Change of Focus of NASA

[NEOWatcher]

The price of the Ferrari 458 Italia has the 'potential' to go down if they'd just mass produce them.

The Ferrari has a projected sales rate. Ares did not have a projected rate of 1.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/new...&ObjectType=35

That article is mostly blasting the cost of launching with Orion. It also says that they are not sure what costs are included with those statements. I don't know the comparisons, but if that article says what I think I'm reading, it would be expensive to launch Orion even on an F9.

As for what is included in calculating the fixed cost of $781 million, NASA's answer stated that it "does not include costs associated with Ground Operations, Mission Operations, EVA and Program Integration elements, which are budgeted under their respective projects."

So; even with just two launches per year that's less then a half billion for the rocket. (although, I don't know what the rocket components actually cost to build and/or refurbish)

Since F9 is priced for payload, we still don't have the figure for Mission Operations, EVA and Program Integration elements.
Once Dragon gets man rated, we may see a larger cost for a manned F9.


Again; don't mistake my search for a realistic comparison for any kind of argument.
Yes; Ares-1 was an expensive waste especially when they had the option of tailoring something with ULA in mind.

[djellison]

Ares did not have a projected rate of 1..

Indeed. It had a projected rate >1.

But it had a projected rate that was low. Very low.

It's not 'fair' to say 'it could have been cheaper if that rate increased'

That rate wasn't going to increase.

[publiusr]

..just a big throw away system for surface to surface, it will ensure there is no sustained BEO effort.

We've launched over a hundred STS with throw away ETs. HLV BEO is and will be a sustained effort. STS killed Apollo--the concept of reusability stifled everything else.


"The Titan III was built first and fore most for the Air Force to satisfy their need to launch heavier military and intelligence sattelites.... the rest was just dessert.

And Titan III was an answer for R-7, which set off the space race by being more than what was needed. Read "Countdown to Decision," where medaris managed to get Saturn 1B off the ground amid a lot of hostility.

And yet again I have to point out to you - I'm not anti HLV.

That is what is on the table now. "Michael Gazarick, NASA space technology program director: 'To explore deep space, we need a heavy-lift vehicle--SLS...'" Other ideas were looked at, and--after all, SLS is really DIRECT (maybe a bit more Magnum/Longfellow/CaLV). Work has been done on Shuttle derived HLVs, more so than on depots--and it is much farther along. This has the support of the engineering community. If folks question them about whether we went to the moon or not--and no answer satisfied them--we'd call them dense and they would be removed from the boards quickly. They simply want the same respect afforded them here. Besides, I remember a quote by Musk that he was fine with NASA's SLS: after all that saves him from BFR--allowing him to concentrate on re-usability, using all rocket methods. No fooling around with wings, landing gear--ocean engineering to fish stages out of the drink and so on.

But what happens if he replaces the EELV program (both were kept for in-house industrial base support) and there is no SLS--and Space X goes under? Another mark against alt.space.

To bring you back to the subject of an idea that may never be buildable/sustainable, there was the "paper by Patrick R. Chai and Alan W. Wilhite at the International Astronautical Congress which holds that depots will lose $12 million of propellant every month, and that "today's state of the art in cryocoolers...falls short by an 'order of magnitude.'"

Now if hypergolics were the basis of a depot, then Falcon 9 Heavy would be fine. But I seem to remember some hostility to Musks Falcon 9 heavy here as well, questioning its size too. Hypergolics can last a long time, and take up a lot less space. But those seem to be off the table. And who has a lot of experience with a lot of LH2? NASA and Michold. Thus SLS. Musk has no familiarity at all with LH2, and SLS eliminates his having to be brought up to speed. He went the kerolox route. That's fine, but denser fuels can dictate smaller shrouds which pushes away folks who want big monolithic telescopes that are far simpler than Webb. There are reasons why the current architecture looks the way it does.

[djellison]

That is what is on the table now.

Then we should send it back. When you get served garbage at a restaurant - you send it back.

It's not of net benefit to the agency. It's impact is negative. It needs to go away.

There are indeed reasons why the architecture looks the way it does...those reasons can be found in the hallways of Washington.

