SLS alternatives

On Oct 25, 1:36*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
And if DOD comes on board, there's
another operator for the system-and you can bet that DOD and the National
Security side are looking at SLS for certain payloads that are properly
classified.

Again, you show that you don't know what you are talking about. The
DOD and NRO are not looking at SLS

Yes, they are. NASA's ad

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:48:20 AM UTC-7, Me wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:36*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

And if DOD comes on board, there's

another operator for the system-and you can bet that DOD and the National

Security side are looking at SLS for certain payloads that are properly

classified.



Again, you show that you don't know what you are talking about. The

DOD and NRO are not looking at SLS

Yes, they are. NASA has said that in Congressional testimony, as has Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).

In article ,
says...

Yes, they are. NASA's ad

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:48:20 AM UTC-7, Me wrote:
Again, you show that you don't know what you are talking about. The

DOD and NRO are not looking at SLS

Yes, they are. NASA has said that in Congressional testimony, as has Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).

But what does "looking" really mean? DOD and NRO will surely study
options for launching new satellites, but that doesn't mean that they
are seriously planning anything. And as I've said in other posts, I
find in unlikely that they would hitch their wagon to NASA after their
experience with the shuttle program.

Besides, we all know politicians will stretch the truth when it means
funding for their district. And let us not forget that NASA also sold
the space shuttle to Congress based on its low cost and two week turn-
around time. Their cost estimates were wildly optimistic at best and
deceptive at worst. I'm sure some within NASA knew better based on the
compromises being made to the design to cut development costs, often at
the expense of operational costs.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:48:20 AM UTC-7, Me wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:36*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

And if DOD comes on board, there's

another operator for the system-and you can bet that DOD and the National

Security side are looking at SLS for certain payloads that are properly

classified.



Again, you show that you don't know what you are talking about. The

DOD and NRO are not looking at SLS

Want another customer: Check this out: the Canadians are looking at using SLS to fly their own Mars rover. Nothing definite yet, but a successful SLS flight with an interplanetary payload sells the system to other interested parties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49598478...science-space/

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:48:20 AM UTC-7, Me wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:36 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

And if DOD comes on board, there's

another operator for the system-and you can bet that DOD and the
National

Security side are looking at SLS for certain payloads that are properly

classified.



Again, you show that you don't know what you are talking about. The

DOD and NRO are not looking at SLS

Want another customer: Check this out: the Canadians are looking at using
SLS to fly their own Mars rover. Nothing definite yet, but a successful SLS
flight with an interplanetary payload sells the system to other interested
parties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49598478...science-space/



Then the Canadians are nuts. They can launch a damn fine mission on an
existing rocket for cheaper and sooner.





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...

Want another customer: Check this out: the Canadians are looking at
using
SLS to fly their own Mars rover. Nothing definite yet, but a successful SLS
flight with an interplanetary payload sells the system to other interested
parties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49598478...science-space/

Then the Canadians are nuts. They can launch a damn fine mission on an
existing rocket for cheaper and sooner.

They are "looking" at SLS, but that does not mean that the Canadian
politicians and taxpayers are ready to sign up to actually pay for an
unmanned Mars mission.

A kid getting his parents to let him window shop costs the parents next
to nothing. A kid trying to convince those same parents (i.e.
taxpayers) to actually buy that shiny new toy in the window a *much*
harder sell.

One look at Astronautix.com is all the evidence anyone needs to prove
that paper/Powerpoint studies are far cheaper, and far more numerous,
than actual hardware flying actual missions.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer