JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 17 Apr 2018
18:51:47 -0400:

On 2018-04-17 05:51, Jeff Findley wrote:
Boeing's CST-100 (Starliner) is following the same schedule as Dragon 2.
The US will have 3 manned capsules, if Orion ever flies.

Until they are launching in production with crews, it isn't "'Mission
Accomplished" which allows for SLS to be put out of its misery.


Again, you are comparing apples and aardvarks. CST-100 and Dragon V2
are LEO taxis. Orion is different and only has LEO as a secondary
mission.

Unmanned tests this year for both Dragon 2 and Starliner with possible
manned tests by the end of the year.

Close but no cigar. But once they do fly, I would hope SLS unravels quickly.


The boosters that lift both Dragon 2 and Starliner have been
successfully flying for a while now, which puts them well ahead of
SLS. SLS hasn't gone anywhere.


So what? We're talking about where we go from here, not where we should
go 10+ years ago!

Knowing the context that created the Ares/SLS and Orion projects helps
understand why they continue today and why it can be argued that that
project being a back remains "valid" until the commercial offerings are
real and launching.


Let me try it again. Orion is ***NOT*** a 'back up' in case of Dragon
V2 or CST-100 failure. Dragon V2 and CST-100 are each other's 'backup
plan'. Orion is something different. The boosters that Dragon V2 and
CST-100 fly on are both production systems, which SLS is not.


I know that SpaceX and Boeing are close. But if the strategy was to have
a backup plan until commercial has proven it will work, then one needs
to wait till this happens before killimng the SLS boondogle.


Let me try it again. Orion is ***NOT*** a 'back up' in case of Dragon
V2 or CST-100 failure. Dragon V2 and CST-100 are each other's 'backup
plan'. Orion is something different. The boosters that Dragon V2 and
CST-100 fly on are both production systems, which SLS is not.


But all other projects have not failed. Falcon Heavy is a reality.
Both Dragon 2 and Starliner are both set to fly years before Orion.

And slowing down Orion/SLS may be a sign that NASA knows this and just
keeps the project on extended life support until it is ready to be
killed (as opposed to Apollo project when finishing on time was prioroty
1 to get man to the moon and back before 1970.


They're not 'slowing it down'. It is failing to meet schedule.



Have you read the news? The Exploration Upper Stage for SLS is
slipping, BADLY!


Yep. But if proof that commercial is working is coming in the next 12
months, then no point in pushing for SLS hard, but still can't argue
that commercial replacements exist and make SLS moot. (and until BFR
flies, one could argue that Commercial crew won't have same capabilities
as SLS so that could be an excuse to continue SLS till first BFR flight
(see previous discussion).


So your claim is that they're slipping ON PURPOSE? That's
preposterous!


You need to think politicios of killigh SLS and give politicians the
face saving way out of the project without the least political costs
(job losses).


How's THAT supposed to work? Are you proposing continuing to spend
SLS money so jobs aren't lost but not bothering to develop anything
with it?


If that were true, we'd have just a scant two more years of SLS funding
meaning it wouldn't even get to first flight (which is still about 3
years away). I have a feeling the pork will keep flowing at least
through a few flights.

They have what, 12 engines to burn? 3 flights. (are the 6 "new" SSMEs
built already?)


My prediction is that they'll shoot those off as Block 1 missions and
then claim they need funding for more engines because the new upper
stage is now ready. And they'll get it because we'll have spent all
that money to develop the new upper stage which will just be thrown
away if we don't buy more engines.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw