Author Topic: SLS General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 396007 times)

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1911
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1220 on: 01/03/2018 01:07 AM »
Seems like NASA has had a lot of multi-billion dollar overruns for a lot of stuff.  Contractors who depend on the government seem to overrun the most and take longer to develop stuff.  Boy, if we had to fight WWII again the way our government operates now, we would loose, just on the bureaucracy alone, not just cost.

It is a product of old space. If Congress does not provide funding or enough funding then things get delayed or not done. New space get some of it's funding privately and is not dependant on Congress to the same degree. The other advantage is that decisions can be made more rapidly when the Contractor is in control of the product 

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8635
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2680
  • Likes Given: 6978
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1221 on: 01/03/2018 02:01 AM »
Using Orion as a lifeboat for ISS with a crew of 7 proposal is what killed the X-38/CRV program in that function...

X-38/CRV was cancelled in 2002, some years before the Columbia accident, ESAS, and Orion.  Cause was a multi-billion dollar cost overrun on ISS that NASA delivered to the Bush II White House at the beginning of its term.
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost and Columbia was 2003 (some months, not some years) they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station which led to the CEV competition...aka Orion in 2005... CxP and SLS suffers the same lack of focus and redirection in common which results in waste of time and money...
http://www.astronautix.com/o/orioncev.html
« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 02:09 AM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4033
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2701
  • Likes Given: 3462
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1222 on: 01/03/2018 02:46 AM »
Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?

It's a common misconception that the Shuttle was required for transporting expedition crews to the ISS once it was operational. That never was true.

The Shuttle was only a secondary way of transporting crews to and from the ISS, but because the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks we have always relied on the Soyuz for getting crews to the ISS, and keeping them there.

Actually, with two EDO pallets, Shuttle could stay up for a month. It only ever flew with one though...

I know it's fun to think about what would be possible with unlimited money and time, but let's stick with reality - the Shuttle could not perform 6-month lifeboat duty for ISS personnel.

Quote
Quote
Once the ISS was construction complete there was no more need for Shuttle flights to the ISS, so there was no real need to send the Orion to the ISS - the Soyuz was already handling normal crew rotation tasks. Flying the Orion to the ISS could have been an interesting test flight, but otherwise was not necessary.

Whether or not Soyuz was required to keep ISS operational, the fact is that it didn't cost half a billion dollars a year for Russia to provide that capability when the U.S. had its own crew transport.

Not sure what you are talking about, since when Griffin made his decision on Orion for the ISS we were only paying $25M per seat to the ISS. As a reminder, we historically spent $1.2B per Shuttle flight.

Quote
So, how tenable our situation is vs. how tenable the situation was with Shuttle depends on what you think about tax dollars being used in that way.

Up to the moment the Orion would have lifted off to the ISS, we would have been relying on Russia for transportation to the ISS.

From what we know from the Augustine Commission, the Ares I would not have been ready in time to support the end of the ISS. And from what we know of the history of the Orion today it's highly unlikely that the Orion CEV would have been ready to support the end of the ISS.

So considering all of that, $25M per seat looks like a bargain.

Quote
Presumably, they should benefit Americans, not Russians.

Back in 2005 our relations with Russia were pretty good, and we were happy to have them as partners. Remember they kept us in space after the Columbia accident, so let's remember history correctly.

Quote
And the bill from Russia will easily be in the $4-5 billion range.

Over about 18 years? Sounds like a bargain.

Quote
And so, like I said before, if it really was about the money, other issues would be just as controversial if not more so than SLS.

The money we paid to Russia resulted in actual services. The money we've spent on the SLS so far has only resulted in jobs, but nothing that has been needed by a customer. Yet.

Maybe that will change, or maybe not. We'll have a better idea when Trump's proposed budget is released in a few months...
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 UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1223 on: 01/03/2018 03:00 AM »
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost

CRV was over $1B at cancellation.

The capability for that cost never really made sense, especially in light of less complex and less costly alternatives, like Soyuz, a simple domestic capsule, or a lifeboat.

Quote
they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station

No, the ISS Program still had/has Soyuz.

Quote
which led to the CEV competition...

CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle, not ISS rescue or return vehicle.

A domestic ISS capability was part and parcel of CEV, but that competition and subsequently Orion were never driven by ISS rescue or transport requirements.  Lunar transport requirements largely enveloped ISS needs.


Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8261
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4446
  • Likes Given: 1398
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1224 on: 01/03/2018 06:34 AM »
NASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles.  The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop.  NASA then simply buys services like COTS. 

