JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 18 Apr 2018
04:12:39 -0400:

On 2018-04-18 00:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So you want to blame NASA because ESA couldn't hit their schedule?
That's a bit of a stretch.


Since SLS is late with high likelyhood of being canbcelled, why should
Europe provide for "rapid completion" budgets for something that may
never be needed?


Because they are UNDER CONTRACT TO DELIVER THE ****ING THING!!!! You
don't just get to say "well, I don't think you'll need it so I'm not
going to bother to live up to my agreement" in the real world, bucko.
And it will be needed, since NASA plans to fly on SLS Block 1 with the
Interim Upper Stage.



I don't think Falcon Heavy has enough grunt to get an Orion to TLI.
It's dubious if it has enough grunt to get a Dragon V2 with a
sufficiently capable Service Module to TLI.


In the time frames where SLS might be functional, we're talking about
BFR, not Falcon Heavy.


Let me get this straight. You think BFR/Spaceship will be ready
before SLS but that SLS/Orion makes a fine 'back up' for Dragon
V2/Falcon 9 and CST-100/Atlas V. Seek treatment for this mental
break.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn