A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Additional SLS Launch Delay



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 3rd 17, 12:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old March 27th 18, 01:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default 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/
  #3  
Old March 27th 18, 02:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Additional SLS Launch Delay

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?
SLS Block 1B is what NASA will be flying when BFR is ready.

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?

NASA is going to be REALLY embarrassed when a couple commercial launch
providers pass them up.


--
"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
  #4  
Old March 27th 18, 09:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old March 27th 18, 10:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default 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  
Old March 27th 18, 11:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default 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  
Old March 27th 18, 02:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old March 28th 18, 01:04 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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  
Old March 28th 18, 05:51 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old March 28th 18, 05:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Possible Shuttle launch delay Pat Flannery Policy 0 March 14th 10 03:50 PM
launch delay is manifest snidely Space Shuttle 0 February 4th 09 10:48 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 04:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.