Internal NASA Studies Show Cheaper and Faster Alternatives to SLS

The fuel depot haters won't like this...


Internal NASA Studies Show Cheaper and Faster Alternatives to The Space
Launch System
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

Supporting presentation:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/Depot.Study.pdf

There is a lot of information in that presentation. It's going to take
a bit of time to go through it all.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Oct 13, 7:14*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
The fuel depot haters won't like this...

Internal NASA Studies Show Cheaper and Faster Alternatives to The Space
Launch Systemhttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

Supporting presentation:http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/Depot.Study.pdf

There is a lot of information in that presentation. *It's going to take
a bit of time to go through it all.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

You're right: I don't like it. Not to mention that NO ONE has yet put
this before either the House or Senate committees that deal with NASA.
With the hearings they've had, you'd think this would've come up.
Nope. There's a difference between what's technically possible and
what's politically possible. Something the depot proponents don't
realize.

In article 6315a410-0a14-4e95-a1fb-c48fb1eac552
@e25g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 13, 7:14*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
The fuel depot haters won't like this...

Internal NASA Studies Show Cheaper and Faster Alternatives to The Space
Launch Systemhttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

Supporting presentation:http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/Depot.Study.pdf

There is a lot of information in that presentation. *It's going to take
a bit of time to go through it all.

You're right: I don't like it. Not to mention that NO ONE has yet put
this before either the House or Senate committees that deal with NASA.
With the hearings they've had, you'd think this would've come up.
Nope. There's a difference between what's technically possible and
what's politically possible. Something the depot proponents don't
realize.

The success or failure of SLS doesn't matter much to today's House and
Senate. What matters is that money is being spent in their districts
and they don't want to change that. That's the unfortunate political
reality of NASA funding.

The sad thing is that the SLS that NASA is proposing is so huge and so
expensive that it really is unaffordable.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Oct 13, 12:30*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6315a410-0a14-4e95-a1fb-c48fb1eac552
@e25g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says...







On Oct 13, 7:14 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
The fuel depot haters won't like this...

Internal NASA Studies Show Cheaper and Faster Alternatives to The Space
Launch Systemhttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

Supporting presentation:http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/Depot.Study.pdf

There is a lot of information in that presentation. It's going to take
a bit of time to go through it all.

You're right: I don't like it. Not to mention that NO ONE has yet put
this before either the House or Senate committees that deal with NASA.
With the hearings they've had, you'd think this would've come up.
Nope. There's a difference between what's technically possible and
what's politically possible. Something the depot proponents don't
realize.

The success or failure of SLS doesn't matter much to today's House and
Senate. *What matters is that money is being spent in their districts
and they don't want to change that. *That's the unfortunate political
reality of NASA funding.

The sad thing is that the SLS that NASA is proposing is so huge and so
expensive that it really is unaffordable. *

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No matter how it's spun, it still needs Congressional approval. And
did you notice one specific company's products being put front and
center in the study? Lord Musk's Falcon 9. Try selling that to
Congress-where Musk has many enemies and only one friend (Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher, R-CA) on The Hill. You think the venom's bad with
Commercial Crew and Cargo? This one would be just as bad. Especially
since the study's relying on depots when there hasn't been a flight
demonstration. Wait until the technology demonstrator flies and see
how it works, first. As the study indicated, besides Congress, there
are still outstanding technical issues that need to be resolved.

On Oct 13, 12:30*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6315a410-0a14-4e95-a1fb-c48fb1eac552
@e25g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says...







On Oct 13, 7:14*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
The fuel depot haters won't like this...

Internal NASA Studies Show Cheaper and Faster Alternatives to The Space
Launch Systemhttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

Supporting presentation:http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/Depot.Study.pdf

There is a lot of information in that presentation. *It's going to take
a bit of time to go through it all.

You're right: I don't like it. Not to mention that NO ONE has yet put
this before either the House or Senate committees that deal with NASA.
With the hearings they've had, you'd think this would've come up.
Nope. There's a difference between what's technically possible and
what's politically possible. Something the depot proponents don't
realize.

The success or failure of SLS doesn't matter much to today's House and
Senate. *What matters is that money is being spent in their districts
and they don't want to change that. *That's the unfortunate political
reality of NASA funding.

The sad thing is that the SLS that NASA is proposing is so huge and so
expensive that it really is unaffordable. *

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's one other thing, Jeff: this study smells like the last stand
of those who supported the original FY 11 NASA budget-which had so
much pushback from Congress and affected communities that Congress
wrote its own NASA authorization act. Which passed with bipartisan
support in both Houses. Bolden, Garver, Holdren, etc. didn't "Make the
Sale." Same thing here-you don't "make the sale", your proposal dies.
Simple as that. SLS proponents did "make the sale" and it passed.

On Oct 13, 6:55*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
Simple as that. SLS proponents did "make the sale" and it passed.

They sold us a pig in a poke.

Hopefully those that bought this porker will be voted out.

On Oct 14, 2:49*pm, Hop wrote:
On Oct 13, 6:55*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

Simple as that. SLS proponents did "make the sale" and it passed.

They sold us a pig in a poke.

