SLS General Discussion Thread 8

[yg1968]

SLS absolutely did NOT need more thrust than the shuttle did. SLS simply could have been a re-branding of the DIRECT architecture, which used the original 4 segment STS SRBs.

The vehicle family enjoyed multiple configurations and was the equal - in every way - to the SLS. Additionally, in some configurations it absolutely was superior to SLS, able to put more tonnes into LEO as well as send more tonnes thru TLI. These are not light statements. We spent considerable time with the engineers at the Aerospace Corp in Los Angles, Ca., and the vehicle's performance data was completely verified and was so reported to the Augustine Commission in 2009. SLS did not have to be the boondoggle that it became. A certain NASA Administrator who declared himself to be "the greatest rocket scientist in history", was bound and determined to push thru his personal design (Ares-I and Ares-V) and led NASA down the golden path to HLV catastrophe. SLS was the result of back room politics, political incompetence and arrogance. And here we are.

Direct was still a government owned and operated HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

I get your point to view, but if 2010 taught us something, is that Congress interest for SD-HLV could not be ignored. As much as I hate to say that, make no mistake.
It is the proverbial "making lemons into lemonade". Congress SD-HLV pork barrel & lobby was a pretty strong and entrenched one. Just ask Lori Garver, how the 2010-2011 decision was made, and what it cost to COTS & CCDEV. Don't forget that Congress was ready to nix COTS & CCDEV if nothing replaced at least Ares V (hint: SLS).

So if a bone has to be thrown to goddam SD-HLV entrenched lobby in Congress - then why no pick DIRECT ? (no disrespect to Clongton or the team - oh please). They were more flexible and less expensive SD-HLV that either Ares V or SLS.

That's how I see it. Imagine Jupiter 130 / 232 and Falcon 9 Heavy side by side at The Cape.

That's a fair point. Although, I wonder if HLS would have been commercial if Direct had been adopted in 2010. Some argue that HLS was commercial because of when it was introduced. In other words, had HLS been introduced earlier, it may have also been a governmental program. It's kind of hard to predict these alternate timelines...

[clongton]

SLS absolutely did NOT need more thrust than the shuttle did. SLS simply could have been a re-branding of the DIRECT architecture, which used the original 4 segment STS SRBs.

The vehicle family enjoyed multiple configurations and was the equal - in every way - to the SLS. Additionally, in some configurations it absolutely was superior to SLS, able to put more tonnes into LEO as well as send more tonnes thru TLI. These are not light statements. We spent considerable time with the engineers at the Aerospace Corp in Los Angles, Ca., and the vehicle's performance data was completely verified and was so reported to the Augustine Commission in 2009. SLS did not have to be the boondoggle that it became. A certain NASA Administrator who declared himself to be "the greatest rocket scientist in history", was bound and determined to push thru his personal design (Ares-I and Ares-V) and led NASA down the golden path to HLV catastrophe. SLS was the result of back room politics, political incompetence and arrogance. And here we are.

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

Shuttle-Derived was mandated by law - period. There was no other option permissible by law. DIRECT existed as a concept before the authorization of commercial operations and was an attempt to get the best deal possible - within the limits of the law - of a government program, the only kind of program possible at the time. Making the best damn tasting lemonade out of lemons that could possibly be made. It was (and still is) better than the current monstrosity.

But let's not pursue this line further. It is skirting the line of going OT.

[yg1968]

SLS absolutely did NOT need more thrust than the shuttle did. SLS simply could have been a re-branding of the DIRECT architecture, which used the original 4 segment STS SRBs.

The vehicle family enjoyed multiple configurations and was the equal - in every way - to the SLS. Additionally, in some configurations it absolutely was superior to SLS, able to put more tonnes into LEO as well as send more tonnes thru TLI. These are not light statements. We spent considerable time with the engineers at the Aerospace Corp in Los Angles, Ca., and the vehicle's performance data was completely verified and was so reported to the Augustine Commission in 2009. SLS did not have to be the boondoggle that it became. A certain NASA Administrator who declared himself to be "the greatest rocket scientist in history", was bound and determined to push thru his personal design (Ares-I and Ares-V) and led NASA down the golden path to HLV catastrophe. SLS was the result of back room politics, political incompetence and arrogance. And here we are.

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

Shuttle-Derived was mandated by law - period. There was no other option permissible by law. DIRECT existed as a concept before the authorization of commercial operations and was an attempt to get the best deal possible - within the limits of the law - of a government program, the only kind of program possible at the time. Making the best damn tasting lemonade out of lemons that could possibly be made. It was (and still is) better than the current monstrosity.

But let's not pursue this line further. It is skirting the line of going OT.

Direct predates the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. Was there another bill before that mandated a Shuttle derived HLV?

[spacenut]

If a frog had wings.  If they would have spent the money to air start the SSME.  None of the bad things we see today would have happened.  This would allow 4 segment solids to continue.  This would have allowed the stick.  And it would have gotten us a 140 ton launcher with 4 segment solids, 5 engine core, and a single engine upper stage.  We would probably already have it or both.  Maybe then this would have allowed 2-4 launches a year instead of one.  The boosters could have still been recovered and refurbished.  And on it goes. 

Now we have an under achiever in SLS, with only about 95 tons to orbit.  Not enough power to get Orion in a true lunar orbit.  No upper stage yet for TLI.  The core is too tall to allow a decent upper stage and cargo to fit the VAB.  And on and on it goes. 

We have to continue saying these things from history because of new people who don't know the history. 

[clongton]

SLS absolutely did NOT need more thrust than the shuttle did. SLS simply could have been a re-branding of the DIRECT architecture, which used the original 4 segment STS SRBs.

The vehicle family enjoyed multiple configurations and was the equal - in every way - to the SLS. Additionally, in some configurations it absolutely was superior to SLS, able to put more tonnes into LEO as well as send more tonnes thru TLI. These are not light statements. We spent considerable time with the engineers at the Aerospace Corp in Los Angles, Ca., and the vehicle's performance data was completely verified and was so reported to the Augustine Commission in 2009. SLS did not have to be the boondoggle that it became. A certain NASA Administrator who declared himself to be "the greatest rocket scientist in history", was bound and determined to push thru his personal design (Ares-I and Ares-V) and led NASA down the golden path to HLV catastrophe. SLS was the result of back room politics, political incompetence and arrogance. And here we are.

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

Shuttle-Derived was mandated by law - period. There was no other option permissible by law. DIRECT existed as a concept before the authorization of commercial operations and was an attempt to get the best deal possible - within the limits of the law - of a government program, the only kind of program possible at the time. Making the best damn tasting lemonade out of lemons that could possibly be made. It was (and still is) better than the current monstrosity.

But let's not pursue this line further. It is skirting the line of going OT.

Direct predates the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. Was there another bill before that mandated a Shuttle derived HLV?

Yes. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Specifically:

SEC. 502. TRANSITION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, to the fullest extent
possible consistent with a successful development program, use
the personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the Space
Shuttle program in developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew
Launch Vehicle, and a heavy-lift launch vehicle

[yg1968]

Maybe then this would have allowed 2-4 launches a year instead of one.

I am skeptical that any governmental HLV program can reach that cadence.

[woods170]

SLS absolutely did NOT need more thrust than the shuttle did. SLS simply could have been a re-branding of the DIRECT architecture, which used the original 4 segment STS SRBs.

The vehicle family enjoyed multiple configurations and was the equal - in every way - to the SLS. Additionally, in some configurations it absolutely was superior to SLS, able to put more tonnes into LEO as well as send more tonnes thru TLI. These are not light statements. We spent considerable time with the engineers at the Aerospace Corp in Los Angles, Ca., and the vehicle's performance data was completely verified and was so reported to the Augustine Commission in 2009. SLS did not have to be the boondoggle that it became. A certain NASA Administrator who declared himself to be "the greatest rocket scientist in history", was bound and determined to push thru his personal design (Ares-I and Ares-V) and led NASA down the golden path to HLV catastrophe. SLS was the result of back room politics, political incompetence and arrogance. And here we are.

