JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 15 Apr 2018
20:35:30 -0400:

On 2018-04-14 20:52, Jeff Findley wrote:

I'm talking about today. SLS is bull$hit today. You don't allow
something this expensive and useless to keep on going due to decisions
made in the past based on assumptions that have changed.


But it can be argued that until SpaceX's manned Dragon flies
succesfully, it could be wise to continue NASA's manned rockets
development just in case. (what happens if Musk's business has to go
chapter 11, or some technical probvlem indefinitely delayed manned
Dragon etc etc.


You're confusing rockets with capsules. Manned Dragon and Orion don't
compete, since the purpose of one is LEO trips and that's only a
secondary mission for the other.


And if Dragon is to become real say by end of 2018, then continuing SLS
until end of 2018 isn't that big a deal in the grand schjeme of things
(where military spends 700 billion a year).


You're comparing apples (manned capsules) with aardvarks (launch
vehicles).



Commercial launch vehicles are here and they're cheaper than ever.


Not manned ones. (not yet)


You're comparing apples (manned capsules) with aardvarks (launch
vehicles).



This is the classic spin-off argument. That's almost always bull$hit
too because the SLS program isn't doing much in the way of scientific
research,


No debate there. I was arguing that NASA direction should have been to
do massive R&D to develop new technooogies instead of being directed to
build a new rocket with technology choices imposed by politicians.


And just who picks the 'new technologies'?



But they'll still be dropping *all* of the SLS hardware in the ocean for
each and every flight. In a world where reusables are coming into their
own, that's just stupid.


At the time ARES/Orion were launched, it was decided expandable was
cheaper than re-usable. SpaceX proved that to be very wrong, but that
is only very recent.


Well, no, not so much.


For NASA, it is still better to have a bloody expensive SLS/Orion than
nothing (in case all other projects fail).


Except that NASA is more likely to fail (and cause others to fail by
expending preposterous amounts of money) than anyone else.


I suspect that once commercial has manned programmes proven and running,
it will be the end of NASA trying to build rockets, and NASA's
involvement with rockets will be the same as it has for commercial
airplanes. Pure R&D.


I suspect you're wrong.


--
"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