SLS might get a new name and take funding from Earth science programs

[crazyewok]

I feel really selfish right now, but I am almost happy that the deep space programs are being given funding. That's what NASA always was to me. Of course, I know that isn't the "right" thing to do.

Same here. I would rather them leave it to other agency's to be honest. I know its important but I find the whole area of environmental science dull, I know flame away but that's just me.

[magnemoe]

Same here. I would rather them leave it to other agency's to be honest. I know its important but I find the whole area of environmental science dull, I know flame away but that's just me.

Might wonder why its an NASA project anyway? Yes I know everyone want the budget

[crazyewok]

t Whops! looks like SpaceX beat us to Mars.

I know its unlikely but I would laugh by butt off if that happens.

Though in my experience the private sector always does things better than the public sector.

- - - Updated - - -

Might wonder why its an NASA project anyway? Yes I know everyone want the budget

Well I though the USA had its own environmental agency? I would have thought it would come under that to be honest?

[Budgie]

Wow I expected this thread to turn into politics and bashing System, but I didn't expect that it would bee every single comment! As an enthusiast of human spaceflight, Space Launch System is an impressive rocket, and I hope it flies for a long time! After all, why waste all the developement that went into Space Shuttle?

For the name, I would love for it to bee something entirely separate from classical mythology. I vote for Shuttle II!

Gotta agree with Kibble on the first point. We've got SLS for now and I think there's no going back, so might as well commit and give the SLS the space industry and public's support. There's no doubt that it's indeed a little porky, but lets work with what we got and hope that in the future the leadership of our space industry is more interested in the stars and less in their immediate constituency

I like classical mythology names, though. No need to move off from those

[FishInferno]

Gotta agree with Kibble on the first point. We've got SLS for now and I think there's no going back, so might as well commit and give the SLS the space industry and public's support. There's no doubt that it's indeed a little porky, but lets work with what we got and hope that in the future the leadership of our space industry is more interested in the stars and less in their immediate constituency

I like classical mythology names, though. No need to move off from those

don't forget Elon Musk

[crazyewok]

Given the people pushing for it, MPLS. 'Merican Patriotic Launch System, decked out in red white and blue, with a bald eagle fairing to boot.

Dont forget plays the stars and Stripes as it takes off and transmits it on every radio frequency while in orbit

[KatzOhki]

...

Though in my experience the private sector always does things better than the public sector.

...

Well I though the USA had its own environmental agency? I would have thought it would come under that to be honest?

Yeah I agree, and a big part of it comes from the fact that the government controls the spending on government programs.

The US does have an environmental agency, but NASA is responsible for supporting a lot of science efforts across the board. If funding is cut from launching an environmental study satellite then they have to either give up or have private sector launch it.

[crazyewok]

The US does have an environmental agency, but NASA is responsible for supporting a lot of science efforts across the board. If funding is cut from launching an environmental study satellite then they have to either give up or have private sector launch it.

Well you might get better value for taxpayer money in that case as doesn't space X charge nearly half the price ULA ask?

[Kryten]

Going on about private sector vs. government doesn't make any real sense here, NASA usually only provides instruments for the earth sciences craft and is a customer for private industry for the rest. The most recent earth sciences mission had the bus built by Ball and was launched by Mitsubishi, for example.

[crazyewok]

Going on about private sector vs. government doesn't make any real sense here, NASA usually only provides instruments for the earth sciences craft and is a customer for private industry for the rest. The most recent earth sciences mission had the bus built by Ball and was launched by Mitsubishi, for example.

Im not really a expert on US government procurement but would it not just be cheaper for the US environmental agency to just bypass NASA and finance and launch they own systems?

surely the more alphabet agency's you have to go through the more bureaucracy and hence more expense your project will procure.

[Kryten]

NOAA contract their own craft for basic meteorology, the NASA missions tend to be one-offs focusing on specific scientific questions. Incidentally the USAF also procure and launch their own meteorology craft, the data from which isn't provided to civilian programs-I'd say that's a much better target for cuts.

[prophet_01]

Hard to believe that they will ever cut a military program in favour of a scientiffic one. Not that it's an unreasonable thing to do in some cases.

I have to agree with the general opinion on the private vs public sector discussion. Would be intresting to see what NASA could come up with if they safe about half the money they spend on launchers by hiring private companies.

I actually think that this could happen at some point. Not soon probably, cause SLS does have the sunk costs argument on it's side whiche always seem to decide discussions, but it definetly is worth a closs look.

[Robotengineer]

Going on about private sector vs. government doesn't make any real sense here, NASA usually only provides instruments for the earth sciences craft and is a customer for private industry for the rest. The most recent earth sciences mission had the bus built by Ball and was launched by Mitsubishi, for example.

It's really not about private vs. government, but the fact that the same two companies, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, have a monopoly on both, in the private sector it's ULA and in the government sector it's contracted.

[_Augustus_]

Saturn IV! The proposed Saturn C-4 (Saturn IV) was basically an SLS with an Apollo spacecraft.

[Kibble]

---

Saturn IV! The proposed Saturn C-4 (Saturn IV) was basically an SLS with an Apollo spacecraft.

Saturn C-4 is very unlike Space Launch System - which is basically just Long Shuttle. Huh...that's a pretty good name if you ask me!

[Nibb31]

I have to agree with the general opinion on the private vs public sector discussion. Would be intresting to see what NASA could come up with if they safe about half the money they spend on launchers by hiring private companies.

I actually think that this could happen at some point. Not soon probably, cause SLS does have the sunk costs argument on it's side whiche always seem to decide discussions, but it definetly is worth a closs look.

There is no reason to believe outsourcing would be cheaper. In the end, assuming that you still need the same amount of people to do the job, NASA pays an extra for the corporation's profits and you need more NASA employees to handle the procurement and contractor coordination.

So instead of taxpayer money going to NASA employees, it goes to NASA employees, plus private employees, plus stockholders.

By the way, SLSand Orion are being designed and built by private companies. NASA doesn't build rockets. Only the top level design and the project management is in NASA's hands.

- - - Updated - - -

---

Saturn C-4 is very unlike Space Launch System - which is basically just Long Shuttle. Huh...that's a pretty good name if you ask me!

Why do you insist on using the word "shuttle" ? That word designates a vehicle used to regularly travel back and forth over an established, often short route. The Space Shuttle was called that because it was designed to enable routine commutes to LEO and back.

SLS is designed for exceptional one-off exploration missions to distant destinations. It is the exact opposite of a shuttle.

[Kibble]

Why do you insist on using the word "shuttle" ? That word designates a vehicle used to regularly travel back and forth over an established, often short route. The Space Shuttle was called that because it was designed to enable routine commutes to LEO and back.

Its the name of the space vehicle that this new space vehicle is directly derived from. Are you implying that ULA's Vulcan rocket should literally bee the god Vulcan?

[Columbia]

Perhaps "YLTNISGTMDTHBC" System.

"Your're lucky NASA is still going to Mars despite the horrifying budget cuts." System.

What? It's totally not weird and morbidly out-of-context.

[Nibb31]

Its the name of the space vehicle that this new space vehicle is directly derived from.

No it isn't. It has practically nothing in common with the STS. And even if it did, it's not going to be shuttling anything so it's not a shuttle.

[bobskythecanadianguy]

I pretty sure there's no funding for a booster competition, so there definitively wont be any F1-B boosters (sad face), but ATK seem to be working away on their more powerful composite solids. That's what they were testing here.

Besides, they only have enough old steel cases for 5 sets of boosters if I remember right, so they are going to get new ones pretty soon(ish). It would be ....ty if they went went back to producing the shuttle derived steel boosters, because they are really to weak for the core stage.

If you read the proposed bill they're talking about here, it does provide for a booster competition (page 22/23)

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Bills_Amendments/H.R.____%20NASA%20Authorization%20Act%20for%2016%20and%2017.pdf

[Kibble]

It has practically nothing in common with the STS.

The exact same 8.4m machine tooling for slightly stretched tanks, slightly modified primary rocket engines, and a five segment version of the four segment SRBs, reuse of most assembly and launch complex infrastructure...the only component not based on Space Shuttle Program hardware is the upper stage.

it's not going to be shuttling anything so it's not a shuttle.

I agree, its not a shuttle. It's Shuttle, a proper noun, the name of a former launch vehicle.

[Rune]

the SLS is more or less the same rocket as the Ares V, except ares V would have used 5 Denta IV engines in the core instead of SSMEs.

I like bringing back Ares V as the name for SLS. Or we could call it the Delay I, since its schedule is nothing but delays, delays, delays, and... Whops! looks like SpaceX beat us to Mars.

Actually, SSMEs were in the design trades for AresV, and which one to use was still up in the air when the program got rebranded cancelled. And probably RS-68's and a 10m core would have made more sense anyhow, but theY had to "reuse shuttle infrastructure".

Rune. It's difficult to follow the Science threads, they are quick to grow!

Edited May 6, 2015 by Rune

[TheGamingNoobster]

Remember, the United States has a crippling debt that won't leave for a very long time. I support President Obama in creating budget cuts to minimise the effects of the debt but more should be done. A part of that does mean cutting the money for NASA... mental debates of a conservative space loving individual... oh SLS, please work.

[winged]

Looks like its upgraded boosters have been cancelled as well.

Any source? link?

[1of6Billion]

I can't believe nobody suggested UpGoerSix yet

Edited May 12, 2015 by 1of6Billion