Call to Cancel SLS

[edkyle99]

In the Jan 28, 2013 Wall Street Journal,  former Congressman Robert Walker and former NASA advisor Charles Miller proposed the cancellation of SLS. This triggered debate and responses in several places. Here is, or should be, a link to the original OpEd. If this doesn't work, Google "Commercial Space Exploration Needs an Obama Relaunch".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578233974117303116.html

Ed Kyle

[SpacexULA]

God I hope Obama ignores this.  The more he talks about cutting SLS, the more the Senate/Congress will try to hurt the COTS/CRS/CCDEV participants.

[Lars_J]

Cancelling SLS does make sense, and it will happen - barring a miraculous increase in the NASA budget.

Why? The arguments have been aired on these forums for a long time, but to make it short: If we cannot afford payloads/missions, why build it in the first place?

In an ideal world, the SLS funding should be shifted to in-space hardware to allow real exploration. But with Congress involved...

[edkyle99]

Cancelling SLS does make sense, and it will happen - barring a miraculous increase in the NASA budget.

Why? The arguments have been aired on these forums for a long time, but to make it short: If we cannot afford payloads/missions, why build it in the first place?

In an ideal world, the SLS funding should be shifted to in-space hardware to allow real exploration. But with Congress involved...

My point of view is that the country has to be prepared to fund the mission, whether SLS exists or not. Canceling the rocket most likely means that there will be no mission at all. Just as canceling Constellation ended lunar landing hopes altogether.

Ed Kyle

[alexterrell]

Cancelling SLS does make sense, and it will happen - barring a miraculous increase in the NASA budget.

Why? The arguments have been aired on these forums for a long time, but to make it short: If we cannot afford payloads/missions, why build it in the first place?

In an ideal world, the SLS funding should be shifted to in-space hardware to allow real exploration. But with Congress involved...

The other argument is 53 tons and Falcon Heavy.

The trouble is - its not an ideal world. If SLS is scrapped, the savings will go on unemployment benefit in the regions affected. Not on space programmes.

[sdsds]

What an odd retelling of events!

Congress [...] stopped Mr. Obama's plan to cancel the government's super-heavy-lift rocket, which was known as Ares V and then recreated as the Space Launch System.

[Hyperion5]

Cancelling SLS does make sense, and it will happen - barring a miraculous increase in the NASA budget.

Why? The arguments have been aired on these forums for a long time, but to make it short: If we cannot afford payloads/missions, why build it in the first place?

In an ideal world, the SLS funding should be shifted to in-space hardware to allow real exploration. But with Congress involved...

The other argument is 53 tons and Falcon Heavy.

The trouble is - its not an ideal world. If SLS is scrapped, the savings will go on unemployment benefit in the regions affected. Not on space programmes.

I think you hit it spot on.  Falcon Heavy may be more economical to base an exploration program around, but it doesn't give NASA the political backing for BEO exploration like the SLS would.  Let's face it, NASA needs all the friends in Congress it can get.  If we go killing the SLS, I make that 3 rockets killed in short order, and causing chaos like that is bound to be detrimental to both morale and any exploration plan.  At this point I think it's more important for reasons of keeping momentum, morale and political backing that we keep SLS moving forward.  Also, it's not like NASA couldn't use the Falcon Heavy going forward.  I'm sure the two rockets will work well together for deep space missions. 

[Chris Bergin]

Kill SLS and you risk killing NASA, which risks killing commercial space (CRS, Commercial Crew).

Moving this nonsense to politics.

[yg1968]

Kill SLS and you risk killing NASA, which risks killing commercial space (CRS, Commercial Crew).

Moving this nonsense to politics.

I think that the idea would be to go back to the principles of the FY2011 budget. NASA would become an R+D agency and would also focus on in-space transportation and payloads instead of duplicating commercial assets. 

[QuantumG]

The time is not right to make the Falcon Heavy vs SLS argument. It'll be the knockout blow when SpaceX has the Falcon Heavy actually flying.

[peter-b]

Article is behind a paywall, so meh. Probably doesn't say anything that hasn't already been argued and argued ad infinitum all over the Internet, anyway.

[tigerade]

Article is behind a paywall, so meh. Probably doesn't say anything that hasn't already been argued and argued ad infinitum all over the Internet, anyway.

Google the article and it'll show mirrors of the article that aren't paywall.

But there is nothing interesting about the article.  I am troubled by the talk of canceling SLS.  I was on the fence about it before but now I fully support the program.  SLS is our only chance of going beyond LEO in the next couple decades. 

[MATTBLAK]

In recent past months I stated that there were moves to kill SLS or at the very least that there were active SLS-haters. There were some folk around here who asked me to provide links and evidence, which I did. Even then I still wasn't believed, or I was told I was was stirring up trouble...! 

[muomega0]

Cancelling SLS does make sense, and it will happen - barring a miraculous increase in the NASA budget.

Why? The arguments have been aired on these forums for a long time, but to make it short: If we cannot afford payloads/missions, why build it in the first place?

In an ideal world, the SLS funding should be shifted to in-space hardware to allow real exploration. But with Congress involved...

The other argument is 53 tons and Falcon Heavy.

The trouble is - its not an ideal world. If SLS is scrapped, the savings will go on unemployment benefit in the regions affected. Not on space programmes.

I think you hit it spot on.  Falcon Heavy may be more economical to base an exploration program around, but it doesn't give NASA the political backing for BEO exploration like the SLS would.  Let's face it, NASA needs all the friends in Congress it can get.  If we go killing the SLS, I make that 3 rockets killed in short order, and causing chaos like that is bound to be detrimental to both morale and any exploration plan.  At this point I think it's more important for reasons of keeping momentum, morale and political backing that we keep SLS moving forward.  Also, it's not like NASA couldn't use the Falcon Heavy going forward.  I'm sure the two rockets will work well together for deep space missions. 

And NASA will continue to have lots of friends...    ( Just google the title to go beyond the pay wall.)

because there is so much new work/ hardware to build for the SLS savings.  Even scaled back Near Earth Asteroid programs are short on cash, and companies/folks will adapt to this work or the next space generation will benefit.

So should it be a zero boiloff depot design with LH2/LOX tanks filled by tankers or methane based upper stages refueled by falcon heavies?  AR&D techniques?    That is quite an interesting trade study right there.... even the GCR mass trades...and the Gateway habitat...the LEO to L2 transfer vehicle....aerobrakes...{snip}

why FH?  depot centric works without it so why wait?

Actually, incorporating a depot into the architecture gives MSFC a vital long term asset that works well with current capabilities.

per commercial:  the US and world has excess launch capacity so cancelling SLS only *opens* a market currently closed to them.

Nonsense:  15 missions over 20 years.  143B vs 87B for the SAME mission set.    or 143B for double the mission sets + technology development all outlined in the HLV Evolution

SLS...its time is not now...

[Lar]

Kill SLS and you risk killing NASA, which risks killing commercial space (CRS, Commercial Crew).

I have to wonder if cancelling SLS actually would risk killing NASA. Why would it? Seems more like it would free up resources for other things.

[MATTBLAK]

Kill SLS and you risk killing NASA, which risks killing commercial space (CRS, Commercial Crew).

I have to wonder if cancelling SLS actually would risk killing NASA. Why would it? Seems more like it would free up resources for other things.

Some keep saying that, but until it actually happens there can be no evidence - Catch-22. It is more likely that if you cut a major program in this difficult, deficit environment, its funding doesn't go to other related things, it just stays cut - for good.

Gone..

[Chris Bergin]

Kill SLS and you risk killing NASA, which risks killing commercial space (CRS, Commercial Crew).

I have to wonder if cancelling SLS actually would risk killing NASA. Why would it? Seems more like it would free up resources for other things.

My opinion, so it doesn't count for much, but it's not too wild to assume that if NASA fail yet again with SLS (following on from CxP's mess) political questioning about NASA will head into a lot of negativity about funding them....at least in HSF.

Now that probably leaves them as YG notes, but I'd question if that would be enough, because wrongly or rightly a lot of NASA support is based on them launching people. Remove that and you see how this could snowball, and then you're risking NASA money to SpaceX etc.

I'm rolling the snowball a long way, but I bet I'm not the first person to worry about that scenario.

Per SLS vs FH, we're getting back into that SLS vs EELV, but a bit more beefed up to 50mT debate again.

[Peter NASA]

I doubt these two politicians have much power to do anything, but the claim cancelling SLS would leave billions for payloads to ride on Falcon Heavy is not realist. You cut NASA, it does not go back into NASA, it just leaves NASA on a lower budget.

No one in their right mind wants that, well apart from a few on here.

[yg1968]

God I hope Obama ignores this.  The more he talks about cutting SLS, the more the Senate/Congress will try to hurt the COTS/CRS/CCDEV participants.

You may be right about that. But the problem is that commercial crew has already been attacked by Congress in the last few years. Congress' constantly reduces commercial crew's budget, attemps to downselect it earlier than necessary, tries to prevent the use of SAAs for commercial crew development and test flights and uses safety as an excuse to increase government oversight of the work done by commercial crew companies. Congress should avoid all of this by leaving commercial crew alone and stop trying to turn it into a government option.  Congress (mostly the House) hasn't respected the compromise that was the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. It's been trying to kill commercial crew from within ever since the authorization bill was passed.

[yg1968]

I doubt these two politicians have much power to do anything, but the claim cancelling SLS would leave billions for payloads to ride on Falcon Heavy is not realist. You cut NASA, it does not go back into NASA, it just leaves NASA on a lower budget.

No one in their right mind wants that, well apart from a few on here.

If it had been implemented, the FY 2011 Budget wouldn't have reduced NASA's overall budget. It just would have shifted NASA's priorities.