Creating capability foundations for NASA’s exploration roadmap

[muomega0]

It's a milestone nonetheless, and linking to your own posts as sources for a lack of missions for SLS doesn't change that.

Keep your posts clean and to the point please, because there's no reason to spend five paragraphs to say something you could say in one, and already say in every darn thread about SLS.

Links are added to limit the text and provide a summary only.  For example:

Its a meaningless milestone to fly SLS/Orion in 2017...and the links support claim. 

The Rule of Repetition in Marketing:   "SLS and Orion are needed for exploration"

If you haven't notice by now, because of politics, NSF is a vehicle to provide Post-incident contingency planning per our HLV expert Mark S.

Why are you dragging me into your rant? And mocking me as an "HLV expert"? And linking to my post about Bolden's disturbing lack of contingency planning (twice in the past week)? And making it sound as though I approve of that approach, when in fact I was pointing out the absurdity of it?

If you sincerely believe that I am an HLV expert, I can assure you that I'm not. But I am still entitled to my opinions, and to express them here on occasion. I am not a fan of the way the Administration has slow-rolled SLS, made it into a permanent development project, and deferred any real missions for at least a decade. My opinion is that an HLV is necessary, and that depots, L1/L2 gateways, SEP, NTR, VASIMR, GCR protection, and the rest are also necessary in the long run. But one has to start somewhere, and SLS will be an enabler (aka capability foundation) of those follow-on in-space developments.

And if you believe that I was advocating for post-incident contingency planning, then you need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.

Well, this is confusing then...you clearly do not support the lack of planning that resulted in Orion lacking a heat and radiation shield to head to Mars, and a upper stage that will not be crew rated and likely will not have a ECLSS even though they are 'needed for exploration'.    Correct?   

So because of politics, these things were left out and hence they need PICP.
Its a great term!   Just giving credit where credit is due. 
So would you prefer "HLV advocate"  instead of HLV expert?  or just per Mark S?

[darkbluenine]

Right, the J-2X. Very good. You quoted an entire para with SLS vehicles listed, so thanks for clearing that up.

To be clear, I quoted a paragraph from an article on your site that explained why the J-2X would never fly because of the substitution of other SLS upper stage hardware. 

However, monotonous (nothing but) negativity is a bigger issue, because they have to work DAMN hard to say why they apparently know better than the likes of Gerst. Citing a selective line from a 2008 NTRS document - and then wrapping negative opinion around it - isn't going to pass the sniff test.

I can't tell whether the above is directed at me or not.  But if it is, in my defense:

1) My posts here are hardly "nothing but negativity".  I post plenty in the Advanced Concepts and Other US Launchers boards, among others, and my comments on those boards are a mix of positive and negative depending on the topic at hand.  I am critical of SLS and MPCV, but I've also posted purely informational messages and links without comment or opinion on the SLS and MCPV boards.  Just because one poster doesn't want anything negative ever posted about SLS doesn't mean that another poster who writes a negative post about SLS is always negative.  We shouldn't conflate the two.

2) I never stated or implied that I know "better than the likes of Gerst".  I pointed out the inconsistency between Gerst's comments to the ASAP about his desired safe launch rate for SLS and what is written in the article posted on your site about SLS requirements.  That inconsistency is not an attack on Gerst; it's just a fact.  Please don't shoot the messenger.

What is noticeable is some people are nowhere to be seen for the good news, yet you can bet they'll be around to latch on to anything negative. That's not objective, and that's heavily dilutes whatever that person has to say. That should, and will be, called out.

I kindly suggest that you make sure that the poster in question is as consistently negative as you think (or another poster implies) they are before you "call out" one of your posters as "not objective". 

As Chris said, it has nothing to do with SLS,

It does have to do with SLS and MPCV because I don't receive personal, off-topic attacks in posts and PMs from you that Chris has to delete and warn you about on any other topic.

I appreciate that you support SLS/MPCV.  But that doesn't give you the right to harass other posters every time they post an analysis that is critical of these projects.

it has to do with same old arguments, page after page, thread after thread.

My post wasn't the "same old arguments".  I never recall pointing out the inconsistency between safe and required launch rates in any prior post.  And I never recall an article on this site that confirmed the very low production figures in SLS requirements and the resulting multi-year gap between launches.

Just because a post is critical of SLS/MPCV doesn't mean that it's old.  New facts and arguments can and do emerge that are unfortunately negative.

It doesn't matter at all that they are negative, they are monotonous.

Since you don't like to read anything negative about SLS/MPCV, then don't read my posts or other negative posts on those boards.

Stop trying shut down other people's speech.  Change the channel instead.  It's your right.

[dror]

Really, darkblue, whats with the attitude?
anyway,
 "...And now we're looking at ~$9B just for the launch of a Strategic Mission.  "
can you please explain the 9B figure? They say three lunches a year and you said one in five years. ?!?

[CNYMike]

...what were the cost assumptions that were used?  Did they assume that NASA's current budget profile would stay the same, or possibly change over time?  ....

The UTexas web site you've pointed to in the past also has a status report on SLS; the audio presentation part of it talks about those questions.

[Mark S]

Well, this is confusing then...you clearly do not support the lack of planning that resulted in Orion lacking a heat and radiation shield to head to Mars, and a upper stage that will not be crew rated and likely will not have a ECLSS even though they are 'needed for exploration'.    Correct?   

There are subtle yet critical distinctions between lack of planning, bad planning, and planning on having no plan (aka PICP). Orion lacking a Mars-rated heat shield at this point is not PICP, it is either bad planning or a deferred requirement, depending on your viewpoint. Orion lacking GCR protection is not PICP, it is not needed at all for a Mars trip because any such trip will include a separate hab module, which will have GCR mitigation.

The SLS Block I vehicle with ICPS is not PICP, it is just a bad design, which I have maintained since it was first revealed in late 2011. ICPS is not needed at all for LEO missions, and it is too small to do much of anything other than loop Orion (by itself) around the Moon. Much time and effort has been spent on Block I with ICPS, and it basically can't do anything useful. A more useful design would have had a full-size payload shroud beneath Orion, able to carry large cargoes to LEO/ISS if needed. Or perhaps a lander, a gateway hab module, or other large in-space items that I mentioned prior.

Then, finish the "integrated upper Earth departure stage", and you're ready to go jaunting around cis-lunar space (BLEO).

(Okay, maybe I am an HLV expert, at least of the armchair variety.  )

So because of politics, these things were left out and hence they need PICP.
Its a great term!   Just giving credit where credit is due. 

Bad planning for political reasons is not PICP, it is just bad planning. Planning on having no plan, as Bolden stated, is PICP, because he said would wait until a contingency plan is needed before creating one. Thus, post-incident contingency planning.

So would you prefer "HLV advocate"  instead of HLV expert?  or just per Mark S?

I believe "armchair engineer" has been used before, also "DIRECT cheerleader" and "incorrect". I prefer "concerned NASA HSF fan and all-around swell guy", for what it's worth.

Thanks.

[CNYMike]

I think there's a more fundamental question that's at the root of many SLS/exploration issues.

On the one hand, we don't want to make space a priority, certainly not by publicly committing to something like a mission to Mars.  But on the other, we don't want to not do it. 

And so we're left kind of caught in the middle, talking generically about "exploration"  as if destinations are interchangeable when they're not: If you land on Mars, you need a heat shield you don't need for the Moon. 

The thinking behind SLS and Orion may be to get the bookends done -- the rocket that gets you up and the capsule that gets you back -- and fill in the blanks later...because there's no other way to do it.

The good news is the idea we're going BEO seems to be stuck in public discourse now, but things are still jammed up.

That's not all the problems, but that's for starters.

[darkbluenine]

can you please explain the 9B figure?

According to the article, the launch of a Strategic Mission, such as to a NEO, will need up to three SLS cores.  The SLS production rate requirement is one core every two years, with the cores being stored in advance for Strategic Missions according to the article.  That means about six years between launch campaigns for Strategic Missions with three SLS launches.  The budget runout for SLS is about $1.5 billion per year.  Six years multiplied by $1.5 billion per year is $9 billion for the launch costs of a Strategic Mission with three SLS launches.

They say three lunches a year

Not sustained over multiple years.  Per the article:

Despite requiring an eventual three SLS launches per year, ESD documentation includes a caveat to the launch rate’s upper limit, stating, “3 launches per year is not considered to be a sustainable rate and is not to be construed as a production capability. During these periods, nominal flight activity will be suspended to enable this surge capability. Storage of assets may be required for a 3 launch DRM.”

