-
#40
by
rayleighscatter
on 21 Dec, 2016 22:34
-
(which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable
1) LOL, coming from a President Elect who talks about taking care of potholes before space exploration, who just strongly criticized both Boeing (threatening cancellation of AirForce One) and Lockheed (threatening F35), who supports those who want a federal govt hiring freeze and generally reduced budget except for defense, actually has plenty of friction with Congress, and for goodness sake look at the title of this thread if you think the funding tap for SLS/Orion will be opened up
2) Your sort of unfounded speculation belongs in the Space Policy section.
3) Even if I granted "still achievable," that's still a far cry from what's /most likely/ to occur.
First off. You display an outstanding level of cognitive dissonance to follow up your first point with your second one.
And if you reread what I said, you'll see I said nothing about increased funding.
-
#41
by
jtrame
on 21 Dec, 2016 23:05
-
This just in: President elect makes good with Boeing, Air Force 1 back on the front burner, maybe we should wait at least until January 20 before trying to predict what is showing itself to be unpredictable.
-
#42
by
clongton
on 21 Dec, 2016 23:44
-
I'm with Trump on this one. The most advanced nuclear powered attack submarine in the world with every conceivable weapon system and sensor hard wired into its soul, costs a mere $2 billion dollars. It's so stealthy that it can pass just a few feet underneath you and you will never see, feel or hear it, nor detect it by any means except by pure accident. How in the world then does Boeing justify a $4 billion dollar price tag for an admittedly complicated upgrade to a single mass produced airplane?
-
#43
by
Lar
on 21 Dec, 2016 23:53
-
Airforce 1...
Off topic.
-
#44
by
Robotbeat
on 22 Dec, 2016 01:32
-
I'm sorry I contributed to this, but this is clearly in the space policy wheelhouse.
-
#45
by
Robotbeat
on 22 Dec, 2016 01:40
-
(which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable
1) LOL, coming from a President Elect who talks about taking care of potholes before space exploration, who just strongly criticized both Boeing (threatening cancellation of AirForce One) and Lockheed (threatening F35), who supports those who want a federal govt hiring freeze and generally reduced budget except for defense, actually has plenty of friction with Congress, and for goodness sake look at the title of this thread if you think the funding tap for SLS/Orion will be opened up
2) Your sort of unfounded speculation belongs in the Space Policy section.
3) Even if I granted "still achievable," that's still a far cry from what's /most likely/ to occur.
First off. You display an outstanding level of cognitive dissonance to follow up your first point with your second one.
...
Granted. This whole discussion should be in the space policy section.
Nobody knows what Trump will do, and I've held that view for a while. My point is that you can easily construct a strong narrative that suggests the exact opposite of just going along with Congress on SLS/Orion. Heck, there's an interesting article in Ars Technical about Peter Thiel (Trump backer during the campaign) pushing for commercial space and against "Oldspace" and hints that this may be gaining over Congressional status quo. But again, This whole discussion should really be in the space policy section. I am alerting the mods.
-
#46
by
Lar
on 22 Dec, 2016 03:16
-
I'm going meta a bit (and this post might get trimmed out in a housecleaning) ... I saw your report, Robotbeat, and I just got done arguing against it. The original topic isn't space policy. It's an RFI.... and was perfectly on topic in this section. Yes it's an RFI with a lot of implications but still... if we move it, it cuts some posters off.
I'd rather that people stop talking about Trump and 747s and stick to the topic, narrowly focused, and maybe it can stay here where all can participate.
I might get overruled, we'll see...
-
#47
by
Robotbeat
on 22 Dec, 2016 11:31
-
I just see a lot of people questioning this RFI, questioning the seriousness of the new Admin supporting efficiency improvements and questioning bloated government projects like SLS/Orion. If people are arguing the new Admin is going to be kinder to SLS/Orion than the old Admin, skirting the line of Space Policy, the only way to really disagree and build a case against that is to post about policy. AirForce1 is not off-topic (provided it's just a side note) if you're talking about the new Admin being opposed to inefficient, bloated projects (or ones perceived to be that way). Which is the topic of this thread.
-
#48
by
Lar
on 22 Dec, 2016 19:34
-
I just see a lot of people questioning this RFI, questioning the seriousness of the new Admin supporting efficiency improvements and questioning bloated government projects like SLS/Orion. If people are arguing the new Admin is going to be kinder to SLS/Orion than the old Admin, skirting the line of Space Policy, the only way to really disagree and build a case against that is to post about policy. AirForce1 is not off-topic (provided it's just a side note) if you're talking about the new Admin being opposed to inefficient, bloated projects (or ones perceived to be that way). Which is the topic of this thread.
But we have lots of topics to discuss the likely policy shifts in the Space Policy section. I'm suggesting that this one stay narrow, and technical... and then it isn't just the L2 folk that can participate.
If you want to talk wider implications of the new Admin, use one of the many other topics. Again, might get overruled.
-
#49
by
Robotbeat
on 23 Dec, 2016 13:42
-
I was just trying to counter the misconceptions on this thread that the new administration is going to automatically be really friendly with Congress over SLS/Orion. I could easily see a repeat of FY11 and Ares/Orion. The fact that the transition team (I assume) wants an RFI on ways to improve efficiency is evidence of that.
-
#50
by
woods170
on 23 Dec, 2016 18:55
-
I was just trying to counter the misconceptions on this thread that the new administration is going to automatically be really friendly with Congress over SLS/Orion. I could easily see a repeat of FY11 and Ares/Orion. The fact that the transition team (I assume) wants an RFI on ways to improve efficiency is evidence of that.
The RFI was not mandated by the transition team. Earlier GAO reports are drivers.
-
#51
by
dror
on 24 Dec, 2016 09:20
-
This may be a silly question and may also be in the wrong thread,
Can SLS be outsourced?
I mean, after development is over, and block 1b is operational,
And assume NASA is willing to commit to one launch a year,
Can it be licensed and operated as a comercial LV ?
Will it be cheaper that way?
Can it be done by others then Boeing?
Thanks
-
#52
by
clongton
on 24 Dec, 2016 16:18
-
-
#53
by
woods170
on 24 Dec, 2016 19:53
-
Can SLS be outsourced?
No
I believe you. But could you be a bit more specific as to why not?
-
#54
by
RocketmanUS
on 24 Dec, 2016 22:16
-
For the RFI I do not see a way to lower SLS cost were it would be a valuable asset to the launch fleet for crewed BLEO exploration. What I do see is ULA's ( half owned by Boeing ) Vulcan with it's advanced upper stage ACES that can provide NASA the flexible path forward for Air Force, commercial, NASA robotic , and crewed BLEO missions. The Vulcan is such that it has a job of launching day to day payloads unlike SLS that is scaled to large payloads only for it's per launch cost. Vulcan with ACES ( US, tanker, and depot version ) can also deliver the crewed deep space missions. So one launch vehicle with one yearly fixed overhead instead of two with payloads already for the Vulcan. The SLS still has lack of support for missions. Were Vulcan already would have payloads and can be used by commercial for their possible BLEO enterprise such as the moon.
What I see as a possibility is to change some of the SLS contracts to Vulcan. Such as the ATK solids for SLS to the new solids for Vulcan. Doing so could help get Vulcan with ACES launching sooner. The sooner it is certified for DoD launches the sooner the Altas V and the more costly Delta IVH can be retired. The Vulcan would use American made engines unlike the Atlas V helping the over all American economy that helps fund NASA. By canceling the SLS by a phase out over 6 to 18 months can help in finding new jobs for the people that would not be switched to the Vulcan by the sub contractors. Also gives time to save some of the infrastructure that might be used later on in other projects.
As NASA crewed BLEO is for exploration and not colonizing ( that is for commercial ). Vulcan ACES is supported by other launches and can be ready for NASA BLEO launches without yearly fixed cost to NASA like the SLS has. NASA could then invest the funding on the payloads needed for crewed BLEO exploration. This also can help when transitioning from one administration to another as they may change to destination. Hove ever the launch system stays the same, as so can the EDS ( ACES US ) and other hardware as it uses the same launcher.
-
#55
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 26 Dec, 2016 06:42
-
I believe you. But could you be a bit more specific as to why not?
I believe the reason is that a US government developed vehicle can't be used to compete against privately developed vehicles. Doing so would be equivalent to socialism, which is anathema to the American way of life.
-
#56
by
clongton
on 26 Dec, 2016 13:16
-
Can SLS be outsourced?
No
I believe you. But could you be a bit more specific as to why not?
In addition to what Steven said, SLS is built from proprietary designs and hardware that no company would share with another company that underbid them. Think RS-25 and ATK-SRB, among others. Could they be replaced? Yes, but would cost far more because they would be starting from scratch to design and build their own versions.
-
#57
by
TrevorMonty
on 26 Dec, 2016 14:19
-
For the RFI I do not see a way to lower SLS cost were it would be a valuable asset to the launch fleet for crewed BLEO exploration. What I do see is ULA's ( half owned by Boeing ) Vulcan with it's advanced upper stage ACES that can provide NASA the flexible path forward for Air Force, commercial, NASA robotic , and crewed BLEO missions. The Vulcan is such that it has a job of launching day to day payloads unlike SLS that is scaled to large payloads only for it's per launch cost. Vulcan with ACES ( US, tanker, and depot version ) can also deliver the crewed deep space missions. So one launch vehicle with one yearly fixed overhead instead of two with payloads already for the Vulcan. The SLS still has lack of support for missions. Were Vulcan already would have payloads and can be used by commercial for their possible BLEO enterprise such as the moon.
What I see as a possibility is to change some of the SLS contracts to Vulcan. Such as the ATK solids for SLS to the new solids for Vulcan. Doing so could help get Vulcan with ACES launching sooner. The sooner it is certified for DoD launches the sooner the Altas V and the more costly Delta IVH can be retired. The Vulcan would use American made engines unlike the Atlas V helping the over all American economy that helps fund NASA. By canceling the SLS by a phase out over 6 to 18 months can help in finding new jobs for the people that would not be switched to the Vulcan by the sub contractors. Also gives time to save some of the infrastructure that might be used later on in other projects.
As NASA crewed BLEO is for exploration and not colonizing ( that is for commercial ). Vulcan ACES is supported by other launches and can be ready for NASA BLEO launches without yearly fixed cost to NASA like the SLS has. NASA could then invest the funding on the payloads needed for crewed BLEO exploration. This also can help when transitioning from one administration to another as they may change to destination. Hove ever the launch system stays the same, as so can the EDS ( ACES US ) and other hardware as it uses the same launcher.
The Vulcan with 8m fairing would be capable of delivering most SLS payloads, Orion included, to LEO. Where ACES could refuel and deliver payload to its final destination.
While ULA could provide fuel launches, the likes of Blue and SpaceX could do cheaper. Plus scheduling can be tighter, once fuel is launch, Vulcan can launch a day or more later.
There is no requirement for NASA to own or develop fuel depots, let ULA provide their own solution.
-
#58
by
john smith 19
on 26 Dec, 2016 14:36
-
Can SLS be outsourced?
No
I believe you. But could you be a bit more specific as to why not?
In addition to what Steven said, SLS is built from proprietary designs and hardware that no company would share with another company that underbid them. Think RS-25 and ATK-SRB, among others. Could they be replaced? Yes, but would cost far more because they would be starting from scratch to design and build their own versions.
That does not sound right. SLS is
solely built for NASA. AFAIK that means NASA holds the rights the design. It
could be bidded to other mfg.
In contrast the CST-100 and Dragon are proprietary to their mfgs. There if NASA finds one or the other too expensive it simply does not buy launches on that design.
-
#59
by
Jim
on 26 Dec, 2016 14:46
-
Can SLS be outsourced?
Yes, the core and the avionics can. Not the engines or SRB's.
Off topic.