating anyone who dared question it many great people lost their careers as a result of this man thinking he is the Napoleon of space exploration.

Ridiculous. Yes Mike if you'd done commercial crew you'd have made sure the design changed so many times they couldn't build it so instead only "Apollo on steroids Orion" got built instead and then never flew thanks to the stick never working.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #126 on: 09/22/2021 09:18 pm »
My <sarcasm>"favorite"</sarcasm> quote from the interview:

Quote from: Mike Griffin
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.

Apparently in Griffin's view, since NASA used to manage launch vehicles, it should always manage launch vehicles, the fact that except for Shuttle/Ares/SLS, the rest of NASA and, indeed, the rest of the entire US government got out of the launch-vehicle business decades ago.

Please go back to the 1960's, Mike, and leave today's NASA alone.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #127 on: 09/23/2021 03:23 am »
NASA takes a military type of approach to space travel.  They want to design, have contractors build, and manage everything to do with space travel, thus SLS.  This is a holdover from the Cold War.  However, not even the military design the airplanes, tanks, and other vehicles.  They tell the contractors what they want, have them bid, and then choose a design. 

NASA, by now, should realize private companies have better ideas of how to get things done in space and it goes back before Griffin.  NASA was looking at using existing EELV's for a cis-lunar program.  There were great ideas here.  ACES, and an ACES derived lunar lander was one.  This was all squashed by Griffin with the 1-1/2 launch approach of Aries I and V approach, which gave use 20 years leading to SLS, and still haven't launched. 

The EELV approach would have lead to the US manufacturing the RD-180, Atlas V Phase II with a 5.5 meter rocket with two RD-180s for the Orion launcher, and a 3 core heavy version with a 70+ ton payload for cargo, ACES, and an ACES lunar lander.  This would have served two purposes, a satellite launcher that was human rated and with the heavy version a deep space launcher.  Delta IV had similar upgrades, but probably would have cost more. 

Anyway, the current reorganization to me is political to keep SLS going as long as possible. 

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #128 on: 09/25/2021 06:47 am »
NASA has been used as a political football for decades. SLS was driven by Congress, not any design specification from NASA.

Hopefully, going forward, we will see NASA purchasing spacecraft from private operators and spending all their money on exploring the Solar System. Fingers crossed!

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #129 on: 09/25/2021 09:55 am »
Independent voice

It is best to ignore Mike Griffin. Apart from the one bright idea he had (COTS) He pretty much screwed the pooch on everything else during his tenure as NASA administrator. He is personally responsible for the mess that was CxP, and by extension also responsible for the mess that is SLS.

Mike Griffin was one of the worst, if not THE worst, NASA administrator ever IMO.


Edit: VSECOTSPE pointed out to me that COTS wasn't Griffin's idea. It carried over from earlier work under O'Keefe. I checked the COTS final report and VSECOTSPE is correct.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2021 05:04 pm by woods170 »

Offline RoadWithoutEnd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #130 on: 12/06/2021 10:49 am »
The question is how the space community can ween the political community away from SLS and toward more constructive programs.  They insist on it only because of (a) location, (b) jobs, and (c) the obstructive power they get from exclusivity. 

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.

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.

Only then can we put an outrage like SLS to rest and prevent it from recurring under other names.
Walk the road without end, and all tomorrows unfold like music.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #131 on: 12/06/2021 03:52 pm »
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.
Sorry, but that's a hard problem to solve. Look at other industries in decline. the Rust belt, Coal mining, coal power plants. We (more or less) know that some sort of transition is needed, but as a society we prefer to try to let economic factors drive the transition, saying that "people will move to find good jobs elsewhere". 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.

The SLS problem is exacerbated by the original siting of several large centers on the middle of nowhere by political fiat. They were not originally part of an economically viable infrastructure, so there is little incentive for new companies to coalesce around them. Sort of like a coal field, but completely artificial.

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #132 on: 12/06/2021 05:52 pm »
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.

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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #133 on: 12/06/2021 06:10 pm »
...I don't expect NASA and Boeing to learn their lesson any better than Detroit and Chrysler did.

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.

Quote
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 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...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #134 on: 12/06/2021 06:44 pm »
 I can't wait till this Beast finally Blasts Off! This has been the Eric Z SLS Policy Statement. ;D

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #135 on: 12/06/2021 06:49 pm »

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.


Sure, but this all applies equally to every government department in Detroit - they are politically incentivized / constrained to act as they do, whether or not that means Detroit survives.


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.


This was true for Chrysler too. They went where the money was, including federal money, until there was no more and they got bought up by Fiat.


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...


Well, it wasn't made to "compete" anymore than Detroit ever really thought it was in competition with Georgetown. And obviously many government programs were intended to help Detroit and "oldcar" (to match "oldspace" ;D) - but the cost of supporting an industry against the tide is high, and eventually political capital runs out. No matter how many billions they spent, Detroit keeps shrinking. And so does NASA's budget. Eventually, it doesn't matter how many times congress tells them to launch more Boeing rockets, or to pick two HLS contracts. If the people aren't there, Detroit isn't there. And if the money isn't there, NASA isn't there.

« Last Edit: 12/06/2021 06:54 pm by HoratioNelson »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #136 on: 12/06/2021 08:38 pm »

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.


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. 

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #137 on: 12/06/2021 10:04 pm »
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.

Sure, but this all applies equally to every government department in Detroit...

No, it doesn't. The SLS is a temporary government program, whereas "Detroit" is a municipality that is home to a wide variety of industry, including some that (thru no fault of Detroit) didn't do a good job of competing to stay relevant.

Congress created the SLS as a jobs program, with a secondary goal that the SLS could be useful to NASA's space transportation needs, but if the SLS gets cancelled it won't bring down a city, or bring down a company.

Quote
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.

This 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?

Quote
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...

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.

The SLS program is a U.S. Government transportation system that has a limited use case. It was never intended to take away business from the private sector, it was meant to produce JOBS in the right states. So from that standpoint it has been a VERY successful government program.

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.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #138 on: 12/07/2021 01:04 am »

You like conflating things that are NOT related.


This is an ad hominem - please don't do that.

I am making an analogy - comparing two things that are not identical, but their similarities are illustrative.

Quote
This 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. Chrysler was an international company, and one of the biggest companies in the world, in 1950. But they struggled to deal with low-cost competitors like Toyota, and only 50 years later were in very very deep trouble, despite very strong government connections, both in Michigan and around the country. The cities, industries, and politics built around the "Big 3" have waned and mostly fallen into poverty or bankruptcy.

Boeing was, absolutely, on top of the world. There are cities, industries, and politics built around them. But they will not be the first eternal company in history. And they are struggling to deal with new low-cost competitors like SpaceX. They've already been overtaken in the commercial airline business by Airbus, and both 737 MAX and Starliner have had some "fundamental problems with their product". Last year was the company's worst since 2004.

Does that mean they're doomed? Not at all. But it does show why I think their involvement doesn't make SLS, or NASA, bullet proof. The car companies and associated industries, cities, and states leveraged significant political capital to try to save them. But they still struggled, and those programs eventually ran out of political capital, and dwindled away. Oldspace has also leveraged its political capital, for, among other things, the SLS program. I don't think it's far-fetched to believe that these jobs programs are also likely to dwindle away.

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.

This is true. But they are in competition with every other program for the tax payer's dollar. The same as many other policies, programs and agencies that have gotten canceled or closed. And it has been pretty widely criticized for its inefficiencies and cost and schedule overruns. It has already been canceled once. Being (potentially) the only man-rated vehicle capable of TLI gives it some protection. But that will not be true forever. And then its inefficiencies will be more glaring, and the pressure to cancel it again even stronger. I suspect that, just as the various Detroit jobs programs were allowed to dwindle, the NASA jobs programs will be as well. In fact, I believe they already are. In 1990 NASA was 1% of the federal budget. In 2015 they were 0.5%. In 2019 they were 0.47%, the lowest it's been since 1959.

To recap, The path to cheaper American-made cars was outside the previous industrial-political establishment. 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. That will never be Congress, and thus never be NASA. But, if someone does so, people will demand the government use it, and that will cancel SLS. Leaving us with the cheap(er) access to the moon. We should spend our time promoting things like HLS, commercial crew, and the Space Test Program, rather than trying to convince congress to cheapen SLS against their own interests.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2021 02:15 am by HoratioNelson »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #139 on: 12/07/2021 01:30 am »
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.

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.

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, and people suffer. And no, I don't have a better solution either.

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #140 on: 12/07/2021 02:39 am »

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.

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, [...]


Well, this isn't always the case. I don't have per-city statistics at hand, but Michigan fertility rate is 58.5 births per 1,000, while Texas's is 62.5 per 1,000 - no where near the discrepancy required to make a significant change at this speed. And according to wiki

Quote
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.

So a lot of people are moving around, at least in some cases. And presumably they are going somewhere where they think they can get work. So, hopefully, those who may lose their jobs if/when SLS is canceled or completed, and/or when NASA is reorganized to be more efficient, will find work elsewhere. But either way, not everyone can leave, and not everyone who leaves (or stays) finds work, or safety, or...

[...] and people suffer. And no, I don't have a better solution either.

Yeah, oof.  :'(
« Last Edit: 12/07/2021 02:52 am by HoratioNelson »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #141 on: 12/07/2021 02:41 am »
You like conflating things that are NOT related.
This is an ad hominem...

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.

Quote
Quote
This 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...

The SLS is a government program with only one use (i.e. to launch the Orion MPCV), where car companies are commercial entities that build products that compete in a robust market. There are NO similarities.

Quote
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.

This 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...  ::)

Quote
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...

Yes, and that is called "commercial launch providers". They already exist, such as ULA and SpaceX, and others are planning to join them.

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...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #142 on: 12/07/2021 03:25 am »

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...  ;)


My objection was to the "you like..." part. The other part I addressed afterwards.


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.


And, as I explained, I am claiming they are similar enough to take some lessons from one and apply to the other. I spent some time explaining what I view as the similarities. There seems to be some confusion on this idea of political capital. That is, the public's perception and trust, and their political desire for things - their willingness to push for / against things politically. This is where the analogy with Detroit and the car companies comes in - congress spent lots of money trying to help them because they thought it would get them votes to do so to preserve jobs. Then, over the years, public perception shifted, and congress stopped helping them, because they thought that would get them votes, to lower taxes, or help someone else. Thus, if someone goes to the moon cheaper than SLS, more people will write their congress people and say "I want lower taxes - fly SpaceX instead of SLS!", than write in saying "preserve my job in Michoud". And so congress will do that...

Quote
This 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...

Yes, as with various entitlements and bailouts and so on. My point isn't that congress can't, de jure, do these things - but that they will follow the public's desire. Congress doesn't want jobs for jobs' sake - it wants votes. And people, who of course are the ones that vote, want jobs. But they also want many other things, including more cancer research, more food subsidies, lower taxes, etc, etc. That is the sense I mean when I say they are in competition. And so, if (for example) SpaceX is selling tickets to the moon, people's willingness to accept NASA spending billions on another way to get to the moon, will be much reduced. And so, congress will select a different program to get tax dollars, and SLS will be no more.

Yes, and that is called "commercial launch providers". They already exist, such as ULA and SpaceX, and others are planning to join them.

Yes, exactly. Delta IV has been very expensive for a long time. And congress (and thus NASA and the DoD) were totally fine with that. But, once competition did appear, the pressure to use it has resulted in a definite change to the industry. And costs have come down significantly. This despite that "Congress wanted to create jobs, not capabilities." And so my point is we should be trying to do the same thing again with the moon - prove it can be done cheaper, and the public's willingness to allow it to continue to be more expensive (even for the sake of "jobs"), is much reduced. So, to do to SLS what we did with Delta, someone must develop a vehicle with similar capabilities, for a significantly lower cost. And just as NASA programs like CRS were a big part of developing F9 and Dreamchaser... I think similar programs, including HLS, can be a big part of developing challengers to SLS, like Starship.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2021 03:44 am by HoratioNelson »

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #143 on: 12/07/2021 11:35 am »
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 skillset

Both 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.

The problem is tackling them is expensive and disruptive. Expensive because you effectively need to retrain a large skilled workforce with a large upfront investment, and disruptive because you are unlikely to need the same facilities which means mothballing capabilities (with the possible exception of Elon Musk, nobody likes throwing away sunk costs that casually) and building new ones with large upfront investments. And that's if you decline to tackle the spread out nature of the programme inherited right back form the horse-trading that allowed Apollo to exist (by getting enough states on board to back it by giving them all a slice of the pie).
That means that any potential useful SLS replacement needs to use a similar sized workforce, in a similarly inefficient spread-out manner, using as much of the existing infrastructure as you can get away with (which due to its specialisation is not all that much), requires a massive up-front investment in order to undergo the change in mission away from building large Hydrolox launchers, and fraks off a bunch of the congresscritters who you need on board in order to get that massive investment through congress due to cutting off their pork supply.

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.

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #144 on: 12/08/2021 03:12 pm »
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 skillset

Both 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.


Yes, I agree 100%.

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.

I simply don't think the political capital is there. In fact, I don't even see any incentive to make this change, for many of the reasons you listed. This was the main point of my analogy - Large scale institutions like governments don't usually have the political will to make large changes like this. Detroit didn't, and NASA doesn't. So I think SLS will never change or be replaced by NASA.

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.

And so, I reason, if that is the only realistic plan that has us going to the moon on something other than SLS - how do we help those better rockets? The same way we've supported commercial spaceflight development for decades - CRS, Commercial crew, HLS. More of this, please  :).
« Last Edit: 12/08/2021 03:32 pm by HoratioNelson »

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #145 on: 12/08/2021 06:04 pm »
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.

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #146 on: 12/08/2021 06:57 pm »
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. That level of unpopularity will make congress defund the unpopular moon-rocket program.

This has happened to many many agencies and programs over the years, as they became obsolete and/or unpopular. Make-work programs don't last forever. Remember, even Apollo got canceled - and that was an even 'better' jobs program than SLS. It's not whether SLS will get canceled - after all, no agency, program, or country is permanent. It's about when - and whether the result is a vibrant space economy, or another long period of sad space fans.

And so, if we want vibrant space exploration, work, and science - we need to promote those commercial industries in space. And NASA is in a great position to do that, with its various commercial space development contracts.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2021 08:01 pm by HoratioNelson »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #147 on: 12/09/2021 02:40 am »
Starship will be designed fully reusable right out of the gate, regardless of Raptor variants.  Increasing thrust with new variants will increase payloads.  There are already about 100 Raptors already built and being or have been tested.  Raptor is a geometric magnitude cheaper than RS-25.  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.  Only 4 are used per SLS, and only 1 SLS to be launched per year.  Mass production of RS-25 is not going to happen.  Raptor has to be mass produced for 1,000's of Starships to be built for colonizing Mars, unlike 1,000's of SLS's being built. 

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #148 on: 12/09/2021 07:57 am »
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.
No, they will not. They either continue to vote for the same senators and congresspeople they have done in the past (as an example, Senator Shelby remaining in office until voluntary retirement), or they vote in new senators and congresspeople who inherit the same 'problem' (i.e. not cutting off a flow of funding to their state and effectively firing a bunch of their constituents).

Unless their local senators and congresspeople explicitly run on a platform of "we vow to reduce funding to our state and cause many of you to lose your skilled and high paying jobs", and also win on that platform, and also do so simultaneously across multiple states (one 'rebel state' will not kill SLS), and also follow through on that promise (i.e. do not accept SLS continuing as part of a quid pro quo bargain in exchange for support to get their own pet project funded, as SLS has survived on thus far), then there is no opportunity for the general public to vote on the continued existence or form of SLS. It's not a programme subject to direct democracy.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #149 on: 12/09/2021 03:04 pm »
...
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-series

Cost reduction of 30% already declared.  Just a bit more to do and the 50% goal for a commercial SLS becomes realized.

Yeah, right. The 18 new engines will cost $1.79 billion, or about $100 million each. Each SLS flight expends four of them. For the cost of a single RS25-E you can buy an entire Falcon Heavy launch today, or maybe ten Starship launches by the time the first RS25-E flys on SLS NET 2025.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/

The cost is not entirely due to congressional mandates. It's also due to volume. The only "market" for this engine is SLS, at four engines per year. by contrast, the Raptor (about the same thrust) has a market of about a thousand units in 2022, increasing to multiple thousands total. Elon claims the Raptor cost is currently below $2 million and will decrease to about $250,000: We'll see. If it does, SpaceX will build 1000 engines for less than the cost of the four engines on an SLS.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #150 on: 12/09/2021 03:26 pm »
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.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #151 on: 12/09/2021 05:30 pm »
$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. 

Face is SLS is expensive and is a kludge between the old Direct approach and the Ares V Superheavy lift approach.  Congress tried to cut the costs from the Ares V version with a middle of the road approach and it can't really deliver enough payload trans lunar injection and 95 tons to LEO.  Even with new composite solids, and a decent upper stage it will not reach the original goal of 130 tons.

SLS needs a 5th engine on the bottom and a J2X upper stage for 130 tons.  More development costs, and still expendable.  This is not going to happen, but is what should have happened as well as using Atlas V phase II to launch Orion.   

Offline Reynold

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #152 on: 12/10/2021 08:54 pm »
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.

Does anyone know what Mo Brooks has said in the past about SLS, fuel depots, commercial vendors, and other items of interest to Sen. Shelby?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #153 on: 12/11/2021 07:04 pm »
$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. 