The launch rate is driven by the production rate.  With a low production rate of one core every two years, a campaign of three launches in one year can only be pulled off as a surge every six years.  NASA will have to stockpile SLS core production for half a decade to enable these surges.

and you said one in five years. ?!?

A launch campaign might start towards the end of the fifth year as the third core reaches final assembly/ship.  But that may be an optimistic assumption on my part.

[Coastal Ron]

And I agree about the singular opinion, which is why some sites have about five members, all group hugging each other over how NASA sucks...

Don't know what the site is you are referencing, and whether any of those five members are currently commenting on this topic, but I thought I would provide a perspective relating to the comment and this thread topic.

I would think that it's safe to say that the vast majority of us want more space exploration in the future, not less.  So we all have that in common as a goal.  Our differences lie in how to accomplish that - what the roadmap is.

I would also think that the vast majority of us like and admire NASA, certainly for what it has done and the ideal of what it represents.  But NASA is made up of many fiefdoms that have their own goals, and NASA's actions are dictated by what politicians want NASA to do - NASA is not an independent agency that can do entirely what it wants.

So criticisms of what NASA is doing are sometimes conflated with being criticisms of "NASA", when in fact they are criticisms of the situation that NASA has been put into.

Case in point is the topic covered by Marshall Murphy's article, which I think did a great job of reporting facts and putting them in context.  As reported, NASA is doing a lot of work "to refine a capability-driven approach to its exploration aspirations."  Doing studies and making plans are good of course, but only if they are going to lead to some sort of positive outcome.  Doing them for make work is a waste of taxpayer money.

So what will come of these plans being made?  Literally no one knows, and that is the situation that is being criticized, not NASA per se.  NASA has been given no destination goals and no budgetary goals, but by law has been constricted to using specific hardware systems that were borne out of political decisions.  Add on top of that the issues like safe launch rates and a lack of known NASA and non-NASA users for the SLS or MPCV (i.e. NASA Science Directorate, DoD, etc.), and you have a situation where there are far more unknowns that knowns.

Can anyone say this is a good situation?

Is what NASA is planning doable within the current budgetary profile?  If not, what hope is there for NASA's budget to be increased?  Is a capabilities-driven exploration roadmap the best approach?  What is the overall goal?

So does NASA suck because of that lack of answers?  No, the situation does, and it's not NASA fault that they are being forced to be in this situation.  But unfortunately one cannot address this situation without NASA being involved, so right or wrong, NASA's name is going to be associated with the negative aspects of what's going on, but that is because our politicians have put them there, not that NASA is solely responsible.

Don't know if that clarifies anything, but thought I would try...

[Coastal Ron]

...what were the cost assumptions that were used?  Did they assume that NASA's current budget profile would stay the same, or possibly change over time?  ....

The UTexas web site you've pointed to in the past also has a status report on SLS; the audio presentation part of it talks about those questions.

Would you like to provide a short summary so that everyone doesn't have to go listen to it themselves?

[Coastal Ron]

The thinking behind SLS and Orion may be to get the bookends done -- the rocket that gets you up and the capsule that gets you back -- and fill in the blanks later...because there's no other way to do it.

Who do you think did that "thinking"?  From what I can tell it was done by politicians, without any real expertise in the area of space exploration, space transportation, space technologies, and so on.  You know, politicians.  Why should anyone be excited by what they think?

I mention that because what you allude to is that "someone has a plan, and therefore it must be a good plan", when it is unknown what the real plan is, who put together the plan, and what the criteria for the plan was.  Such a lack of clarity is not good, and should concern even those that support the supposed goals of the supposed plan.

The good news is the idea we're going BEO seems to be stuck in public discourse now, but things are still jammed up.

Maybe going BEO is stuck in the public discourse, but "WHEN" is not.  I think most of the public would be just fine with "in the future".  Which is why building an HLV today may be far in advance of our real need.

[dror]

can you please explain the 9B figure?

According to the article, the launch of a Strategic Mission, such as to a NEO, will need up to three SLS cores.  The SLS production rate requirement is one core every two years, with the cores being stored in advance for Strategic Missions according to the article.  That means about six years between launch campaigns for Strategic Missions with three SLS launches.  The budget runout for SLS is about $1.5 billion per year.  Six years multiplied by $1.5 billion per year is $9 billion for the launch costs of a Strategic Mission with three SLS launches.