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

Shuttle-Derived was mandated by law - period. There was no other option permissible by law. DIRECT existed as a concept before the authorization of commercial operations and was an attempt to get the best deal possible - within the limits of the law - of a government program, the only kind of program possible at the time. Making the best damn tasting lemonade out of lemons that could possibly be made. It was (and still is) better than the current monstrosity.

But let's not pursue this line further. It is skirting the line of going OT.

Direct predates the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. Was there another bill before that mandated a Shuttle derived HLV?

DIRECT was an alternative to the Ares vehicle architecture of the Constellation program. The Ares vehicles were shuttle derived HLVs, mandated by law, as Chuck pointed out in reply #44.

The NASA Authorization bill of 2010 did not fundamentally change anything. It again mandated a shuttle derived HLV, this time in reacting to the termination of CxP.

[woods170]

If a frog had wings.  If they would have spent the money to air start the SSME.  None of the bad things we see today would have happened.  This would allow 4 segment solids to continue.  This would have allowed the stick.  And it would have gotten us a 140 ton launcher with 4 segment solids, 5 engine core, and a single engine upper stage.  We would probably already have it or both.  Maybe then this would have allowed 2-4 launches a year instead of one.  The boosters could have still been recovered and refurbished.  And on it goes. 

Now we have an under achiever in SLS, with only about 95 tons to orbit.  Not enough power to get Orion in a true lunar orbit.  No upper stage yet for TLI.  The core is too tall to allow a decent upper stage and cargo to fit the VAB.  And on and on it goes. 

We have to continue saying these things from history because of new people who don't know the history. 

Emphasis mine.

Absolutely. It would perhaps be a good thing if Chris B, or any of the other writers, do a re-cap article of the 2003 - 2012 era. One that should be promoted as essential reading for every new member that joins this site.
The 2003 - 2012 timeframe is an absolutely essential period of time in the road to SLS. A good understanding of that time frame allows people to understand how we got stuck with SLS and why so many people vehemently oppose the existence of SLS.

[libra]

SLS absolutely did NOT need more thrust than the shuttle did. SLS simply could have been a re-branding of the DIRECT architecture, which used the original 4 segment STS SRBs.

The vehicle family enjoyed multiple configurations and was the equal - in every way - to the SLS. Additionally, in some configurations it absolutely was superior to SLS, able to put more tonnes into LEO as well as send more tonnes thru TLI. These are not light statements. We spent considerable time with the engineers at the Aerospace Corp in Los Angles, Ca., and the vehicle's performance data was completely verified and was so reported to the Augustine Commission in 2009. SLS did not have to be the boondoggle that it became. A certain NASA Administrator who declared himself to be "the greatest rocket scientist in history", was bound and determined to push thru his personal design (Ares-I and Ares-V) and led NASA down the golden path to HLV catastrophe. SLS was the result of back room politics, political incompetence and arrogance. And here we are.

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

Shuttle-Derived was mandated by law - period. There was no other option permissible by law. DIRECT existed as a concept before the authorization of commercial operations and was an attempt to get the best deal possible - within the limits of the law - of a government program, the only kind of program possible at the time. Making the best damn tasting lemonade out of lemons that could possibly be made. It was (and still is) better than the current monstrosity.

Sure, EELV solutions were shot down with the "black zones" pathetic fallacy. I remember how it baffled me - Ares 1 Thrust Oscillation issues were well-known, and much, much more real and threatening than that Black Zone fallacy.

Best way of summarizing the EELV black zones scandal - good old Bible.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam

" And why, Mike Griffin, beholdest thou the "black zones" that is in thy EELV's rocket, but considerest not the "thrust oscillations" that is in thine Ares 1 booster ?

 

[yg1968]

SLS absolutely did NOT need more thrust than the shuttle did. SLS simply could have been a re-branding of the DIRECT architecture, which used the original 4 segment STS SRBs.

