SLS alternatives

In article 5f61fc60-0036-4809-8d0d-ac4e0890a79e@
10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 30, 6:37*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-...-missions.html

So NASA is dreaming about SLS payloads, too...

Brian

Very exciting astronomy missions become possible also with the SLS:

SLS Useful for Science Missions, Too, STScI Director Tells House
Panel.
Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 17-Sep-2012

The new Space Launch System (SLS) NASA is developing is useful for
robotic science missions as well as human spaceflight according to the
director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI).
Testifying to a House subcommittee last week, Matt Mountain said that
SLS could enable launching telescopes much larger than the Hubble
Space Telescope or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
STScI operates Hubble and will operate JWST after it is launched in
2018. Mountain described telescopes with primary mirrors 15-25
meters across -- three or four times the size of JWST -- that might be
able to detect life on planets around other stars that would be
enabled by a launch vehicle the size of SLS coupled with "human or
robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in space."

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/new...ls-house-panel

Telescopes with mirrors 15 to 25 meters across might be too ambitious
since we don't have those even for ground scopes yet. But we can
certainly imagine 10 meter telescopes. I looked up some costs of the
largest ground scopes and was surprised by how low cost they were
compared to typical space missions. The Keck 1 and Keck 2, which are
each 10 meter scopes, cost in the range of $100 million each in 1993
dollars. And the Large Binocular Telescope(LBT) whose twin 8.4 meter
mirrors give it the collecting power of a 11.9 meter scope cost only
$120 million in 2005 dollars. This compared to the likely billion
dollar launch costs of the SLS.
There would be additional costs at making these scopes space
qualified, but on the other hand you don't have the large costs of
constructing the buildings to house such large telescopes on the
ground.
The LBT case is especially interesting in that the twin mirrors if
they could be used together to create a single image they would have
the resolution of a 22.8 meter telescope. This would put it in the
range able to detect life on extrasolar planets. According to the
Wikipedia page on the LBT, this image synthesis mode has been tested
but has not been part of the regular use. Likely cost has been a
limiting factor. However, the National Reconnaissance Office has an
ever increasing need for better and better imaging resolution from
space. Reportedly they already have launched billion dollar
satellites. Then they could be a source for the funding to perfect the
image combining methods.

Your data just proves that terrestrial based telescopes are far cheaper
to build than space based. When you include development costs,
operational costs, and the cost of servicing missions for Hubble, it
becomes a very expensive program indeed. Wikipedia states that as of
2010, total Hubble costs are were about US $10 billion.

Assuming identical costs for an SLS launched telescope, even though it
could be far larger, or placed in an orbit further from earth, I'm not
sure Congress would be willing to cough up that kind of money. James
Webb Space Telescope costs are reportedly currently estimated to be
somewhere around $6.8 billion, and it's still many years away from being
launched (currently scheduled for 2018, but could slip).

NASA is establishing quite a track record for large space telescopes
whose schedule routinely slips and whose budget routinely balloons into
the multi-billion dollar range.

Still, even if an SLS launched space telescope is approved, I would
think it very unlikely that NASA would get funding to build more than
one copy. This will do little to boost SLS flight rate on a year to
year basis. The "build it and they will come" philosophy doesn't
necessarily mean that "they will come" in large quantities.

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 Thu, 1 Nov 2012 01:16:10 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:


Maybe. The awful truth is astronauts are cheaper to replace than a
multi-billion dollar payload.

No maybes about it. Titan 34D blew up in April 1986 three months after
Challenger and was flying again by October 1987. Shuttle didn't return
to service until September 1988. Titan IV-Centaur failed in August
1998 and flew again in April 1999. Columbia was lost in February 2003
and Shuttle didn't return to service until July 2005, a flight which
led to a further one year grounding.

Brian

In sci.space.policy message M4KdnXJCk6kGmA_NnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthlink.
com, Thu, 1 Nov 2012 01:16:10, "Greg (Strider) Moore" mooregr@ignoreth
isgreenms.com posted:

Maybe. The awful truth is astronauts are cheaper to replace than a
multi-billion dollar payload.

Astronauts are cheaper to supply.

Astronauts are inexpensively written off for disease and for accidents
independent of spacecraft, especially off-duty ones.

But the aftermath of losing astronauts in or near spacecraft is
extremely expensive - just for Senate and Congress time alone it
probably costs more than what had been the remaining expected lifetime
pay of the deceased.


Deploying large energies in lightly-built craft venturing into a
slightly lumpy vacuum away from hands-on professional emergency services
is inherently dangerous. Space will not have been conquered until space
fliers can die on duty with no more fuss than is the case for military
test pilots.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

The columbia loss killed the shuttle program, sure the vehicle cost a
couple billion but the program ended because the design killed 2
crews.

so no the astronauts arent cheaper than the vehicle

On Nov 2, 11:27*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

The columbia loss killed the shuttle program, sure the vehicle cost a
couple billion but the program ended because the design killed 2
crews.

Don't be silly. *The program ended because the vehicles got old.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

the program was ended by the safety board over safety issues, if
columbia had not been lost the program would still be in operation
today as long as another loss hadnt occured

On Nov 3, 5:33*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:27*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

The columbia loss killed the shuttle program, sure the vehicle cost a
couple billion but the program ended because the design killed 2
crews.

Don't be silly. *The program ended because the vehicles got old.

the program was ended by the safety board over safety issues, if
columbia had not been lost the program would still be in operation
today as long as another loss hadnt occured

Reality just doesn't really penetrate to your little corner of the
world, does it?

The YOUNGEST Shuttle was 20 years old. *The rest were pushing 30 years
old. *They cost too much to fly and the money was needed for something
that could go beyond Earth orbit.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

NASA loved the shuttle, it maintained the large workforce. Congress
loved the shuttle too, it provided lots of bucks for the contractors..

it was the fact it killed people and was guaranteed to kill again that
ultimately killed the shuttle itself. If shuttle program managers had
done their job the way they should have ........

the shuttles would still be flying............

and might I add SLS wouldnt be ready for a flight beyond LEO till at
least 2023. thats over 10 years from now. and the SLS is so expensive
theres no money for payloads, a true booster to no where..

if it wasnt for falcon and other private industry efforts we would be
totally dependent on russia forever.....

On Nov 3, 8:22*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:33*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:27*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

The columbia loss killed the shuttle program, sure the vehicle cost a
couple billion but the program ended because the design killed 2
crews.

Don't be silly. *The program ended because the vehicles got old.

the program was ended by the safety board over safety issues, if
columbia had not been lost the program would still be in operation
today as long as another loss hadnt occured

Reality just doesn't really penetrate to your little corner of the
world, does it?

The YOUNGEST Shuttle was 20 years old. *The rest were pushing 30 years
old. *They cost too much to fly and the money was needed for something
that could go beyond Earth orbit.

NASA loved the shuttle, it maintained the large workforce. Congress
loved the shuttle too, it provided lots of bucks for the contractors..

it was the fact it killed people and was guaranteed to kill again that
ultimately killed the shuttle itself. If shuttle program managers had
done their job the way they should have ........

the shuttles would still be flying............

As I noted previously, reality just doesn't penetrate to your little
corner of the world.



and might I add SLS wouldnt be ready for a flight beyond LEO till at
least 2023. thats over 10 years from now. and the SLS is so expensive
theres no money for payloads, a true booster to no where..

2019.



if it wasnt for falcon and other private industry efforts we would be
totally dependent on russia forever.....

No, Bobbert. *You're just being stupid. *I'd say 'again', but you'd
have to do something NOT stupid in between for it to be 'again'.

So, when will the first non-LEO commercial flight be?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

in the 2020s because nasa projects are always delayed espically with
low funding levels......

in freds fantasy world money is available for everything...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 8:22 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:33 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:27 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

The columbia loss killed the shuttle program, sure the vehicle cost
a
couple billion but the program ended because the design killed 2
crews.

Don't be silly. The program ended because the vehicles got old.

the program was ended by the safety board over safety issues, if
columbia had not been lost the program would still be in operation
today as long as another loss hadnt occured

Reality just doesn't really penetrate to your little corner of the
world, does it?

The YOUNGEST Shuttle was 20 years old. The rest were pushing 30 years
old. They cost too much to fly and the money was needed for something
that could go beyond Earth orbit.

NASA loved the shuttle, it maintained the large workforce. Congress
loved the shuttle too, it provided lots of bucks for the contractors..

it was the fact it killed people and was guaranteed to kill again that
ultimately killed the shuttle itself. If shuttle program managers had
done their job the way they should have ........

the shuttles would still be flying............

As I noted previously, reality just doesn't penetrate to your little
corner of the world.



and might I add SLS wouldnt be ready for a flight beyond LEO till at
least 2023. thats over 10 years from now. and the SLS is so expensive
theres no money for payloads, a true booster to no where..

2019.



if it wasnt for falcon and other private industry efforts we would be
totally dependent on russia forever.....

No, Bobbert. You're just being stupid. I'd say 'again', but you'd
have to do something NOT stupid in between for it to be 'again'.

So, when will the first non-LEO commercial flight be?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

in the 2020s because nasa projects are always delayed espically with
low funding levels......

in freds fantasy world money is available for everything...

I'll believe commercial to BEO when I see it, Bobbert. Reember Pan Am
selling tickets for commercial flights to the Moon? I thought not...

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:
The columbia loss killed the shuttle program, sure the vehicle cost a
couple billion but the program ended because the design killed 2
crews.

Don't be silly. The program ended because the vehicles got old.

I think you're both over simplifying, so I'll throw in a third over
simplification. The program ended because once ISS assembly was
"complete", the need for the shuttle vanished.

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
Don't be silly. *The program ended because the vehicles got old.

I think you're both over simplifying, so I'll throw in a third over
simplification. *The program ended because once ISS assembly was
"complete", the need for the shuttle vanished.

Jeff

ISS assembly was cut short because there wasnt time to launch all the
modules, some unflwn ones are in storage...