Thanks !
although they did not state one core every two years as being a manufacture upper limit niether. They may have it down to one every year or even two a year, but they cant obligate to that.
Stocking can than be achieved in 1.5-3 years. Still a lot of $...

[93143]

The "Tactical-level" requirement of 0.5 launches per year is near-term only.  Every other source I've seen says the actual capacity of the fully-operational system is intended to be at least one per year, probably two, maybe even three (I quote:  "Storage of assets may be required for a 3 launch DRM."  Emphasis added.)

Gerst's one launch per year isn't a wish; it's a minimum requirement.  Therefore if the production capacity is below that, it will need to be upgraded.  But I don't think it is.

...

Also, the $1.5B number is during continuing development, including at least one major element (the EUS) that is currently not in intensive development due to lack of cash, and will thus ramp up as Block 1 development ramps down.  SLS can easily soak up as much money as the OMB is willing to give it for as long as the five-year budget runout lasts, so the $1.5B cost tells us basically nothing about operating costs except that they're lower than $1.5B.

[Coastal Ron]

SLS can easily soak as much money as the OMB is willing to give it for as long as the five-year budget runout lasts, so the $1.5B cost tells us basically nothing about operating costs except that they're lower than $1.5B.

Actually NASA has not stated what the operating costs will be for the SLS, and has stated that they have not been able to estimate them because they don't know what the launch rate will be.  If the production rate is one per year, then I would suspect that $1.5B is closer to reality, if not on the low end.  If they double that production rate, then maybe it would be lower than $1.5B per rocket.

However if NASA doesn't get a budget boost, spending $2B+ per year for two launches doesn't leave much budget left over for building and operating the things that the SLS is supposed to be launching.  Which is what I think is the conundrum that NASA faces in developing and finalizing a roadmap that is "inspiring" enough to garner support, and stays within whatever budgetary boundaries Congress allows.

[Tim S]

can you please explain the 9B figure?

According to the article, the launch of a Strategic Mission, such as to a NEO, will need up to three SLS cores.  The SLS production rate requirement is one core every two years, with the cores being stored in advance for Strategic Missions according to the article.  That means about six years between launch campaigns for Strategic Missions with three SLS launches.  The budget runout for SLS is about $1.5 billion per year.  Six years multiplied by $1.5 billion per year is $9 billion for the launch costs of a Strategic Mission with three SLS launches.

Thanks !
although they did not state one core every two years as being a manufacture upper limit niether. They may have it down to one every year or even two a year, but they cant obligate to that.
Stocking can than be achieved in 1.5-3 years. Still a lot of $...

The achievable production rate is two per year, which can be increased if required.

[93143]

SLS can easily soak as much money as the OMB is willing to give it for as long as the five-year budget runout lasts, so the $1.5B cost tells us basically nothing about operating costs except that they're lower than $1.5B.

Actually NASA has not stated what the operating costs will be for the SLS, and has stated that they have not been able to estimate them because they don't know what the launch rate will be.  If the production rate is one per year, then I would suspect that $1.5B is closer to reality, if not on the low end.  If they double that production rate, then maybe it would be lower than $1.5B per rocket.

However if NASA doesn't get a budget boost, spending $2B+ per year for two launches doesn't leave much budget left over for building and operating the things that the SLS is supposed to be launching.  Which is what I think is the conundrum that NASA faces in developing and finalizing a roadmap that is "inspiring" enough to garner support, and stays within whatever budgetary boundaries Congress allows.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't have any solid basis for your estimates.

The one number we do have is a targeted $500M per launch, which was associated with a launch rate of one per year (though not solidly; an eventual launch rate of two per year was also mentioned).

Strickland assumed this was a marginal cost, but no one actually said that, and ESD Integration numbers as well as DIRECT numbers indicate that it is very unlikely (unless you factor in nearly two decades of inflation as well as assuming no marginal cost savings from process improvements).  Besides, marginal costs aren't generally associated with launch rates like that.

[I had a paragraph here that tried to guess SLS ops costs based on old Shuttle numbers modified by infrastructure right-sizing and management/tech/process enhancements (including some known data), but it involved too much handwaving, so I've removed it.  Suffice to say that I personally think a total cost of $500M per launch is low for one flight per year, but believable for two.  If they manage it at one, I'll be impressed.]

