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

Selling SLS: Smoke and Mirrors – and Jedi Mind Tricks

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 27, 2014
Filed under

Using Jedi Mind Tricks to Sell NASA’s Next Big Rocket, SpaceRef
“Among the things being announced by NASA was that the launch date for the first SLS mission was being slipped to late 2018 from its current 2017 date. But NASA did not want to call it a slip and said that everyone was still working according the schedule they had been working on. Of course this would mean that NASA has spent the fast few years working toward a date 2018 date while telling the world it was focused on 2017. Later in the telecon NASA said that it might launch the first SLS mission in late 2017 or early 2018. So in other words NASA does not actually have a clear idea when it will launch the first SLS mission. You can be certain that it will slip again – well into 2019 before a first launch date is even discussed. But NASA wants you to know that they have 70% confidence in all of their plans at this point. But when asked what the previous level of confidence was they admitted that they had never done the calculation. So were they more – or less confident prior to this? Given that they just slipped their launch date by a year …”
NASA Commits to SLS Launch Readiness in November 2018, $7 Billion for Development, Space Policy Online
“Gerstenmaier extolled media participating in the teleconference not to get “hung up on the first launch date. … NASA has been saying that the second SLS launch, EM-2, which will be the first to carry a crew, would take place in 2021, but today Gerstenmaier said 2021 or 2022. The launch rate thereafter is only once “every couple of years,” Lightfoot said.”
NASA commits to $7 billion mega rocket, 2018 debut, CBS
“But as of today, the only actual missions that are covered by NASA’s projected budget are three test flights: the December launch of an uncrewed Orion capsule atop a Delta 4 rocket; the first SLS test flight in 2018; and the first crewed test flight around 2021. While the rockets are considered essential to deep space exploration missions like a proposed asteroid visit and eventual flights to Mars, no such missions are currently funded or even in detailed planning.”

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

49 responses to “Selling SLS: Smoke and Mirrors – and Jedi Mind Tricks”

  1. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    So…does this mean Orion’s first crewed mission also goes right to 2022+?

    May be embarrassing if Musk’s BFR were flying a Dragon V3 first.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      At 1.1 billion a pop AND being disposable, I am in no hurry to see that fly.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      If the SLS/Orion combo (one could not exists without the other) slips to 2022+. Then it will be flying against SpaceX’s BFR/MCT (Martian Colonial Transport) combo. My money is on the SpaceX CTO getting it done for his retirement Mars trip.

  2. AgingWatcher says:
    0
    0

    Long ago in a galaxy far away, the Augustine Commission described a potential “flexible path” — a go-slow strategy for developing human spaceflight when the dreams are big and the money is scarce. It wasn’t very appealing at the time. It’s no more attractive now that it has become the actual (somewhat meandering) reality.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      In the 2004, Vision for Space Exploration, the word “path” is not used, but three times in the document a “fexiable” way forward was specifically mentioned that mirrored what Augustine wrote as a fexiable path.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      now that it has become the actual (somewhat meandering) reality.

      It’s sad that you think SLS/Orion was the result of Augustine’s recommendations, rather than in spite of them.

      • AgingWatcher says:
        0
        0

        I suppose I read Augustine’s words on the flexible path (lo those many years ago) more as a warning than as a recommendation.

        You’ll recall that Augustine said that Constellation (then the program of record) was viable — assuming that NASA was gifted with a $3 billion per year bump in its budget. If the extra funds were not made available, Augustine said, then one possible way forward would be the so-called flexible path — a go-slow approach in which nothing particularly significant happens until well into the 2020s. That appears to be precisely how things are turning out.

        I recall reading the Augustine report and feeling somewhat like Scrooge being granted a vision of his own grave. Surely, Ghost, the flexible path is just a possible future. Surely, the will exists in the U.S. government to ensure that things will turn out differently.

        Alas, things did not turn out differently — and we find ourselves watching NASA trundle along the unhappy flexible path to nowhere (talk of asteroids notwithstanding).

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          and we find ourselves watching NASA trundle along the unhappy flexible path to nowhere

          Again, you’re pretending that SLS has anything at all to do with “flexible path”.