Hopefully those that bought this porker will be voted out.

I can't read the references here in New Zealand for some reason.

Do any of them use the External Tank?

On Oct 14, 5:22*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Oct 14, 2:49*pm, Hop wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:55*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

Simple as that. SLS proponents did "make the sale" and it passed.

They sold us a pig in a poke.

Hopefully those that bought this porker will be voted out.

I can't read the references here in New Zealand for some reason.

Do any of them use the External Tank?

No. SLS does. But none of the depot concepts involve using the shuttle
ET. These concepts use hardware based on either Falcon 9 or Delta IV
Heavy. Which guarantees that the two Louisiana Senators (Vitter and
Landreau) and the New Orleans-area Congresscritters are guaranteed
votes against this, should it reach either floor of the House or
Senate-and Vitter's on the Senate Science and Technology Committee
(which includes NASA in its portfolio)-and he'll vote against it in
committee. And given the hostility to Elon Musk and Space X in both
the House and Senate committees, this concept is likely DOA if it
reaches the Hill.

Hop: most incumbents have a decent shot at reelection. And you've
forgotten the D.C. Definition of pork: "one congressman's (or interest
group's) pork is another's vital project."

Matt Wiser wrote:
There's one other thing, Jeff: this study smells like the last stand
of those who supported the original FY 11 NASA budget-which had so
much pushback from Congress and affected communities that Congress
wrote its own NASA authorization act. Which passed with bipartisan
support in both Houses. Bolden, Garver, Holdren, etc. didn't "Make the
Sale." Same thing here-you don't "make the sale", your proposal dies.
Simple as that. SLS proponents did "make the sale" and it passed.

Which is all a very strong argument for what is wrong with NASA as it is
structured today. The next opportunity I get to talk with prospective
candidates for national elective office from my district, I am going to grill
them on this issue.

I have a real problem with a GO set up with "Administration" in its name when
there is nothing for it to administer. It's like claiming to be the Imperial
Taylor to the naked emperor. An advisory council to commercial aeronautics or
space ventures I'm fine with. A national space laboratory that conducts
original research within the boundaries that a consortium of research
universities, corporations, schools or other NGO space organizations can
financially support with the help of matching federal dollars and possibly, in
addition, provides services for fees, I'm fine with. Heck, I'd even be fine
with a federal program to invest in the infrastructure necessary to get the
cost of access to space down to the point where universities and NGOs or
commercial operations could actually afford to do meaningful research in space
and have access to space using their own financial resources.

A conduit for wasting federal tax dollars on projects doomed to cancellation?
I'm not fine with.

Dave

On Oct 14, 11:46*pm, David Spain wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
There's one other thing, Jeff: this study smells like the last stand
of those who supported the original FY 11 NASA budget-which had so
much pushback from Congress and affected communities that Congress
wrote its own NASA authorization act. Which passed with bipartisan
support in both Houses. Bolden, Garver, Holdren, etc. didn't "Make the
Sale." Same thing here-you don't "make the sale", your proposal dies.
Simple as that. SLS proponents did "make the sale" and it passed.

Which is all a very strong argument for what is wrong with NASA as it is
structured today. The next opportunity I get to talk with prospective
candidates for national elective office from my district, I am going to grill
them on this issue.

I have a real problem with a GO set up with "Administration" in its name when
there is nothing for it to administer. It's like claiming to be the Imperial
Taylor to the naked emperor. An advisory council to commercial aeronautics or
space ventures I'm fine with. A national space laboratory that conducts
original research within the boundaries that a consortium of research
universities, corporations, schools or other NGO space organizations can
financially support with the help of matching federal dollars and possibly, in
addition, provides services for fees, I'm fine with. Heck, I'd even be fine
with a federal program to invest in the infrastructure necessary to get the
cost of access to space down to the point where universities and NGOs or
commercial operations could actually afford to do meaningful research in space
and have access to space using their own financial resources.

A conduit for wasting federal tax dollars on projects doomed to cancellation?
I'm not fine with.

Dave

And what has more chance of obtaining Congressional approval? Congress
is not a rubber stamp-as the Obama Administration found out to its
surprise last year when that disaster known as FY 11 was rolled out.
They naively assumed their proposal would be universally welcomed,
they'd be hailed to the skies for doing something new and imaginative,
and that whatever pushback would be minimial and that Congress would
go along with the Administration. Wrong. Within 24 hours of that
disaster being rolled out, there were "Save Constellation" sites on
the web, Congresscritters were digging their trenches and vowing to
resist, vets from NASA's past were coming out swinging against it, and
communities affected were very vocal in their anger. Even Charlie
Bolden himself admitted that he ignored his PAOs in how the rollout
should've been done, and other NASA officials have admitted that they
failed in selling their proposals to a skepical Congress and public.
They should've spun it as "a modern-day Gemini program", where
technologies and proceedures for flights beyond earth orbit are tested
and evaluated. They did no such thing. And if you remember the
Congressional hearings from '10, Bolden, Lori Garver, Dr. Holdren
(White House Science Advisor)-and other NASA officials-were being
flayed alive. And remember that this was still a Democratic-controlled
Congress!