...

Also, what's with the "actually"?  You may want to read more carefully...

[Coastal Ron]

The one number we do have is a targeted $500M per launch, which was associated with a launch rate of one per year (though not solidly; an eventual launch rate of two per year was also mentioned).

Maybe I missed it, but who in NASA stated that target?

[93143]

Jody Singer, SLS deputy project manager, on Sept. 11, 2012.

http://www.space.com/17556-giant-nasa-rocket-space-launch-cost.html

I seem to recall a version of this story that also mentioned the possibility of launching twice a year, but a quick search didn't find it...

[I did find a reference to ATK's recent redesign of the 5-seg process having cut the required processing time per segment almost in half, which I knew I'd seen somewhere (I thought it was man-hours per segment, but the upshot is similar):  http://www.space.com/17910-nasa-giant-rocket-cost-savings-sls.html ]

[Todd Martin]

The one thought that jumped out to me when reading this article was the focus on mission designs being "capability driven" by NASA management.  I suppose to some that seems pragmatic, but I still prefer missions defining the architecture rather than the reverse.  It is easy to suggest that a Flexible path encourages general purpose technology investments (like SLS) instead of something specific (like Altair).  But picking destinations based on what's available leaves out both ROI & R&D.  I agree with Dennis Wingo who states that Science & Space travel should have a practical purpose.  To that end, missions should be picked on what the United States will get back in return.  The highest return missions then should dictate the R&D to enable the technology necessary to achieve said mission.  When the taxpayer see's a good return on investment, the taxpayer wants to increase the investment.  Win-Win.  We do that with a Decadal Survey for Science Missions, there's no reason NOT to do it with HEOMD.

Instead of saying "We're doing SLS & Orion to go to Mars", NASA should say "We're doing X, Y & Z to enable on orbit satellite servicing to reduce the cost of GPS, Telecommunications, and Earth monitoring."  "We're doing A, B & C to provide Space Based Solar Power to lower your energy bills and utilizing Cis-lunar resources to build it to reduce the cost of manufacture." 

         

[darkbluenine]

Every other source I've seen says the actual capacity of the fully-operational system is intended to be at least one per year, probably two, maybe even three

The achievable production rate is two per year, which can be increased if required.

Do either of you have links?  Thanks in advance if you do.

Gerst's one launch per year isn't a wish; it's a minimum requirement.  Therefore if the production capacity is below that, it will need to be upgraded.

If Gerst's desirement is a requirement, then it would/should be reflected in the requirements.  It makes no sense to have a requirement that is half of the safe rate.

SLS can easily soak up as much money as the OMB is willing to give it for as long as the five-year budget runout lasts

The ESD integration document also shows figures in the $1.5B range through 2025 for the scenarios that most closely resemble the budget.

Instead of saying "We're doing SLS & Orion to go to Mars", NASA should say "We're doing X, Y & Z to enable on orbit satellite servicing to reduce the cost of GPS, Telecommunications, and Earth monitoring."  "We're doing A, B & C to provide Space Based Solar Power to lower your energy bills and utilizing Cis-lunar resources to build it to reduce the cost of manufacture."         

I appreciate with the thrust of your argument, but SLS has nothing to do with satellite servicing or SSP.  Those are two applications that are largely launch agnostic.

[93143]

Do either of you have links?  Thanks in advance if you do.

You've seen them too.  In fact I just posted one of them.

I am interested in Tim's source; he sounds more confident than my own knowledge warrants.  Maybe I missed something somewhere...

If Gerst's desirement is a requirement, then it would/should be reflected in the requirements.  It makes no sense to have a requirement that is half of the safe rate.

It's a near-term requirement for IOC, not a long-term program goal.

The ESD integration document also shows figures in the $1.5B range through 2025 for the scenarios that most closely resemble the budget.

They were going for the old version of Block 2, which was in continuous development over the entire analysis window in those scenarios.

That document also seems to get its cost estimates directly from Shuttle and CxP numbers, which are already known to be too high and may turn out to be much too high.

If your budget is flat, and you have things to do that could in principle use more cash than you've got, you use what you've got.  There's no reason to expect the SLS program budget to draw down at all until development is finished.