SpaceX officially selected for ISS crew mission

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


i believe that not to long ago nasa signed a contract for several more
years of soyuz crew rotation


2017 is still a couple of years away. NASA has to plan in case CST-100 or
SpaceX are delayed.

nasa states SLS orion are needed to go into deep space. but thats really a
lie?

Not really. Something is needed for deep space. Assuming that's your goal.



so wasteful spending is ok? shouldnt those bucks be spent better in some
other way? like a vasmir engine prototype to get us to mars. it could be
first used for a unmanned flights, say a grand tour of the solar system,
dropping on lander / rover along its way out of te solar system

You're fighting a strawman here Bob. No one here (that I know of) is saying
spending money on SLS is good, simply that it's a political reality.


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

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 2015-11-22 21:30, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

nasa promotes we need a orion capsule for deep space trips. while
everyone here knows that just plain wrong.

Not entirely. You do need longer-term life support and a heavier heat
shield.

But we all know Orion isn't taking crews to mars. it might tag along,
but not gonna be the main vehicle.

And as there is no funding for a lunar lander, at best, it could so a
sighseeing weekeed trip around the moon.

In all likelyhood, its only manned flight (if it happens) will be to the
ISS.

This could happen once , just to save face and be able to say that
SLS/Orion did work. But if its operating costs are way higher than
Falcon of CST100, then there is no busness justification for it.

Definitely no real business case for Orion to ISS.
A crewed flight almost certainly would be cis-lunar or to a near-earth
asteroid so they can at least say they did something.



No, the Orion really is designed for "deep space". It's designed to be
launched on SLS, which is too expensive for simple flights like this.

But an expensive capsule to nowheere is still better if use to at least
one visit to ISS to prove it works. Otherwise, it will never be used.

The thing is, they don't necessarily have to. Shareholders don't care
about
where the money is spent as much as where it comes from.

Shareholders care about efficiency. And if Elon has his experienced
teams already in LA, being forced to setup shop in Florida and forced to
buy firecrackers from ATK in Lousisiana would not be good for
sharehodlers as the company would not be as efficient as it is now.

Right, and so it most likely won't happen. I guess I'm missing why you think
Musk would be forced to setup shop in Florida, let alone buy anything from
ATK?



So the Florida and Louisiana economies depend on that pork for
SLS/Orion. And if you gave current employees early retirement package,
it may cut costs for NASA tremendously, but would also reduce economy
activity in those 2 states. Remember that each NASA job helps the local
economy with employees buying groceries, going to restaurants,
renovating homes etc.

Yes.


In fairness: does Orion/SLS development advance the "state of the art"

No, not really.

OK then different question: does SLS have cargo capacity that is
unequalled ? (aka, does it at least have a unique function ?). Thinking
large satellites, probes to other planets etc).

Yes. It's far larger than anything currently in development.
But also at a higher cost.

Block 2, if it's ever built is expected to have a 130 tonne capacity to LEO.
Falcon 9 Heavy, 53tonne.

But I suspect you'll be able to fly 3 Falcon 9 Heavy flights for less than a
single SLS Block 2.

And that still gives you 20 tonnes of capacity for parasitic mass if you
have to account for docking systems, etc. to attach your 3 payloads.



Am just thinking about the political environment/arguments that would
allow a president to put the project out of its misery ?

Not going to happen. SLS may fly once or twice and then it'll be the next
new big thing.
NASA and Congress is still looking for the next new big thing.



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

In article ,
says...

Fred J. McCall wrote:

JF Mezei wrote:

OK then different question: does SLS have cargo capacity that is
unequalled ? (aka, does it at least have a unique function ?). Thinking
large satellites, probes to other planets etc).


Falcon 9 Heavy will have more payload to orbit.


OK, I got that wrong. Falcon X Heavy will have more payload, but
right now it's just a dot on the SpaceX roadmap.

True. Falcon Heavy should be flying soon, so that would be a "good
enough" baseline to start from (better is almost always the enemy of
good enough). With its high commonality with Falcon 9 Full Thrust,
apparently cross feeding of propellants will no longer be needed for
Falcon Heavy. This will lower development costs, simplify operations,
increase reliability, and lower reoccurring costs.

Meanwhile, the same payload as SLS could be lofted by three Falcon 9
Heavy boosters, with some margin left over to account for needing to
cut large assemblies into pieces.

True. Considering ISS was assembled from smaller pieces, this should be
a workable solution which would save *A LOT* of money over the lifetime
of the ongoing manned space program.

I think they deliberately sized Orion so that only SLS could launch
it...

Griffin absolutely had CEV sized so that the EELVs could not launch it.
We still don't get to see the full appendices of the ESAS final report
(Exploration Systems Architecture Study - NASA). I'm sure it would make
for fine reading.

Orion seems to continue that trend, surely to justify the existence of
SLS. This is despite the quite obvious test launch on Delta IV Heavy.
That is just as well, because Delta IV Heavy is to be phased out
eventually, due to its high cost, hopefully to be replaced with Vulcan
Heavy (or Atlas VI Heavy, if ULA had stuck to its traditional naming
convention). I don't have much hope that Vulcan Heavy will be far
cheaper than Delta IV Heavy.

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