This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

Dennis Tito Is Drinking Too Much SLS Kool-Aid

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 17, 2014
Filed under , ,

The Spaceship to Everywhere, Dennis Tito, Huffington Post
“SLS and Orion give us so much more than technical capabilities. They will allow us to open deep space to all humankind, to expand human knowledge beyond our imagination, extend human experience out into the solar system, forge global partnerships for a better world and inspire humanity to dream of and achieve a better future. To not pursue SLS/Orion is to retreat from U. S. leadership in human space flight and watch China or Russia leave us behind as they and their partners benefit from unlocking the secrets of the solar system.”
Keith’s note: I find it to be utterly amazing that a guy who has made so much money can be so utterly clueless when it comes to the absurd cost realities of SLS. Show me the money, Dennis – for without it this truly is “the rocket to nowhere”. By the way, what ever happened to all of those millions you were going to put into the wholly private “Inspiration Mars”? Nothing but crickets so far. Is this another instance of ‘do as I say, not as I do’?

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

51 responses to “Dennis Tito Is Drinking Too Much SLS Kool-Aid”

  1. Wendy Yang says:
    0
    0

    More importantly, what happened to the poster child of the abolishment of NASA movement? People at CATO must called him a traitor now.

  2. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    “SLS and Orion give us so much more than technical capabilities. They will allow us to open deep space to all humankind, to expand human knowledge beyond our imagination, extend human experience out into the solar system, forge global partnerships for a better world and inspire humanity to dream of and achieve a better future.”

    Gosh. All that. It’s truly a magical thing.

    • Rocky J says:
      0
      0

      “all humankind” … more like the 1%. The SLS and Orion system is too costly. Keith’s statement is right on! You get small numbers of explorers to BEO and infrequently. You better be espousing a significant increase in NASA funding in the same breadth if you want to finish the build of SLS and Orion and fly it anywhere. Tito and others continue to ignore the emerging commercial alternative that will make NASA exploration beyond Earth orbit economically viable. The American public won’t stand for paying 3x the cost. In the mean time big-Daddy Shelby and others like him are forcing completion. His political career ends about the time SLS and Orion are scrapped for low-cost commercial; no loss for him.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        routine launch is boring .. launch once every 2-4 years and you generate heroic launches to justify the hundreds of billions… cuz you know .. space is hard, space is dangerous so lets keep the boats in the harbor.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?…

      Hear a little whistle?

      Or just more fairy tales?

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      They might open up “deep space”, but only to elite NASA, and partner, astronauts.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        This is the existential question. Is our primary goal to send a few professionals to Mars or to see hundreds of ordinary people in LEO? The latter has at least a chance of developing into self-sustaining commerce.

  3. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Those rascal Senators might be a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.
    So, at least one of the following must be true- I think:

    1. SLS is simply pork and nobody, including Sen. Shelby, gives a whit about it ever ever flying;
    2. After SLS becomes operational, there are plans to either increase the NASA budget to support the use of SLS, or to splash the station.
    3. And- this is the hard part- none of the Smart People think FH will ever be competitive or sufficient.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      You pegged it with alternative 1. Senator Rorbacher is showing the way by calling SLS a debacle and blaming the whole absurd idea on none other than …. President Obama. The ISS will not be splashed because it has its own supporters among the giant aerospace firms, and the NASA budget will not be increased. SLS may well become operaitonal at one flight every two years, because from a political point of view what it accomplishes in space is irrelevant.

  4. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    Tito is from the planet Goofball.

  5. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Mr. Wingo wrote

    “science and space travel should have a practical purpose.”

    To rephrase as a statement of principle going forward.

    “The United States commits that its space exploration efforts shall have practical benefits to the people of the United States and for all mankind.”

    Did Inspiration Mars ever meet this standard?

  6. SpaceMunkie says:
    0
    0

    Tito knows very well what he’s doing. If it wasn’t for NASA and its hugely expensive programs, no private company would be able to develop their own spacecraft. By supporting SLS, he is supporting his own investments that depend on successful completion (at least one flight) of Orion/SLS. Why waste his own money when he can get the government to do the development work for him.

    • objose says:
      0
      0

      “The American public won’t stand for paying 3x the cost.” It paid way more than that for Apollo, for Shuttle. No Private company can get $$ to push a frontier. No one will invest. More importantly given the tax dollars going to Washington, no private company should be investing in RD for space beyond LEO. Drug companies are getting federal grants. Space is considered optional by many humans, including Americans. If waste there is going to be, if subsides of “private” companies are going to exist anywhere, then Space seems to me the most effective place to waste it. US Solar panels anyone?

      • Michael Reynolds says:
        0
        0

        I do not think anyone is asking or expecting private firms to “push the frontier” and replace NASA. What is expected is to replace the old model of cost plus (SLS) with more sane ways of paying for our rockets (aka transports). All NASA should be building/designing (with the funds from a cancelled SLS) is the capability to get from LEO/GEO to BEO. An analogy to the current paradigm with NASA’s plan would be Having a company build an oil rig AND a ship twice as expensive as the rig to get it there. All while there are all these other boats that could have taken the rig to sea without having to build a brand new expensive one-use ship.

  7. mdocur01 says:
    0
    0

    Can we just agree to call it ARES V?
    Keith, are you really a human-space program advocate? Or are you just an Obama Administration advocate? Your only criticism of SLS is costs and funding – and you fail to see the promise and potential. I am actually excited about a manned Mars mission – SLS is, right now, the best and most logical means to make that happen. So you don’t think it has enough funding to be real – then criticize the funding, spread the word, advocate increased funding – but don’t attack the poor rocket, unless you know of a better one out there now that can do the job?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Clearly you live in an alternate universe where you can make NASA budget money appear out of thin air to pay for all of these imaginary SLS missions. No bucks, no Buck Rogers, etc.

      • mdocur01 says:
        0
        0

        I wouldn’t call 17.5 billion for NASA and over 2 billion for SLS ‘no bucks’. It’s a matter of priorities – and I can’t think of a better priority for NASA than to work on enabling deep space missions, sending humans to Mars – and inspiring an entire generation. But maybe you’d rather have NASA keep going in circles (literally and figuratively) with the lame excuse that we don’t have money for anything else.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          I see you have a long history of commenting about space.

          4 comments?????

          • mdocur01 says:
            0
            0

            It’s the quality, not the quantity, of the comments that matters.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Lolol

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            …with the lame excuse that we don’t have money for anything else…..
            _______________________________

            Under the current budget this is exactly the case. In my last article I do make the point that it is a matter of priorities, national priorities that is. The federal budget has increased by $1 trillion PER YEAR since 2005 and yet NASA’s budget has hardly budged. However, a major point to be made is the allocation of priorities within the budget that NASA has, that could provide justification for a larger share of the national pie.

            SLS/Orion does not make that case. Indeed it seems that what the previous administrator (and carried forward by congress now) sought to do is to push as hard as possible for the heavy lifter (which in their minds is the ONLY way to do exploration, and hope that the budgets would be increased sometime in the future with a friendly president. The last time this happened was with Ronald Reagan, who doubled NASA’s budget over 8 years.

            If we lived in a society with wise leaders, NASA and the national space budget would be $50-$100 billion a year. Meanwhile back in reality…

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Based on the ridicule Newt Gingrich faced after mentioning moon bases in the Republican primary, I think the chance a Republican president would ride in and hand NASA a blank check is just about nil.

    • Steven Rappolee says:
      0
      0

      Yes,
      EELV,
      SpaceX derived with office of the chief technologist funded fuel depots , solar electric , commercial space stations after 2024 ,

      • mdocur01 says:
        0
        0

        SLS = 130 metric tons to LEO. Falcon Heavy = 53 metric tons to LEO. I love both. I want both.

        • SpaceBuzz says:
          0
          0

          SLS = $2-4 billion per flight ($15-30mil/mT)
          FH = <$200 million per flight ($4mil/mT)

          Why would you ever want the SLS?

          • objose says:
            0
            0

            Because if Elon decides that selling cars makes him more money, the it is his duty and right to stop working on FH. If Elon dies, then his heirs can decide to take that money and buy an Island. National policy cannot depend on a single visionary, no matter how visionary, to move the bar of R&D in space. Is it expensive because the govt is involved? Yes? Would roads be cheaper if built by individuals in a community? Yes. However as long as deep Space remains a non comercially viable enterprise, government must take the lead. Other countries have national airlines. We do not because that space is commercially viable. SLS to expensive. Got it. Heard it. We Need it.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            …. Because if Elon decides that selling cars makes him more money, the it is his duty and right to stop working on FH.,…..

            __________________________________

            Duty? Seriously? Ever read the history of the Hughes Corporation?

            Elon is showing that he can make money in other areas and piss it away making space less expensive, then that is his duty as well.

          • mdocur01 says:
            0
            0

            Good point – but there would be on-orbit assembly costs (and risks) with FH – assuming you could break up your payload into 50mT modules – it is a limiting factor with FH

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            The last published DRM for an SLS Mars mission is 6-7 flights. That is still on orbit assembly, and with the low flight rate, takes a long time to get the parts up there.

          • mdocur01 says:
            0
            0

            Exactly the point – how many flights would it take with Falcon Heavy or Delta IV? 14 – 20? Plus, remember the DRM is not the ONLY way to do a Mars mission – look at Tito’s plan. If you’re going to deep space – you want a heavy lifter.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            No, the point is that you don’t get there from here with SLS, especially with a two per year flight rate. The DRM calls for seven launches in six months, there simply is no money for that level of effort. Thus you can claim whatever you want if you don’t have to worry about doing it. Bob Zubrin used to call this the Battlestar Galactica approach to exploration.

            A sane exploration program would begin in cislunar space, developing that, and then using the lessons learned to develop a sustainable Mars exploration program.

          • mdocur01 says:
            0
            0

            Cislunar space – I’m with you – but wouldn’t it be nice to have a heavy-lifter towards that goal? Here’s what your missing – SLS is big, bold, and exciting – the missions it will enable are world changing. It’s our best bet to get actual widespread public suppport for the space program. Sometimes it is about making a statement – this is exactly what’s needed now.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            …. It’s our best bet to get actual widespread public suppport for the space program….
            ___________________________________

            No, and not only no, emphatically NO. We have been singing that song for 30 years with no discernible progress. I have just been going through the papers in my collection from the late 1980’s and exactly the same arguments were made and every single time they get shot down because the priorities of the congress are different than the space geek priorities. Our federal budget was $1.2 trillion in 1989 when the HEI/SEI was announced. Today we have a $3.8 trillion dollar budget and NASA’s budget continues to shrink in comparative terms with other federal agencies.

            If you are going to make this assertion you must also explain the failure of this argument over the last 30 years.

          • mdocur01 says:
            0
            0

            I agree our government has not been smart about space and NASA is way under-funded.
            But if we announced today that we were sending a manned mission to mars – even just a fly-by, you think this would do nothing for public support and interest in the space program? Over the past 30 years, what the public has actually SEEN in astronauts being stuck in LEO. We have a chance now to SHOW something different – something extraordinary – and the pieces of this puzzle (SLS and Orion) are actually in development today! If we can’t get behind this as a community (of space geeks) than how is the rest of the casual and apathetic public ever going to support (and perhaps even demand) that NASA get the funding it deserves?
            The peak of excitement in the space program was when the space program was pushing boundaries – and then we stopped pushing those boundaries – and then everything went downhill. All I’m saying is we need to start pushing those boundaries again, and ASAP.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            ……But if we announced today that we were sending a manned mission to mars – even just a fly-by, you think this would do nothing for public support and interest in the space program?………..

            ____________________________________

            Nope, and the evidence is the multiple times we have said this (end of Apollo, SEI/VSE/Constellation) without providing proper funding or support. The simple fact is that the American people are clamoring much more for other things than space. Now my thesis is that if we actually choose a path predicated on the practical economic development of space then we would have a far higher probability of support.

            ——————————————

            ……The peak of excitement in the space program was when the space program was pushing boundaries……..

            ___________________________________

            However, the funding was cut for Saturn V production, even before the first lunar landing happened. By 1972 and the Apollo 17 mission we no longer had the capability to build Saturn V’s.

            As president Kennedy said, the only reason that he was distorting the budget as he was for Apollo was to beat the Russians in a geopolitical game of one upmanship.

            Hell congress cut the funding for the last two Apollo missions (18 and 19) with the hardware complete and ready to go. That is why there is hardware in the museums these days….

            Sheesh.

          • Michael Reynolds says:
            0
            0

            If we plan on going to Mars we are not going to do it with one or two launches of SLS. Unless NASA pulls a rabbit out you know where with the Alcubierre drive in the next 10 years and attach it to Orion to get there in a day, no astronaut would voluntarily choose to go on essentially a suicide mission. In essence there is no way to get past on-orbit assembly if we ever want to get astronauts to mars…alive.

          • mdocur01 says:
            0
            0

            The best way to keep astronauts alive is to provide multiple-redundancy systems – which means more mass – which makes a heavy lifter critical. You could trade the system redundancy mass for fuel mass and shorten the Earth-Mars transit time (by a month or two) but a 6 month Earth-Mars transit offers an 18 month free-return (in case of landing/mission abort). I think you’re much better off with extra mass for system-redundancy to reduce risk.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            …which means more mass…..
            _________________________________
            Again, this is an assertion, not a fact. Common and distributed systems make for a robust redundancy in depth vs the wasted mass redundancy of an HLV architecture. You still have the single string risk of the launch, the single string risk of structural failure, and in order to make it truly safe, which is to mean radiation safe, the mass penalty is too high which cascades through the entire architecture.

            Emplacing systems on Mars using low cost Falcon heavies would do much to mitigate the risk of the multiple launch battlestar galactica approach.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            This is an assertion, it is not a fact. The risk with the HLV is that ten billion dollars worth of flight hardware can be junk in about 30 seconds. All critical path hardware with no replacements, which would render the entire 20-30 billion dollar expedition so much space junk.

            A modular approach, with common systems is both more cost effective to manufacture as the third unit of an aerospace system typically costs 25% of the cost of unit 1. Additionally, these systems can be tested early in space so that any problems with them can be ironed out before being found when you are 20 million miles from home.

          • LPHartswick says:
            0
            0

            Really? How may man hours of planning go into the average hour of a space walk? Does anyone seriously contend that a space station could have been done much more efficiently and safely with an HLV instead of the Shuttle alone? Bigger modules mean more assembly and construction in a shirt sleeve environment. Man hours in space walks should be kept to a minimum…only those tasks that absolutely can’t be completed any other way. There is no short cut for an appropriate level of funding. More funding gets you a higher flight rate; and decreased costs per unit.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            The funding for a high flight rate for SLS is not available. If you think you can change this, talk to your congressman.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            ……….Man hours in space walks should be kept to a minimum…only those tasks that absolutely can’t be completed any other way……
            ______________________________

            The first is an assertion, not an axiom, and the second is only marginally informative.

            The problem right now with space walks is that NASA has not invested in upgrading the suit technology that is now decades old. The money keeps getting sucked down the black holes of the HLV program.

            Walking in space is no more dangerous than working 200-1000 feet down on an oil platform. Happens all the time. Humans should be used where it is cost effective (while remaining safe) to do so.

            This avoid EVA at all cost mentality actually drove up the cost of ISS as the on orbit assembled truss would have had a much lower lifecycle cost than the preintegrated truss that is up there now.

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Yep, Raptor-powered F9. More chance of ever flying than poor old SLS, on the public record as a ‘jobs program’ and that’s it. No funded missions, no funded payloads. Not even a sniff of one. Promise and potential – rot!

      • mdocur01 says:
        0
        0

        The fact that we don’t have any funded missions or payloads is not a good criticism of the rocket itself. The rocket is just a capability (true heavy lift). The question is, should we have this capability? Should we have the missions that this capability would enable? We actually did have the missions (Constellation) before Obama nixed them (as he also tried to nix Orion – wanted to make it a lifeboat!)

        • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
          0
          0

          Orion is not big enough for its intended mission (Mars), and is too big for lunar/ISS missions. Ask any astronaut whether or not they want to get cooped up for half a year in that thing, and then do it again on the way back from Mars.

          • mdocur01 says:
            0
            0

            To have the support of an entire planet behind you and immense glory upon your return – you can be 100% sure that every astronaut in the astronaut corps and a long list of others would go – this is in fact why they signed up to be astronauts – because they are explorers.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            Uh, that script is obsolete. I am 100% sure that the current architecture was put into play over the objections of senior astronauts with the most flight experience.

            A lot of explorers signed up in the 19th century for what in hindsight were seen to be journeys into hell that could have easily been avoided had intelligent exploration architecture and planning been followed.

            Read Nansen’s “Farthest North” if you want to see what a well planned expedition is like vs the Franklin expedition. This is the type of distinction that must be made here. The Orion repeats the mistakes of the Shuttle in that it is trying to be all things for all missions.

        • Mader Levap says:
          0
          0

          Of course it is good criticism, because without payloads rocket is useless.

    • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
      0
      0

      It’s not about the rocket, it is about the architecture.

      I have it on extremely firm knowledge that the Orion was specifically designed to be too heavy to fly on a Delta IVH. This was an architecture level decision. A faction inside of NASA wanted the Orion to be a simple Earth to Orbit vehicle. This would then be coupled to a reusable space vehicle that would then go to the Moon/Mars/Asteroid/wherever. The Orion would then be used only in the last few hours to return the crew to the ground.

      Duplicating the Apollo CM would have easily done this job, yet we are now spending $1.3 billion PER YEAR on an Orion who’s heat shield can’t do a Mars return and is so heavy that the parachutes are undersized.

      Another decision was to take the existing Delta IVH upper stage and “modify” it as an interim upper stage. The contractor and NASA has now spent more money on this than it cost to develop the original S-IVB for the Apollo program. On top of this they spent over $3 billion developing the J-2X and now are putting it on the shelf for a DECADE. It would have been cheaper to simply remanufacture the original S-IVB, which was then and now pretty much the most mass efficient H2/O stage ever built, but no we can’t do that because we cannot get as much overhead in engineering hours.

      The Ares V/SLS has been a disaster from the very beginning and it is not getting better.

      You want SLS? Send that 70 tons to ISS and shift the downstream development funds to payloads. That is pretty much the only way to make lemonade out of this colossal lemon.