          The Administration’s post-Augustine proposal was to cancel Constellation, fund multiple commercial-LEO capability and develop a “lite” version of Orion for Atlas V as a backup-backup to commercial-LEO, and, with extraordinary foresight, to develop a new generation of American-made large hydrocarbon engines.

          Congress’s counter was to recreate Constellation as SLS, develop Orion-heavy as a SLS-only vehicle, cancel the commercial crew funding entirely, and cancel any funding of a new domestic engine.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Actually the Republican controled House of Representives countered President Obama’s budget proposal of 6 billion over 5 years for commercial crew with a one year funding of 270 million.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Didn’t they zero it first? With one-year-funding being the compromise deal. Or was that only later budgets?

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            The President presents a NON BINDING budget to congress. Historically congress tosses them out.. ALL money bills have to originate in the house of Representatives.

          • AgingWatcher says:
            0
            0

            If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, and consumes obscene amounts of corn like a duck — most likely, it’s a duck whether anyone is calling it a duck or not.

            NASA’s current go-slow approach — the unhappy product of a scarcity of resources — bears a close resemblance to Augustine’s description of what would happen under the flexible path. You’re welcome to put on blinders and insist that it is not so. Me, I look at it and say, “It looks like a duck.”

            I believe quite a few folks read Augustine’s report as a strong argument for bumping NASA’s budget $3 billion per year. I (for one) recall being almost surprised when it didn’t happen. So, NASA finds itself attempting to do “Constellation lite” with too little in the way of available resources. With insufficient funding, the only other major variable under NASA’s control is that of time. And so, the schedule slips to the right — and we find ourselves confronting the current unhappy state of affairs in much the way Augustine warned we would.

            It’s a duck.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          This is exactly what is happening in every phase of government, and it is happening because the country is in the midst of a bloody battle about the role of government.

          There are those, principally on the right, who think that ‘government IS the problem’ (thank you, St. Ronnie).

          and there are others who know that collectively we can accomplish much.

          I don’t see this battle being won by either side for at least a decade. Meanwhile we will continue to pile up debt because a irresponsible congress refuses to levy the taxes we can well afford. We will see more crumbling infrastructure and we will not see investment in any sort of public works. Space included.

  3. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Fexiable?
    Once every couple years. I thought that was deemed to be unsafe?
    70% confidence. Does that mean if right now they are counting on a flight in 7 or 8 years, due to 30% uncertainty 10 or 11 years is likely (2024 or 2025)?
    For some reason I feel only about 30% confidence in NASA.

  4. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    Boy this thing was popular here when it was called DIRECT v3.0. Oh well. It’s happening. Get used to it.

    And sure there is money for SLS payloads in the 2020s. What, you actually think NASA will support both the SLS/Exploration program and ISS for long? Especially when the ESA is shifting ATV production to support Orion and that same exploration mission and not the ISS? THe money will come from when human space flight ends being bisected by two incompatible programs – the Lunar Orbit / BEO one and the LEO one. The older ISS will be discarded in the 2020s and magically, the money will appear.

    Complaints about SLS payload and flight rates ring extreme hollow when considering this. Of course the connected Space Shuttle and ISS programs coexisted for years. But also it was in a climate where the ISS budget was a fraction of what it grew to post Space Shuttle Retirement. And furthermore the SLS will be less expensive to build and launch, with a payload, than the Space Shuttle was. And that launched for 30 years.

    I’ve long believed SLS detractors know this: that the science, even mission and commercial-sector creating aspects of the ISS program would be existentially endangered by a parallel SLS program that would eat away at the share of money and focus for human space flight. I’ve long believed that they despise the SLS less on it’s (demerits) and more on the fact, in classic NASA infighting fashion, it’s not THEIR program du jour. It’s not THEIR ambition. This country will never build another space station ISS style. It just isn’t happening. No ISS, then no ISS-style rack science (how many careers does that support again?). No high-minded international missions (because working with Russia has really turned out to be a great deal for us…). No government subsidization of commercial space flight (let me know when Bigelow actually builds their space station for SpaceX and others to launch cargo too). The SLS is a rejection of decades of doing business, and I find that to be a broadly very good thing.

    That’s why I’ve said on this forum for years now, I’m overjoyed the SLS is happening and I find the “Senate Launch System” an honorific title rather than a slam.

    It is being built and it will fly. The war is over. Deal with it.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Ares 1-X flew – once.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        A NON orbital flight, that the nose fell off, and it damaged the launch tower(that was predicted to happen).
        That launch alone cost as much at the COTS funding that created SpaceX.

      • Jonna31 says:
        0
        0

        With all do respect, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Ares 1-X is incomparable to the first SLS flight. It’s apples and oranges.

        The Ares 1-X was a 4 stage suborbital aerodynamic test vehicle. The upper stage was all mass-simulator. Many of it’s parts were cannibalized from other rocket or ICBM programs. Sure, it looked the part of an Ares I vehicle if you didn’t look to closely at it. And it certainly was for the purposes of being aerodynamically similar and checking some design decisions. But it was further away from an actual Ares I flight than Enterprise was from a shuttle flight. And again, with all due respect, you know that as well.

        The SLS when it first flies will be a first configuration of the vehicle, and far closer to it’s final form than Ares 1-X was. Chief difference? The Upper-Stage. The EUS won’t be ready by then. Where it, it would probably fly on it and thus allow NASA to skip the likely unmanned test flight in between SLS-1 and the first manned SLS flight. But EUS aside, the major parts of the Block IB design that will be what is used in the 2020s is there.

        In short, your comparison is extremely unfair. If SLS 1 were composed of 3 RS-25s, 4 segment SRBs with a mass simulator upper stage and payload… then sure, you’d have a point. But that’s not remotely what SLS-1 will be.

    • Engineer_in_Houston says:
      0
      0

      So, would somebody please show a plausible budget over the next fifteen or twenty years that shows how SLS can be built and flown, payloads developed and built, and so on, that results in a sustainable program? (How much has Orion cost to date? How much would a lander cost to develop and produce? A Habitat?) Also, does such a plan show that SLS was absolutely required over competing a commercial launch services contract, perhaps through the evolution of current commercial launch vehicles (remember, US National Space Transportation Policy *forbids* competition with private industry unless absolutely required). How much will it cost to keep a slow production line open? Shuttle didn’t have that. The manpower and facilities costs for production and operations just to own the capability, without flying anything, will be … how much?

      The SLS workforce is among the best in the world. It would be nice to march forward with a real plan, where this capable workforce is developing payloads and launch services are solicited from private industry.

      The numbers for SLS simply don’t add up – they never have. The Smoke and Mirrors title is apt, but apparently you’ve been inhaling the smoke too long.

      • Jonna31 says:
        0
        0

        (This is a delayed answer to several posters because they say the same thing) The ironclad 15-20 year funding plan demand is a sensibly sounding demand that really isn’t sensible at all. If that were a qualifying factor before pursuing a program, countless government programs would be in jeopardy, going back decades. Projects are made, for SLS and any other government program. But are the followed to the letter? Of course not. Because over 15-20 years, events, requirements, pace of production… so many things change. Asking for what qualifies as a “believable” 15-20 year plan is basically asking for something that few if any government or private sector programs (nevermind megaprojects) can realistically deliver. And that makes the argument very convenient for the anti-SLS side, doesn’t it? There is basically nothing NASA and it’s contractors can produce that meets this impossible standard. Their best guess (consistent with other government programs) will always be wishful thinking.

        Let’s offer an example. It went under the radar but earlier this month the Department of Defense decided that contrary to it’s statements from 2012, it is not going to procure the Flight IV (and by extension the Flight V) Arleigh Burke class Destroyers in the 2030-ish time frame. Having restarted Flight II-A production with plans for Flight III until that date, they’re hoping to develop requirements and a design for an all new Destroyer around that time. But right up until then, 2028ish, the DoD will keep procuring the Arleigh Burke class. Does the DoD have a funding plan for Flight IIIs through that date? Do they have a plan for being able to produce this “2030 Destroyer” in adequate numbers to replace the 1980s and 1990s-built Arleigh Burkes that will be nearing the end of their useful lives? Nope. They have a general idea. Far more general than what NASA is providing with the SLS. And this is something that will dwarf the SLS program in scope.

        We can have the same conversation about the Navy’s Ohio Replacement Program. Or the Ford Class supercarrier (are we really going to build one every 5 years at that cost to replace Nimitz’s that cost less than half the amount?). Or the Air Force’s Long Range Strike Bomber that it wants to procure 100 of at $500 million a piece (good luck with that). Or heck, how about a replacement for the aging Minuteman-III?

        The demands on the SLS eminent from a philosophical rather than actual concern about financing the program. The financing questions are the weapon. The objections is as basic as the innane debate over solids versus liquids. Something isn’t being done the way some people want it, so they rather nothing at all. That is the story of NASA’s building a new launch vehicle going back to the 1990s. I’m sure if we took a poll of who wants a New Space Shuttle more than a few quiet hands would shoot up. Even that dead end has it’s adherents.

        The SLS is not a perfect program by any stretch. My idealized program would look quite a bit different. But the mess we’re into today, and have been since Shuttle Retirement, was built upon a decade and a half of “my way or the high way” mentality. There is no program that could be proposed, without a legion forming against it. I’ll say it again: the SLS was very popular, when it was called DIRECT 3.0. Today the SLS/Commercial Space co-existing and complimenting each other seems to be beyond the realm of comprehension of so many here, it’s kind of baffling.

        What I’m arguably most happy about with respect to the SLS is how much Congress as pushed it. We waited for how many years for consensus to form? I’ve lost count. I’m overjoyed finally someone with authority has essentially drew a line under one part of the debate (the launch vehicle). Hopefully they’ll do the same with the first destination next. I’m sure that’ll irritate some people to no end if their choice destination isn’t selected. But it’ll automatically be a better spot than where we are now.

        • Engineer_in_Houston says:
          0
          0

          You’ve completely missed the point on finances, and are confusing Congress giving direction to NASA with legislating tactics.

          The point is to provide a *plausible* budget for NASA – in fact, *any* budget for NASA – over the next twenty years that in any way shows this to be a cost-effective, sustainable, approach. The NASA budget is not going to go up. There are limited funds. Also, the fact that there there are poorly managed programs in other (mostly non-discretionary) departments is no support for having one at NASA. It’s not that I think the technical ability is not present. It is. The NASA/contractor workforce can build and fly SLS, and can build and fly the payloads – given enough time and money. They have the technical ability. They just don’t have the finances to do it *this* way. We’re going to end up – at best – with a flags and footprints program if we follow the path that we are on. The sad thing is that if Congress thought about this from a national benefit perspective instead of from a parochial workfare perspective we could do more for less and have a sustainable program. And I very much want a sustainable program for exploring the inner solar system.

          Your answer tells me that you only superficially – if at all – understand the problem. You’ll get the point in ten years or so when we are paying to own a launch vehicle that has no payloads to launch, and no financial ability to launch more than one or two per year, anyhow. Let me ask you one question to illustrate the point: How much do you think it will cost in the 2020’s to develop a crewed Mars Lander, a crewed interplanetary cruise stage, or a Mars surface habitat? Look at history. Pick any one of those and provide a time and cost estimate. Until all three are developed, there aren’t going to be any crewed flights to Mars’ surface. Apart from colonizing Mars, what destinations are left for SLS? So, again, the point is not to provide an exact budget out for twenty years. But the truth is that failing to plan is planning to fail. Somewhere, wouldn’t you think that someone has a plan and a timeline for this that includes some kind of budget figures?

    • Mike says:
      0
      0

      ” I’ve long believed that they despise the SLS less on it’s (demerits) and more on the fact, in classic NASA infighting fashion, it’s not THEIR program du jour “

      It’s probably more because they are taxpayers and they don’t like throwing their money down a black hole when there are FAR less expensive AND more effective ways to do BEO HSF.

