SLS alternatives

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

dreaming is easy, funding is impossible....... Heck I can dream up
some excellent payloads. retrieval of some lost assets, like snoopy,
some leftover saturn stages that are believed in heliospheric orbit,
bring a asteroid to near earth for easy manned exploration. how about
launching a dozen spirit and opportunities in one launch? launch a in
orbit space tug? payload didnt get to proper orbit? no problem we will
dock and put it in its proper orbit. oh your geo synnc sat had a
failure at only 3 years old? we can retrieve it and service it at the
ISS free flyer. want a hummer on the moon? no problem

first launch with a upper stage 2023, so theres time to plan payloads.
and it may be delayed futher for lack of funding

In article ee1009a5-8b1f-4023-ae43-766d42ec7367
@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

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

I see lots of "pie in the sky" dreaming in this article.

The talk about large, unmanned, planetary probes is "inspiring", but
we've heard all this before. Saturn V had this capability, but how many
Saturn V launches were dedicated to large interplanetary probes? Launch
cost is a killer here, unless it's "free" to the internal NASA customer.

The talk about possibly helping launch Bigelow modules is laughable.
The first BA330 is scheduled to be launched on a Falcon 9. SLS can't
touch Falcon 9 on cost, so why would Bigelow, or any other commercial
launch customer, choose to launch on SLS? The only possible reason is
if the government subsidizes the launch costs like they did for
"commercial" launches of the shuttle. This practice was banned after
the Challenger disaster, so this would be a huge policy reversal. I
wonder if lawmakers would support this?

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 Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:34:36 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ee1009a5-8b1f-4023-ae43-766d42ec7367

@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...



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



I see lots of "pie in the sky" dreaming in this article.



The talk about large, unmanned, planetary probes is "inspiring", but

we've heard all this before. Saturn V had this capability, but how many

Saturn V launches were dedicated to large interplanetary probes? Launch

cost is a killer here, unless it's "free" to the internal NASA customer.



The talk about possibly helping launch Bigelow modules is laughable.

The first BA330 is scheduled to be launched on a Falcon 9. SLS can't

touch Falcon 9 on cost, so why would Bigelow, or any other commercial

launch customer, choose to launch on SLS? The only possible reason is

if the government subsidizes the launch costs like they did for

"commercial" launches of the shuttle. This practice was banned after

the Challenger disaster, so this would be a huge policy reversal. I

wonder if lawmakers would support this?



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


The bobbert is the one who's dreaming. Jeff, until there's serious political opposition to SLS, it's going ahead. That's political reality, like it or not. Remember that Congress writes the checks, and no matter what the program is, in what agency-whether it's NASA, DOD, NOAA, or whatever, if you don't have serious support on The Hill, forget it. There is a difference in what YOU want NASA to do and what Congress will support. Right now, there's NO support for Depot/EELV exploration-except for Rohrabacher. Again, if he'd been chair of the House Science/Technology Committee, he'd be in a position to push that line of thought. He's not, and that's that.

In article ,
says...

The bobbert is the one who's dreaming. Jeff, until there's serious
political opposition to SLS, it's going ahead. That's political
reality, like it or not. Remember that Congress writes the checks,
and no matter what the program is, in what agency-whether it's
NASA, DOD, NOAA, or whatever, if you don't have serious support
on The Hill, forget it. There is a difference in what YOU want
NASA to do and what Congress will support. Right now, there's
NO support for Depot/EELV exploration-except for Rohrabacher.
Again, if he'd been chair of the House Science/Technology
Committee, he'd be in a position to push that line of thought.
He's not, and that's that.

I know SLS is going forward. It's going forward as a NASA program which
will be processed and launched using NASA infrastructure formerly used
for the shuttle. But, I don't see NASA's planetary exploration program
getting the kind of money needed for a large unmanned mission needing
SLS.

Currently, payload wise, I believe that Delta IV Heavy is the biggest
launch vehicle in the US launch industry. Sure, DOD/NRO made sure it
was developed so they could launch large payloads, but I'm sure it's
also available for other users. Delta IV Heavy is reportedly good for
something like 9,300+ kg launched in an earth escape trajectory. That
would make for a pretty HEFTY interplanetary probe.

So, how unmanned planetary exploration missions have launched on Delta
IV Heavy? How many are planned for Delta IV Heavy? That's nothing to
sneeze at, so why isn't it being utilized? It's going to be used for an
Orion test flight, so NASA is not completely opposed to buying launches
on it. So where are the bigger planetary probes and why are they not
flying on Delta IV Heavy? I'm sure there is a lot of "interest" in
using Delta IV Heavy for an interplanetary mission, but "interest" does
not always translate into the money needed to actually fund such a
mission.

If non-DOD/NRO customers are not beating down a path to launch payloads
on Delta IV Heavy, what makes you think that non-NASA customers are
going to do the same for a launch on the even bigger, even more
expensive, SLS?

As for DOD/NRO using SLS, they have alternatives. Bigger, heavier,
versions of both Delta IV and Atlas V could be designed and built if
there is truly a need to do so. Going that route keeps them under
DOD/NRO control and also keeps their contractor "infrastructure" in
place and healthy. This is a "good thing" for them just as SLS
maintains much of the former shuttle program's "infrastructure".

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 Oct 31, 2:56*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



The bobbert is the one who's dreaming. Jeff, until there's serious
political opposition to SLS, it's going ahead. That's political
reality, like it or not. Remember that Congress writes the checks,
and no matter what the program is, in what agency-whether it's
NASA, DOD, NOAA, or whatever, if you don't have serious support
on The Hill, forget it. There is a difference in what YOU want
NASA to do and what Congress will support. Right now, there's
NO support for Depot/EELV exploration-except for Rohrabacher.
Again, if he'd been chair of the House Science/Technology
Committee, he'd be in a position to push that line of thought.
He's not, and that's that.

I know SLS is going forward. *It's going forward as a NASA program which
will be processed and launched using NASA infrastructure formerly used
for the shuttle. *But, I don't see NASA's planetary exploration program
getting the kind of money needed for a large unmanned mission needing
SLS.

Currently, payload wise, I believe that Delta IV Heavy is the biggest
launch vehicle in the US launch industry. *Sure, DOD/NRO made sure it
was developed so they could launch large payloads, but I'm sure it's
also available for other users. *Delta IV Heavy is reportedly good for
something like 9,300+ kg launched in an earth escape trajectory. *That
would make for a pretty HEFTY interplanetary probe.

So, how unmanned planetary exploration missions have launched on Delta
IV Heavy? *How many are planned for Delta IV Heavy? *That's nothing to
sneeze at, so why isn't it being utilized? *It's going to be used for an
Orion test flight, so NASA is not completely opposed to buying launches
on it. *So where are the bigger planetary probes and why are they not
flying on Delta IV Heavy? *I'm sure there is a lot of "interest" in
using Delta IV Heavy for an interplanetary mission, but "interest" does
not always translate into the money needed to actually fund such a
mission.

If non-DOD/NRO customers are not beating down a path to launch payloads
on Delta IV Heavy, what makes you think that non-NASA customers are
going to do the same for a launch on the even bigger, even more
expensive, SLS?

As for DOD/NRO using SLS, they have alternatives. *Bigger, heavier,
versions of both Delta IV and Atlas V could be designed and built if
there is truly a need to do so. *Going that route keeps them under
DOD/NRO control and also keeps their contractor "infrastructure" in
place and healthy. *This is a "good thing" for them just as SLS
maintains much of the former shuttle program's "infrastructure".

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


If congress cuts social security, medicare and all those other
entitlements, congress will have a voter revolt if they continue
funding SLS

Historically congress has been a piggie bank but to keep the US
titanic off the fiscal cliff big cuts will be necessary, no matter who
is elected

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

The bobbert is the one who's dreaming. Jeff, until there's serious
political opposition to SLS, it's going ahead. That's political
reality, like it or not. Remember that Congress writes the checks,
and no matter what the program is, in what agency-whether it's
NASA, DOD, NOAA, or whatever, if you don't have serious support
on The Hill, forget it. There is a difference in what YOU want
NASA to do and what Congress will support. Right now, there's
NO support for Depot/EELV exploration-except for Rohrabacher.
Again, if he'd been chair of the House Science/Technology
Committee, he'd be in a position to push that line of thought.
He's not, and that's that.

I know SLS is going forward. It's going forward as a NASA program which
will be processed and launched using NASA infrastructure formerly used
for the shuttle. But, I don't see NASA's planetary exploration program
getting the kind of money needed for a large unmanned mission needing
SLS.

Currently, payload wise, I believe that Delta IV Heavy is the biggest
launch vehicle in the US launch industry. Sure, DOD/NRO made sure it
was developed so they could launch large payloads, but I'm sure it's
also available for other users. Delta IV Heavy is reportedly good for
something like 9,300+ kg launched in an earth escape trajectory. That
would make for a pretty HEFTY interplanetary probe.

So, how unmanned planetary exploration missions have launched on Delta
IV Heavy? How many are planned for Delta IV Heavy? That's nothing to
sneeze at, so why isn't it being utilized? It's going to be used for an
Orion test flight, so NASA is not completely opposed to buying launches
on it. So where are the bigger planetary probes and why are they not
flying on Delta IV Heavy? I'm sure there is a lot of "interest" in
using Delta IV Heavy for an interplanetary mission, but "interest" does
not always translate into the money needed to actually fund such a
mission.

If non-DOD/NRO customers are not beating down a path to launch payloads
on Delta IV Heavy, what makes you think that non-NASA customers are
going to do the same for a launch on the even bigger, even more
expensive, SLS?

As for DOD/NRO using SLS, they have alternatives. Bigger, heavier,
versions of both Delta IV and Atlas V could be designed and built if
there is truly a need to do so. Going that route keeps them under
DOD/NRO control and also keeps their contractor "infrastructure" in
place and healthy. This is a "good thing" for them just as SLS
maintains much of the former shuttle program's "infrastructure".

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

You know the saying, "build it and they will come." If DOD has a payload or
payloads-and who knows what's lurking in the black world in DOD-that needs a
really heavy lifter, it's known as SLS.

Even Augustine mentioned at least one serious BEO mission a year-and if the
L-2 project that's being kicked around at NASA using ISS hardware that was
built but not flown, that's several flights just to launch the hardware, and
on top of that, there's the Orion flights that will have to go to assemble
the facility, check it out, and begin occupancy. Not quite boots on the
lunar regolith, but it's a start.

The administration's biggest mistake was making their policy pronouncement
(canceling Constellation) in a budget rollout with no prior consultation
with members of Congress. Though Charlie Bolden took the rap for it-and did
so publicly, the White House no doubt shares some of the blame (i.e. Dr.
Holdren, the Presidential Science Advisor). Bolden admitted to ignoring PAO
advice, and just plain making the announcement. That botched rollout
poisoned the well with Congress on NASA's future, and the administration has
never fully recovered.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message ...


You know the saying, "build it and they will come." If DOD has a payload or
payloads-and who knows what's lurking in the black world in DOD-that needs
a
really heavy lifter, it's known as SLS.

Yes, and we had a heavy launcher that could have easily had another
production run of 15 (or more)

Saturn V. There were many plans. It WAS built. And no one came.



Even Augustine mentioned at least one serious BEO mission a year-and if the
L-2 project that's being kicked around at NASA using ISS hardware that was
built but not flown, that's several flights just to launch the hardware,
and
on top of that, there's the Orion flights that will have to go to assemble
the facility, check it out, and begin occupancy. Not quite boots on the
lunar regolith, but it's a start.


Again... plans, plans plans. At this point you'd need multiple SLS launches
just to launch all the paper wasted on pie in the sky dreaming.



The administration's biggest mistake was making their policy pronouncement
(canceling Constellation) in a budget rollout with no prior consultation
with members of Congress. Though Charlie Bolden took the rap for it-and did
so publicly, the White House no doubt shares some of the blame (i.e. Dr.
Holdren, the Presidential Science Advisor). Bolden admitted to ignoring PAO
advice, and just plain making the announcement. That botched rollout
poisoned the well with Congress on NASA's future, and the administration
has
never fully recovered.



My prediction, yes SLS will get built. A few flights will even be flown and
by then Falcon 99 or some other commercial launcher will come in at 1/10th
the price and Congress will suddenly be trying to answer why they're
throwing money after SLS.




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

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:48:20 AM UTC-7, Me wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:36 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

And if DOD comes on board, there's

another operator for the system-and you can bet that DOD and the
National

Security side are looking at SLS for certain payloads that are properly

classified.



Again, you show that you don't know what you are talking about. The

DOD and NRO are not looking at SLS

Want another customer: Check this out: the Canadians are looking at using
SLS to fly their own Mars rover. Nothing definite yet, but a successful SLS
flight with an interplanetary payload sells the system to other interested
parties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49598478...science-space/



Then the Canadians are nuts. They can launch a damn fine mission on an
existing rocket for cheaper and sooner.





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

In article ,
says...

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...

Want another customer: Check this out: the Canadians are looking at
using
SLS to fly their own Mars rover. Nothing definite yet, but a successful SLS
flight with an interplanetary payload sells the system to other interested
parties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49598478...science-space/

Then the Canadians are nuts. They can launch a damn fine mission on an
existing rocket for cheaper and sooner.

They are "looking" at SLS, but that does not mean that the Canadian
politicians and taxpayers are ready to sign up to actually pay for an
unmanned Mars mission.

A kid getting his parents to let him window shop costs the parents next
to nothing. A kid trying to convince those same parents (i.e.
taxpayers) to actually buy that shiny new toy in the window a *much*
harder sell.

One look at Astronautix.com is all the evidence anyone needs to prove
that paper/Powerpoint studies are far cheaper, and far more numerous,
than actual hardware flying actual missions.

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 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.


Bob Clark