That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.

We also know that this is not going to happen anytime soon. Too many folks in US Congress depend on NASA having it's own launcher to develop and operate.
Buying services doesn't "bring home the bacon" nor does it keep certain space-and-defense contractors well-padded.

But I digress.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 06:35 AM by woods170 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8635
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2680
  • Likes Given: 6978
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1225 on: 01/03/2018 12:40 PM »
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost

CRV was over $1B at cancellation.

The capability for that cost never really made sense, especially in light of less complex and less costly alternatives, like Soyuz, a simple domestic capsule, or a lifeboat.

Quote
they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station

No, the ISS Program still had/has Soyuz.

Quote
which led to the CEV competition...

CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle, not ISS rescue or return vehicle.

A domestic ISS capability was part and parcel of CEV, but that competition and subsequently Orion were never driven by ISS rescue or transport requirements.  Lunar transport requirements largely enveloped ISS needs.
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...

-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight and is a result of mismanagement and desperation "not" a cogent plan... It could not carry 7 person crew for evacuation, even with two docked. Furthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass (only upmass on Progress) and no unpressurised upmass. Last I checked the US does not belong to Russia, yet...

-CEV was a term that evolved from the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program which included the HL-20, MPS (Multi-Purpose Spacecraft) later became the MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle) program which means they wanted "one" spacecraft that could be used with mods for ISS servicing, Lunar and eventually Mars flights... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)

-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...

"Please stop trying to revise history with your Pro-Russia agenda"...
« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 01:47 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Liked: 2291
  • Likes Given: 1314
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1226 on: 01/03/2018 12:52 PM »
NASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles.  The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop.  NASA then simply buys services like COTS. 

That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.

We also know that this is not going to happen anytime soon. Too many folks in US Congress depend on NASA having it's own launcher to develop and operate.
Buying services doesn't "bring home the bacon" nor does it keep certain space-and-defense contractors well-padded.

But I digress.

Those contractors could easily be well-padded with contracts to build payloads and on-orbit hardware instead of launch vehicles. Almost all of them make spacecraft or at least spacecraft subsystems.

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1227 on: 01/03/2018 01:49 PM »
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...

Exactly.  X-38/CRV was another HSF project with dubious requirements and an unnecessarily complex technical approach facing a large overrun.  At cancellation, X-38/CRV was costing almost $1.2B.  By the time they fixed the test program, we were probably looking at $2B+.

https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdf

Quote
-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight

ISS in an _international_ program, not a US civil human space flight program.  It's not an aberration to rely on a partner for certain capabilities.

And practically speaking, NASA can't afford to do everything, at least not the way NASA usually does things. 

Quote
and is a result of mismanagement  and desperation "not" a cogent plan...

I agree.  NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology.  Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce.  NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.

Quote
Furthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass  and no unpressurised upmass.

This confuses emergency crew return with ISS cargo transport needs.

Quote
-CEV ... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)

Which is exactly my point.  CRV cancellation had nothing to do with CEV.

Quote
-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...

It didn't.  I was the starting COTS program executive.  The history goes back pre-Columbia but that's a different thread.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 01:51 PM by UltraViolet9 »

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 918
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1228 on: 01/03/2018 03:33 PM »
What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.



A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations.  Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.

That cadence would have been amazing.  2 Shuttles on the pad, one for the planned mission, one for the LON mission.  Shuttle one launches, STS-3xx/LON stays on Pad-loads its cargo/crew, redesignated to STS-??? then launches 3 weeks later. 15 launches/year was to be the manifest for 1986 before it all went down tubes.
Thread about "manifested" 1986 STS missions.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26960.0

There was capability for dual concurrent Shuttle missions as this was a contingency plan for "One day weather wave off would have caused overlap."-Jim of STS-61-F-Challenger 5/15/86 and landed on 5/19/86 and STS-61G-Atlantis to launch 5/20/86 and landed 5/24/86 after deploying Galileo. Galileo was launched using an Inertial Upper Stage(solid propellant-no LH2/LOx in the payload bay of the Shuttle) instead of the LH2/LOx powered Centaur as per safety changes following STS-51L on October 18, 1989-STS-34-Atlantis.
Both of these missions originally were planned for using the Centaur-G LH2 upper stages, as such IIRC both of these missions were 4 person crews, would have been launched using 109% RPL on the SSME's which during this time period were still the "Phase-I" SSMEs or RS-25, not RS-25-A, RS25-C or RS-25-D, but the RS-25 that had improvements made for usage at 104% RPL and for greater service life over the FMOF (first manned orbital flight) engines (ME-2005,ME-2006, ME-2007 which were used for STS-1 through STS-5(so the first 4 "test" missions and the Shuttle 1st "operational mission.
Apparently there was initial questions about the Centaur-Shuttle missions and the ability for the orbiters to RTLS/ TAL/AOA due to landing weight in regards to the landing gear and the lack of safe methods of dumping the cryo propellants from the Orbiters payload bay.

C'mon EM-1, my campsite at Jetty Park has been booked for Summer 2020.


Pic#1 Endeavor/Atlantis at Pads 39-A AND LC-39-B concurrently.
Pic#2 Shuttle/Centaur

« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 03:35 PM by Hog »
Paul

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8635
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2680
  • Likes Given: 6978
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1229 on: 01/03/2018 03:43 PM »
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...

Exactly.  X-38/CRV was another HSF project with dubious requirements and an unnecessarily complex technical approach facing a large overrun.  At cancellation, X-38/CRV was costing almost $1.2B.  By the time they fixed the test program, we were probably looking at $2B+.

https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdf

Quote
-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight

ISS in an _international_ program, not a US civil human space flight program.  It's not an aberration to rely on a partner for certain capabilities.

And practically speaking, NASA can't afford to do everything, at least not the way NASA usually does things. 

Quote
and is a result of mismanagement  and desperation "not" a cogent plan...

I agree.  NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology.  Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce.  NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.

Quote
Furthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass  and no unpressurised upmass.

This confuses emergency crew return with ISS cargo transport needs.

Quote
-CEV ... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)

Which is exactly my point.  CRV cancellation had nothing to do with CEV.

Quote
-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...

It didn't.  I was the starting COTS program executive.  The history goes back pre-Columbia but that's a different thread.
The X-38 was under Goldin at 500M, CRV was the orbital test vehicle which was cancelled just as it was being readied for it's orbital debut by the "bean counter" O'keefe, penny wise and pound foolish...

Give it a rest ISS, is not MIR...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4049
  • California
  • Liked: 3344
  • Likes Given: 2110
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1230 on: 01/03/2018 04:49 PM »
I agree.  NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology.  Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce.  NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.

Yes. It's almost as if they *wanted* the alternatives to fail... Any human spaceflight vehicle alternative to Shuttle was a risk to Shuttle, and it was only the cancellation of Shuttle that finally led to Commercial Crew. And even then it has been a yearly battle of tooth and nail to keep the program funded at decent levels, as the Shuttle forces of the NASA industrial complex now have morphed into SLS.

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1231 on: 01/03/2018 05:40 PM »
The X-38 was under Goldin at 500M

Yes, another low-ball HSF estimate.  NASA's history since Apollo is replete with them.

Quote
CRV was the orbital test vehicle which was cancelled just as it was being readied for it's orbital debut by the "bean counter" O'keefe,

O'Keefe was not Administrator when CRV was cancelled.

When the Bush II Administration came into office, NASA HSF handed the White House a $5 billion cost overrun on ISS.  The decision was made at the White House, not NASA, to get the ISS budget under control.

That meant two things.  First, forcing George Abbey out of the JSC Center Director's chair.  And second, defining an end to the ISS development -- "Core Complete" -- and terminating the elements after that, especially the more dubious ones, including CRV.

Quote
penny wise and pound foolish...

NASA competes in the civil R&D portion of the federal budget.  It's not a huge pie.  For example, that $5 billion overrun on ISS alone is more (much more at the time) than the annual budget of the National Cancer Institute. 

Quote
Give it a rest ISS, is not MIR...

No, it's not.  Mir was largely a national development program.  ISS was explicitly an international one.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2115
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1232 on: 01/03/2018 07:51 PM »
Originally:
Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.
Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.


NASA never planned to launch Orion on Ares-V, aka CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). The CxP architecture required Orion to launch on an Ares-I CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle). All CxP missions beyond LEO would have required at least two launches: one (or more) Ares-V launches for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) and cargo (e.g. Altair), and one Ares-I launch with Orion and the crew.

Also, Commercial Crew definitely replaced Orion to ISS for crew rotation. Regardless of when ISS would or would not have been splashed.

Cheers!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8635
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2680
  • Likes Given: 6978
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1233 on: 01/03/2018 08:09 PM »
Originally:
Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.
Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.