Those costs ($100 Million for RS25, $2 million for Raptor) are not comparable. The $100 million is for one RS25-E, which will not be available until 2025 at the earliest, while the $2 million is (according to a tweet from Elon) today's Raptor cost. The existing RS25-Ds apparently cost $137 million each to refurbish and upgrade.  The Estimated cost of a Raptor in 2025 will be $250,000. I have no idea if this estimate will hold.
The means either 4 RS25-D will buy 274 Raptors today,  or 4 RS25-E will buy 1600 Raptor 2 in 2025.

Also, there is effectively no incentive to enhance the RS25-E, since there is no market for it. The existing order of 18 together with the remaining RS25-Ds will satisfy the demand (SLS) until 2030. By contrast, Raptor has an ongoing market with fairly strong demand for cost/performance improvements.  (My guess: once the cost is truly down to $250,000) focus will shift toward performance improvements).

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #154 on: 12/30/2021 08:08 am »
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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #155 on: 12/30/2021 09:57 am »
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.

Are you kidding? If the first launch fails the SLS supporters in US Congress will shovel more money towards the contractors to fix the problem.
US Congress is fully commited to SLS. People seem to forget just how truly well US Congress is tied to SLS. It will take a lot more IMO than just one failed launch to break the wedlock between SLS and US Congress.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #156 on: 12/30/2021 01:49 pm »
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. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #157 on: 12/30/2021 02:22 pm »
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.
It’s possible. But you wouldn’t want to scrap SLS unless you had another launcher in addition to Starship. Falcon Heavy is one option but probably would also be retired by 2030. Some upgraded New Glenn, Vulcan Heavy (NOT to be confused with Vulcan-Centaur-Heavy), or New Armstrong are possibilities. So is even relying on sub-50t launchers with a LEO rendezvous architecture (what ULA calls “distributed launch” and which Starship is using to act like a launcher 10 times its actual size), which opens things up to regular New Glenn, Falcon 9, Vulcan, Neutron, and Relativity’s Terran R.

But I expect SLS will loiter until those alternatives come into their own. I can see SLS evolving further, with the program being used for a nuclear thermal rocket stage if everything else goes well and the need to provide the kind of zip code engineered jobs continues in a Starship-dominant world.

If a NTR upper stage for SLS is ready by 2030, they could just call that SLS and then cancel the rest of the rocket. I bet a large NTR stage would easily cost the same as an SLS, providing similar number of jobs.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2021 02:24 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 spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #158 on: 12/30/2021 03:28 pm »
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. 

Everyone knows solid boosters are expensive and wasteful by not being reusable.  Reusable boosters are the future, even if they start smaller like Neutron or Terran R, along with F9.  Would be great if New Glenn gets to flying. 

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. 

However slowly, boosters have gotten more capable since the 1960's.  We had Titan III and IV.  We had the new Atlas V and Delta IV come along.  Now we have Falcon Heavy operational.  Payload capability has increased over the years.  Now they are about to make bigger jumps.  We really don't need SLS. 

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #159 on: 12/30/2021 08:11 pm »
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)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #160 on: 12/30/2021 08:32 pm »
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)
This will remain true until the Chinese land a crew on the Moon. At that point Congress will demand a Starship-only program with immediate results, whether or not they continue to fund SLS.

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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #161 on: 12/30/2021 10:07 pm »

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.

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.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #162 on: 12/30/2021 11:44 pm »
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?



Hard to say With the gateway and lunar lander contracts there would be pressure to continue but if someone were to send a crew to the moon before NASA or for much less than NASA, I think pressure would mount to kill it.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #163 on: 12/30/2021 11:56 pm »

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.

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.
See:
   https://www.spaceline.org/history-cape-canaveral/chronology-launch-explorer-i/
the chronology supports the idea of a "race", whatever we want to call this intense inter-service rivalry. The Army was directed to fill the fourth stage with sand instead of fuel: see the 20 September 1956 entry. The Army quietly kept the option to launch satellites: see the August 21 1957 entry. the Army program officially became an active backup program after Sputnik launched: see the 31 Oct 1957 entry.

I was only eight years old at the time, and I do not remember when in my life I read that the Navy physically verified that the fourth stage fuel was replaced with sand. This may very well be an urban legend.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #164 on: 12/30/2021 11:59 pm »
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?

Today the SLS exists as the only launch vehicle for the Orion MPCV, and the Orion MPCV is required for the Artemis Moon landing program.

So unless the Artemis Moon landing program is cancelled, or the Artemis program architecture is changed to allow other crew transportation options, and the Orion MPCV is no longer needed, the SLS will be required.

And there is enough SLS hardware purchased that a launch failure wouldn't stop the program, but it would push back the Artemis program by at least a year, likely two or more (a launch failure investigation could take more than a year, based on past history).

So really the question is whether the Artemis program could survive a long delay caused by an SLS launch failure? Would such a delay cause a re-evaluation of the goals of the Artemis program, and how to achieve those goals?

Because we have to remember that the Artemis program is not enthusiastically supported by the current Congress (or the prior one), so if the cost/benefit calculation of the program changes then a future Congress may reevaluate the Artemis program if there are significant delays and additional costs.

Bottom line is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #165 on: 12/31/2021 09:23 am »
So 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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #166 on: 12/31/2021 04:06 pm »
So 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...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #167 on: 12/31/2021 05:53 pm »
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. 

Preach, Brutha. 

I have characterized what you describe as the politically connected corporations and individuals putting profit ahead of performance and accomplishment.   The worst part is that there is no reason that this should be the case.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #168 on: 12/31/2021 08:06 pm »
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...

Indeed and it should be the reverse. The question of how Artemis could best be executed would be better served by an analysis in which SLS was only one of several options, not the sole mandated option for political reasons.

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #169 on: 12/31/2021 08:09 pm »
 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. :o
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. There is just no telling. Shuttle would have been put to sleep much, much earlier. Guys, No SLS to argue over! There you go.
 The Washington Post has this issue featured today- the range of comment is both disturbing and interesting! Happy new Year, everybody Hats off to the brass at NSF, especially the cats doing the mission coverage, historical diving and photo archiving! :)

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #170 on: 12/31/2021 10:46 pm »
So 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...
The 'Artemis Programme' was a name slapped onto the SLS and Orion programmes, with HLS added on later in a partial effort (no funding, and not enough plan for Congress to be willing to fund for several years). Even today, HLS is a small fraction of Artemis (IIRC ~13% for FY'21) compared to the ongoing funding of SLS and Orion.
Whether SLS and Orion continue under the Artemis branding or are split out again, they will continue even if HLS disappears just as they were funded just fine prior to it existing.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #171 on: 01/01/2022 01:54 am »
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. :o

Since this is about SLS policy, we have to talk about how the SLS does or does not make space exploration easier, cheaper, better, etc.

The Shuttle allowed us to have a mini-space station for short periods of time, multiple times a year. But the ISS finally allowed us to truly live in space for significant periods of time, and to learn how humans will be able to live and work in space.

The SLS is a rocket that is only planned to be launched once per year, which when compared to the Shuttle and ISS, would be a HUGE step backwards in space activity.

Quote
Some would love it to return to it's NACA roots. No operational programs.

I am one of those people that has advocated that NASA should return to its NACA roots, but you misunderstand what that means. That means NASA would put more effort into helping our U.S. industrial base do what NASA itself does today. It is important to understand that NASA does not decide what NASA does, the U.S. Government uses NASA to accomplish ITS goals. So the goals are our nations, not NASA's, and it doesn't matter who owns the hardware. And what we can see today is that the private sector is very capable of taking on creating new capabilities in space that cost less than government-owned systems.

Quote
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.

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...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #172 on: 01/01/2022 03:34 pm »
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.

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...  ;)

I think eric z was indulging in wishful thinking when they said "even perhaps useful"...
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline randomly

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #173 on: 01/08/2022 09:23 pm »
It's not just the incredible waste of money of SLS and Orion, but the fact that NASA HSF is tethered to it's pace. SLS production is a MAXIMUM of one per year, but the actual launch rate is much more likely to be once every 2 to 4 years. An entire generation will have been born and raised in the time it's going to take to get Orion operational. Another generation will have gone by before anything substantial is achieved with SLS/Orion.

I think SLS/Orion needs to be cancelled, and the funding not redirected (again) but removed from the NASA budget entirely. As long as that funding is not disrupted for a number of years it will never kill this pork barrel train that paralyzes NASA HSF. SLS/Orion is not just a horrifying pillaging of tax payer money, but as long as it's around will be a roadblock to any other useful Human space flight program.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #174 on: 01/08/2022 10:42 pm »
I recently read that one SLS launch per year will tie up around 4 billion dollars per launch.  This is ridiculous.  This is over 16 Falcon heavies at $250 million each and at 40 tons each reusable mode, that is 640 tons of a huge mother ship with reusable lander.  Someone at NASA should wake up, as well as members of congress.  It is our tax money being wasted when we could be building something real that works in space, and allow all launch companies to have a part spreading the money to all of them. 

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #175 on: 01/11/2022 04:37 am »
Another generation will have gone by before anything substantial is achieved with SLS/Orion.
It depends on what you mean by "is achieved with SLS/Orion". In ~2026 NASA will land people on the moon again using SLS, Orion, and Starship. That will look like a substantial SLS/Orion achievement but isn't actually evidence of SLS and Orion's utility since NASA could have accomplished that mission for a fraction of the cost of SLS and Orion if they'd asked SpaceX (and the other bidders) to do the whole mission from launch to splashdown.

This is over 16 Falcon heavies at $250 million each and at 40 tons each reusable mode
I'm not sure but I think you're overstating the cost of reusable Falcon Heavy by a factor of 2+. Of course this makes your argument that SLS is too expensive even stronger.

Offline randomly

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #176 on: 01/11/2022 05:26 am »
Based on decades of track record I don't think there will be any landings until ~2028. After that I expect missions may fly once every 2 years or so. So maybe a total of 6 landings by the year 2040. You have to remember that the driving force here is just the continuation of funding directed at the SLS/Orion contractors. 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. As long as funding is secure in congress I expect SLS/Orion to continue at a glacial pace. As long as SLS/Orion stays alive it will prevent any other NASA based human space flight program because that would be a threat to SLS.

The motivation for SLS/Orion is pork barrel contracts to the contractors. Artemis is merely the current justification for the contracts. As long as they can maintain plausible deniability there will be no sense of urgency to accomplish anything.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #177 on: 01/11/2022 01:15 pm »
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. ...

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
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #178 on: 01/11/2022 08:25 pm »
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. ...

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
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.

Publicly-held companies survive and thrive by making a profit (mostly). The board of directors of a publicly-held company has a fiduciary responsibility to to the shareholders to maximize profits. This is not immoral or wrong.  Note that a well-run company will generally be "moral" because in the long term this will maximize profits, and a company with a vision will often make money because it remains focused.

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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #179 on: 01/11/2022 08:37 pm »

The primary customer for OldSpace is the government,

Not true.  See Maxar, NG Orbital, BSS

Launch vehicle yes, spacecraft no

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5485
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #180 on: 01/11/2022 09:08 pm »

The primary customer for OldSpace is the government,

Not true.  See Maxar, NG Orbital, BSS

Launch vehicle yes, spacecraft no
I'm sure you are correct. Do you happen to know what the percentage of OldSpace gross revenue comes from government?  Since I do not actually know that number my use of the word "primary" may not be correct here. I was also probably overgeneralizing from Artemis to the entire activities of OldSpace.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #181 on: 01/11/2022 09:31 pm »
...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.

I'll try not to go to far afield, and to tie this back to SLS specifically.

I've worked in the private sector for part of the military–industrial complex (MIC), which was called out by President Eisenhower in 1961. It is also assumed there is a NASA-industrial complex, but I like to think that it doesn't matter which government agency exists, there will be some form of this.

And this relates to the SLS because of how the SLS program is funded, which for many years has been in some form of Cost Plus contracting, which can be ripe for abuse.

While it is easy (and sometimes fun!) to get into the weeds about this detail and that detail, the only way to stop "waste" is to construct goals that can be accomplished with the least amount of waste. The Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs are good examples, where the U.S. Government funded companies to learn about the transportation needs, and then held an open competition to find the best companies to build out the transportation systems and provide the services - using Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) contracts for the most part.

So really the answer to the perceived problem with the SLS program today is to ensure that it is not repeated in the future. And it shouldn't, since once there is a need for a crew vehicle that is NOT the Orion MPCV (which is the only cargo mandated for the SLS), then that will mark the beginning of the end for the SLS. Because Congress created the SLS, and only Congress can end the SLS, but there will need to be a pathway for NASA in order to convince enough members of Congress that they no longer need to fund the SLS.

2022 is an election year, so I don't see any big changes in NASA funding. Nor is there likely to be a change in the SLS program until the first flight of the SLS happens (regardless the outcome). But there will be a trigger point "soon" that will cause Congress to publicly evaluate the SLS...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #182 on: 01/12/2022 12:10 pm »
Or 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.

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

Offline RoadWithoutEnd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #183 on: 01/15/2022 08:26 pm »

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.


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 political power of the Centers is much less in states with large, diverse economies.  JSC or Ames would have to wait in line to hear from a TX or CA Senator. The big states have numerous, large government science and technology facilities, research universities, huge world-leading tech campuses, giant military contractor projects, and so on.  But if Marshall or Stennis calls DC, the Alabama and Mississippi Senators and Congressmen take notice, and because of their committee positions, the committees take notice and by extension the entire federal budget takes notice.

That handful of individuals hold veto power over quite a lot of the nation's space program.  Shelby's retirement will help things, but I'm not sure how much given all the interests still concentrated at Stennis and Marshall.

The Center system is more trouble than it's worth these days.  These "fiefdoms" have led to an extreme degradation in progress and credibility, and SLS is the most perfect example anyone could have imagined: A rocket both obsolete and expensive, and un-improvable by design.  It marries all conceivable negatives, and is the opposite of NASA.

When the Program of Record imposed on NASA at enormous cost embodies the exact opposite of everything NASA has ever stood for, something has to give.
Walk the road without end, and all tomorrows unfold like music.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #184 on: 01/15/2022 09:13 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.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #185 on: 01/15/2022 11:24 pm »



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.

Not quite. NASA's function to push technology and showcase National Space ability remains the same but unfortunately HSF got saddled with old technology and old methodologies in order to maintain political support.  When JFK challenged NASA to go to the moon there really were not many good options besides build the Saturn V and no commercial launch industry in existence. NASA had to handle the building and launch of the rocket. The Shuttle replaced the Saturn V post Apollo but again a need to create, own and launch the rocket. By the time of the ISS, CXP and now SLS there were options that could have been explored except politics(i.e. potential lose of jobs) prevented it and until Columbia it was easy ignore other options as using the shuttle was the path of least political resistance(No need to allocate money for development of new spacecraft).

With the deregulation of space post Challenger the need for HSF to own and launch the rocket for all of human space flight was eliminated from a technical perspective but not from a political one. 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. The problem NASA faces today is the commercial space can handle launches cheaper that it and technology has developed to the point where the old launch everything at once on a large expendable, dedicated, government owned/run deep space rocket does not make sense anymore. No one in the 60ies could have foreseen that and the Shuttle failure at becoming something that could be commercialized trapped NASA with being unable to focus HSF on things that truly need NASA to develop them.  Hence the SLS project.

Offline Reynold

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #186 on: 01/18/2022 08:01 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 US Patent Office?  They recently opened a satellite office or two, but went decades without.  You even had to go to DC to take the patent bar exam until, I think, near 2000. 

Online JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Liked: 984
  • Likes Given: 1836
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #187 on: 01/18/2022 08:30 pm »
...
 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.
...
Don't forget that for a brief time there was the Aldridge commission report and its "Vision for Space Exploration", where focus was on commercial, spiral development. They even wanted to transform NASA into FFRDCs. Griffin put a stop to all that and went with his Constellation.

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/60736main_M2M_report_small.pdf

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #188 on: 01/18/2022 08:37 pm »
I like the idea of "matching funds".  Government needs something that private companies can't or won't provide.  They give matching funds for a company to develop the product, the buys the product from the winning producer.  This is kind of like what was done for Dragon and CTS-100, also for ISS supply.  This can and is being done for the Artemis program.  Mars programs can be done the same way.  Eventually a lot of companies can be involved. 

Alternative energy seems also to work better with the carrot approach with some money or tax breaks, the same way.  No one likes mandates of any kind.  Cost plus stuff gets expensive. 

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: SLS Policy Discussion
« Reply #189 on: 05/03/2022 03:15 am »
Sometimes, e.g. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56259.0, it has been suggested that the SLS/Orion supply chain should be repurposed to build things other than launch vehicles. My response seems like it belongs in space policy and this thread seems to be the best fit of any of the recent space policy threads so that's why I'm putting my response here.

Much of the SLS/Orion supply chain also worked on previous NASA programs. SLS is the third overly expensive launch vehicle in a row those contractors have built for NASA (shuttle, Ares I, SLS). Orion is the second overly expensive spacecraft in a row they've built (the previous being the shuttle which is also a spacecraft). Switching these contractors to building another type of hardware is unlikely to fix whatever makes them unwilling or unable to control costs. If NASA cancels SLS and/or Orion while retaining the supply chain we would soon return to the situation today where NASA is spending too much on components produced by the traditional supply chain to afford the rest of a healthy Moon or Mars program. Overpriced rovers, habs, nuclear propulsion, or whatever can bust the budget just as well as overpriced launch vehicles do.

The only circumstance where the SLS/Orion supply chain should be retained is if they start winning openly competed fixed-price contracts.

Tags:
 

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