On 11/24/2011 10:58 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
The numbers are still very preliminary-not to mention that contracts
haven't been finalized.

When you take into consideration even the preliminary numbers for cost of operations of SLS they are not good compared to cost to
operate Falcon 9 Heavy or even Atlas 5 Heavy or Delta 5 Heavy configurations. That's why I urge a study to compare the costs of
re-use of KSC assets with ELVs. It may be the bulk of cost to operate is due to the expensive ground infrastructure and has little
to nothing to do with the rocket (in the case of SLS I doubt this as well). In any case, the numbers I've seen (so far) don't look good.


And David, I hate to rain on your parade, but
there's only ONE congresscritter pushing the EELV/Depot concept: Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). His motives aren't pu there's several
commercial space outfits in SoCal, and if he doesn't have facilities
from those companies in his district, he's got constitutents who work
at those companies. Which is the same approach that congresscritters
from Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida have when they
pushed for and got SLS.

I understand the political issues. However these are not the "numbers" that would change my mind. Wasting money because its
politically expedient right now to do so isn't going to make for a healthy space program once a "reformer" gets elected president,
who will take the case of money being wasted directly to the American people and starts to wield his veto power. If that reformer is
not pro-space, a government space program that has put all its eggs in the SLS basket will be in really big trouble.

They didn't want the Administration to wait up
to 5 years before deciding on a heavy-lifter: which, btw, Augustine
strongly hinted at was a good thing to have; they wanted it NOW. If
Rohrabacher was Chair of the House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a
position to push his ideas to NASA, but he's not. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-
TX) is the chair, and he's staunchly pushing JSC's interests, even
though he's not from Houston. And the push for SLS was bipartisan, if
you'll recall.

JSC interests aka stated NASA policy *is* COTS / CCDev. At least for access to ISS.
Today the engineering numbers say it should be COTS/CCDev for all access to LEO. Why suck up all of NASA financial resources on
rebuilding the wheel? Let's focus the $$$ being spent on BEO on true Exo-Atmospheric Vehicles EAVs. IMHO NASA should be working in
sync with private companies (as it always has in the past) to reduce costs to LEO. That will naturally lead to all sorts of BEO
opportunities. We already know we can't afford SLS if its numbers to operate are at the same levels as shuttle. If we don't have a
good handle on those numbers, logic says we should *stop* and do more cost studies until we do, not charge ahead full speed.

But I did not start this thread as an SLS vs COTS debate. I want constructive suggestions as to how NASA should move forward. If
that's a lunar colony, I'd like to hear it and the reasoning why. Personally, I favor a solar exploration vehicle for going to the
inner planets (Venus and Mars) and to continue to explore the Moon with tele-robotics. I think surface exploration (initial surveys)
can be done with a manned government program, but colonization or permanent habitation is not politically expedient and is best left
to the NGOs. Government *can* provide important subsidies to provide infrastructure to enable that. Just as it has with roads and
bridges.

To further debate along these lines I propose the following question: If you *had* an EAV and *had* completed a manned Mars surface
landing, what would you do next? Contrast those possibilities against those if you only had a mission-specific tasked Mars program
with no ability to do tours of the nearby solar system.

Dave