The vehicle family enjoyed multiple configurations and was the equal - in every way - to the SLS. Additionally, in some configurations it absolutely was superior to SLS, able to put more tonnes into LEO as well as send more tonnes thru TLI. These are not light statements. We spent considerable time with the engineers at the Aerospace Corp in Los Angles, Ca., and the vehicle's performance data was completely verified and was so reported to the Augustine Commission in 2009. SLS did not have to be the boondoggle that it became. A certain NASA Administrator who declared himself to be "the greatest rocket scientist in history", was bound and determined to push thru his personal design (Ares-I and Ares-V) and led NASA down the golden path to HLV catastrophe. SLS was the result of back room politics, political incompetence and arrogance. And here we are.

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

Shuttle-Derived was mandated by law - period. There was no other option permissible by law. DIRECT existed as a concept before the authorization of commercial operations and was an attempt to get the best deal possible - within the limits of the law - of a government program, the only kind of program possible at the time. Making the best damn tasting lemonade out of lemons that could possibly be made. It was (and still is) better than the current monstrosity.

But let's not pursue this line further. It is skirting the line of going OT.

Direct predates the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. Was there another bill before that mandated a Shuttle derived HLV?

DIRECT was an alternative to the Ares vehicle architecture of the Constellation program. The Ares vehicles were shuttle derived HLVs, mandated by law, as Chuck pointed out in reply #44.

The NASA Authorization bill of 2010 did not fundamentally change anything. It again mandated a shuttle derived HLV, this time in reacting to the termination of CxP.

You are right about the language still being there even today (through the enactment of the 2010 NASA Authorization bill), it now says this which is similar to what the 2005 NASA Authorization bill said (as pointed out by Chuck):

42 U.S. Code § 18362 - Retirement of Space Shuttle orbiters and transition of Space Shuttle program

(b)Utilization of workforce and assets in follow-on Space Launch System

(1)Utilization of vehicle assets

In carrying out subsection (a) [which relates to the retirement of the space shuttle], the Administrator shall, to the maximum extent practicable, utilize workforce, assets, and infrastructure of the Space Shuttle program in efforts relating to the initiation of a follow-on Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 18322 of this title.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18362

[libra]

If a frog had wings.  If they would have spent the money to air start the SSME.  None of the bad things we see today would have happened.  This would allow 4 segment solids to continue.  This would have allowed the stick.  And it would have gotten us a 140 ton launcher with 4 segment solids, 5 engine core, and a single engine upper stage.  We would probably already have it or both.  Maybe then this would have allowed 2-4 launches a year instead of one.  The boosters could have still been recovered and refurbished.  And on it goes. 

Now we have an under achiever in SLS, with only about 95 tons to orbit.  Not enough power to get Orion in a true lunar orbit.  No upper stage yet for TLI.  The core is too tall to allow a decent upper stage and cargo to fit the VAB.  And on and on it goes. 

We have to continue saying these things from history because of new people who don't know the history. 

Emphasis mine.

Absolutely. It would perhaps be a good thing if Chris B, or any of the other writers, do a re-cap article of the 2003 - 2012 era. One that should be promoted as essential reading for every new member that joins this site.
The 2003 - 2012 timeframe is an absolutely essential period of time in the road to SLS. A good understanding of that time frame allows people to understand how we got stuck with SLS and why so many people vehemently oppose the existence of SLS.

It would be fascinating. COTS and SpaceX and CCDEV, STS-107, Steidle & spirals, O'Keefe and Griffin, Constellation, the EELV black zone idiocy and fallacy, Ares 1 descent to Hell that dragged Orion and Ares V along it, the DIRECT saga, Augustine, and the 2010 SLS decision. With Garver book to get a little deeper into the details.

Hell yes, it would be a very interesting writting - and reading !

INTRO: 2002

1- STS-107 and the end of the Shuttle

2- But NOT of the ISS: finish it by 2010, then retire the Shuttles

3- Sean O'Keefe, OSP, Steidle and spirals.

4- VSE, 2004

5- Griffin and Constellation: April 2005

6- The why of COTS (2006) and how we got SpaceX out of it.

7- Constellation descent into Hell (2006-2009)
   A- Ares 1 problems (T.O, air started SSMEs, J-2X, 4-seg then 5-seg SRB)
   B- How they impacted Orion (Zero Base Orion)
   C- Ares growth (RS-68 base heating issues)
   D- Altair ? what Altair ? the lander that never was.

9- The DIRECT alternative: RS-68, then SSME (120 to 130, 232 to 246)

10- The EELV alternative and the Black Zones fallacy

11- Augustine (summer 2009)

12- The SLS decision, 2010-2011.

CONCLUSION: 2012 - 2022

[Proponent]

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

And DIRECT still required transforming the Shuttle's ET into a core stage with completely different loads.  That seems to have been where many of SLS's problems arose.  ICPS and 5-segment SRBs have been a breeze in comparison.

[yg1968]

Speaking of SLS' history, there is this upcoming event (however, I suspect that it will be a fairly positive account of SLS):

https://twitter.com/GregWAutry/status/1561854568438177792

[Khadgars]

Maybe then this would have allowed 2-4 launches a year instead of one.

I am skeptical that any governmental HLV program can reach that cadence.

Didn't the just recently enacted NASA Authorization Act require 2 launches per year?  My understanding the current tooling already supports this.

[yg1968]

Maybe then this would have allowed 2-4 launches a year instead of one.

I am skeptical that any governmental HLV program can reach that cadence.

Didn't the just recently enacted NASA Authorization Act require 2 launches per year?  My understanding the current tooling already supports this.

Yes but the 2022 NASA Authorization bill says to the extent practicable. A lot of people are skeptical that SLS and Orion can get to 2 missions per year without a significant increase in SLS funding. It's not clear that appropriators will fund that increase.

See this link for the exact wording of the provisions of the 2022 NASA Authorization Act relating to cadence:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53827.msg2388089#msg2388089

[Hog]

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

And DIRECT still required transforming the Shuttle's ET into a core stage with completely different loads.  That seems to have been where many of SLS's problems arose.  ICPS and 5-segment SRBs have been a breeze in comparison.

There were many DIRECT interations which didnt require changes to the ET.

[Hog]

Maybe then this would have allowed 2-4 launches a year instead of one.

I am skeptical that any governmental HLV program can reach that cadence.

Didn't the just recently enacted NASA Authorization Act require 2 launches per year?  My understanding the current tooling already supports this.

EDIT Tooling supports a core every  8 months.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/01/boeing-negotiating-nasa-future-sls-production/

"With the experience of a full build under its belt and seeing improvements the production quality so far of the second Core Stage, Boeing is hoping to get the go ahead to establish a supply chain and a production line around its existing tooling and ramp-up to a production rate of one unit every eight months, or three Core Stages every two years."

"“Three years is a pretty reasonable estimate for how long it takes to build a Core Stage,” Shannon said. “So once we get the pipeline fed at the very beginning, it’s about a three year process and we think we’ll be, with the current tooling we have, on about eight month centers if that’s what NASA wants to go fly.”

[Mark S]

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

And DIRECT still required transforming the Shuttle's ET into a core stage with completely different loads.  That seems to have been where many of SLS's problems arose.  ICPS and 5-segment SRBs have been a breeze in comparison.

There were many DIRECT interations which didnt require changes to the ET.

The only SD-HLV that would have required no changes to the ET would have been some variation of the side-mount SDLV that Jim John Shannon proposed. Basically it would have replaced the Shuttle orbiter with a side-mounted engine pod and upper stage with Orion. In this case the ET would not change, because all the loads would have stayed the same (or very close).

Any inline SD-HLV, including DIRECT, would have required a new core to be designed and qualified. This is no knock against DIRECT, just common sense. An inline design goes from a relatively simple external tank to a core stage with a completely different load path, a new engine section, a redesigned LOX tank, and an upper ring for payload/upper stage mating.

I think DIRECT would have been a much more affordable and more elegant solution than SLS. It was designed to fly without an upper stage for ISS and LEO operations. The optional upper stage was optimized for lunar missions, but it still would have required dual-launch mission profiles for that role: one for Orion and another for the rather large CxP lander. Even the launch tower was envisioned to support launches with or without the upper stage.  The Augustine commission was very impressed with the DIRECT team's presentation. Sad that this didn't result in a more DIRECT-like version of SLS.

I seem to recall a quote from an anonymous NASA person that "SLS will not be DIRECT", and we can see that imperative was carried out. SLS is not DIRECT, no matter the superficial similarities. ICPS was obsolete the day it was announced. Its eventual replacement, EUS, will also be undersized due to the under-performing SLS core stage.

But that's all water over the bridge now. SLS is what it is. I hope Artemis-I is completely successful and I look forward to watching its inaugural launch in just a few days.

Go NASA! Go SLS!

[Robotbeat]

SLS absolutely did NOT need more thrust than the shuttle did. SLS simply could have been a re-branding of the DIRECT architecture, which used the original 4 segment STS SRBs.

The vehicle family enjoyed multiple configurations and was the equal - in every way - to the SLS. Additionally, in some configurations it absolutely was superior to SLS, able to put more tonnes into LEO as well as send more tonnes thru TLI. These are not light statements. We spent considerable time with the engineers at the Aerospace Corp in Los Angles, Ca., and the vehicle's performance data was completely verified and was so reported to the Augustine Commission in 2009. SLS did not have to be the boondoggle that it became. A certain NASA Administrator who declared himself to be "the greatest rocket scientist in history", was bound and determined to push thru his personal design (Ares-I and Ares-V) and led NASA down the golden path to HLV catastrophe. SLS was the result of back room politics, political incompetence and arrogance. And here we are.

Direct was still a government owned HLV. It would have been ready sooner but it still would have suffered the same high cost during operations than any other government program does. I didn't support Direct at the time for that reason and I still don't think that it was a good idea.

Shuttle-Derived was mandated by law - period. There was no other option permissible by law. DIRECT existed as a concept before the authorization of commercial operations and was an attempt to get the best deal possible - within the limits of the law - of a government program, the only kind of program possible at the time. Making the best damn tasting lemonade out of lemons that could possibly be made. It was (and still is) better than the current monstrosity.

But let's not pursue this line further. It is skirting the line of going OT.

Direct predates the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. Was there another bill before that mandated a Shuttle derived HLV?

Yes. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Specifically:

SEC. 502. TRANSITION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, to the fullest extent
possible consistent with a successful development program, use
the personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the Space
Shuttle program in developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew
Launch Vehicle, and a heavy-lift launch vehicle

It is very debatable that Ares or SLS fit the description of a successful development program given the massive delays and budget increases. There was legal room for better options.
Heck, even Falcon 9 and Starship at the Cape meet much of that requirement. Many personnel now work at SpaceX, and many of the facilities, capabilities, and assets, as well.

Dragon counts as a crew vehicle. F9 is a heavy lift vehicle (and a crew launch vehicle); Falcon Heavy is super-heavy-lift.

The contractors that ended up developing SLS actually just kind of fired the old Shuttle workers anyway, which isn’t consistent with that law.

And don’t forget my signature, which is also law: “

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

[yg1968]

Maybe then this would have allowed 2-4 launches a year instead of one.

I am skeptical that any governmental HLV program can reach that cadence.

Didn't the just recently enacted NASA Authorization Act require 2 launches per year?  My understanding the current tooling already supports this.

EDIT Tooling supports a core every  8 months.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/01/boeing-negotiating-nasa-future-sls-production/

"With the experience of a full build under its belt and seeing improvements the production quality so far of the second Core Stage, Boeing is hoping to get the go ahead to establish a supply chain and a production line around its existing tooling and ramp-up to a production rate of one unit every eight months, or three Core Stages every two years."

"“Three years is a pretty reasonable estimate for how long it takes to build a Core Stage,” Shannon said. “So once we get the pipeline fed at the very beginning, it’s about a three year process and we think we’ll be, with the current tooling we have, on about eight month centers if that’s what NASA wants to go fly.”

Once every 8 months would still be a huge improvement. I wonder how much more it would cost. I remember Rep. Babin asking that question to Paul Martin (at 48 minutes of the video) but he didn't really answer the question.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55930.msg2346381#msg2346381