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).

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/

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 Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:46:56 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:


On top of that, why in
the world would they repeat the failure of requiring a launch on a NASA
controlled launch vehicle

If they have a big payload they're dreaming about and NASA has SLS in
service, they'd be able to launch it at no R&D cost to themselves,
which could be attractive to planners . There have been rumors and
whispers of a big payload they'd like to fly if they had a way to do
it, we heard such assertions about DIRECT years ago, and while we can
all dismiss it as wishful thinking or political exaggeration, the fact
remains that NASA is on record as saying DoD is interested.

with no alternative in case SLS has a launch
failure, delays, or other problems?

The same position they're in today, with Atlas and Delta both grounded
by this month's RL-10 failure. That also didn't stop them from
planning dozens of payloads which could only be launched on Titan IV.
But since SLS is only a launch vehicle, and not a manned spacecraft,
any grounding is likely to be much shorter than after the two Shuttle
tragedies.


Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
If they have a big payload they're dreaming about and NASA has SLS
in service, they'd be able to launch it at no R&D cost to
themselves,

Little perhaps but not no R&D cost. At the very least, NASA would
look to extract at least some funding from them for SLS R&D.

rick jones
--
It is not a question of half full or empty - the glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In article ,
says...

Brian Thorn wrote:
If they have a big payload they're dreaming about and NASA has SLS
in service, they'd be able to launch it at no R&D cost to
themselves,

Little perhaps but not no R&D cost. At the very least, NASA would
look to extract at least some funding from them for SLS R&D.

I decided to dig a bit to see what was "out there" and found this on the
Delta IV Wikipedia page:

The possibility of an extra-heavy variant was indicated in a 2006 RAND
Corporation study of national security launch requirements out to 2020,
[22] which noted, "...only the Delta IV Heavy has the performance to
lift the ten NSS launch requirements that require a heavy-lift
capability... the production capacity for Delta IV, with one possible
exception, can satisfy the entire projected NSS launch demand. The
exception involves the requirement to increase the Delta IV Heavy lift
capability to accommodate a single NRO (National Reconnaissance Office)
payload. The best solution to this requirement is currently under
study."

The above reference points to:

National Security Space Launch Report
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf

Interesting reading. The paper seemed to indicate relatively minor
upgrades to Delta IV Heavy would be needed for the single planned NSS
launch which (then) exceeded the Delta IV Heavy payload capacity. See
this quote:

Currently, the U.S. Air Force indicates that the Boeing Delta IV
Heavy falls slightly short of meeting the performance needed for
an NRO mission scheduled to launch before 2010. The Air Force is
confident that modifications to the Delta IV will provide
sufficient lift. The cost of these modifications to attain the
required performance improvement is estimated to be on the order
of $200 million.

$200 million in development money isn't enough for a *huge* increase in
lift capacity, which is what SLS would provide.

Also, the heavy launch needs of NSS weren't huge. From what I gathered,
when the paper was written in 2006, there were 10 payloads requiring
"heavy lift" (Delta IV Heavy) through the year 2020, which is less than
one per year.

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

http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-...-missions.html

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:51:22 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:


Currently, the U.S. Air Force indicates that the Boeing Delta IV
Heavy falls slightly short of meeting the performance needed for
an NRO mission scheduled to launch before 2010. The Air Force is
confident that modifications to the Delta IV will provide
sufficient lift. The cost of these modifications to attain the
required performance improvement is estimated to be on the order
of $200 million.

Note that this was the RS-68A engine upgrade which debuted on the
Delta IV launch in June. RS-68A is beneficial across the Delta IV line
because the extra performance allows the boosters to be built to a
common spec instead of each one being one-off, which should lower
costs.

$200 million in development money isn't enough for a *huge* increase in
lift capacity, which is what SLS would provide.

NASA is paying for SLS development regardless (the Senate is seeing to
that whether we like it or not) so there should be no R&D cost to DoD.
They'll have to pay NASA to fly something on it and whatever payload
handling modifications are necessary, but that's lost in the noise of
space launch budgets.

Also, the heavy launch needs of NSS weren't huge. From what I gathered,
when the paper was written in 2006, there were 10 payloads requiring
"heavy lift" (Delta IV Heavy) through the year 2020, which is less than
one per year.

Of course, any hypothetical military SLS flight would be deep in the
2020s (NASA has already said the first two SLS flights will be 2017
and 2021, on NASA missions) so this report going only to 2020 is
pretty much irrelevant.

Brian

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-...-missions.html


So NASA is dreaming about SLS payloads, too...


Brian