Why the Space Launch System will not be cancelled

[NASAFanboy]

Views of Future Space Exploration

I'm what one what call, and "optimist". I'm hoping for a landing on Mars by the mid-2030's, with precursor moonbases, and interstellar travel by the next century.

And why?

The SLS is unlikely to be cancelled. One of the main achievements for the SLS is the Asteroid ReDirect Mission, set in 2021. Should the POTUS in 2016 win two terms, the mission will happen while he/she is in office (2016-2024). It is far enough for many to forget that Obama was responsible for it, yet close enough for the credit of the mission to be given to the next President.

Meanwhile, Project Constellation had the Moon as it's major selling point. It would've landed a man on the moon in 2018-2020. This does not work for Obama, as his term limit ends in 2016, which means he would not have received any credit for the moon landing as it did not occur during his term. Also, two of the major test launches will occur during Obamas term/Early Other POTUS term. While manned missions would've taken place in 2014, they would've sent men to the ISS, which is not nearly as exciting as going to an asteroid, and also was not a first or highlight achievement of the program.

Also, many of the POTUS candidates for the next election are Congressmen, who are overwhelmingly supportive of the SLS program. Those who come even CLOSE to opposing it are the House Republicans, who simply want it to be used for lunar missions. However, the recent Government shutdown has greatly damaged the reputation of the House Republicans who many now view as incompetent.

And even if the new NASA Administration is against it, it will still likely be carried out, with the same reasons stated above. The highlight of the SLS project, the 2021 mission, will happen during the NASA administration that comes into play in 2016, far enough for less credit to be given to Bolden, but close enough for the agency administration to celebrate and be rewarded for the mission, rather than be passed over as a footnote in the space history books. Also, unlike the Constellation, which would've done the job in some 15+ years, the Asteroid Redirect Mission is done in a mere eight years.

Edited October 24, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Mr Shifty]

The Constellation program was cancelled for many reasons, some political, some practical, but it was a boondoggle: over budget and -- more importantly -- behind schedule. Orion was supposed to replace the Shuttle program for travel to the ISS. And here's something to be aware of: the Bush administration announced the 2010 end of the Shuttle program in 2004. Orion was supposed to be ready for crewed flights in 2012, but it slipped in official estimates to 2015 (which was the original planned end-of-life date for the ISS), and unofficially could not possibly have been ready before 2017, which puts lunar return in the mid-to-late 2020's at best and lunar landing in the 2030's given budgets. The President commissioned a report in 2009, which laid out several options for continued space exploration, given budgetary and time constraints. These are well thought-out options and it's worth reading the report (Augustine Committee report).

All of Augustine Committee's options, with the exception of the baseline option, recognize that the most expensive part of crewed exploration is transporting crew to low Earth orbit. With the burgeoning business of commercial space flight to LEO, it made sense to develop commercial partners for crew lift uphill and retain NASA's expertise for developing heavy launch (75 ton+) capability. The option that NASA chose is the "Flexible Path" option, where we leverage the ISS and incrementally use developing launch systems to explore the technology we'll need for deep space exploration, ultimately with an eye on crewed Mars missions. Thus we have the commercial crew program, which is currently bearing fruit with DragonRider and Dream Chaser and CST-100. We have commercial contracts for LEO cargo transport. We have on orbit refueling technology demonstrations. We're going to have a year-long ISS mission in a couple years to further test the effects on humans of long-term exposure to microgravity and other space conditions. We're extending our capabilities to use robotics over long distance. We have deepening collaboration with international partners. We're continuing robotic solar system exploration. A shift back to the moon now that NASA has started down this path, would reset everything and put Mars further out of reach.

The whole "Presidents can't see past the end of their own time in office" line of thinking is silly. Kennedy envisioned the moon landing, but didn't live to see it, and he would have been out of office when it happened no matter what. Nixon authorized the Shuttle program, but the first flight wasn't until 1981. The Constellation program, started by Bush, would have been to the moon by 2020 at the earliest, and wouldn't have had an operation rocket until 2012, 4 years after Bush left office.

[NASAFanboy]

The Constellation program was cancelled for many reasons, some political, some practical, but it was a boondoggle: over budget and -- more importantly -- behind schedule. Orion was supposed to replace the Shuttle program for travel to the ISS. And here's something to be aware of: the Bush administration announced the 2010 end of the Shuttle program in 2004. Orion was supposed to be ready for crewed flights in 2012, but it slipped in official estimates to 2015 (which was the original planned end-of-life date for the ISS), and unofficially could not possibly have been ready before 2017, which puts lunar return in the mid-to-late 2020's at best and lunar landing in the 2030's given budgets. The President commissioned a report in 2009, which laid out several options for continued space exploration, given budgetary and time constraints. These are well thought-out options and it's worth reading the report (Augustine Committee report).

All of Augustine Committee's options, with the exception of the baseline option, recognize that the most expensive part of crewed exploration is transporting crew to low Earth orbit. With the burgeoning business of commercial space flight to LEO, it made sense to develop commercial partners for crew lift uphill and retain NASA's expertise for developing heavy launch (75 ton+) capability. The option that NASA chose is the "Flexible Path" option, where we leverage the ISS and incrementally use developing launch systems to explore the technology we'll need for deep space exploration, ultimately with an eye on crewed Mars missions. Thus we have the commercial crew program, which is currently bearing fruit with DragonRider and Dream Chaser and CST-100. We have commercial contracts for LEO cargo transport. We have on orbit refueling technology demonstrations. We're going to have a year-long ISS mission in a couple years to further test the effects on humans of long-term exposure to microgravity and other space conditions. We're extending our capabilities to use robotics over long distance. We have deepening collaboration with international partners. We're continuing robotic solar system exploration. A shift back to the moon now that NASA has started down this path, would reset everything and put Mars further out of reach.

The whole "Presidents can't see past the end of their own time in office" line of thinking is silly. Kennedy envisioned the moon landing, but didn't live to see it, and he would have been out of office when it happened no matter what. Nixon authorized the Shuttle program, but the first flight wasn't until 1981. The Constellation program, started by Bush, would have been to the moon by 2020 at the earliest, and wouldn't have had an operation rocket until 2012, 4 years after Bush left office.

Yes. But the SLS will enter operation post-2017, which is a year after Obama leaves. While I'm not saying the SLS won't be cancelled, I'm saying there is very little chance of such happening, as the POTUS will likely want the credit of such a achievements.

And while Apollo was Kenndy's brainchild, Nixon was already destroying the program. When Apllo landed, the whole roject was almost dead.

However, this is unlikely to be with Obama. Obama has not the popularity of Kennedy, and the House does not support him at all. His policies are highly controversial, without the popularity of the Kennedy Adminstration. And thus, it is more likely that the serving POTUS be remembered for the ARM more than the POTUS that created it. That is, if Watergate 2.0 doesn't come and do him in.

It's also highly risky for a program to completely go past a two Presidental terms without a significant milestone achievement.

Even if it takes till 2023, the mission will still occur in the next Presidents term. Also, Johnsson was highly support of Apollo, as he was Kennedy's VPOTUS-which likely saved the whole program.

Edited October 24, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Camacha]

I find this POTUS-talk slightly confusing, as I constantly have to remember myself we are not talking about a hippo

[Warhorse]

I dunno ... IF the ARM stays on-time and on-budget, then MAYBE it will survive; but the US is heading for a massive economic meltdown sometime soon. When that hits, all bets are off. (See, for example, Russia after the Wall came down ... )

[mdatspace]

I dunno ... IF the ARM stays on-time and on-budget, then MAYBE it will survive; but the US is heading for a massive economic meltdown sometime soon. When that hits, all bets are off. (See, for example, Russia after the Wall came down ... )

Things are getting better.

[SargeRho]

Warhorse, that already happened back in 07/08.

[Camacha]

Things are getting better.

The debt is still increasing though. You can not keep that up forever without at one point being completely owned by someone else.

[Exposure]

The debt is still increasing though. You can not keep that up forever without at one point being completely owned by someone else.

Sovereign debt does not work that way.

[Mr Shifty]

The debt is still increasing though. You can not keep that up forever without at one point being completely owned by someone else.

U.S. debt is mostly owned by U.S. citizens and government agencies. (About 25% of it is just sitting in vaults in the Federal Reserve doing nothing.) Foreign owned U.S. debt actually is a good thing because it gives us trade leverage, makes the dollar attractive as an international store of value, and gives us a small cushion against global economic shocks. And the debt has been increasing since the 1830's, with a few minor years here and there where it went down by a percent or two. Doesn't seem to have stopped our economic expansion for the last two centuries. U.S. debt service has actually been decreasing over the last few years because when we roll over the debt, we exchange high-yield bonds for today's super low-yield bonds. A couple years ago, the return rate on 10 year bonds was actually less than inflation; in other words, people were paying the U.S. to loan money to it. The debt just isn't a real problem.

[NASAFanboy]

Here's a interesting pattern I noticed.

Mercury: President Kennedy's Term

Gemini: Technically Kennedy's Term, because Johnson was the VP for Kennedy.

Apollo: Barely made it as Nixon was destroying the program from the inside.

All programs spanned three terms, but it's technically two administrations. The goal was set for ten years.

Now, let's see the next program. The Space Shuttle. Supported by Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, in which the middle didn't really pay attention to space exploration and let NASA run it's course. By the time Reagan came, the Shuttles where in full swing, and he didn't bother to stop it.

Total span of development. Three terms/Presidents, two NASA Adminstrations. Goal was to get it flying in less than 10 years.

Now, the SEI. Massive program. Goal was man on Mars by 2000. That's some 20 years from the start. This plus the 450,000,000 price tag, killed it.

Followed by Project Constellation. Moon return in 14 years. Killed in 2013.

Almost every program that has its highlight precursor goal more than 10 years away has been killed.

ARM is 8 years off. The SLS is a mere five.

Tell me, who would be willing to destroy the fruit now that it's ripe?

[Mr Shifty]

Here's a interesting pattern I noticed. <snip>

Cherry picking.

• ISS was a 15 year project from conception to completion.
  
• Cassini was conceived in the early 80's, continued to be supported in the 90's, launched in 1997 arrived in 2004, and is still orbiting.
  
• Galileo was begun in 1977, launched in 1989, arrived in 1995, and deorbited in 2002.
  
• Hubble was conceived in 1970, construction began in 1978, and launched in 1990.
  

Edited October 25, 2013 by Mr Shifty

[Camacha]

Sovereign debt does not work that way.

Not exactly, but also not totally not. That is a bit cryptic, but about right.

The debt just isn't a real problem.

I think that is the attitude that causes problems But I know that debt is viewed a bit differently in the US. Debt is not a problem per se, but it can be(come) a problem if it structurally increases, which it seems to do. The problems are mitigated by some of the factors you mention, but in the long run something like that will not keep working. It is a neat party trick, but parties inevitably come to an end.

Of course, you could always imagine some more money

Edited October 25, 2013 by Camacha

[NASAFanboy]

When I said that, I was talking about the US-only manned spaceflight projects.

A set international manned spaceflight project with a due date is extremely unlikely to cancelled

[jwenting]

I find this POTUS-talk slightly confusing, as I constantly have to remember myself we are not talking about a hippo

hmm, where do you think the term came from? It's no coincidence.

[jwenting]

Cherry picking.

• ISS was a 15 year project from conception to completion.
  
• Cassini was conceived in the early 80's, continued to be supported in the 90's, launched in 1997 arrived in 2004, and is still orbiting.
  
• Galileo was begun in 1977, launched in 1989, arrived in 1995, and deorbited in 2002.
  
• Hubble was conceived in 1970, construction began in 1978, and launched in 1990.
  

And all were scaled back more than a bit from the time of inception to when they were launched. Galileo and Hubble were largely funded by others than NASA, coming out of university budgets bit by bit. ISS was funded in no small part by foreign space agencies (and AFAIK that goes for Galileo and Hubble as well) with treaty bound US commitments that could not be easily dropped.

[Wahgineer]

With the constellation program and all, they should at least have kept the ares 1. I say this because nasa had a functioning test article, had performed an unmanned test, and with a little rework here and there, would have it flying by now. SlS is too overpowered for ISS visits, where as the Ares 1 is perfect for the job, as well as being a good orbital ferry overall.

[Nibb31]

The SLS will be killed by the lack of money to build any payloads. The only payload it has right now is Orion, which could technically be launched on a Delta IV Heavy.

The asteroid mission and the DSH are ways to justify its existence, but they don't have any serious funding yet. They will only start getting funding when the SLS development work ends, which will free some budget for payloads and missions. This means that there will be a gap of at least 4 or 5 years between SLS going operational and any payloads being available.

NASA has already stated that it will only be able to afford one mission every year or two. Yet to maintain that capability, they will still need to maintain the Cape facilities, the VAB, the standing army of engineers and technicians to run the sites, integrate payloads, launch and monitor the missions. Basically, the infrastructure will be same as it was for the Shuttle, billions of dollars of fixed cost every year for only a handful of launches. No Congress will be able to justify that cost when they are cutting budgets on more essential government expenses. If we are lucky, we might see it fly once or twice, but I have no doubt that it will be cancelled soon after that.

[NASAFanboy]

NASA Planetary Science is trying to use the SLS for missions such as Europa Lander, .etc.etc.

Congress supports the SLS overwhelmingly. The candidates that are serious about the 2016 Election almost all come from Congress. Also, the highlight of the program, the DSH L-2 Station and Asteroid Missions will be occuring in the two terms of the next POTUS, which means that...:

1. It'll be their adminstration that will likely recieve the credit for the achievements of the missions.

2. concuring with above, they will be unlikely to cancel it.

Project Constellation would not have landed on the Moon when Obama was in office, and thus, he was likely to cancel it.

Who, in their right mind, would destroy something they know it will be good for their reputations and PR?

[jwenting]

congresscritters support it as long as supporting it gets money to flow to their districts, which in turn buys them votes.

The moment that stops, and when development ends and production is about to start at a rate of 1 shot every 2-3 years, that support will end and the program defunded completely.

[Camacha]

hmm, where do you think the term came from? It's no coincidence.

I assumed it is simply a abbreviation of President Of The United States. It is not? I do think that those have much relation or resemblence to a hippopotamus.

[Mr Shifty]

NASA Planetary Science is trying to use the SLS for missions such as Europa Lander, .etc.etc.

True that JPL studies were commissioned for this, but seems very unlikely that the best way to make your science mission attractive in an era of shrinking science budgets is to attach a $500m launcher to it.

Congress supports the SLS overwhelmingly. The candidates that are serious about the 2016 Election almost all come from Congress.

I actually can't think of a single serious early contender for 2016 who comes from the House. And in the Senate you've got Cruz and Rubio, both on the space subcommittee. It's not obvious that Ted Cruz would support SLS (though his predecessor did.) It's not a slam-dunk for Texas; shifts NASA resources away from Johnson and toward Marshall, and could hurt commercial crew with SpaceX having a significant portion of their operations in Texas. Rubio seems like a likely solid vote for SLS, but he's an apostate in the GOP now because of immigration reform. No Democrats from either legislative bodies are serious contenders at this point, though much can change in 3 years.

Also, the highlight of the program, the DSH L-2 Station and Asteroid Missions will be occuring in the two terms of the next POTUS, which means that...:

Congress may support the SLS (though there are many many in Congress who view it as a pork barrel project), but they certainly don't support the ARM. The House discussed banning the mission this summer, and the Senate made no mention of it in their budgetary authorization. I'd bet you $100 that ARM never happens. We don't even have a target for it. I haven't seen any news about the EML-2 DSH since a couple years ago, and even then, they weren't considering SLS for launch.

Project Constellation would not have landed on the Moon when Obama was in office, and thus, he was likely to cancel it.

By this logic, President Bush was unlikely to propose Constellation.

I honestly have no idea if SLS will be cancelled. But, I wouldn't be sad if it was.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Mr Shifty

[NASAFanboy]

True that JPL studies were commissioned for this, but seems very unlikely that the best way to make your science mission attractive in an era of shrinking science budgets is to attach a $500m launcher to it.

I actually can't think of a single serious early contender for 2016 who comes from the House. And in the Senate you've got Cruz and Rubio, both on the space subcommittee. It's not obvious that Ted Cruz would support SLS (though his predecessor did.) It's not a slam-dunk for Texas; shifts NASA resources away from Johnson and toward Marshall, and could hurt commercial crew with SpaceX having a significant portion of their operations in Texas. Rubio seems like a likely solid vote for SLS, but he's an apostate in the GOP now because of immigration reform. No Democrats from either legislative bodies are serious contenders at this point, though much can change in 3 years.

Congress may support the SLS (though there are many many in Congress who view it as a pork barrel project), but they certainly don't support the ARM. The House discussed banning the mission this summer, and the Senate made no mention of it in their budgetary authorization. I'd bet you $100 that ARM never happens. We don't even have a target for it. I haven't seen any news about the EML-2 DSH since a couple years ago, and even then, they weren't considering SLS for launch.

By this logic, President Bush was unlikely to propose Constellation.

I honestly have no idea if SLS will be cancelled. But, I wouldn't be sad if it was.

Meh, the SLS is kind of like my last hope.

Canceling it would mean me fleeing to China to work in the CNSA, going rogue, or plastering my brains over the wall.

Defunding NASA would mean my brains plastered over a wall/me hijacked nuclear submarines and nuking everything.

Even if Congress does not support ARM, the future is bright for the SLS. If it was repurposed for lunar missions, newer, cheaper and more efficient versions of the SLS will likely be designed, as NASA renews a push for lunar missions. Many House Candidates (Posey) are supporting doing whatever it takes to create the first US Moonbase by 2022. Others, such as the Democrats simply want NASA to get to Mars by 2030 with the SLS, no matter what way.

By 2024, when the 46th POTUS is in, the SLS would've flown its first manned missions....making it too late to cancel without significant congressional support and a PR disaster.

[jwenting]

I assumed it is simply a abbreviation of President Of The United States. It is not? I do think that those have much relation or resemblence to a hippopotamus.

ever heard of irony, sarcasm, etc. etc.

[Camacha]

ever heard of irony, sarcasm, etc. etc.

Does not compute.