A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SLS alternatives



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 23rd 12, 05:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,150
Default SLS alternatives

On Oct 23, 1:40*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
Big problem for anti-SLS types: NO political support. There's a grand total
of one congresscritter who's on record as opposing SLS: Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA). And his motives are not entirely pu Space X has a
facility in his district, and there's several commercial space outfits with
facilities in SoCal, and no doubt some of his constitutents work at those
firms.

Nice try, though....



Unlike many supporters of commercial space I'm neutral on the
question of the SLS. My view is that commercial space will go on
whether or not the SLS is funded.
Also, in an upcoming blog post I'll discuss that the very first
versions of the SLS scheduled to launch in 2017 will be able to launch
manned lunar missions.


Bob Clark

  #2  
Old October 25th 12, 08:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,150
Default SLS alternatives

On Oct 23, 1:16*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:54:26 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote:
On Oct 23, 1:40*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:


Big problem for anti-SLS types: NO political support. There's a grand total


of one congresscritter who's on record as opposing SLS: Rep. Dana


Rohrabacher (R-CA). And his motives are not entirely pu Space X has a


facility in his district, and there's several commercial space outfits with


facilities in SoCal, and no doubt some of his constitutents work at those


firms.


Nice try, though....


*Unlike many supporters of commercial space I'm neutral on the


question of the SLS. My view is that commercial space will go on


whether or not the SLS is funded.


*Also, in an upcoming blog post I'll discuss that the very first


versions of the SLS scheduled to launch in 2017 will be able to launch


manned lunar missions.


* Bob Clark


Which *is something that NASA intends to to: The first human Orion/SLS mission
will be Lunar Orbit. Maybe two or three lunar orbit flights of longer duration before
going to L-2 or this President's precious NEO mission. I'm still a "Moon First" type,
though..


After I wrote that post, I realized I left out a key word: with the
first launch of the SLS in 2017 we will have the capability to launch
manned LANDER lunar missions. This will be important since it will
provide an important, definite mission for the SLS from the very first
launch. The SLS has been called a "rocket to nowhere". That in fact it
will have the capability to return us to the Moon from the very first
launch will be an important point to promote its continued funding.
Likely this first launch in 2017 will serve as an unmanned test
mission to show the cryogenic space stages can safely land and take
off from the lunar service with a human-qualified capsule. But
certainly by 2019 we will be able to do the crewed missions, on the
50th anniversary of Apollo 11.


Bob Clark


  #3  
Old October 25th 12, 01:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default SLS alternatives

On Oct 25, 3:27*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Oct 23, 1:16*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:







On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:54:26 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote:
On Oct 23, 1:40*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:


Big problem for anti-SLS types: NO political support. There's a grand total


of one congresscritter who's on record as opposing SLS: Rep. Dana


Rohrabacher (R-CA). And his motives are not entirely pu Space X has a


facility in his district, and there's several commercial space outfits with


facilities in SoCal, and no doubt some of his constitutents work at those


firms.


Nice try, though....


*Unlike many supporters of commercial space I'm neutral on the


question of the SLS. My view is that commercial space will go on


whether or not the SLS is funded.


*Also, in an upcoming blog post I'll discuss that the very first


versions of the SLS scheduled to launch in 2017 will be able to launch


manned lunar missions.


* Bob Clark


Which *is something that NASA intends to to: The first human Orion/SLS mission
will *be Lunar Orbit. Maybe two or three lunar orbit flights of longer duration before
going *to L-2 or this President's precious NEO mission. I'm still a "Moon First" type,
though..


*After I wrote that post, I realized I left out a key word: with the
first launch of the SLS in 2017 we will have the capability to launch
manned LANDER lunar missions. This will be important since it will
provide an important, definite mission for the SLS from the very first
launch. The SLS has been called a "rocket to nowhere". That in fact it
will have the capability to return us to the Moon from the very first
launch will be an important point to promote its continued funding.
*Likely this first launch in 2017 will serve as an unmanned test
mission to show the cryogenic space stages can safely land and take
off from the lunar service with a human-qualified capsule. But
certainly by 2019 we will be able to do the crewed missions, on the
50th anniversary of Apollo 11.

* *Bob Clark


so wheres the money? unless theres a BIG BUDGET INCREASE for nasa,
there will be little or no $$$$ for missions, and at best one SLS
launch per year?

bob clark seriously how will such a expensive program be funded given
the economic realties we face today?
  #4  
Old October 25th 12, 02:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Robert Clark[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default SLS alternatives

On Oct 25, 8:36*am, bob haller wrote:
...

*Unlike many supporters of commercial space I'm neutral on the
question of the SLS. My view is that commercial space will go on
whether or not the SLS is funded.
*Also, in an upcoming blog post I'll discuss that the very first
versions of the SLS scheduled to launch in 2017 will be able to launch
manned lunar missions.
* Bob Clark


Which *is something that NASA intends to to: The first human Orion/SLS mission
will *be Lunar Orbit. Maybe two or three lunar orbit flights of longer duration before
going *to L-2 or this President's precious NEO mission. I'm still a "Moon First" type,
though..


*After I wrote that post, I realized I left out a key word: with the
first launch of the SLS in 2017 we will have the capability to launch
manned LANDER lunar missions. This will be important since it will
provide an important, definite mission for the SLS from the very first
launch. The SLS has been called a "rocket to nowhere". That in fact it
will have the capability to return us to the Moon from the very first
launch will be an important point to promote its continued funding.
*Likely this first launch in 2017 will serve as an unmanned test
mission to show the cryogenic space stages can safely land and take
off from the lunar service with a human-qualified capsule. But
certainly by 2019 we will be able to do the crewed missions, on the
50th anniversary of Apollo 11.


* *Bob Clark


so wheres the money? unless theres a BIG BUDGET INCREASE for nasa,
there will be little or no $$$$ for missions, and at best one SLS
launch per year?

bob clark seriously how will such a expensive program be funded given
the economic realties we face today?


It depends on whether or not SLS is funded. But if the SLS can
perform a manned lunar landing mission as early as 2017 that would
provide a big boost to justifying its funding.
Key also is the additional cost to making the lander mission is
comparatively small in comparison to the, admittedly large, cost of
the SLS. The basis would be the Early Lunar Access proposal of the
early 90's:

Lunar Base Studies in the 1990s.
1993: Early Lunar Access (ELA).
by Marcus Lindroos
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html
(Note a typo on this page: the payload adapter mass should
be 2,000 kg instead of 6,000 kg.)

This was a billion dollar mission proposal but the estimated cost was
1/10th that of Apollo. But quite key to note is the fact that most of
this cost was due to the modifications that would have had to be made
to the shuttle's SRB's and/or external tank, and to the Titan IV
launcher suggested to be used at that time, as well as for the launch
costs. The added cost of the cryogenic space stages and the capsule
was comparatively small.
So too would be the case here.

Bob Clark
  #5  
Old October 27th 12, 03:13 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default SLS alternatives

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
...

On Oct 23, 1:16 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:54:26 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote:
On Oct 23, 1:40 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:


Big problem for anti-SLS types: NO political support. There's a grand
total


of one congresscritter who's on record as opposing SLS: Rep. Dana


Rohrabacher (R-CA). And his motives are not entirely pu Space X
has a


facility in his district, and there's several commercial space
outfits with


facilities in SoCal, and no doubt some of his constitutents work at
those


firms.


Nice try, though....


Unlike many supporters of commercial space I'm neutral on the


question of the SLS. My view is that commercial space will go on


whether or not the SLS is funded.


Also, in an upcoming blog post I'll discuss that the very first


versions of the SLS scheduled to launch in 2017 will be able to launch


manned lunar missions.


Bob Clark


Which is something that NASA intends to to: The first human Orion/SLS
mission
will be Lunar Orbit. Maybe two or three lunar orbit flights of longer
duration before
going to L-2 or this President's precious NEO mission. I'm still a "Moon
First" type,
though..


After I wrote that post, I realized I left out a key word: with the
first launch of the SLS in 2017 we will have the capability to launch
manned LANDER lunar missions. This will be important since it will
provide an important, definite mission for the SLS from the very first
launch. The SLS has been called a "rocket to nowhere". That in fact it
will have the capability to return us to the Moon from the very first
launch will be an important point to promote its continued funding.


The key word there is "capability". Unfortunately there's really no real
drive or mission beyond platitudes to do so.

So it's still a rocket to nowhere that can do something no one really wants
to be pay for (monetarily or polically).


Likely this first launch in 2017 will serve as an unmanned test
mission to show the cryogenic space stages can safely land and take
off from the lunar service with a human-qualified capsule. But
certainly by 2019 we will be able to do the crewed missions, on the
50th anniversary of Apollo 11.


Able to do in 7 years? We're not even building any hardware to get there.
In 1962 we had firmer plans than now. And we were in a rush then.

So it's still a rocket o nowhere.



Bob Clark



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

  #6  
Old October 27th 12, 01:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default SLS alternatives

On Oct 26, 10:13*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Robert Clark" *wrote in message

...







On Oct 23, 1:16 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:


On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:54:26 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote:
On Oct 23, 1:40 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:


Big problem for anti-SLS types: NO political support. There's a grand
total


of one congresscritter who's on record as opposing SLS: Rep. Dana


Rohrabacher (R-CA). And his motives are not entirely pu Space X
has a


facility in his district, and there's several commercial space
outfits with


facilities in SoCal, and no doubt some of his constitutents work at
those


firms.


Nice try, though....


*Unlike many supporters of commercial space I'm neutral on the


question of the SLS. My view is that commercial space will go on


whether or not the SLS is funded.


*Also, in an upcoming blog post I'll discuss that the very first


versions of the SLS scheduled to launch in 2017 will be able to launch


manned lunar missions.


* Bob Clark


Which *is something that NASA intends to to: The first human Orion/SLS
mission
will *be Lunar Orbit. Maybe two or three lunar orbit flights of longer
duration before
going *to L-2 or this President's precious NEO mission. I'm still a "Moon
First" type,
though..


After I wrote that post, I realized I left out a key word: with the
first launch of the SLS in 2017 we will have the capability to launch
manned LANDER lunar missions. This will be important since it will
provide an important, definite mission for the SLS from the very first
launch. The SLS has been called a "rocket to nowhere". That in fact it
will have the capability to return us to the Moon from the very first
launch will be an important point to promote its continued funding.


The key word there is "capability". *Unfortunately there's really no real
drive or mission beyond platitudes to do so.

So it's still a rocket to nowhere that can do something no one really wants
to be pay for (monetarily or polically).

Likely this first launch in 2017 will serve as an unmanned test
mission to show the cryogenic space stages can safely land and take
off from the lunar service with a human-qualified capsule. But
certainly by 2019 we will be able to do the crewed missions, on the
50th anniversary of Apollo 11.


Able to do in 7 years? *We're not even building any hardware to get there.
In 1962 we had firmer plans than now. *And we were in a rush then.

So it's still a rocket o nowhere.



* Bob Clark


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


yep rocket to no where, describes it perfectly.....

pork pig squeals with delight.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Creation Alternatives Peter Riedt Astronomy Misc 1 March 26th 12 01:53 PM
Creation Alternatives Peter Riedt Astronomy Misc 0 March 26th 12 10:23 AM
Alternatives Wouff Hong Policy 0 October 13th 03 11:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.