Proposal for SLS-based Skylab II

From space.com: there is a proposal out of the Marshall Space Flight Center
(where SLS is designed and concepts are evaluated for SLS missions), for a
SLS-based Skylab II Space Station at L2, and perhaps build additional
facilites, using SLS hardware, and launch them to other locations.

http://www.space.com/20444-nasa-deep...n-skylab2.html

On Apr 3, 12:29*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
From space.com: there is a proposal out of the Marshall Space Flight Center
(where SLS is designed and concepts are evaluated for SLS missions), for a
SLS-based Skylab II Space Station at L2, and perhaps build additional
facilites, using SLS hardware, and launch them to other locations.

http://www.space.com/20444-nasa-deep...n-skylab2.html

whats old is new again.......

SLS supporters realizing its too big, too expensive, and really a bad
idea......

Are trying to find reasons to justify building it

Still beating the Space X drum, bobbert? Even when there's zero support on
The Hill for anything but commercial crew and cargo.....Said it before,
you're just upset that NASA is spending its funds the way they want to, not
the way YOU want them to. Got a problem with how NASA's going, call your
congresscritter.


"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 12:29 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
From space.com: there is a proposal out of the Marshall Space Flight
Center
(where SLS is designed and concepts are evaluated for SLS missions), for a
SLS-based Skylab II Space Station at L2, and perhaps build additional
facilites, using SLS hardware, and launch them to other locations.

http://www.space.com/20444-nasa-deep...n-skylab2.html

whats old is new again.......

SLS supporters realizing its too big, too expensive, and really a bad
idea......

Are trying to find reasons to justify building it

In article , mattwiser_99
@yahoo.com says...

Still beating the Space X drum, bobbert? Even when there's zero support on
The Hill for anything but commercial crew and cargo.....Said it before,
you're just upset that NASA is spending its funds the way they want to, not
the way YOU want them to. Got a problem with how NASA's going, call your
congresscritter.

Besides, if the politicians keep funding SLS, NASA might as well figure
out how to best use it. Gotta justify that phony bologna project
somehow...

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 Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:29:17 PM UTC-5, Matt Wiser wrote:
From space.com: there is a proposal out of the Marshall Space Flight Center

(where SLS is designed and concepts are evaluated for SLS missions), for a

SLS-based Skylab II Space Station at L2, and perhaps build additional

facilites, using SLS hardware, and launch them to other locations.

http://www.space.com/20444-nasa-deep...n-skylab2.html

It's an idea with merit, when you think about it. A deep space station will need support, just like ISS. There is no reason that support can't be commercial, and international, just like ISS. NASA can build it, something that SLS will be able to do in a couple of steps, then contract for ongoing station support while the Agency proceeds to use SLS/Orion and deep space station to go to the next destination(s).

- Ed Kyle

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:29:17 PM UTC-5, Matt Wiser wrote:
From space.com: there is a proposal out of the Marshall Space Flight Center

(where SLS is designed and concepts are evaluated for SLS missions), for a

SLS-based Skylab II Space Station at L2, and perhaps build additional

facilites, using SLS hardware, and launch them to other locations.

http://www.space.com/20444-nasa-deep...n-skylab2.html

It's an idea with merit, when you think about it. A deep space station
will need support, just like ISS. There is no reason that support
can't be commercial, and international, just like ISS. NASA can build
it, something that SLS will be able to do in a couple of steps, then
contract for ongoing station support while the Agency proceeds to use
SLS/Orion and deep space station to go to the next destination(s).

There is some truth to this, but the biggest roadblock is still funding.
If the funding for the program comes from the government, the line
between "commercial" and "government" can become rather blurred. In
that case, how "commercial" a program is really depends on how it's run,
rather than where the money comes from.

On "big" programs, governments tend to want *more* oversight, not less.
So the chance that such a "big" government funded program could be
operated in a "commercial" manner is rather small. Again, the sad
reality of politics...

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 Apr 3, 12:29*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
From space.com: there is a proposal out of the Marshall Space Flight Center
(where SLS is designed and concepts are evaluated for SLS missions), for a
SLS-based Skylab II Space Station at L2, and perhaps build additional
facilites, using SLS hardware, and launch them to other locations.

Again, you don't get it. This is just mental masturbation.