Are the SLS and Orion MPCV doomed?

[hieywiey]

Do you think the SLS and Orion MPCV will be cancelled like Project Constellation before the Manned Mars Landing or even ARM?

[Motokid600]

I suppose it is possible. People just don't have enough interest to give NASA the funding they need ( or the direction ) for them to make enough progress to the point where it seems as if they are getting stuff done in the view of the public. Development is so slow that it seems as if they are practically going backwards. And that's what has it on the chopping block.

I blame the education system. Kids aren't inspired to be engineers or scientists anymore. They go through school wanting to be the next bieber or LeBron James.

Its ashame, but that's how it is. People simply don't care what happens outside of their social media and iPhones. People would rather tune into Bruce Jenners gender change then a rocket launch. Idiocracy here we come.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Motokid600

[fredinno]

Nah. If it survives until 2018, SLS will have too much hardware to be cancelled like Constellation. I think it's much less likely to be cancelled currently than Constellation was, mainly because it's mostly on schedule and on budget, unlike the latter program. Congress is also a huge supporter of SLS/Orion, probably more than in Constellation, because it's one of the few ways they can to recover the same Shuttle jobs lost when the Space Shuttle died. SLS also has more completed hardware than it's predecessor, as the Orion Command Module and SLS Block I/IB Upper Stage are pretty much completed development.

[maccollo]

I'm not to hopefull personally. I've been trying to be optimistic about it since it's inception, but with each year passing by with no talk of missions beyond EM2 I become more and more pessimistic. Last year during a hearing Mr Gerstenmaier was asked what he thought the first real mission after EM2 aught to be (in the link below). His response didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

https://youtu.be/9ap1WL_GyLQ?t=1h31m27s

[fredinno]

I'm not to hopefull personally. I've been trying to be optimistic about it since it's inception, but with each year passing by with no talk of missions beyond EM2 I become more and more pessimistic. Last year during a hearing Mr Gerstenmaier was asked what he thought the first real mission after EM2 aught to be (in the link below). His response didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

https://youtu.be/9ap1WL_GyLQ?t=1h31m27s

I'm waiting until post 2016 to be unoptimistic about post EM-2. I think NASA is waiting for the next president to come along and choose it for them, so they can concentrate on creating the rocket itself, and not on a larger goal that gets cancelled in the next presidency (IE, Constellation).

I know, I'm more optimistic about this than 90% of space fans, and I can understand the frustration.

[AngelLestat]

I suppose it is possible. People just don't have enough interest to give NASA the funding they need ( or the direction ) for them to make enough progress to the point where it seems as if they are getting stuff done in the view of the public. Development is so slow that it seems as if they are practically going backwards. And that's what has it on the chopping block.

I dont blame people, I blame NASA for be so ineficient with any project they have..

Is impossible to spent billions and billions with more than 15 years in developement for something that any other company can do it at 1/3 of the time and money.

Also not matter how good is your design, if you take that time to completed, it will be totally outdated on technology and by the current/mission needs.

I will love if they get more funds.. (and less funds to the "defence sector"), but only with a big change in policy or just outsourced all big projects to other companies.

Edited June 27, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Nibb31]

But SLS is outsourced. The majority of people working on SLS and Orion work in the private sector.

And NASA is not a company.

[AngelLestat]

I know that nasa is not a company.. where I said that?

SLS is not outsourced.. maybe few "few" components are.. But the majority of the project is done in all the different NASA agencies.

All the design is done by them.

Also many times that nasa outsourced things, they keep all controls, designs parameters, procedures, documentation, policies, etc.

So all that inefficient buracracy, enters in the job of other companies, which they become just another NASA branch.

[SubzeroSpartan7]

I know that nasa is not a company.. where I said that?

SLS is not outsourced.. maybe few "few" components are.. But the majority of the project is done in all the different NASA agencies.

All the design is done by them.

Also many times that nasa outsourced things, they keep all controls, designs parameters, procedures, documentation, policies, etc.

So all that inefficient buracracy, enters in the job of other companies, which they become just another NASA branch.

NASA outsources things all the time. Very rarely does NASA actually build anything. As a matter of fact different companies are competing to create a booster for the Block II SLS.

However, the problem is they are only funded by the government.

[DuoDex]

Think it might be time for a reminder to keep this out of politics and in discussion of the Orion and SLS.

[CptRichardson]

Think it might be time for a reminder to keep this out of politics and in discussion of the Orion and SLS.

They're both entirely political. Their current funding boost is a political ploy, and as soon as they become politically inconvenient they will be shut down.

[AngelLestat]

Think it might be time for a reminder to keep this out of politics and in discussion of the Orion and SLS.

By politics I imagine that you are talking of country politics. Not NASA politics.. because in that case this topic is pointless and many others should be also closed.. without any censorship logic, because nobody can choose or vote on NASA.

Also, if we can not discuss an space program.. in the kerbal space program game, then.. well you know..

But as you point, I will not touch the country politics.

NASA outsources things all the time. Very rarely does NASA actually build anything. As a matter of fact different companies are competing to create a booster for the Block II SLS.

Take a look to the end of this pdf:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf

There are listed all agencies and companies which work or will work on the SLS project.

First you have all NASA agencies and different NASA centers, then few companies as Boing or Rocketdyne will handle the construction of single parts but under the NASA design, control and procedures.

When I said NASA should outsource projects, I mean exactly that. Projects.. not just components.

Like this: you have a project.. then 3 big companies are interested to participate.. You give 5 millions each so they can present a preliminary design base in X requirements, the winner is selected to develope the whole project, then it can be another design step to better define the contract budjet and time frame, the companie can outsourced different works, but is all manage by them. If the money or time lapse is exceed, is on them to solve it.

And of course, I am not the only one who see this.. There are many reports pointing this. Take a look to this article:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

Edited June 28, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Kryten]

NASA is just the prime integrator, the contractors are ultimately producing entire stages.

[YNM]

When I said NASA should outsource projects, I mean exactly that. Projects.. not just components.

Like this: you have a project.. then 3 big companies are interested to participate.. You give 5 millions each so they can present a preliminary design base in X requirements, the winner is selected to develope the whole project, then it can be another design step to better define the contract budjet and time frame, the companie can outsourced different works, but is all manage by them. If the money or time lapse is exceed, is on them to solve it.

CCDev ? Maybe they can extend it to cover all other things, including deep space exploration. Or a good capitalist should already realized it beforehand - when they finished CCDev they only need to sell the bigger things off. Or start one themself !

Now I wonder why SpaceX didn't developed Raptor from the first place ?

[Kryten]

CCDev makes some sense because crewed LEO flights have potential non-government applications. BLEO simply doesn't.

[AngelLestat]

For example 4 launchs of the SLS with orion will cost 41 billions dollars, 10 billions by launch. Elon musk said that can do it at 300 millions by launch with its XX future launcher (or whatever its name).

And in fact, after those lauchs will not be useless or outdated, contrary to the SLS and Orion to keep lauching missions.

So you are saying that if NASA from a begining said I give you half of what would cost to us, and profits after that are yours.. You think a private company will not take that contract?

Or I misinterpreted the comments?

PD: good data about the CCdev, I will read it later.

Edited June 28, 2015 by AngelLestat

[maccollo]

CCDev makes some sense because crewed LEO flights have potential non-government applications. BLEO simply doesn't.

What are the potential non-government applications of manned LEO flights?

[Kryten]

Space tourism and commercial research. It's arguable whether either are big enough to truly support an industry, but Space Adventures and reservations with Bigelow show demand for both at least exist.

[Nibb31]

For example 4 launchs of the SLS with orion will cost 41 billions dollars, 10 billions by launch. Elon musk said that can do it at 300 millions by launch with its XX future launcher (or whatever its name).

Elon Musk says a lot of things. It doesn't mean that we have to take everything he tweets at face value.

SLS is funded by the US Congress. Congress isn't interest in BEO exploration. Thet are interested in subsidized the aerospace industry to keep a national competitive advantage and to maintain jobs in their district. As such, the longer it takes SLS to be developed, the more money is spent, the better it is. It is meeting requirements beautifully.

In a perfect world for them, SLS is cancelled as soon as development is complete, and they can replace it with something else.

Congress is not interested in replacing SLS with a hypothetical heavy launcher from SpaceX. That would mean massive layoffs at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and ATK. It would also mean that they would be giving money to a privately-owned company owned by an eccentric billionaire rather to the major actors of miltaro-industrial complex. Hundreds of unemployed engineers and technicians looking for aerospace jobs in their districts, and an aerospace industry that becomes less competitive on the international market and that loses synergies with the defense industry. Nobody wins.

I'm not saying this is how it should be or that this is a great system, but it's just the hard reality of how things actually work.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Nibb31

[clivman]

For example 4 launchs of the SLS with orion will cost 41 billions dollars, 10 billions by launch. Elon musk said that can do it at 300 millions by launch with its XX future launcher (or whatever its name).

And in fact, after those lauchs will not be useless or outdated, contrary to the SLS and Orion to keep lauching missions.

So you are saying that if NASA from a begining said I give you half of what would cost to us, and profits after that are yours.. You think a private company will not take that contract?

Or I misinterpreted the comments?

PD: good data about the CCdev, I will read it later.

I'm pretty sure it's two billion per launch.

[tater]

Think it might be time for a reminder to keep this out of politics and in discussion of the Orion and SLS.

Politics is the raison d'être for SLS/Orion, if you pull the politics plug, there is no possible discussion.

[hieywiey]

Well, the next U.S. President NEEDS to do some kind of Kennedy-esque challenge to the nation in order for the SLS to survive. Congress thinks NASA is a big waste of money, but they threw money at it for Apollo. We need them to do that for SLS/Orion.

[fredinno]

Elon Musk says a lot of things. It doesn't mean that we have to take everything he tweets at face value.

SLS is funded by the US Congress. Congress isn't interest in BEO exploration. Thet are interested in subsidized the aerospace industry to keep a national competitive advantage and to maintain jobs in their district. As such, the longer it takes SLS to be developed, the more money is spent, the better it is. It is meeting requirements beautifully.

In a perfect world for them, SLS is cancelled as soon as development is complete, and they can replace it with something else.

Congress is not interested in replacing SLS with a hypothetical heavy launcher from SpaceX. That would mean massive layoffs at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and ATK. It would also mean that they would be giving money to a privately-owned company owned by an eccentric billionaire rather to the major actors of miltaro-industrial complex. Hundreds of unemployed engineers and technicians looking for aerospace jobs in their districts, and an aerospace industry that becomes less competitive on the international market and that loses synergies with the defense industry. Nobody wins.

I'm not saying this is how it should be or that this is a great system, but it's just the hard reality of how things actually work.

Wouldn't cancelling the SLS when development is complete cause more job losses than continuing with the program when complete? If they build a new launcher at that point, the workers working on the launcher would lose their jobs for at least a few years. Keeping the program is probably in their better interest, if it is about jobs.

[shynung]

Not necessarily. The people working at SLS could have simply moved over to the new launcher project, if they ever start another one. That way, jobs don't get lost, yet the public thinks something is actually being done.

I'd recommend anyone to watch The Pentagon Wars should they ever wonder why it is as it is.

[AngelLestat]

Elon Musk says a lot of things. It doesn't mean that we have to take everything he tweets at face value.

Not we dont, but he achieves better cost, there is not question about that.

SLS is funded by the US Congress. Congress isn't interest in BEO exploration. Thet are interested in subsidized the aerospace industry to keep a national competitive advantage and to maintain jobs in their district. As such, the longer it takes SLS to be developed, the more money is spent, the better it is. It is meeting requirements beautifully.

??? Where do you get all this? from the crystal ball?

Also it does not have any logic.. Yeah.. lets make them work for nothing.. just to waste time in design a rocket that we would never use. It would create jobs.. that is the strategic.. we can sent them to paint rocks in the desert too, that also produce jobs.

So if they give that money to spacex, that would not create new jobs?

In a perfect world for them, SLS is cancelled as soon as development is complete, and they can replace it with something else.

Yeah, because no matter who is behind this decision, for sure would become elected again, after all is a brillant idea dont you? (Just to clarify, I am being ironic..)

Congress is not interested in replacing SLS with a hypothetical heavy launcher from SpaceX. That would mean massive layoffs at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and ATK. It would also mean that they would be giving money to a privately-owned company owned by an eccentric billionaire rather to the major actors of miltaro-industrial complex. Hundreds of unemployed engineers and technicians looking for aerospace jobs in their districts, and an aerospace industry that becomes less competitive on the international market and that loses synergies with the defense industry. Nobody wins.

That those companies may be more important for some senators, yes. Sure.

But why those companies will have hundreds of unemployed if from the first time you choose spacex?

Also, their role in the current SLS develop is very small.

I'm pretty sure it's two billion per launch.

In this link talks about 5 Billions by launch, but you need to add the development cost.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

And we know that is highly unlikely that at that cost exceed the 4 or 5 launchs.

Why? Because NASA does all wrong.

For example they made orion to land on Sea, this for sure will remove all the possible of reusability, why they choose that if it only takes 1/40 of the mass to make it able to land on land.

And you can take infinities of NASA decisions which does not have any logic or long term goal.

I'd recommend anyone to watch The Pentagon Wars should they ever wonder why it is as it is.

Never saw it, but not sure if I can take a comedy as a strong source