NASA never planned to launch Orion on Ares-V, aka CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). The CxP architecture required Orion to launch on an Ares-I CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle). All CxP missions beyond LEO would have required at least two launches: one (or more) Ares-V launches for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) and cargo (e.g. Altair), and one Ares-I launch with Orion and the crew.

Also, Commercial Crew definitely replaced Orion to ISS for crew rotation. Regardless of when ISS would or would not have been splashed.

Cheers!
Yes, quite right, thank you... In my minds eye was Orion on DIRECT Jupiter 241/246 or Ares V Lite...
« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 08:14 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4033
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2701
  • Likes Given: 3462
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1234 on: 01/03/2018 08:33 PM »
What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article:



Quote
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.

Here is what the original Senate Bill S. 3729 stated:

Quote
SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue the
development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.
(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purpose
crew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.

Quote
A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations.  Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.

I don't think the Shuttle fleet was capable of doing that safely and consistently.
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 oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1802
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1235 on: 01/03/2018 10:40 PM »
What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article:



Quote
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.

Here is what the original Senate Bill S. 3729 stated:

Quote
SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue the
development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.
(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purpose
crew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.

Quote
A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations.  Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.

I don't think the Shuttle fleet was capable of doing that safely and consistently.
A suggestion would be to cross post this into Commercial Crew thread.

Offline JDTractorGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • USAF
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1236 on: 01/20/2018 01:45 PM »
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change?  Is it my congressman or my senator?

<Rant mode on>
This is not a joke post.  I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped.  I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong.  Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem.  This program is eating up a ridiculous amount of NASA's budget, and to me, doesn't seem to be accomplishing much other than providing jobs.  Yes, maybe that's what congress wants, but I personally don't sit easy knowing that.  I've always been a fan of SLS, but I swear, if this program keeps delaying it's going to turn me into a SpaceX fanboy.
</Rant mode off>

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 938
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1237 on: 01/20/2018 02:44 PM »
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change?  Is it my congressman or my senator?

<Rant mode on>
This is not a joke post.  I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped.  I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong.  Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem.  This program is eating up a ridiculous amount of NASA's budget, and to me, doesn't seem to be accomplishing much other than providing jobs.  Yes, maybe that's what congress wants, but I personally don't sit easy knowing that.  I've always been a fan of SLS, but I swear, if this program keeps delaying it's going to turn me into a SpaceX fanboy.
</Rant mode off>

Both of your senators (each state gets two) and your congressman.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4033
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2701
  • Likes Given: 3462
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1238 on: 01/20/2018 03:24 PM »
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change?  Is it my congressman or my senator?

<Rant mode on>
This is not a joke post.  I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped.  I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong.  Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem...
</Rant mode off>

What you're seeing today is the result of how the program was created, and how it was created was in a most unusual way.

So yes, contact your congressional representatives, but quite honestly there is nothing that can be done about the SLS program as of today, since this was all essentially pre-determined when the SLS was created.

I would suggest that you look into how large hardware programs are SUPPOSED to be proposed, developed and built, and then see how the SLS has differed from that. Maybe that will help you to understand why we're seeing what's going on today. And if you do your research right, you'll find that you have to go all the way back to 2005 in order to fully understand how we have ended up where we are.

This thread is not the right one to be doing research (general discussion vs history), but there is a lot of discussions elsewhere on NSF that you could start with.
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 IanThePineapple

Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1239 on: 01/20/2018 04:18 PM »
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?  Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters?  A good second stage?
Sorry for the delay.  I just ran across this question.  I try to avoid this thread these days.

In my mind, the key is ultimately going to be the cost of propulsion, especially of the RS-25 core stage engines.  They will have to build new engines at some point.  Cost control will be paramount.  I wish this work could be opened for truely competitive bidding.

EUS and its engines will also be a key cost driver.  The engines and other systems must be common with at least one other commercial stage or cost control will be impossible.

But the real cost of SLS/Orion that needs to see some control is for Orion.  That barter exchange for Service Module will shift to real money (Euros) in the future (there are only so many AJ-10s, and they don't make them anymore), and does anyone see evidence of cost-control as a consideration in the design of the CM? 

 - Ed Kyle

The RL-10s cost ~$19M each IIRC. So just the engines on the EUS cost more than a full Falcon 9 (with no reuse factored in), or potentially around the same price as a fully reused FH.

That price needs to go doooown!  ;D
« Last Edit: 01/20/2018 04:19 PM by IanThePineapple »

Tags: