#11
|
|||
|
|||
SLS alternatives
On Oct 30, 6:37*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
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 dreaming is easy, funding is impossible....... Heck I can dream up some excellent payloads. retrieval of some lost assets, like snoopy, some leftover saturn stages that are believed in heliospheric orbit, bring a asteroid to near earth for easy manned exploration. how about launching a dozen spirit and opportunities in one launch? launch a in orbit space tug? payload didnt get to proper orbit? no problem we will dock and put it in its proper orbit. oh your geo synnc sat had a failure at only 3 years old? we can retrieve it and service it at the ISS free flyer. want a hummer on the moon? no problem first launch with a upper stage 2023, so theres time to plan payloads. and it may be delayed futher for lack of funding |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
SLS alternatives
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:34:36 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: In article ee1009a5-8b1f-4023-ae43-766d42ec7367 @c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says... http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-...-missions.html I see lots of "pie in the sky" dreaming in this article. The talk about large, unmanned, planetary probes is "inspiring", but we've heard all this before. Saturn V had this capability, but how many Saturn V launches were dedicated to large interplanetary probes? Launch cost is a killer here, unless it's "free" to the internal NASA customer. The talk about possibly helping launch Bigelow modules is laughable. The first BA330 is scheduled to be launched on a Falcon 9. SLS can't touch Falcon 9 on cost, so why would Bigelow, or any other commercial launch customer, choose to launch on SLS? The only possible reason is if the government subsidizes the launch costs like they did for "commercial" launches of the shuttle. This practice was banned after the Challenger disaster, so this would be a huge policy reversal. I wonder if lawmakers would support this? 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 The bobbert is the one who's dreaming. Jeff, until there's serious political opposition to SLS, it's going ahead. That's political reality, like it or not. Remember that Congress writes the checks, and no matter what the program is, in what agency-whether it's NASA, DOD, NOAA, or whatever, if you don't have serious support on The Hill, forget it. There is a difference in what YOU want NASA to do and what Congress will support. Right now, there's NO support for Depot/EELV exploration-except for Rohrabacher. Again, if he'd been chair of the House Science/Technology Committee, he'd be in a position to push that line of thought. He's not, and that's that. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
SLS alternatives
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
SLS alternatives
On Oct 31, 2:56*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... The bobbert is the one who's dreaming. Jeff, until there's serious political opposition to SLS, it's going ahead. That's political reality, like it or not. Remember that Congress writes the checks, and no matter what the program is, in what agency-whether it's NASA, DOD, NOAA, or whatever, if you don't have serious support on The Hill, forget it. There is a difference in what YOU want NASA to do and what Congress will support. Right now, there's NO support for Depot/EELV exploration-except for Rohrabacher. Again, if he'd been chair of the House Science/Technology Committee, he'd be in a position to push that line of thought. He's not, and that's that. I know SLS is going forward. *It's going forward as a NASA program which will be processed and launched using NASA infrastructure formerly used for the shuttle. *But, I don't see NASA's planetary exploration program getting the kind of money needed for a large unmanned mission needing SLS. Currently, payload wise, I believe that Delta IV Heavy is the biggest launch vehicle in the US launch industry. *Sure, DOD/NRO made sure it was developed so they could launch large payloads, but I'm sure it's also available for other users. *Delta IV Heavy is reportedly good for something like 9,300+ kg launched in an earth escape trajectory. *That would make for a pretty HEFTY interplanetary probe. So, how unmanned planetary exploration missions have launched on Delta IV Heavy? *How many are planned for Delta IV Heavy? *That's nothing to sneeze at, so why isn't it being utilized? *It's going to be used for an Orion test flight, so NASA is not completely opposed to buying launches on it. *So where are the bigger planetary probes and why are they not flying on Delta IV Heavy? *I'm sure there is a lot of "interest" in using Delta IV Heavy for an interplanetary mission, but "interest" does not always translate into the money needed to actually fund such a mission. If non-DOD/NRO customers are not beating down a path to launch payloads on Delta IV Heavy, what makes you think that non-NASA customers are going to do the same for a launch on the even bigger, even more expensive, SLS? As for DOD/NRO using SLS, they have alternatives. *Bigger, heavier, versions of both Delta IV and Atlas V could be designed and built if there is truly a need to do so. *Going that route keeps them under DOD/NRO control and also keeps their contractor "infrastructure" in place and healthy. *This is a "good thing" for them just as SLS maintains much of the former shuttle program's "infrastructure". 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 If congress cuts social security, medicare and all those other entitlements, congress will have a voter revolt if they continue funding SLS Historically congress has been a piggie bank but to keep the US titanic off the fiscal cliff big cuts will be necessary, no matter who is elected |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
SLS alternatives
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... In article , says... The bobbert is the one who's dreaming. Jeff, until there's serious political opposition to SLS, it's going ahead. That's political reality, like it or not. Remember that Congress writes the checks, and no matter what the program is, in what agency-whether it's NASA, DOD, NOAA, or whatever, if you don't have serious support on The Hill, forget it. There is a difference in what YOU want NASA to do and what Congress will support. Right now, there's NO support for Depot/EELV exploration-except for Rohrabacher. Again, if he'd been chair of the House Science/Technology Committee, he'd be in a position to push that line of thought. He's not, and that's that. I know SLS is going forward. It's going forward as a NASA program which will be processed and launched using NASA infrastructure formerly used for the shuttle. But, I don't see NASA's planetary exploration program getting the kind of money needed for a large unmanned mission needing SLS. Currently, payload wise, I believe that Delta IV Heavy is the biggest launch vehicle in the US launch industry. Sure, DOD/NRO made sure it was developed so they could launch large payloads, but I'm sure it's also available for other users. Delta IV Heavy is reportedly good for something like 9,300+ kg launched in an earth escape trajectory. That would make for a pretty HEFTY interplanetary probe. So, how unmanned planetary exploration missions have launched on Delta IV Heavy? How many are planned for Delta IV Heavy? That's nothing to sneeze at, so why isn't it being utilized? It's going to be used for an Orion test flight, so NASA is not completely opposed to buying launches on it. So where are the bigger planetary probes and why are they not flying on Delta IV Heavy? I'm sure there is a lot of "interest" in using Delta IV Heavy for an interplanetary mission, but "interest" does not always translate into the money needed to actually fund such a mission. If non-DOD/NRO customers are not beating down a path to launch payloads on Delta IV Heavy, what makes you think that non-NASA customers are going to do the same for a launch on the even bigger, even more expensive, SLS? As for DOD/NRO using SLS, they have alternatives. Bigger, heavier, versions of both Delta IV and Atlas V could be designed and built if there is truly a need to do so. Going that route keeps them under DOD/NRO control and also keeps their contractor "infrastructure" in place and healthy. This is a "good thing" for them just as SLS maintains much of the former shuttle program's "infrastructure". 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 You know the saying, "build it and they will come." If DOD has a payload or payloads-and who knows what's lurking in the black world in DOD-that needs a really heavy lifter, it's known as SLS. Even Augustine mentioned at least one serious BEO mission a year-and if the L-2 project that's being kicked around at NASA using ISS hardware that was built but not flown, that's several flights just to launch the hardware, and on top of that, there's the Orion flights that will have to go to assemble the facility, check it out, and begin occupancy. Not quite boots on the lunar regolith, but it's a start. The administration's biggest mistake was making their policy pronouncement (canceling Constellation) in a budget rollout with no prior consultation with members of Congress. Though Charlie Bolden took the rap for it-and did so publicly, the White House no doubt shares some of the blame (i.e. Dr. Holdren, the Presidential Science Advisor). Bolden admitted to ignoring PAO advice, and just plain making the announcement. That botched rollout poisoned the well with Congress on NASA's future, and the administration has never fully recovered. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
SLS alternatives
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message ...
You know the saying, "build it and they will come." If DOD has a payload or payloads-and who knows what's lurking in the black world in DOD-that needs a really heavy lifter, it's known as SLS. Yes, and we had a heavy launcher that could have easily had another production run of 15 (or more) Saturn V. There were many plans. It WAS built. And no one came. Even Augustine mentioned at least one serious BEO mission a year-and if the L-2 project that's being kicked around at NASA using ISS hardware that was built but not flown, that's several flights just to launch the hardware, and on top of that, there's the Orion flights that will have to go to assemble the facility, check it out, and begin occupancy. Not quite boots on the lunar regolith, but it's a start. Again... plans, plans plans. At this point you'd need multiple SLS launches just to launch all the paper wasted on pie in the sky dreaming. The administration's biggest mistake was making their policy pronouncement (canceling Constellation) in a budget rollout with no prior consultation with members of Congress. Though Charlie Bolden took the rap for it-and did so publicly, the White House no doubt shares some of the blame (i.e. Dr. Holdren, the Presidential Science Advisor). Bolden admitted to ignoring PAO advice, and just plain making the announcement. That botched rollout poisoned the well with Congress on NASA's future, and the administration has never fully recovered. My prediction, yes SLS will get built. A few flights will even be flown and by then Falcon 99 or some other commercial launcher will come in at 1/10th the price and Congress will suddenly be trying to answer why they're throwing money after SLS. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
SLS alternatives
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
SLS alternatives
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
SLS for launching large space telescopes (was SLS alternatives)
On Oct 30, 6:37*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
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 Very exciting astronomy missions become possible also with the SLS: SLS Useful for Science Missions, Too, STScI Director Tells House Panel. Marcia S. Smith Posted: 17-Sep-2012 Quote:
Telescopes with mirrors 15 to 25 meters across might be too ambitious since we don't have those even for ground scopes yet. But we can certainly imagine 10 meter telescopes. I looked up some costs of the largest ground scopes and was surprised by how low cost they were compared to typical space missions. The Keck 1 and Keck 2, which are each 10 meter scopes, cost in the range of $100 million each in 1993 dollars. And the Large Binocular Telescope(LBT) whose twin 8.4 meter mirrors give it the collecting power of a 11.9 meter scope cost only $120 million in 2005 dollars. This compared to the likely billion dollar launch costs of the SLS. There would be additional costs at making these scopes space qualified, but on the other hand you don't have the large costs of constructing the buildings to house such large telescopes on the ground. The LBT case is especially interesting in that the twin mirrors if they could be used together to create a single image they would have the resolution of a 22.8 meter telescope. This would put it in the range able to detect life on extrasolar planets. According to the Wikipedia page on the LBT, this image synthesis mode has been tested but has not been part of the regular use. Likely cost has been a limiting factor. However, the National Reconnaissance Office has an ever increasing need for better and better imaging resolution from space. Reportedly they already have launched billion dollar satellites. Then they could be a source for the funding to perfect the image combining methods. Bob Clark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SLS alternatives | Greg \(Strider\) Moore | Policy | 2 | October 27th 12 07:19 PM |
SLS alternatives | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 6 | October 27th 12 01:38 PM |
Alternatives | Wouff Hong | Policy | 0 | October 13th 03 11:00 PM |