[publiusr]

The hallways of Washington just listened to engineers, who were right and not spewing garbage, and supported their expert findings--not empty promises from ULA (or Musk for that matter). That's the garbage that needs to be sent back.
Michael Gazarick, NASA space technology program director, supports SLS. He and many more experts. Sorry but they know more about the subject than you do.

[djellison]

On that, clearly, we will have to agree to disagree.

SLS is an abomination and it needs to go away.

This editorial nicely surmises by thoughts on it - http://activities.fit.edu/crimsons/?p=1866

We will spend billions, if not tens of billions, and I promise you - it'll never fly. If it does - it'll bankrupt the agency for 20 years, like ISS and Shuttle have.

(and again - you seem to infer that as I am anti-SLS, I am pro other architectures you keep citing. Please - stop it)

[publiusr]

Editorials are fine--and the focus of that is more on the Liberty Ares I redeux.

Lets take a look at what is said:

"The SLS is a rocket with no real payload and no destination."

That is a LIE. BEO is the destination and the writer chooses to ignore it.

" I called it worse than useless because it’s sucking up money that could be used to develop a sustainable architecture for the exploration of space." Another falsehood. Depots would cost MORE and boil-off only allows for Musk/ULA to have taxpayers pay for shipping LH2 into the vacuum of space. That is the ultimate waste of money. Fuel your craft on the ground, and stage off the LH2 as thrust before the vacuum of space vampires it away from you anyway. Do as little docking and refueling as you can. You don't need to make another ISStype assembly to go to the moon. Engineers know that, so why doesn't this writer? Because he doesn't know crap.

Griffin wrote a testbook on spacecraft design. What has that writer done but spew invective same as waste of time and print that is NASAWATCH. A five year olds opinion is worth more than theirs.

"...you seem to infer that as I am anti-SLS, I am pro other architectures you keep citing."

Who else is building an HLV? No one--except China. They are doing it with Gov't support because that is the only way it will be done. Privatizers won't make an HLLV unless they have NASA foot the bill--then they have to get up to speed on LH2, where in-house folk already have the information and all they needed was the green light. NASA will do it the proper way with folks who know what they are talking about--as opposed to making lame promises to go to Mars. If you think that private HLVs are the answer--then, by all means, make your case to Donald Trump..and he will make the same arguements against you that you make against SLS. He will think it a waste of his money. How well do aerospace start ups do. Not well, because venture capitalists don't want to spend money of things with up-front costs like aerospace.

This is the problem with this religion that Gov't cannot do anything right, and private industry does everything cheaper. I don't buy it one bit...and the very light jet debacle shows that. Just because a private entity can promise a BFR cheaper than SLS doesn't mean they can actually do it. Besides, Why bother spending money to bring someone up to speed on something that is whole cloth when you already have experts with that familiarity all along. It just takes more time--and will cost more money in the long run.

You say its not NASA's job to build SLS? Fine.

I say its not NASA's place to teach someone else how to build one with the same taxpayers money. That makes as little sense as a pumber not fixing his own sink--but calling in another person from outside, then teaching him how to be a plumber. That is certainly a waste of time and money both. Same here. Again, Musk is now free to do other things. With NASA focus on SLS, Musk can focus on reusability. We will see how well he does with that.

[djellison]

Griffin - ah yes....Griffin. The man who pushed for and spearheaded the totally unsustainable Constellation program - a program that wasted $8B, 4 years, created and then extended 'the gap' and achieved nothing but a laughing stock launch that had to use Atlas V avionics to get off the ground.

SLS is Constellation 2.

It needs to go away. Now.

Have I said Private HLV is 'the answer'. No. Again - you're putting words in my mouth - something you've done again and again in this thread. I've asked you to stop before - I'm going to ask again.

"this religion that Gov't cannot do anything right". I work for NASA. I know it can do a lot right. It can also do a lot wrong. I also know it needs to get out of building rockets. It doesn't need to teach anybody anything in that regard. LoMart, Boeing, Orbital, SpaceX and others know how to do that already...cheaper than NASA can.

Constellation was proven to be utterly unsustainable by the Augustine commission - and that was before 'flat' became the new 'rise' with NASA's budget.

Explain why SLS is different.

[publiusr]

SLS is DIRECT. The Iraq war was what was unsustainable in siphoning money away from NASA. His critics need to go away. Now.

[marsbug]

His critics need to go away. Now.

Sorry, but thats a load of balony. Criticism is vital to any project. If the criticsare gaining enough momentum to overturn the project then either the criticsare getting extremely excesive outside help, or the projects got serious problems anyway and might need closing down.

I'll fight to the death on this one, general, point Publiusr. I'm a professional engineer and a scientist (just passed my PhD on a less combatative note); everything I've ever experianced in both academia and industry tells me that recieving, and being able to take, honest criticism is absolutely vital to success.

[djellison]

SLS is DIRECT.

I'll let someone from Direct make that call

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=27591.0

As a former member of the DIRECT Team, speaking strictly for myself here, SLS and its flight manifest are NASA's, not DIRECT's. You'll recall that we advocated vehicles *directly* derived from Shuttle, including existing four-segment solids, a "non-stretch" cryo tank, and even upper stages without the J2-X. Similarly, we advocated for a frequent flight rate that would in part loft propellant depots.

In short, we hoped to see minimized new development in favor of moving quickly ahead to flight and implementation. All I can say is: welcome to the real world of NASA and politics.

[publiusr]

Honest criticism is one thing, and you have been very civil. Ironically, before the Over-moderation thread closed, I was worried about under-moderation here. The last person who got banned was TheJim, who was so combative that it all but demanded his removal. He never posted whimsical things in other threads, and I caught him in some lies at another forum where they allow his abuse to continue--but removed me instead.

I as a rule try to find at least three sources to make my point. Not just an op-ed piece of questionable pedigree. I had a math thesis, a piece by the engineer who worked on the DTAL lander, aerospace trade publications and other sources to make my points. The problem is that--even after a point is made, it is ignored. That I don't consider honest. I think my point about Congress listening to expert testimony is valid. They are not designing anything. But people keep saying that, as if Sam Brownback was over at Marshall with a slide rule arguing over specs. So a lot of what I hear--frankly--is not valid criticism.

As I said before, if we went the hypergolic route, Falcon would be fine--and depots do-able.

[pzkpfw]

SLS is DIRECT. The Iraq war was what was unsustainable in siphoning money away from NASA. His critics need to go away. Now.

This is getting "political" and angry. It's time to step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath.

[publiusr]

I'll let someone from Direct make that call

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=27591.0

Now he was speaking for himself, mind you. The 8-meter core is retained. Like I said, its as much Magnum/Longfellow. People who are pro-SD-HLLV have professional disagreements, but they are all pro-SD-HLLV supporters since that is the way to go. The stretch segments and SRB mods get you more capability. Within the SD-HLLV community, that is seen as a plus. Now if they went for pure DIRECT, that would be fine too. SLS just allows more BEO capability. Thor was stretched many times, and uses the bigger solids made for Delta III, so that isn't as shocking as you might think. Those are minor tweaks in the cosmic scheme...


You know--you are right. I apologize for the tone. I know folks working on this, and they are so busy and don't want to spend time arguing on boards like these.

The title of this thread is change of focus of NASA, and that has been dealt with. Maybe it is time for this thread to be closed. Again, forgive my frustration.

[djellison]

BEO is the destination

What with? Orion? Where's that going to take you? How long can you ask a crew to camp in that. Can't land anywhere. Can't stay in space for long durations and there's no money for ANYTHING else.

Apollo 8 again, 50+ years later perhaps? Should this excite us?

What's to support here?

[Ara Pacis]

The thread title really should give you a clue as to the discussion subject.

But NASA does not exist in a vacuum (even if their spaceships fly through it). That several people here are arguing for non-NASA designs and proposals reveals that externalities are the part and parcel of the problem. I don't work for NASA nor am I an engineer, but I know a little about politics and salesmanship and I realize that if you want someone, whomever it is, to part ways with money, you need to make them feel good about it, that it was their decision and not merely that they gave in and let themselves be sold. You have to give them what they want. The trick is figuring out what it is they want.

[NEOWatcher]

Indeed. It had a projected rate >1.
But it had a projected rate that was low. Very low.
It's not 'fair' to say 'it could have been cheaper if that rate increased'
That rate wasn't going to increase.

So; no comment on the rest of my post?
I quoted you facts, and you come back with an admission that the fixed cost is spread across more than one launch per year (which is the original number you stated).
And; I showed where the mission costs do not apply to your original comparison.
This comment of yours is opinion and I can respect that, but it doesn't trump facts.

What with? Orion? Where's that going to take you? How long can you ask a crew to camp in that. Can't land anywhere. Can't stay in space for long durations and there's no money for ANYTHING else.
Apollo 8 again, 50+ years later perhaps? Should this excite us?
What's to support here?

Apollo 8 was a test mission, we got much more later.

[djellison]

we got much more later.

Indeed we did - because at the same time we were developing Saturn V, we were developing the Apollo CSM/CM and the LEM ( and NERVA and Skylab )

There is no money for the LEM, or anything else.

It's a rocket to nowhere.

Again - I guess I'm going to have to ask you the same question I asked Publiusr....

The Augustine commission concluded that Constellation was unaffordable. How is SLS any different?

The simple fact is - Ares 1 was too expensive to fit within a NASA budget forecast as even higher than what we have now.

Are we to believe SLS will be cheaper? I can't possibly believe how.

In many respects - NASA's direction, sadly, hasn't changed. It's still the old school contracts with old school contractors doing things the old school way.

[NEOWatcher]

There is no money for the LEM, or anything else.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I only pointed out other facts that were out of context.

As far as no money is concerned... Yes; we have no money now and we have a very negative view of getting money later. The former is true, the latter is opinion.

[djellison]

If we had a more affordable launch strategy- perhaps we could afford payloads to be developed alongside the LV so that once the LV was ready, we had something worth doing with it.

Wouldn't that be a thought.

Right now, SLS will stand as a statue for political incompetence once complete, whilst we spend a half decade or more, assuming the program still exists, building something to actually use it for.

Burning money and treading water. That's what SLS will do if its completed.

Sorry - that's not how I want my tax dollars spent.

[marsbug]

Honest criticism is one thing, and you have been very civil. Ironically, before the Over-moderation thread closed, I was worried about under-moderation here. The last person who got banned was TheJim, who was so combative that it all but demanded his removal. He never posted whimsical things in other threads, and I caught him in some lies at another forum where they allow his abuse to continue--but removed me instead.

I as a rule try to find at least three sources to make my point. Not just an op-ed piece of questionable pedigree. I had a math thesis, a piece by the engineer who worked on the DTAL lander, aerospace trade publications and other sources to make my points. The problem is that--even after a point is made, it is ignored. That I don't consider honest. I think my point about Congress listening to expert testimony is valid. They are not designing anything. But people keep saying that, as if Sam Brownback was over at Marshall with a slide rule arguing over specs. So a lot of what I hear--frankly--is not valid criticism.

As I said before, if we went the hypergolic route, Falcon would be fine--and depots do-able.

Ok, I understand that you feel your arguments are under attack from dishonest means.

Your point about congress being advised by experts is indeed valid, as far as it goes.

My response is congress are not themselves experts, and may well have other priorities than space. This can lead them to honestly misunderstand, ignore, or willfully misinterpret good advice.
Hence my position remains that experts should not be advising politicians on what to decide, the experts should be making the decisions with congress becoming involved only if there is evidence of foul play of some type.
This is, to my mind, a fundamental flaw in the way the US and NASA approaches manned space flight and all my doubts about NASA and any system they adopt spring from it. Even if all the current US politicians are as honest as can be and have taken space as a priority in the proper context, there is no guaruntee that this will be the case after the next election cycle. And BEO MSF, whatever the architecture, needs stability of purpose and vision over more than four or even eight years.

[marsbug]

To be clear, I'm not claiming that the US government is willfully anti what's best for BEO MSF. I'm saying that the US government may have legitimate and honest conflicts of interest with whats best for BEO MSF. No senator doing his job will vote yes to something that will lead to amoonbase in ten years if it also puts several thousand people he is responsible fo the well being of out of their jobs. Many may vote yes to something that will scupper BEO MSF if it keeps those people in their jobs. This is not corruption, this is senators looking out for their constituents, which is their damn job.
To ensure that what is best for MSF happens, whatever that may be, the decisions need to be in the hands of those whose job is what is best for MSF. This may be, in some cases, directly opposed to the best interest of a given state or states, so the people making that decision must not be a direct part of the US political system in order to avoid these conflicts of interest.

[MaDeR]

A hoax believer asks for evidence. It is given, then he ignores it and asks the same bloody question. You are acting the same way.

You are one that avoid question. And you did not give any evidence. Now you complaint about being asked same question again?

Over at nasaspaceflight.com you have all kinds of links to SLS payloads. That you ignore them is your fault.

As someone earlier said, anyone can think up zilion possible payloads for SLS. So what? I do not claim SLS/HLV have no use. I claim there is no money for both HLV and its payload.

"Planning for development of payload after finished doing HLV is same as "will never do it"."
That is pure bunk. When Titan III first flew with segmented solids, Cassini was years from the drawing boards.

Are you claiming that Titan III was build with no payload for it planned (as in "money given", not in "fantasize about it on forum")/developed/builded in same time? I would not do that in your place.

[publiusr]

There were no non-military payloads--those had to wait for the Titan. And R-7 was marketed as an ICBM, when smaller ICBMs could have come along. It was a space booster made for its own sake sold as an ICBM--and was a wise choice.

"Sorry - that's not how I want my tax dollars spent."

Well, I do want tax dollars spent on SLS, not the dismantling of NASA so one or two private firms can harvest a couple of engineers, wreck in-house infrastructure, then leave the cupboard bare once they go out of business after wrecking infrastructure in the name of culling "pork." Beal looked as promising as SpaceX. Good thing we didn't shut down NASA centers over that debacle.

PS--on depressed trajectory
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....26#post1571126

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I only pointed out other facts that were out of context.

As far as no money is concerned... Yes; we have no money now and we have a very negative view of getting money later. The former is true, the latter is opinion.

The money is from STS shutdown and whatever Congress supports.

Now D.J Ellison says he isn't anti-HLV just not this HLV. Sure. So which one? One that hasn't even been looked at yet? One that would cost even more money to stop then start all over--like that won't be more expensive? One funded by wrecking NASA infrastructure, perhaps, so Musk can raid SLS budgets? How about one that the relevant engineers support, that won the downselect? That was SLS.

We have a critical window where we can switch the institutional inertia from STS to SLS. If this is impeded then political support for another HLV of whatever build will vanish--that I can promise. This is something that noisy SLS bashers know, because I for one don't believe the old "I'm for X, just not 'this' X line."

Other ideas were looked at, and this DIRECT like approach was picked. Now I supported Ares V--but I am perfectly happy to have this HLV. DIRECT and SLS are closer than one may think. Both have the same diameter cores, both have to be flat top and bottom for spacecraft and engine blocks to be added. Shuttle-C could have kept existing ETs, but in-line aerodynamics were better, and that was what the experts went with. I would have loved a modular Energia type STS replacement--but that would have been truly expensive. This is pared down enough.

As you know, LH2 is high volume, low density. Now as a LV gows, the internal volume grows an order of magnitude faster than the surface area. One you have new tankage, adding some length just costs you the materials--and is incidental. Other designs can easily cost more. This was all taken into consideration.

Now if djellsion says he doesn't really hate the concept of HLV, then I want to see him (not me for a change) make the case for them--and the reasons why. I and others know the reasons for that--but I want to hear him make them.

But the arguement that we need to wreck all forward progress--throw all the work already done away...and for why? Because NASA never finishes anything? That's the reason. Private firms make false claims that NASAs this or that is too expensive--so lets cripple NASA farther and have private interests give us stagnation. That's the Santorum accu-weather bill talk, and we saw what came of. Other NASA centers hate a project, get it killed, and then dare to wonder why NASA doesn't do great things anymore. People thought that we didn't need to waste money on 'something called volcano monitoring" either. Colliders aren't cheap. But they need support, not empty promises from some huckster who wants, say--to raid LHC's funding because it would be too expensive and he has a cheaper way of doing it. I've heard it all before. Now imagine if LHC's team got sacked and the folks behind it got hoodwinked. Imagine how long it would have taken to pick up the pieces and start over.

China is doing things arsenal method. It is what got us Apollo. The more we snipe at each other the more capability we will hemorrhage.

Now for some role-playing. A man named do-nothing whose NEXTRAD doppler radar idea was nixed in favor of a better one becomes a sore loser, and now wants the new radar is killed. He thinks he is clever by calling it the Senate Radar System, and then pushes an astroturf movement to the point it is picked up by a politico who wants to get NOAA/NWS "out of the radar business."

Do-nothing says that he supports a radar--just not this radar. The in-fighting begins and no radar is built, and whatever support for new radars fades from Congress viewscreen. That's not enough for Do-Nothing's politico, who then gripes about the cost of existing radars and how there is no money for extensive radars (Though there always seems to be money for wars and tax breaks that are far more costly).

The next thing you know, a massive tornado strikes a town in a gap of radar coverage--what with them being phased out and nothing to replace them.

Then the do-nothings proudly stand side by side and say "See? Gov't/NOAA never finishes anything..." while on their book tour.

And China just laughs at us for not even getting a simple SD-HLLV up and running that advocates have called for for years while foolish things like VentureStar SLI and NASP sucked all the oxygen out of the room, and all the support away from NASA. SLS is the easiest and most inexpensive of all of these LVs to build, and the one therefore most worthy of support for that reason alone. And yet it gets the worst attacks from folks who simply don't know what they are talking about.

[djellison]

Well, I do want tax dollars spent on SLS, not the dismantling of NASA so one or two private firms can harvest a couple of engineers, wreck in-house infrastructure, then leave the cupboard bare once they go out of business after wrecking infrastructure in the name of culling "pork."

This is pure sensationalism. How, exactly, is spending <5% of the NASA budget on CCVED/COTS 'dismantling' 'wreck'ing or leaving 'the cupboard bare'

Now if djellsion says he doesn't really hate the concept of HLV, then I want to see him (not me for a change) make the case for them--and the reasons why. I and others know the reasons for that--but I want to hear him make them.

And once again - you are speaking for me and putting words in my mouth, infering and projecting opinions I do not hold. I've asked three times for you to stop, and you just wont.

To make it clear - and this is something I've already said multiple times.

1. I want NASA to be given a budget, and a goal by Washington.
2. Then I want the engineers at NASA to be left alone to figure out what is required to do that goal.
3. Then I want to see the components for those requirements put out for bid by any and all potential contractors - Boeing, LoMart, SpaceX, Orbital, anyone.
4. Then and only then should the contracts be awarded to those contractors based entirely on merit...their value, flexibility, how realistic they are, what heritage the systems involved have etc etc.
5. Then and ONLY then work starts on building those systems towards the goals set out in 1, given the budget set out in 1.

At the moment, as I have previously stated, we have jumped straight to 5. 1 hasn't happened, Washington bypassed 2. 3 never happened thanks to some exquisite lobbying that's essentially uncancelled Constellation (a strategy already proved as a failure by the Augustine comission). 4 didn't happen - we've just jumped straight to 5 with an economically unviable, unsustainable and underfunded rocket with no payload, goal or rational. I'm not intelligent enough to do 2. I don't think you are either, infact I don't think anyone contributing to this conversation is. I do know that it never happened. If 2 had happened and we STILL had SLS as the chosen architecture...I'd still be asking 'what's the goal'...as we don't have one. What I see instead, is those who DO know about, excuse the pun, rocket science, staying that SLS is a massive mistake. You might cite Griffin again if you like - and I would turn that straight around and cite the Augustine Comission that proved Constellation was unsustatinable. Griffin made that happen. It was Griffin's idea, his baby - on his watch - and it failed, catastrophically. It swallowed money and achieved nothing of merit whatsoever (apart from proving it's own worthlessness). I asked if you could point out the difference between Constellation (a proven unsustainable and abject failure) and SLS. You've not done so.

By the way, please don't say 'BEO' is a destination - BEO isn't a destination any more than 'freeway' is a destination for a car. Where are we going? L1/L2? NEO's? Moon? Mars?. Where?

If our target is long duration L1/L2 stays - where's the work on a BEO habitation module.
If our target is rendezvous with PHA/NEO's - where the work on an asteroid lander (and long duration BEO hab module)
If our target is a return to the lunar surface - where's our lunar lander.
If our target is Mars - where's our phobos hab / Mars lander / MAV / ERV?

Not one of these has funding. We have no architecture. No goal. No direction. No payload. Thus, SLS has no purpose whatsoever. And yet - you support it.

I want a goal, a budget to match it, and an affordable and sustainable architecture - designed by engineers - to do it.

SLS is none of those.

[Garrison]

I think djellison has identified the basic problem here, the whole design process has been junked to to mandate that certain hardware be incorporated for reasons that have nothing to do with engineering or the effectiveness of the vehicle.

[publiusr]

Trust me, the engineering and effectiveness have everything to do with the design choice.

"To make it clear - and this is something I've already said multiple times... I want the engineers at NASA to be left alone to figure out what is required to do that goal."

I don't believe that statement for one moment. The folks who support SLS have not been left alone one moment by folks like yourself who will not listen to them and undermine them at every turn. Opposing SLS is the massive mistake.

"Washington bypassed" nothing, they listened to Constellation engineers and listened to what they said where you ignored them.

"Constellation (a strategy already proved as a failure by the Augustine comission)"

I'm calling ** on that. The Augustine Commission was a joke and loaded with folks like ROTON Greason who had no busniness on that panel.

"...economically unviable, unsustainable and underfunded rocket with no payload"

False again. The destination is BEO locations and the payloads are being developed by folks you won't leave alone. The only thing we agree on is that NASA is underfunded. The Augustine commision was a hatchet job to provide cover for the Administration.

"The Augustine panel was a bust"
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,1246493.story

A quote to show you just how biased the Aug committe was, look at the folks on it--from this story:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,1246493.story

"At one point in the committee's hearings, Jeff Greason, a panel member and co-founder of XCOR Aerospace, said, 'If Santa Claus brought us this [Constellation] system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it.'"

That's unbiased, isn't it?

My biggest concern with Jeff Greason is that he was team lead of the laughable Rotary Rocket contraption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Greason
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roton_S..._of_the_design
http://www.optipoint.com/far/rotary.htm

"These doubts led some of the aerospace community to dismiss the Rotary Rocket concept as an impossible pipe dream."
And he gets put on a commission to judge Griffin, who wrote an AIAA textbook?
http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=31GqndM3fk8C

Ha! Ha! Ha! That's really funny.

"By the way, please don't say 'BEO' is a destination - BEO isn't a destination any more than 'freeway' is a destination for a car."

But you have to have the car before you can drive on the freeway!


"Where are we going? L1/L2? NEO's? Moon? Mars?. Where?"

Any of the above that are unreachable by existing infrastructure--unless you want a robotics only mission to those places. And many would love to rob SLS or any manned program to have more of the same.

"If our target is Mars - where's our phobos hab / Mars lander / MAV / ERV?"

You have to have the launcher FIRST! That is what gets the funding first!

"I want a goal, a budget to match it, and an affordable and sustainable architecture - designed by engineers - to do it."

SLS is designed by engineers. It didn't draw itself. The budget is not its fault.

Now people made the arguement that Ares V was too large, and something like DIRECT was more sound. That was listened to and SLS with a bit more length was the result--but that didn't stop the HLV bashers who went after that too. And I know an HLV basher when I hear one--any protests to the contrary not fooling me one jot. The old trick of pushing the goal-posts back is even older than me.

************************************************** **********************************

Let me try a different arguement so you will understand the situation. Suppose you are an engineer and you work for me, and I'm an evil CEO who never really liked you. You work on the same floor with other engineers who you may or may not see eye to eye with on every issue.

I try to get your program killed by hiding behind a commission of folks of questionable background, or try to get your project killed myself.

Now you have done a lot of work and stand by your project which is actually far simpler than many other projects our company has done.

You go over my head and convince the shareholders(i.e. Senate) that your idea is best, and has the engineering support of folks in the know. The shareholders agree and force me to support the project by setting certain goals to aid you in your task.

But I feel your footprints on my head, where you went over it--and I then remember an old trick from Drill Instructors from the past. They are no longer allowed to physically strike raw recruits they don't take a shine to, so if some Sad Sack winds up late, AWOL, the whole barracks get punished. Folks do gassers and sit-ups 'till they throw up, and have leave taken from them. When the poor private gets back (having been delayed by a train, say) he gets beaten to within an inch of his life.

So what I do is act like your friend, fund your project, and go after funding of everyone else on your floor.
A lot like what this Administration has done, perhaps?

Then the gloves come off, and your co-horts tell lies and accuse your project of being dead weight, and how there is no money this, or no goal that. They blame you for something that I did to them. Your project is sound, but they don't want to hear it. The raw recruit tries to tell his buds that its the Drill Instructor who took their leave--but he can't because his jaw has already been broken and he's doubled over by shots to the gut. Now you know what hell the SLS supporters have been unfairly put through.

Then too, now we also know why engineers stay in cubicles and the "Mad Men" types in "Glengarry Glen Ross" get the rooms with views. They know how the game is played. Always be closing...

But to answer your concerns about destination...
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...tination-asap/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...o-exploration/

[djellison]

Let me try a different arguement so you will understand the situation.

The situation you believe us to be in isn't the one I see. It is not one I consider to be reality. It really is like you're seing a different world from what I, and others whom I trust on such issues, see.

Your ad-homs at Greeson and the Augustine Comission are telling.

Plus - you're not even consistent even with yourself

the payloads are being developed by folks you won't leave alone......
....You have to have the launcher FIRST!

That's a direct contradiction. Either the payloads ARE being developed, or their development will come after the SLS. Contrary stances that you take within a single post.

I'd still love to see you explain wow, exactly, spending <5% of the NASA budget on CCDEV/COTS is 'dismantling' 'wreck'ing or leaving 'the cupboard bare'

But I know you're not going to answer the questions I've put before you. Which is why I'm done. Debating you really isn't worth the effort.

[publiusr]

I've answered every question--you just didn't like the answers.

The CCDEV deal is a matter of every little bit helping. If alt.space wants to prove how to do things better than NASA--do it on their own dime. I just gave you the latest links on what the payloads are to look like at the end of my last post. I am going to be charitable and assume that you didn't see them as opposed to just ignoring them. Everything is being looked at. Therefore you have contradicted yourself in saying there are no payloads--and then pay no attention to the links to those payloads.

I make no "ad-homs" against Greason. That his ROTON was a failure was evident for all to see. I didn't write those critiques of him. His betters did. Your ad-homs against Griffin are telling. How many AIAA aerospace textbooks have you written?

At least Greason has a bit of a sense of humor: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...aunch-Lab.html

" I stammer for a word more diplomatic than 'failure' to describe Roton, which he worked on over a decade ago. 'Just go ahead and say it,' Greason laughs."

Oh well, all's well that ends well.

We just saw Romney make a call for a "study" when he debated Gingrich--not knowing Augustine was even done. You saw right there an example of what I was talking about. If you want to kill any project, get a bunch of folks who want to raid its budget for their project--and watch the fur fly. Then cancel all of them--because many politicos don't care. Except for this project. Congress supports something involving space for a change. You should be happy to see folks strike while the iron is hot.

Or maybe its just sour grapes.

[aerovoid]

If our target is long duration L1/L2 stays - where's the work on a BEO habitation module.

I had just seen this article on nasaspaceflight.com lastnight on a Deep Space Habitat (DSH) module. It's only at the conceptual stage at the moment though.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...o-exploration/