NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

blackstar said:
During the peak of Apollo, 5% of the federal budget was going to NASA. That's a lot of money. The edict was "waste anything but time."
Click to expand...

Damn. :eek:
 
Imagine what Spacex/Blue Origin could do (or have accomplished by now) with an SLS size budget. SLS is a rehashed Constellation-Ares V and uses modified hardware from the shuttle. That is the foundation for $10 Billion in expenditures (just the rocket) to date.

Back in the 60's, NASA was very different from today (not just in budget or size but mainly in culture). The Gemini project was conducted for less than $1.5 Billion (yes those are 60's dollars but it is also total program cost including space capsule). For that, NASA flew 10 manned missions within a program span of just 5 years.

And that leads back to the other issue of what to do with SLS if it finally reaches hardware readiness. Any project which thinks of using it will be faced with the financial penalty of funding an SLS launch. I would hope that any future space project be required to examine COTS launch alternatives in their planning. The results will be interesting.
 
fredymac said:
Back in the 60's, NASA was very different from today (not just in budget or size but mainly in culture). The Gemini project was conducted for less than $1.5 Billion (yes those are 60's dollars but it is also total program cost including space capsule). For that, NASA flew 10 manned missions within a program span of just 5 years.
Click to expand...

That's today $10 billion
Include R&D on Gemini Spacecraft, new Space suits, etc. $5.875 Billion
modification of Titan II to Manned Launcher, Docking adapter on Agena $3.019 Billion
with 12 Titan II and 7 Atlas Agena Launches (and one reuse of Gemini 2 on Titan IIIC under MOL)
Mission Support & rest $561.4 Million.

Comparison:
NASA Orion R&D around $20.4 billion from 2006 to 2023 [the first manned flight on SLS]
SpaceX Dragon 1 R&D was $819 Million (source Wiki)
Dragon 2 no data.
Boeing on CT-100 Starliner no data.
Blue Origin no info about manned orbital craft
 
I would caution against taking dollar figures from 50 years ago and then comparing them to today. They're not equivalent even when you use inflation adjustments. For one thing, there is an aerospace inflation adjustment that is higher than the normal consumer product inflation adjuster, and that skews the results.

But you also really need to know what those projects included. Gemini was relatively inexpensive, but it also used a rocket whose development was entirely paid for by USAF.

There are other issues as well, which are really hard to account for. For example, differences in the labor force then and now. Could you hire an aerospace engineer in 1964 for less money than today? That's the kind of stuff that makes everything tough to figure out.
 
I am not ashamed to say I can remember how much a full size candy bar cost in the mid sixties. I would estimate something like 7:1 is the inflation factor. On the other hand, houses were like 20:1 but homes back then were smaller as well. The "official" factor is actually close to 7:1 but as I said, it can be very uneven.

On the other hand, speed of execution and risk taking has definitely taken a hit. The level of bureaucratic overburden is much greater and of course, legal/regulatory requirements have gone through the roof.
 
Without Limits. Without a plan. Like Apollo, SLS is a dead-end street. A government jobs program designed to secure elected office for former lawers, and permanent employment of engineers who would otherwise be better tasked (the good ones anyway).

I so resent this waste of my tax dollars. NASA should ONLY be doing aerospace R&D -- the kind of work that has given Musk, Bezos, and others the means to an end.

Time has come to hand things off to the private sector.

David
 
I wish they'd take all the $$$ and effort of SLS and dump it into a nuclear upper stage that could be used by future launch vehicles. Once BFR and New Armstrong get going I don't see how SLS can be justified.
 
sferrin said:
I wish they'd take all the $$$ and effort of SLS and dump it into a nuclear upper stage that could be used by future launch vehicles. Once BFR and New Armstrong get going I don't see how SLS can be justified.
Click to expand...

Sadly the "Senate Launch System" is designed to benefit existing space shuttle contractors, not to maximize tax payer value that would be offered by competitors such as SpaceX or Blue Origin.
 
Flyaway said:
NASA budget proposal continues debate on when and how to launch Europa Clipper

spacenews.com

NASA budget proposal continues debate on when and how to launch Europa Clipper

NASA’s fiscal year 2019 proposal will likely set up another showdown between NASA and Congress regarding the Europa Clipper mission, debating not only when to launch the spacecraft but also h…
spacenews.com spacenews.com
Click to expand...

Pork in action. There are some in congress who want to force NASA to use SLS to launch this mission even though an Atlas V could do it albeit with gravity assist and longer transit time:

"NASA has studied launching Europa Clipper on both SLS and on the most powerful variant of the United Launch Alliance Atlas 5. SLS offers the ability to fly a fast, direct route to Jupiter, with the spacecraft arriving at the planet less than three years after launch. The Atlas 5 would take more than six years to get Europa Clipper to Jupiter, and require flybys of both Venus and Earth to do so."

The argument boils down to $1Billion in exchange for 3 years. Given all outer planet missions to date have used gravity assist, it's not like we can't stick with this approach at a massive cost savings. The mission cost itself is $2Billion presumably not including launch. SLS launch would add 50% more.
 
Hey, NASA
you look like intelligent organisation
you look like someone who would be interested in a bargain.
Wanna buy this rocket, NASA ?*
just $150-90 million launch cost and bring space probe direct to destinations, no need for Gravitational Swing by maneuver
447px-Falcon-heavy-crop.jpg



* modified text from Lefty the salesman from sesame street ::)
 
Falcon Heavy performance for escape trajectory launches is unknown at this point. The SpaceX claim of 3.5 tons to Pluto is pretty much impossible without gravitational assists.
 
Archibald
that to far topic about SLS
can you Re-open that post in Alternative History and Future Speculation and deleted the post here ?

I come over the AH section and help you
 
fredymac said:
Flyaway said:
NASA budget proposal continues debate on when and how to launch Europa Clipper

http://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-continues-debate-on-when-and-how-to-launch-europa-clipper/
Click to expand...

Pork in action. There are some in congress who want to force NASA to use SLS to launch this mission even though an Atlas V could do it albeit with gravity assist and longer transit time:

"NASA has studied launching Europa Clipper on both SLS and on the most powerful variant of the United Launch Alliance Atlas 5. SLS offers the ability to fly a fast, direct route to Jupiter, with the spacecraft arriving at the planet less than three years after launch. The Atlas 5 would take more than six years to get Europa Clipper to Jupiter, and require flybys of both Venus and Earth to do so."

The argument boils down to $1Billion in exchange for 3 years. Given all outer planet missions to date have used gravity assist, it's not like we can't stick with this approach at a massive cost savings. The mission cost itself is $2Billion presumably not including launch. SLS launch would add 50% more.
Click to expand...

If SpaceX builds and flies a BFR version of their Grasshopper Test Vehicle during the summer of 2019 - AND - it proves to be cheaper to operate than Falcon 1 - there will a great deal of pressure on SLS.
 
NeilChapman said:
fredymac said:
Flyaway said:
NASA budget proposal continues debate on when and how to launch Europa Clipper

http://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-continues-debate-on-when-and-how-to-launch-europa-clipper/
Click to expand...

Pork in action. There are some in congress who want to force NASA to use SLS to launch this mission even though an Atlas V could do it albeit with gravity assist and longer transit time:

"NASA has studied launching Europa Clipper on both SLS and on the most powerful variant of the United Launch Alliance Atlas 5. SLS offers the ability to fly a fast, direct route to Jupiter, with the spacecraft arriving at the planet less than three years after launch. The Atlas 5 would take more than six years to get Europa Clipper to Jupiter, and require flybys of both Venus and Earth to do so."

The argument boils down to $1Billion in exchange for 3 years. Given all outer planet missions to date have used gravity assist, it's not like we can't stick with this approach at a massive cost savings. The mission cost itself is $2Billion presumably not including launch. SLS launch would add 50% more.
Click to expand...

If SpaceX builds and flies a BFR version of their Grasshopper Test Vehicle during the summer of 2019 - AND - it proves to be cheaper to operate than Falcon 1 - there will a great deal of pressure on SLS.
Click to expand...
The bolded cannot be accurately determined until there's a fully operational vehicle, a "grasshopper" version of BFR won't provide that sort of data. SLS's political support remains much more effective and it is, for the time being, more of a known quantity. If the Administration decides to spend it's waning political capital on a fight to cancel SLS in favor of BFR, I don't know how it would come out. But without that direct action from the very top, SLS is going to keep ticking along for now.
 
Moose said:
The bolded cannot be accurately determined until there's a fully operational vehicle, a "grasshopper" version of BFR won't provide that sort of data. SLS's political support remains much more effective and it is, for the time being, more of a known quantity. If the Administration decides to spend it's waning political capital on a fight to cancel SLS in favor of BFR, I don't know how it would come out. But without that direct action from the very top, SLS is going to keep ticking along for now.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is necessary to get a majority vote from congress to kill a NASA project. A cancellation notice could be issued directly from the NASA administrator. It would then take a 2/3 majority override from Congress to reverse it. Think of all the various DOD projects that have been cancelled solely by Executive direction (F-22 for example).

I doubt SLS has 2/3 majority support from Congress so the political question is whether the public at large would support a general directive to get NASA entirely out of the launch business along the model of EELV and CRS/CCP. That said, I suspect SLS will only be cancelled if concerted and widespread media reports on costs create political pressure (or cover) to force the issue. Once New Glenn/BFR take flight, that might happen but probably not before. All it would take is a simple directive that NASA evaluate all available launch options and select the most cost effective solution.
 
fredymac said:
Moose said:
The bolded cannot be accurately determined until there's a fully operational vehicle, a "grasshopper" version of BFR won't provide that sort of data. SLS's political support remains much more effective and it is, for the time being, more of a known quantity. If the Administration decides to spend it's waning political capital on a fight to cancel SLS in favor of BFR, I don't know how it would come out. But without that direct action from the very top, SLS is going to keep ticking along for now.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is necessary to get a majority vote from congress to kill a NASA project. A cancellation notice could be issued directly from the NASA administrator. It would then take a 2/3 majority override from Congress to reverse it. Think of all the various DOD projects that have been cancelled solely by Executive direction (F-22 for example).

I doubt SLS has 2/3 majority support from Congress so the political question is whether the public at large would support a general directive to get NASA entirely out of the launch business along the model of EELV and CRS/CCP. That said, I suspect SLS will only be cancelled if concerted and widespread media reports on costs create political pressure (or cover) to force the issue. Once New Glenn/BFR take flight, that might happen but probably not before. All it would take is a simple directive that NASA evaluate all available launch options and select the most cost effective solution.
Click to expand...
The SLS Senate Caucus wouldn't employ a campaign to rally a 2/3rds majority to defend SLS, they'd do exactly what they did when the previous Administration killed Constellation and tried to start a fresh-look program: they'll get in the way of the money and the authorizations until they're appeased.
 
I seem to recall that SLS was hatched as a consolation prize to make up for the cancellation of Ares without a replacement project of equivalent magnitude. To kill SLS "gently", you would need to keep the current NASA centers gainfully employed. The trick is to do that without having NASA's cost structure transferred into the launch business or any other operational hardware. The old NACA never attempted to build and operate airliners but provided the technology to help the airline industry develop. Instead of a single "grand" project, they could work over a broad front of technology efforts in the general areas of space access and exploitation.
 
To kill off SLS now would be stupid, after all what would NASA replace it with?
 
FighterJock said:
To kill off SLS now would be stupid, after all what would NASA replace it with?
Click to expand...

To continue SLS would be equally stupid. NASA has become a congressionally fed Hydra. A tax dollar spending machine geared toward votes, not progress. Today, NASA works to the wrong mandate.

Let's start off with what NASA should drop:

1. Development of specific mission oriented launchers and spacecraft. NASA is not supposed to be a space transport business.
2. Robotic space exploration. NASA is not supposed to be todays Louise and Clark expedition.
3. It's massive 'administrative' staff.
4. All linkage to congressional funding authorizations.

What NASA should do:

1. Dust off the old NACA charter AND FOLLOW THAT!
2. Rebuild the wind-tunnels and get back to the task of investigating and developing the hardware needed by the aerospace industry.
3. Get the Universities back into the game. NASA coordination only, the money comes from the private sector.
4. Let those who chase dollars (not just spend them) call the shots as to what areas of research NASA engages in.
5. Let the aerospace industries that rely on NASA findings fund NASA! Musk, Bezos and the others (men of real accomplishment) will be much better stewards of the money spent by NASA than our currupt government (lawers and self-serving criminals).

If Musk wants to go to Mars, let him foot the bill. If Boeing wants faster jets, let them turn NASA loose on the SABER engine. If we want to go to Pluto and the stars let the Carl Sagan types start a fund-me page.

I have much more faith in the private sector than I have for our current bunch of professional politicians who (for the most part) have no practical experience in the real world -- nor appreciate or care about the needs of the real world.

David
 
NASA never stopped doing aeronautics research.
https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/programs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Flight_Research_Center

NASA should remain involved in space exploration, robotic or otherwise. These missions are too expensive for a single university to afford, and don't provide enough profit to interest the private sector. They are, however, valuable and should not be ended just to satisfy the beancounters.
Universities are involved (many individual instruments on exploration missions are provided by universities).
 
FighterJock said:
To kill off SLS now would be stupid, after all what would NASA replace it with?
Click to expand...

With a statement of opportunity specifying the mission manifest supporting the need for a launch vehicle of this size. Doing so would highlight that there are very few to none. Industry would be free to submit any launch architecture to move the desired mass to the desired location. You don't even need a giant launch vehicle once orbital refueling is considered. The winning bid would achieve the desired capability at the lowest cost. NASA would act as an assured launch customer and not get involved other than to certify vehicle safety.
 
merriman said:
Let's start off with what NASA should drop:

1. Development of specific mission oriented launchers and spacecraft. NASA is not supposed to be a space transport business.
2. Robotic space exploration. NASA is not supposed to be todays Louise and Clark expedition.
3. It's massive 'administrative' staff.
4. All linkage to congressional funding authorizations.
Click to expand...

This is just plain idiotic and clueless.

1. NASA is THE US gov't civilian space agency. Who else is going to develop and fly weather and space science type missions?
2. That is exactly what NASA is suppose to do. Nobody else does this.
3. the 'administrative' staff is massive.
4. It is a US govt agency. All US gov't agency HAVE TO be linked to congressional funding authorizations. That is how all of them get funded.

The US gov't is the one that funds most university research in pure science. NASA funds most of the research in space science. Private sector does not fund such research
 
Hobbes said:
Universities are involved (many individual instruments on exploration missions are provided by universities).
Click to expand...

Which NASA funds
 
merriman said:
/snip
2. Robotic space exploration. NASA is not supposed to be todays Louise and Clark expedition.
/snip
Click to expand...
a) That's Lewis and Clark. You owe me a bottle of screen-cleaner. Two.
b) Space exploration is exactly what NASA is for.
 
Taxpayers have paid for the right to criticize and seek redress. NASA is not an entitlement and must earn their support. On the other hand, I would not presume to lecture on the mission of ESA or its spending priorities.
 
NASA Confirms SLS Poised To Lose Another Mission

http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/nasa-confirms-sls-poised-lose-another-mission

Full article is paywalled, but here's the first few lines:

CAPE CANAVERAL—The Trump administration’s $20 billion fiscal 2019 spending plan for NASA proposes to fly the Europa Clipper mission to Jupiter’s ocean-bearing moon aboard a commercial launcher rather than the agency’s heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, Planetary Science Division Director Jim Green said March 19 during a webcast presentation at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference at The Woodlands, ...

Probably not a surprise to anyone.
 
in other words

Europa Clipper gonna be launch by a Falcon Heavy...
 
And it ended just like Mars-Voyager in 1967, just as the National Academies warned about in their 2008 report about Ares V for science missions.

Sure, HLV could do useful science missions, but at horrendous cost, and JPL and NASA or NSF are just starved of budget and can't afford repeated $ 1 billion launch vehicles.

so Europa Clipper won't fly to Jupiter atop a SLS. Nice try from Marshall and JSC, but it won't happen. As for New Horizons, Atlas 551 will probably get the job (Falcon Heavy kerosene stage is too weak for planetary missions, and Delta IV heavy is insanely expensive).

If a part of NASA was to be shut down, it would be the manned centers - JSC and Marshall and maybe Stennis. Kennedy is sfae because it is a major launch complex, Goddard is for Earth science, JPL for planetary science, and all four other centers are to improve aeronautics.
 
For those who not understand "Mars-Voyager in 1967"

In 1960s JPL started Program for Mars Lander called "Voyager", to be launch with Atlas Centaur in end 1960s
but the Lander became bigger and bigger, they switch to Saturn IB-C (centaur as third stage)
but that was not enough, in 1967 it needed a SATURN V to launch two 22 tons mastodont Mars probes !
So Voyager program cost would reach a today $11 billion in 1970s and Capitol Hill ask: Are you Insane ? and refused the 1968 NASA budget proposal.
in end not only Voyager Program was killed, also Saturn V & IB production and Apollo Application Program.

in 1976 landed the cheaper and more efficient Vikings probe on Mars
while in 1977 two Mariner Grand Tour probes were launch under name Voyager 1&2...
Irony they were launched on cheaper Titan IIIE

Seems History repeat it self again, Gigant expensive rocket beaten by Cheaper rocket, this time reusable..
 
Archibald said:
If a part of NASA was to be shut down, it would be the manned centers - JSC and Marshall and maybe Stennis. Kennedy is sfae because it is a major launch complex, Goddard is for Earth science, JPL for planetary science, and all four other centers are to improve aeronautics.
Click to expand...

No NASA center is going to be closed down. Stennis won't be closed down. The NASA part of Stennis is actually very small and mostly NASA runs the facility for a bunch of other customers (the Navy, others) and they bring their own money. Goddard does far more than Earth science. They assembled JWST, will assemble WFIRST, they're testing Parker Solar Probe, and they do lots and lots of instruments. Goddard is the largest NASA center. And "the other four centers" do a lot more than just aeronautics, which is a tiny part of the NASA budget.

Other than that, what you wrote above is correct.
 
Archibald said:
If a part of NASA was to be shut down, it would be the manned centers - JSC and Marshall and maybe Stennis. Kennedy is sfae because it is a major launch complex, Goddard is for Earth science, JPL for planetary science, and all four other centers are to improve aeronautics.
Click to expand...

NASA can't close any Center, special JSC and MSFC
In Capitol Hill every Congressmen and Senator from Texas and Alabama, would to go on the warpath
And everyone else who got NASA or Military base on there US State
last year was allot turmoil in Capitol Hill, about proposed closure ICBM silos in US...

Bill Nye about that Issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cos2CBkg8kY
 
Moose said:
SLS gets its second mobile launcher as Congress reverses most of the Administration's planned NASA cuts. Many programs due for cuts in fact recieved boosts in the negotations between Democrats and Reublicans, resulting in the most generous science investment budget in a decade.
Click to expand...

That is very good news
But can NASA administration put that budget in efficient use, with out money wasting ?
 
Moose said:
SLS gets its second mobile launcher as Congress reverses most of the Administration's planned NASA cuts. Many programs due for cuts in fact recieved boosts in the negotations between Democrats and Reublicans, resulting in the most generous science investment budget in a decade.
Click to expand...

Good news except for SLS. This frankeinrocket will never die. As for shutting down centers, there were atempts to do that in the past, Marshall, Ames and Lewis (and even JPL) barely saved their heads in the 70's.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom