DDE Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 2 hours ago, tater said: The NASA Associate Adminstrator said (at a meeting this weekend) that if commercial companies can obviate SLS, they’ll stop it and buy launches instead. Well, someone’s in a hurry to get retired... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, tater said: The NASA Associate Adminstrator said (at a meeting this weekend) that if commercial companies can obviate SLS, they’ll stop it and buy launches instead. Not holding my breath. SLS has some... powerful patrons, and NASA Associate Administrators don't have that kind of budget and contracting authority. Edited November 19, 2018 by DerekL1963 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 5 hours ago, tater said: The NASA Associate Adminstrator said (at a meeting this weekend) that if commercial companies can obviate SLS, they’ll stop it and buy launches instead. And Shuttle contractors will lose a LOT of jobs... Something tells me the Congress will not allow this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 2 hours ago, sh1pman said: Something tells me the Congress will not allow this. “I am the Senate” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 19 hours ago, tater said: The NASA Associate Adminstrator said (at a meeting this weekend) that if commercial companies can obviate SLS, they’ll stop it and buy launches instead. Well, at least SOMEONE has a functional brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, MaverickSawyer said: Well, at least SOMEONE has a functional brain. They all have functioning brains. It’s just that some politicians don’t want to be responsible for thousands of people losing their jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 (edited) 21 hours ago, tater said: The NASA Associate Adminstrator said (at a meeting this weekend) that if commercial companies can obviate SLS, they’ll stop it and buy launches instead. The very fact that he has to publicly disprove such claims tells a lot about SLS. Edited November 19, 2018 by sh1pman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 6 hours ago, sh1pman said: They all have functioning brains. It’s just that some politicians don’t want to be responsible for thousands of people losing their jobs They could care less about the actual jobs. They only care about not giving people a reason to vote against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 The Congresspeople have interests, the businesses in their district have interests (that impact the state/district), and their constituents have interests. It's never cut and dried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) How is this in the wrong thread? Oops. Edited November 20, 2018 by tater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 16 hours ago, sh1pman said: They all have functioning brains. It’s just that some politicians don’t want to be responsible for thousands of people losing their jobs Being able to handle stimulus and response is enough for a Senate job. They have staffers for any other duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassel Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Not sure where to put this...https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-three-stage-approach-to-human-class-lunar-landers/ 3 stage moon lander, but why when they can have 1 stage mini-BFR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, Cassel said: Not sure where to put this...https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-three-stage-approach-to-human-class-lunar-landers/ 3 stage moon lander, but why when they can have 1 stage mini-BFR? SLS. SLS can't get a direct-ascent lander to Gateway that can then make a round trip back to Gateway. Even Block 2 only gets 130t to LEO (Saturn V was 140t to LEO). Gateway only costs a few hundred m/s extra dv, but SLS can't get anything to LLO, the surface, and back unless it's much smaller than Apollo. Given only 1 possible flight/year (and that with Orion), they need to bring the lander up in pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassel Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, tater said: SLS. SLS can't get a direct-ascent lander to Gateway that can then make a round trip back to Gateway. Even Block 2 only gets 130t to LEO (Saturn V was 140t to LEO). Gateway only costs a few hundred m/s extra dv, but SLS can't get anything to LLO, the surface, and back unless it's much smaller than Apollo. Given only 1 possible flight/year (and that with Orion), they need to bring the lander up in pieces. If they make 3 stage lander then why would they need SLS for? Falcon Heavy could deliver it to Gateway cheaper in few flights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 @Cassel seems nobody believes in BFR. Anyway i think the 3 stage lander makes a lot of sense. Especially when it comes to establishing a surface base. The transfer stage would be the perfect job for ACES. and the lander seperated from the ascent stage allowing you to actually put some hardware on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, Canopus said: @Cassel seems nobody believes in BFR. That's for another thread, but NASA can't plan around that until it is more established (which is fine). Same applies to Vulcan and NG. FH is on the table as a LV, and NG/Vulcan can be though of as options, but they need to see some metal being bent first. 8 minutes ago, Canopus said: Anyway i think the 3 stage lander makes a lot of sense. Especially when it comes to establishing a surface base. The transfer stage would be the perfect job for ACES. and the lander seperated from the ascent stage allowing you to actually put some hardware on the ground. The 3 stage is only required because SLS is so very, very awful at what it is nominally supposed to do. They can only send what can comanifest with Orion, because they can't leave a lander at the Moon for a year before possibly flying it. They are talking this way because they have no choice. I have nothing against distributed launch, but the idea of sending a 3-stage lander to Gateway to land it at the Moon is absurd. You could send a 3 stage lander to the Moon directly from LEO, gateway wastes a bunch of dv for the same mission. A XEUS lander (Masten/ULA) could be brought to the Moon via another ACES. If ACES was mad arbitrarily bigger (meaning big enough to do what is needed), it could then enter LEO propulsively, and use ISS as the staging area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal7 Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Canopus said: @Cassel seems nobody believes in BFR. Learned, credible, professionals don't. And they shouldn't. The BFR and its Mars/Moonbase building trips are pure, fantastical nonsense.I sit spellbound that soooo many people can believe this rot.The most reliable estimates I've seen on a human trip to Mars is around a trillion dollars. A simple, show the flag deal. That is far and away beyond anyone's budget. So colony building, *phew*, not gonna happen.Unless some revolutionary, cost-saving technology is discovered I doubt anyone is ever going to Mars. I don't see the possibility of so much political will being generated to spend so much money on the adventure. I'd be for it and I'm sure many people here would too but not the public at large. Edited November 20, 2018 by Kerbal7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) @tater No i am saying the three stage lander makes sense even without any SLS involvement. It allows you to put more payload on the surface than a completely reusable lunar lander, enables cargo only missions by seperating lander and ascender. And you can potentialy reuse 2/3 of it. It also is future proof exactly because it operates from cislunar space, not directly inserted from LEO. Edited November 20, 2018 by Canopus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused Scientist Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said: The most reliable estimates I've seen on a human trip to Mars is around a trillion dollars. Can you identify some of those sources? I have never, ever seen that figure quoted before, so I want to know what it's based off of. For comparison, the entire United States Interstate highway system costs around $500 billion (2016 dollars). EDIT: Sources found, thanks. Edited November 20, 2018 by Confused Scientist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, Confused Scientist said: Can you identify some of those sources? I have never, ever seen that figure quoted before, so I want to know what it's based off of. The same NASA spreadsheets that showed that F9 should have 10X more than it did. From a NASA analysis based on their usual costing model: Quote Under methodology #1, the cost model predicted that the Falcon 9 would cost $4.0 billion based on a traditional approach. Under methodology #2, NAFCOM predicted $1.7 billion when the inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach. Thus, the predicted the cost to develop the Falcon 9 if done by NASA would have been between $1.7 billion and $4.0 billion. SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs. So it's safe to assume that if they say a trillion, then it's probably 100 billion, instead (still a lot of cash). 27 minutes ago, Canopus said: @tater No i am saying the three stage lander makes sense even without any SLS involvement. It allows you to put more payload on the surface than a completely reusable lunar lander, enables cargo only missions by seperating lander and ascender. And you can potentialy reuse 2/3 of it. It also is future proof exactly because it operates from cislunar space, not directly inserted from LEO. There is a LOP-Gateway thread, that perhaps some of this should move to. Before, DSG was entirely an SLS prject, but it's becoming clear that SLS is so awful, NASA cannot rely on it for Gateway, and SLS is just an incredibly expensive way to deliver a handful of astronauts to cislunar space, with all the "stuff" they need brought in a far more cost-effective way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 I wouldn‘t call SLS awful, performance wise atleast, any post Apollo missions putting more than two people on the moon would have used multiple launches. If the only goal would be a return to the moon SLS would absolutely be capable of a Lunar orbit rendezvous in L2 between Orion and a Lander. The way it is handled now is preferable though because it opens up possibilities for commercial involvement that wouldn‘t have happened if Constellation would have proceeded as intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Kerbal7 said: The most reliable estimates I've seen on a human trip to Mars is around a trillion dollars. A simple, show the flag deal. That is far and away beyond anyone's budget. Where are you getting these numbers from? How could it cost 1 trillion dollars even if they used the SLS and took 25 years? Even 10 SLS launches is "only" 20-30 billion. That number came from no where. Even the entire moon program cost 150 billion adjusted for inflation, and that was starting from nothing with 60s technology. There is no scenario where it would cost 1 trillion. BTW I hope @Kerbal7 is still on the forums in 12 years so we can see if he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barzon Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) Double Post Accident Edited November 20, 2018 by Barzon Kerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barzon Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kerbal7 said: some revolutionary, cost-saving technology is discovered What about reusability? And also, why on Earth, are you so gosh darn negative about Starship/Super Heavy, yes they may fail, but we will learn some very important lessons about becoming a truly spacefaring civilisation? Edited November 20, 2018 by Barzon Kerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassel Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Apollo early project, 2 stage lander?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_Direct_Ascent.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts