What do you think of the SLS?

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, Kryten said:

NASA only has two launch complexes, and one of those is a small sounding rocket base.

Yep.  And most of their launches take place from facilities borrowed from USAF in the first place, which has been the case since the day NASA was founded.
 

3 hours ago, tater said:

Take tanks... when/if they move to 100% composite tanks, then what? Build those facilities at Michaud, because it's a big floor space, or build it where it is most efficient to do so?

Why do you assume it's not efficient to do so at Michoud?  The floor space is there (and long since paid for, back in the early 40's to be specific) as well as the experienced workers.  Shipping the tanks is pretty much dirt cheap.

[tater]

28 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Why do you assume it's not efficient to do so at Michoud?  The floor space is there (and long since paid for, back in the early 40's to be specific) as well as the experienced workers.  Shipping the tanks is pretty much dirt cheap.

I am not assuming anything except that composites share pretty much nothing in terms of worker skills with metal work. Unless they are already fabricating very large composite structures there. At some point, they'd have to tool up and hire composite people, so where they worked would not matter. Obviously a big space is already there, and paid for long ago, that's a plus. Putting it there in the first place had a lot to do with politics, and "good ole boy" back scratching, however.

I agree shipping by barge is pretty cheap, but it's non-zero, which is what it would be if everything was done at the launch facility. 

Though now that I think about it, composites might be better off in the SW US, because some resins and water vapor don't get along (urethanes, in particular).

Edited October 18, 2016 by tater

[StrandedonEarth]

I like seeing a huge super-heavy-lift-rocket being built. The downside of SLS is the price tag, but at least it's not my tax dollars. I hope that payloads get funded for it, but that's a tough sell in the current economic climate in the US. I wish that people would realize that when they want services it takes taxes to pay for them, but then people don't want to pay the taxes. People want their cake without having to pay for it, and it just doesn't work that way.

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Putting it there in the first place had a lot to do with politics, and "good ole boy" back scratching, however.

[[Citation needed]] as they say.  That facility has been there since 1940, and used by NASA since 1961.

[tater]

I believe the book (old one) was Journey to Tranquility. It came out right on the heels of Apollo 11 flying, though I read it fairly recently (borrowed from a friend). It details many of LBJ's buddy's getting pork handouts---the authors were British, so they actually defined "pork barrel spending" for the reader, lol. I cannot recall specific references to Michaud, but many places were horse traded. Ker(r?) in OK or a friend of his got the Coca Cola machine rights to all of a contractor's factories in exchange for his vote, for example. Crazy stuff.

Was Michaud for building petroleum tanks, etc, for refineries before NASA bought it? I can only assume that there were similar facilities in TX as well---the trick is that putting some in TX, some in LA, etc, is always a plus for any DC people, as it produces allies in Congress. Given the choice between a better facility to buy in TX, with JSC already set for TX, and a similar facility a few miles over the line in LA... the new district would always win, that's just sensible politics.

Regardless, a changeover to composites would involve entirely different skill sets than metal tanks. Utterly different tooling as well.

Edited October 18, 2016 by tater

[Nibb31]

Michoud was built as an aircraft factory during WWII. It built tanks (armoured vehicles) during the 50's and was transferred to NASA in the early 60s for the Saturn program.

[DerekL1963]

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Michoud was built as an aircraft factory during WWII. It built tanks (armoured vehicles) during the 50's and was transferred to NASA in the early 60s for the Saturn program.

Ayup.

As for for the Manned Spaceflight Center - in 1960 it was outgrowing the existing facilities at Langley and Goddard and needed a new home, so they went looking.  Sure, it's in Texas because of politics but it's not at Cape Kennedy because Cape Kennedy didn't exist at the time they were looking for a place for a new Center.

[tater]

It's not usually one factor alone. All work together, and adding another congressional district to the recipient list for yummy bacon never hurts.

[Bill Phil]

5 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Ayup.

As for for the Manned Spaceflight Center - in 1960 it was outgrowing the existing facilities at Langley and Goddard and needed a new home, so they went looking.  Sure, it's in Texas because of politics but it's not at Cape Kennedy because Cape Kennedy didn't exist at the time they were looking for a place for a new Center.

Yes, Cape Kennedy existed. It was (and still is) called Cape Canaveral. It had been launching rockets in the 50s, signed into being as a proving ground by Truman in 49. In fact, Cape Kennedy arguably doesn't exist anymore, since they renamed the Cape from Canaveral to Kennedy and then back again. Now, that doesn't mean that it was ready for NASA work, but they had launching facilities there (and thus why we have a space center there).

[DerekL1963]

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Yes, Cape Kennedy existed. It was (and still is) called Cape Canaveral. It had been launching rockets in the 50s, signed into being as a proving ground by Truman in 49. In fact, Cape Kennedy arguably doesn't exist anymore, since they renamed the Cape from Canaveral to Kennedy and then back again. Now, that doesn't mean that it was ready for NASA work, but they had launching facilities there (and thus why we have a space center there).

No, Cape Kennedy (the NASA facility, formally known nowadays as the Kennedy Space Center) did not exist.   The NASA launching facilities were located at and borrowed from CCAFS - Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

 

8 hours ago, tater said:

It's not usually one factor alone. All work together, and adding another congressional district to the recipient list for yummy bacon never hurts.

*sigh*  Whatever.

[cfds]

I find this pork debate quite funny. Representatives are elected to represent the interests of their district. And the interest of every district boils more or less down to "make sure that we get out share of the cake of federal spending". Don't go crying for Lord Elon*, just be happy that you get the pork in form of a (mostly) civilian heavy launch vehicle instead of the next military project to combine the roles of fighter airplane and littoral helicopter carrier.

 

*other examples of "the private sector is far more better at everything" are available.

[Frybert]

Since we can't seem to keep the politics out if this one, closing.