|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
The first SLS/Orion launch, EM-1, has been delayed until 2018 due to
late delivery of the ESA-produced Service Module for Orion. Now it looks like the SLS rocket itself will be the source of an even bigger launch delay. A welding problem with the new, high-tech welding process used for the SLS core stage apparently has a problem that will delay launch of the vehicle until at least 2019, if not into 2020. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
NASA chief explains why agency won’t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets:
"By some estimates, NASA could afford 17 to 27 Falcon Heavy launches a year for what it is paying annually to develop the SLS rocket, which won't fly before 2020. Even President Trump has mused about the high costs of NASA's rocket. On Monday, during a committee meeting of NASA's Advisory Council, former Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale raised this issue. Following a presentation by Bill Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight for NASA, Hale asked whether the space agency wouldn't be better off going with the cheaper commercial rocket. "Now that the Falcon Heavy has flown and been demonstrated, the advertised cost for that is quite low," Hale said. "So there are a lot of folks who ask why don't we just buy four or five or six of those and do what we need to do without building this big, heavy rocket and assemble things like we did with the space station?"" See: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...heavy-rockets/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 27 Mar 2018
04:13:13 -0400: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...heavy-rockets/ Which is why SpaceX stands to gain with an early BFR launch. The earlier it launches, the earlier NASA's argument that Falcon-Heavy isn't enough falls apart. Horse****. BTW, what will be different from SLS block 2? Do they expect magical SSME performance improvements? The graphics in that article do not show Block 2 has bigger SRBs. Read the section inheaded "Advanced Boosters", you ignorant ****! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_...ystem#Boosters -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
In article ,
says... NASA chief explains why agency won?t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets: "By some estimates, NASA could afford 17 to 27 Falcon Heavy launches a year for what it is paying annually to develop the SLS rocket, which won't fly before 2020. Even President Trump has mused about the high costs of NASA's rocket. On Monday, during a committee meeting of NASA's Advisory Council, former Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale raised this issue. Following a presentation by Bill Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight for NASA, Hale asked whether the space agency wouldn't be better off going with the cheaper commercial rocket. "Now that the Falcon Heavy has flown and been demonstrated, the advertised cost for that is quite low," Hale said. "So there are a lot of folks who ask why don't we just buy four or five or six of those and do what we need to do without building this big, heavy rocket and assemble things like we did with the space station?"" See: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...heavy-rockets/ This question has been asked by people like me for years, well before Falcon Heavy first flew. But now that it has flown successfully, it's spurring others, much higher up, to ask the same question. The answers supporting SLS, quite frankly, are unconvincing. The lost opportunity cost is staggering. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
In article ,
says... wrote on Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT): NASA chief explains why agency won?t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets: "By some estimates, NASA could afford 17 to 27 Falcon Heavy launches a year for what it is paying annually to develop the SLS rocket, which won't fly before 2020. Even President Trump has mused about the high costs of NASA's rocket. On Monday, during a committee meeting of NASA's Advisory Council, former Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale raised this issue. Following a presentation by Bill Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight for NASA, Hale asked whether the space agency wouldn't be better off going with the cheaper commercial rocket. "Now that the Falcon Heavy has flown and been demonstrated, the advertised cost for that is quite low," Hale said. "So there are a lot of folks who ask why don't we just buy four or five or six of those and do what we need to do without building this big, heavy rocket and assemble things like we did with the space station?"" See: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...heavy-rockets/ And have they asked SpaceX what it would cost to develop the Falcon Super Heavy, which would have at least the capability of SLS Block 1B? Falcon Heavy cost $500 million to develop. Even if Super Heavy cost double that, it would still less than a single year of SLS development funding. SLS Block 1B won't fly realistically for another 6 years. So, I'd WAG that Super Heavy would cost about 1/10th of what it will cost SLS Block IB just to get to first flight. Same goes for launch costs. Even if we assume Super Heavy costs double compared to Falcon Heavy, that's about $300 million per launch in fully expendable mode, so partially reusable mode would be a bit less than that. SLS Block 1B is what NASA will be flying when BFR is ready. Hopefully. SpaceX would no doubt like to focus all of its development efforts on BFR instead of Falcon Super Heavy. Unfortunately, we may have to wait until BFR is flying before SLS is finally killed. BFR will obsolete SLS completely. The real reason they're not looking at any of that is obviously political rather than practical. Note the 'crew vehicles other than Orion'. What makes Orion so bloody special that it requires SLS to launch? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You could launch it on either a Falcon Heavy or on a Delta IV Heavy. Orion exists to give SLS a purpose. Repeating the fallacy that SLS is the only vehicle to launch it is political as well. NASA is going to be REALLY embarrassed when a couple commercial launch providers pass them up. No doubt. New Armstrong, if it lives up to the hype, will be quite the launch vehicle. Bonus points because it won't be completely expendable. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 27 Mar 2018
06:05:58 -0400: In article , says... wrote on Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT): NASA chief explains why agency won?t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets: "By some estimates, NASA could afford 17 to 27 Falcon Heavy launches a year for what it is paying annually to develop the SLS rocket, which won't fly before 2020. Even President Trump has mused about the high costs of NASA's rocket. On Monday, during a committee meeting of NASA's Advisory Council, former Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale raised this issue. Following a presentation by Bill Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight for NASA, Hale asked whether the space agency wouldn't be better off going with the cheaper commercial rocket. "Now that the Falcon Heavy has flown and been demonstrated, the advertised cost for that is quite low," Hale said. "So there are a lot of folks who ask why don't we just buy four or five or six of those and do what we need to do without building this big, heavy rocket and assemble things like we did with the space station?"" See: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...heavy-rockets/ And have they asked SpaceX what it would cost to develop the Falcon Super Heavy, which would have at least the capability of SLS Block 1B? Falcon Heavy cost $500 million to develop. Even if Super Heavy cost double that, it would still less than a single year of SLS development funding. SLS Block 1B won't fly realistically for another 6 years. So, I'd WAG that Super Heavy would cost about 1/10th of what it will cost SLS Block IB just to get to first flight. Falcon Super Heavy would cost much less than that. They hit all the big speed bumps with side boosters doing Falcon Heavy. Same goes for launch costs. Even if we assume Super Heavy costs double compared to Falcon Heavy, that's about $300 million per launch in fully expendable mode, so partially reusable mode would be a bit less than that. My guestimate is that Falcon Super Heavy in reusable form would cost around $120 million (Falcon Heavy is only about $30 million more than Falcon 9) and less than $250 million in expendable form. SLS Block 1B is what NASA will be flying when BFR is ready. Hopefully. SpaceX would no doubt like to focus all of its development efforts on BFR instead of Falcon Super Heavy. Unfortunately, we may have to wait until BFR is flying before SLS is finally killed. BFR will obsolete SLS completely. I don't think that will be enough to kill it at this point. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... In article , says... NASA chief explains why agency won?t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets: "By some estimates, NASA could afford 17 to 27 Falcon Heavy launches a year for what it is paying annually to develop the SLS rocket, which won't fly before 2020. Even President Trump has mused about the high costs of NASA's rocket. On Monday, during a committee meeting of NASA's Advisory Council, former Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale raised this issue. Following a presentation by Bill Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight for NASA, Hale asked whether the space agency wouldn't be better off going with the cheaper commercial rocket. "Now that the Falcon Heavy has flown and been demonstrated, the advertised cost for that is quite low," Hale said. "So there are a lot of folks who ask why don't we just buy four or five or six of those and do what we need to do without building this big, heavy rocket and assemble things like we did with the space station?"" See: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...heavy-rockets/ This question has been asked by people like me for years, well before Falcon Heavy first flew. But now that it has flown successfully, it's spurring others, much higher up, to ask the same question. The answers supporting SLS, quite frankly, are unconvincing. The lost opportunity cost is staggering. Jeff Yeah. I'm confident that SLS may fly once... but after that... it's going to be damn hard to justify flying it again. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 27 Mar 2018
15:31:58 -0400: On 2018-03-27 09:41, Fred J. McCall wrote: Falcon Super Heavy would cost much less than that. They hit all the big speed bumps with side boosters doing Falcon Heavy. Why is there discussion about hypothetical Falcon Super Heavy when Musjk made it clear development of Falcon has stopped and production will cease once they have enough boock 5s built ? Because Musk talked about it after the launch of Falcon Heavy. Shouldn't BFR be used as basis to compare what SpaceX can do and at what costs vs what SLS might be able to do and at what cost? Only if you want to compare apples and aardvarks. Or is there truly a chance that SpaceX might develop a Falcon with 4 boosters to make a Falcon-Heavy on steroids? Would such be ready before BFR? It's unlikely without some demand, but Musk has said it wouldn't be hard to do. If SpaceX were to announce Falcon-Super-Heavy now, it would be tantamount to admitting that BFR won't materialize. Hogwash. Falcon Super Heavy in expendable form would put around 125 tonnes in LEO and about half that in reusable trim. BFR would put around 250 tonnes in LEO in expendable form and 150 tonnes in LEO in reusable form. They aren't even in the same ballpark. For Mars work Falcon Super Heavy would put around 35 tonnes or so to TMI in expendable mode. BFR (reusable with on orbit refueling) will put 150 tonnes to TMI. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Additional SLS Launch Delay
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Tue,
27 Mar 2018 20:04:37 -0400: "Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... In article , says... NASA chief explains why agency won?t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets: "By some estimates, NASA could afford 17 to 27 Falcon Heavy launches a year for what it is paying annually to develop the SLS rocket, which won't fly before 2020. Even President Trump has mused about the high costs of NASA's rocket. On Monday, during a committee meeting of NASA's Advisory Council, former Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale raised this issue. Following a presentation by Bill Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight for NASA, Hale asked whether the space agency wouldn't be better off going with the cheaper commercial rocket. "Now that the Falcon Heavy has flown and been demonstrated, the advertised cost for that is quite low," Hale said. "So there are a lot of folks who ask why don't we just buy four or five or six of those and do what we need to do without building this big, heavy rocket and assemble things like we did with the space station?"" See: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...heavy-rockets/ This question has been asked by people like me for years, well before Falcon Heavy first flew. But now that it has flown successfully, it's spurring others, much higher up, to ask the same question. The answers supporting SLS, quite frankly, are unconvincing. The lost opportunity cost is staggering. Yeah. I'm confident that SLS may fly once... but after that... it's going to be damn hard to justify flying it again. I don't think they'll have a problem justifying it at all. SLS Block 1B handily exceeds everything else in payload. I think they'll wind up flying the missions to build the Gateway with it, probably in part by deliberately sizing the pieces so that only SLS Block 1B or bigger can launch them and then complaining about incompatible cargo interface requirements for everything but SLS. NASA is more in the business of ****ing away money than exploring space these days. On that note, the Webb telescope has slipped another year (which will probably lead to the total cost breaking ceilings mandated by Congress). That means everything behind it ALSO slides, since funding isn't becoming available from the Webb telescope program to fund the next big scope. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Possible Shuttle launch delay | Pat Flannery | Policy | 0 | March 14th 10 02:50 PM |
launch delay is manifest | snidely | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 4th 09 09:48 AM |
launch delay 24 hrs | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 4 | August 6th 07 03:03 AM |
THAICOM 4 (IPSTAR) launch : several days additional delay | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | July 19th 05 02:11 PM |
Russians delay launch of new booster | Revision | History | 6 | November 2nd 04 03:29 PM |