Are the SLS and Orion MPCV doomed?

[shynung]

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

Not a source, but rather a picture. As in, what happened in it is quite close to what's actually going on IRL.

[Nibb31]

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

??? 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.

It may not have any logic to you, who are interested in space flight. For politicians, it makes perfect sense. Funding a big rocket has more prestige than painting rocks.

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

Maybe a few thousand, not 20000. And SpaceX doesn't have synergies with military projects.

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..)

Nobody votes on space policy. The more informed voters look at education, security, employment, but most people just vote on their party habits or on one-line statements and tweets.

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.

No it isn't. NASA doesn't build stuff. The main contractors for SLS are Boeing, Aerojet, and ATK. Orion is Lockheed Martin.

Why? Because NASA does all wrong.

That's a misinformed and exaggerative statement. So I guess NASA is constituted of 18000 idiots and the smart guys all work at SpaceX, right?

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.

NASA doesn't set its goals. Its policy is decided by the President and Congress. If NASA's manned spaceflight program lacks focus, it's because politicians can't anticipate beyond the next election cycle. As long as the money for space exploration comes from the taxpayers, space policies are going to change every 5 years.

[Vanamonde]

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

We didn't say politics were not relevant. We are saying politics invariably causes arguments on the forum, which is why we have a rule against getting into it.

Third and last warning for this thread: get into political discussions again, and we'll have to shut the thread down.

[AngelLestat]

Ok Nibb31, I understand you, but I cant answer you.. because I cant use the P word.

this forum is starting to looks like the Tabu game.

Edited June 29, 2015 by AngelLestat

[jwenting]

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

NASA IS politics. Its funding is 100% decided by politicians, its goals ditto (obviously, if you decide what gets funded, you decide what they get to do).

As to SLS and Orion, neither will survive the next round of budget cuts. There might be a single SLS launch with a dummy Orion payload built out of what pieces they have in storage at the time to save face and show the voters that "your money was well spent" and that's it.

[cantab]

As many others have mentioned, this isn't a question I can answer without considering the politics, a banned topic on the KSP forums. The same goes for a lot of real-world space exploration topics past and present.

[Kibble]

Disregarding politics, all components of formerly-SLS and Orion have been tested successfully, and the stack configuration seems sound. These space vehicles could fly for a long time, and they hopefully will!

[fredinno]

Disregarding politics, all components of formerly-SLS and Orion have been tested successfully, and the stack configuration seems sound. These space vehicles could fly for a long time, and they hopefully will!

Key word: Hopefully.

[Hcube]

As someone said above it would need a Kennedy-esque challenge to give SLS some actual missions, and given how useless such a challenge would be now, i don't think it's gonna happen.

However SLS is nearing completion (solid structures, all engines were tested iirc) and orion successfuly completed its test flight so i'm pretty sure we will see SLS on the pad someday. Maybe twice or so, but it's probably not going to launch more times than that

[78stonewobble]

As someone said above it would need a Kennedy-esque challenge to give SLS some actual missions, and given how useless such a challenge would be now, i don't think it's gonna happen.

However SLS is nearing completion (solid structures, all engines were tested iirc) and orion successfuly completed its test flight so i'm pretty sure we will see SLS on the pad someday. Maybe twice or so, but it's probably not going to launch more times than that

And persistent popular support and support from both houses over time.

...

I actually don't mind. That it won't fly too often... But my faith in humanity, will fall to dangerous levels, if we just let heavy lift capability to space slide once again, so that the next time again... We have to start from scratch again.

Hopefully international cooperation can help prevent that, even if the launch rate is low.

Edited June 30, 2015 by 78stonewobble

[_Augustus_]

Even if the SLS is canceled, many parts of it will live on.1. ACES is the same as the EUS, pretty much, so if Vulcan is built we'll still have that.2. Orion can always be downgraded to an ISS lifeboat.3. ICPS is just the DCSS with a weirder engine bell.

[Sampa]

given the recent failure by SpaceX because they cut corners, I think that NASA's caution is well founded. I feel that this will survive the current presidential cabinet

[Frybert]

given the recent failure by SpaceX because they cut corners, I think that NASA's caution is well founded. I feel that this will survive the current presidential cabinet

Source?

[nilof]

given the recent failure by SpaceX because they cut corners, I think that NASA's caution is well founded. I feel that this will survive the current presidential cabinet

The Delta II failed once in the 90s. A single failure suddenly coming out of the blue says nothing about whether the manufacturer cuts corners or about the long-term safety of the rocket.

If anything, the security argument is not really in favor of SLS/Orion. The heat shield needs a complete redesign meaning that the data from the earlier Orion test flight won't be of any use. This effectively amounts to sending astronauts on a vehicle that will only have flown once before, vs on a rocket that would have flown 40+ times by the time commercial crew gets going.

Edited June 30, 2015 by nilof

[PB666]

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.

As inefficient as NASA is its the premier space agency. NASA budget as a percentage of GDP is a fraction of what it was in the 70s, the same is true for NIH and NSF.

Face the fact, ignorant Americans don't want to pay tax dollars for science. As Asia comes up America goes down. I hear this gripe about how awful and inefficient the space shuttle is, compared to what, lets look at the success of other ISS delivery systems over the last 18 months. How many launch failures in the last month?

[SemiaCloud]

As inefficient as NASA is its the premier space agency. NASA budget as a percentage of GDP is a fraction of what it was in the 70s, the same is true for NIH and NSF.

Face the fact, ignorant Americans don't want to pay tax dollars for science. As Asia comes up America goes down. I hear this gripe about how awful and inefficient the space shuttle is, compared to what, lets look at the success of other ISS delivery systems over the last 18 months. How many launch failures in the last month?

These fails were one in a million. The Antares was still new, and new rockets tend to kaboom. The progress normally succeeds, this was one in a million, and so was the SpaceX failure

[shynung]

Even old rockets go kaboom sometimes. Look at the Russian Proton.

[Dkmdlb]

I hear this gripe about how awful and inefficient the space shuttle is, compared to what, lets look at the success of other ISS delivery systems over the last 18 months. How many launch failures in the last month?

How many launch failures of current delivery vehicles to add up to the cost of 1 space shuttle launch?

[Kryten]

1. ACES is the same as the EUS, pretty much, so if Vulcan is built we'll still have that.

EUS is far larger than ACES; 8.4m maximum diameter versus about 5m.

2. Orion can always be downgraded to an ISS lifeboat.

Soyuz is the ISS lifeboat, and in current planning the commercial crew vehicles will serve just fine as their own lifeboats as well. The previous lifeboat programmes like X-38 were only necessary due to crew transport with the shuttle.

[Guest]

These fails were one in a million.

No. The regularity of a failure is much higher than one per million launches.

Looks like we've had three failures this year, two very clearly the launch vehicle at fault. 2014 also saw three launch vehicle failures and a couple of bad launches.

[Bill Phil]

Yeah. But if something is used for a long time, the actual number of failures is pretty high, relatively.

You can't say "look at the failures in the last month". Because then the Falcon 9 has a terrible track record, which is not the case. Saying the last year won't be accurate, either.

[bitbucket]

As long as the U.S. is on the march to idiocracy, fascism, and automating everything to make humanity obsolete and unwanted, I halfway expect that in the next decade, the Russians will withdraw from support of the ISS to build their own, the station will be allowed to fall back into the atmosphere, and NASA itself will be mothballed.

The first words from the next man on the moon are going to be in Mandarin.

[CptRichardson]

As long as the U.S. is on the march to idiocracy, fascism, and automating everything to make humanity obsolete and unwanted, I halfway expect that in the next decade, the Russians will withdraw from support of the ISS to build their own, the station will be allowed to fall back into the atmosphere, and NASA itself will be mothballed.

The first words from the next man on the moon are going to be in Mandarin.

If the russians withdraw from ISS, their space agency simply won't have the funds to do a new station. Basically, everything you said about the US is about triply true for Russia.

Except for the automation part (which is the thing that will keep the US going)