SLS is a booster to no where

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

nasa miss management at its finest

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

nasa miss management at its finest


Unfortunately, not much new here.

SLS is a dog. It basically takes every wrong lesson from the shuttle program
and applied them.

I'm not sure one could design a worse launcher if they tried.






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

congress forced this down nasas budget, it really was a revamped ARES....

basic PORK, and something we cant afford

In article ,
says...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

nasa miss management at its finest

Actually, this particular monstrosity was mandated by Congress.

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

In article ,
says...

congress forced this down nasas budget, it really was a revamped ARES....

basic PORK, and something we cant afford

It's quite affordable when you view it as a tiny, almost insignificant,
slice of the overall federal budget. Unfortunately, when viewed as part
of the overall, shrinking, NASA budget, it becomes much less attractive.

SLS is planned to be launched so few times, and its budget is so
constrained, that it is only slated to use one of the former shuttle
launch pads. NASA is currently trying to find customers for the other.

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

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

nasa miss management at its finest

Actually, this particular monstrosity was mandated by Congress.

A surprisingly low cost alternative, as far as super heavy lift is
concerned, is described he

Phase 2 EELV - An Old Configuration Option with
New Relevance to Future Heavy Lift Cargo.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/p...hase2_2010.pdf

It would use the same tooling as used on Delta IV core to produce a stage
of the same diameter but kerosene fueled. This would then be double the mass
of the Atlas V core, and would use two RD-180 engines instead of the one of
the Atlas V. It could also use a single RD-171 engine, at twice the thrust
of the RD-180. Then we might estimate the development cost as double that of
the Atlas V which was about $2 billion, so about $4 billion for this stage.
This would give in the range of 30 to 35 metric tons to LEO. Then to get a
70 metric ton launcher, combine three a la the Delta IV Heavy and the
upcoming Falcon Heavy.

True.

But, it wouldn't be a NASA launch vehicle and wouldn't employ as many
ex-shuttle workers as SLS does. The point of SLS is to keep spending
money in the districts which once held shuttle jobs. The point isn't to
save money, or even to put anything into orbit. This is why it's a
"launch vehicle to nowhere".

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 7/26/2013 1:31 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
A surprisingly low cost alternative, as far as super heavy lift is
concerned, is described he

Phase 2 EELV - An Old Configuration Option with
New Relevance to Future Heavy Lift Cargo.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/p...hase2_2010.pdf

It would use the same tooling as used on Delta IV core to produce a stage
of the same diameter but kerosene fueled. This would then be double the mass
of the Atlas V core, and would use two RD-180 engines instead of the one of
the Atlas V. It could also use a single RD-171 engine, at twice the thrust
of the RD-180. Then we might estimate the development cost as double that of
the Atlas V which was about $2 billion, so about $4 billion for this stage.
This would give in the range of 30 to 35 metric tons to LEO. Then to get a
70 metric ton launcher, combine three a la the Delta IV Heavy and the
upcoming Falcon Heavy.

True.

But, it wouldn't be a NASA launch vehicle and wouldn't employ as many
ex-shuttle workers as SLS does. The point of SLS is to keep spending
money in the districts which once held shuttle jobs. The point isn't to
save money, or even to put anything into orbit. This is why it's a
"launch vehicle to nowhere".

Jeff


I think the key here is the time line. The paper Robert mentions looks
like it was written after the Augustine Commission but before the SLS
mandate was shoved down NASA's throat by the Congress.

ULA was offering an EELV alternative before the SLS mandate. Today, the
ex-shuttle contractors are all marching off lockstep towards that
sunrise on the SLS horizon! (or is that a sunset on the SLS cliff?)...

Dave

(cross-posts elided)