View Single Post
  #3  
Old April 14th 18, 08:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default More Flights of SLS Block 1

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 14 Apr 2018
15:13:55 -0400:


It's important to consider that at the time the Shuttle was killed,
"COTS" had not proven itself yet AND NASA was now stuck with lots of
"rocket business" staff with nothing to do.


But they didn't go on to do 'rocket business'. They went on to invent
a preposterously expensive launcher that was required to be based on
'Shuttle technology'.


A make work project for NASA's rocket busines makes sense to keep the
organisation going so that if commercial doesn't pan out, NASA can
return to making rockets to fill the gap commercial had failed to fill.


That makes no sense at all. No multi-billion dollar per year program
should be 'make work'.


Imagine if the "make work" mandate had been to let engineers loose and
given a mandate to develop the warp drive or whatever else they could
come up with. (aka: a true R&D organisation for the rocket business,
just as NASA does a lot of R&D for commercial airplanes).


That ought to be NASA's role in space launchers these days.
Unfortunately, there is such an incestuous relationship with ULA that
they probably couldn't do that correctly, either.


While NASA might not have come up with a "rocket" system, surely its
engineers would have come up with a number of useful technologies and
also tested certain tech and found them to not be the way to go.



On 2018-04-14 12:18, Jeff Findley wrote:

Agreed. Waste of perfectly good SSME's.


In a context where SLS is to have a fixed number of flights, then yeah,
you want each flight to count as much as possible since any additional
test flight ends up killing a real flight at the end.

In a context where production of SSMEs has restarted and is fully funded
forever, then it matters less that it takes 3 more flights to get the
new second stage.


Except nothing is 'fully funded forever'. This smacks of NASA burning
up engines for no good reason in an insane game of Three Card Monte
where they continually try to make the cost already sunk large enough
that more must be spent to 'use' it. Burn up all the engines before
the new stage is ready and Congress HAS to support follow-on engine
orders.



Plus it's putting people on an
upper stage that wasn't planned to be "man rated". But NASA writes the
rules and the waivers, so that's never been a real problem.


From a hardware/software point of view, is there much difference between
a man rated second stage and one that isn't?


Probably not, but the expensive part is PROVING that and documenting
it.


(apart from the obvious need to support capsule and its ejection system).

At launch, apart from the design to allow capsule ejection, is the
second stage otherwise considered inert, so man rating is all about its
mission after MECO and when Stage1 has separated?


You need certain reliability when it comes to NOT firing or blowing up
and firing on command and for precisely what is commanded. All that
has to be proven and documented.



The "upside" is that it "gets Orion flying more often and sooner", so
the Congresscritters will be happy that their pork spending is
"producing results".


Different spin:

NASA to congress: We have completed the development and testing of
SLS/ORION and are now ready to do space missions with it. So please
authorize funding to start on-going SSME production.


That point is half a decade down the road or more. Remember that for
SLS, 'more frequent flight' means one a year or fewer.


At that point, if they don't authorize it, it looks like Congress spent
billions and billions of dollars to get NASA to develop new rocket but
won't make use of it.

On the other hand, if you get a couple of flights that are "production"
before the initial batch of SSMEs runs out, it is possible that
Congress will declare "Mission Accomplished" and shut it down.

So SLS may have greater chance of getting an extension if the end of
funding corresponds end of test flights.


Except that would be even more insane.



Pardon my language, but SLS is a burning dumpster fire. The lost
opportunity cost, going forward from here, is staggering.


Correct when you look at it from the point of view of NASA as a
science/exploration organisation.

But if you look at NASA as a means to keep ATK and Michoud alive then
SLS has been highly succesfull in its mission.


Not really, since the money sunk into NASA could have done that
mission much more cheaply.



And, if we're lucky, BFR will be flying by the time the Exploration
Upper Stage starts flying.


BFR becomes a huge headache for ATK lobbyists because politicians will
need much stronger ammunition to contine to fund that boondogle when BFR
can do more at lower cost.


There will be some reason they can't use it.


It's a lot easier to get the military to spend $500 on a hammer because
it can stipulate that military missions require gold plated hammers to
ensure fake reason which nobody can challenge. But for commercial
flight, when BFR uses standard $10 hammers without problem, it becomes
harder for NASA to claim that the $500 hammers are absolutely necessary.


I see you don't understand why things for the military cost what they
do. IT'S THE PAPERWORK REQUIRED BY LAW.


But taking a step back, it is also possible to see SLS in a good way:
backup solution using proven military-grade excessive spending to build
a rocket in case the inexpensive commercial method doesn't pan out.


Utter bull****.


Today, SLS looks like a boondogle because SpaceX succeeded. But had all
the commercial ventures flopped, the conclusion might have been that
rockets really need lots of time and money to get done right and cutting
corners doesn't work, and SLS might be viewd as necessarily expensive
but at least having delivered.


No. SLS was an expensive boondoggle when judged by the old standards.


Now that commercial ventures have shown they can do the job, the
question becomes: what happens to NASA's rocket scientists once SLS is
put out of its misery. Does NASA become a pure R&D for rocket science
and its engineers let loose to think up the next generation of rockets,
or does NASA wind down rocket business because in the end, private
enterprise gets to innovate at faster rate?


NASA will stay in the 'rocket business' because that's where the
civilian jobs come from (manufacturing ****).


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson