Future of SLS/Orion post election

I'm taking a tip from the subtitle to Dr. Strangelove and have stopped worrying and learned to love the SLS. Why? There are approx. 16 sixteen engines available and their replacements are barely on the drawing board. They will be extremely expensive to replace. I'm thinking when it comes to SLS we'll be 4 and done!

With any luck the first (assuming uncrewed*) will be the biggest firework in history... At least then there's a chance that the remaining RS-25's will remain available for future engineering study as opposed to taking up residence at the bottom of the Atlantic.

*Stupid is as stupid does.

Dave

In article ,
says...

I'm taking a tip from the subtitle to Dr. Strangelove and have stopped worrying and learned to love the SLS. Why? There are approx. 16 sixteen engines available and their replacements are barely on the drawing board. They will be extremely expensive to replace. I'm thinking when it comes to SLS we'll be 4 and done!

We can only hope this will be the outcome. Developing an "expendable"
version of the SSME won't be cheap or easy, especially the way NASA runs
things.

With any luck the first (assuming uncrewed*) will be the biggest firework in history... At least then there's a chance that the remaining RS-25's will remain available for future engineering study as opposed to taking up residence at the bottom of the Atlantic.

*Stupid is as stupid does.

True.

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...

In article ,
says...

I'm taking a tip from the subtitle to Dr. Strangelove and have stopped worrying and learned to love the SLS. Why? There are approx. 16 sixteen engines available and their replacements are barely on the drawing board. They will be extremely expensive to replace. I'm thinking when it comes to SLS we'll be 4 and done!

We can only hope this will be the outcome. Developing an "expendable"
version of the SSME won't be cheap or easy, especially the way NASA runs
things.

With any luck the first (assuming uncrewed*) will be the biggest firework in history... At least then there's a chance that the remaining RS-25's will remain available for future engineering study as opposed to taking up residence at the bottom of the Atlantic.

*Stupid is as stupid does.

True.

NASA has 16 ex-SSMEs in its inventory. Enough for a measley four SLS
launch attempts. As of yet, Congress has not funded anymore SSMEs to be
built and I don't believe an meaningful amount of money has been spent
to develop an "expendable" version either.

The way SLS is being run is like watching a train wreck happening in
slow motion!

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

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

On 15-09-03 06:32, Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA has 16 ex-SSMEs in its inventory. Enough for a measley four SLS
launch attempts. As of yet, Congress has not funded anymore SSMEs to be
built and I don't believe an meaningful amount of money has been spent
to develop an "expendable" version either.

Devil's advocate:

Say they make 3 succesful launches and SLS proves to have unequalled
mass uplift. At that point, Congress could choose to fund NASA to do
the proper development/building newly manufactured SSMEs so that the
program could continue, especially if mission to mars become more real.

Yes and by the time NASA has 3 successful SLS launches, SpaceX has 9 Falcon
9 Heavy launches for 1/2 the price and even Congress critters are asking,
"why don't we just buy that?"



If the SLS programm ends up generating impressive fireworks displays
over the atlantic (or at KSC) then no funding comes for
development/construction of new SSMEs and the program quietly dies when
the last 4 engines are used, perhaps on July 4th to add to other
fireworks displays in USA.

--
* I promise I will format my posts properly in the future.
* Windows Live Mail just can't quote! Luckily, I have found this:
* http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/

In article om,
says...

On 15-09-03 06:32, Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA has 16 ex-SSMEs in its inventory. Enough for a measley four SLS
launch attempts. As of yet, Congress has not funded anymore SSMEs to be
built and I don't believe an meaningful amount of money has been spent
to develop an "expendable" version either.

Devil's advocate:

Say they make 3 succesful launches and SLS proves to have unequalled
mass uplift.

Except it won't, because that first iteration of SLS won't have the
"mass uplift" anywhere near the "final version", which is still on the
drawing board.

At that point, Congress could choose to fund NASA to do
the proper development/building newly manufactured SSMEs so that the
program could continue, especially if mission to mars become more real.

At that point, it could take another five years to develop the RS-25
"expendable" engine. So, what is being proposed is an interim batch of
more expensive engines (built more like the original SSMEs) to tide them
over while they develop the RS-25 "expendable".

And, they'll be doing that while designing and testing the EDS (earth
departure stage) which will replace the Delta IV derived "interim" upper
stage used on the first several launches.

In other words, the plan for SLS is to keep tweaking the design as they
go, essentially not stopping development for what looks to me like the
next 10 years or so. Maybe, eventually, sometime down the road, the
"final" version of SLS will fly. But by then, it's possible that it
will be woefully obsoleted by the currently rapid progress being made by
commercial launch providers.

If the SLS programm ends up generating impressive fireworks displays
over the atlantic (or at KSC) then no funding comes for
development/construction of new SSMEs and the program quietly dies when
the last 4 engines are used, perhaps on July 4th to add to other
fireworks displays in USA.

I doubt one launch failure would stop the program. What might
eventually stop the program is the realization that NASA is ****ing away
billions upon billions of dollars duplicating the efforts of the
commercial launch providers who are innovating faster, better, and
cheaper than NASA.

At the end of the day cost per pound to LEO is the metric that counts.
I don't think that in 10 years, SLS will be able to compete on that
metric, and will instead clearly appear to be the huge albatross around
NASA's neck that it's always been.

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 om,
says...

On 15-09-03 23:32, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Yes and by the time NASA has 3 successful SLS launches, SpaceX has 9 Falcon
9 Heavy launches for 1/2 the price and even Congress critters are asking,
"why don't we just buy that?"


I think "don't put all your eggs in the same basket" may be in play.

B.S. ULA will be the backup, or (even better) a complimentary launch
provider much in the same way there are two commercial cargo providers
and will be two commercial crew providers. In the past, ULA had both
Atlas and Delta. Going forward, ULA will have Vulcan.

Vulcan will start out as little more than a re-engined and slightly
tweaked Atlas V design, but it will get markedly better once the
advanced ACES upper stage starts flying. The ULA engineers have written
many papers over the years about the tech they wanted to put into a next
generation upper stage, but this was never funded, until now. The
competition with SpaceX is forcing ULA's upper management to *finally*
fund innovation. Hopefully, ULA won't be a day late and a dollar short
since they've been dragging their feet when it comes to innovation for
far too long.

Just as NASA gave COTS contracts to SpaceX and Orbital/ATK so they would
at least have one if the other failed, it is possible that SLS is still
going just in case the others fail.

That backup should *not* be SLS.

Perhaps when Falcon 9 Heavy is a reality with proven record, SLS can be
killed. But until this point, I could see some logic in continuing SLS
just in case. By having 2 very different approaches (many cheap engines
vs a few expensive but proven ones), this increases the odds that one of
the two will work.

(Just trying hard to find positive justifications here).

Vulcan Heavy is a distinct possibility, especially if NASA kicks in some
funding. NASA would be far better off killing SLS and using that money
to instead fund commercial HLV. Heck, Orbital ATK could even submit its
own commercial HLV proposal that would almost surely include ATK's five
segment SRBs mated to an Orbital designed core stage.

Ultimately, commercial HLV would allow NASA fund development of *two*
HLVs cheaper than the price of SLS. Plus, those HLVs would be available
for other launches (e.g. DoD, comsats, commercial space stations, and
etc.). This would be a huge boon to the US launch industry. Far more
so than the pork laden SLS program.

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 . com,
says...

On 15-09-05 12:55, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA would be far better off killing SLS and using that money
to instead fund commercial HLV.

That is perhaps the most potent argument I have heard.

However, I have to ask this naively: Falcon 9 Heavy is a fairly well
known entity, but still young/new. Is ULA's effort still vapourware
that shows promise or is it far enough along in design and some hardware
that it could justify killing SLS now ?

ULA has flown several Delta IV Heavy missions. I don't doubt that they
could create a Vulcan Heavy, given the time and money.

Would it be fair to assume that NASA would have a gentleman's agreement
with ULA and SpaceX that it will cancel SLS and divert funds back to
them once they are far enough along that a 3rd system is no longer
needed as backup ?

I envision they would fund commercial HLV just like commercial cargo and
commercial crew have been funded. That is, contractors would write up
their proposals, including well defined development milestones, and NASA
would ultimately choose two contractors to move forward. Contractors
would then be paid when development milestones were met.

There would be no "gentleman's agreement", instead there would be signed
contracts with well defined milestones to be met.

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