      • Jonna31 says:
        0
        0

        Really? There is? I’m a big believer and supporter of SpaceX, but I view SLS and Commercial Space as complementary. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love for you to be right. But let me know when Falcon Heavy (1) flies and (2) has a record that is proven enough to be “more effective” as you claim. Because right now SpaceX’s BEO experience is a blank page.

        I hope that’s not the case forever. And that’s what you actually mean as well. You HOPE that there are FAR less expensive AND more effective ways to do BEO HSF. But until that happens, it’s still hope, and SpaceX, focusing on reusability of it’s rockets and a reliable LEO design, isn’t exactly rushing to get there.

        As for taxpayer’s being upset about throwing money down black holes, we’re being oddly selective aren’t we? In the Book of Budgetary Sins of the last 10 years, the SLS is on page 371 of a 1000 page book.

        • Mike says:
          0
          0

          Commercial companies to do what SLS is supposed to do, proivide launch.. NASA should be spending its money developing real cutting edge BEO spacecraft (not orion), landers, habitats, and everything else that is essential to a meaningful exploration program that right now are not being developed because SLS is using/will use all of the money, and no matter what you say, killing ISS will not be enough cash to develop all these things. The extra money will most likely be used just to keep SLS alive. We can buy launch from commercial companies a lot cheaper. There is no magical diameter that is absolutely needed for BEO space flight. Real interplanetary spacecraft can be assembled in orbit.

          Just because a lot of taxpayer money is thrown down black holes doesn’t make it OK to turn a blind eye to any particular black hole. You calling it selective is like calling the police selective when they arrest a particular thief. “Hey there are lots of robberies a year, why are you selectively arresting this particular criminal?”

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Actually, everything coming out of the GAO, CBO, OIG, Booz Allen, and even NASA documents says the exact opposite. It is NOT going to happen and there is nothing to get used to. It will be canceled as the schedule slips.
      The schedule is now slipping at a rate of 1 year for each year of the program. The original Congressional funding bill said a launch in 2016, it has moved to 2018 and with four years to go… look for two more schedule slips to 2020 with the first manned flight to 2023.
      I would imagine SpaceX will be flying the falcon heavy by then with an advanced dragon V2.1

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      SLS continuing very likely means sustainable space exploration by NASA never happens. This is so even when switching ISS and related funds like commercial cargo or commercial crew over to elements like upgrades, a production line for Orion, a line for EDS’s, or advanced boosters, and then the payloads and in-space elements starting in the 2020s (2025? 2029?) and into the 2030s and onward. It just never adds up, period.

      Further, the prior assumption of such a narrow funds focus is unlikely as you have to assume many parts of NASA with a broad vision of sustainable, expanded human presence in space, within a growing space sector, just roll over and die in this “war” as you say. Lack of math skills and delusional assumptions do not bode well for the business as usual sides in this war, in any form, of which SLS/Orion are the latest troops.

      Who will suceed, those who really just want to build big rockets, with the rest as blah blah whatever maybe explore stunt one day if the budget goes way up over a long time period, or people who have a vision of sustainable space exploration within a broad, growing space economy, informed by budget realities? Add up trends, add up numbers, add up assumptions. See where this takes you.

      • Jonna31 says:
        0
        0

        Sure it’ll be sustainable. See that Space Station? We just need to not pay for it anymore.

        You’re entirely right… if the ISS survives past 2024. Imagine how accelerated the SLS program could be if the ISS was not funded after 2018 like originally intended.

        Moving the ISS out of the budget will free up billions of dollars that once upon a time went to a unified human spaceflight program that afforded both the Shuttle (more expensive than the SLS) and the ISS at the same time. The problem is, ISS budget costs have somehow exploded since Shuttle Retirement. Were the Shuttle still flying and SLS/Constellation/Commericial Space never even concieved, it’s hard to imagine it flying more than once a year with the ISS budget having grown and grown and grown.

        The ISS goes away… and the SLS will have the money to both fly more frequently and fly things at all. So maybe that should be contextualized as part of any SLS discussion. Because a bisected HSF program, no matter what the “vehicle portion” is, would be barely affordable or unaffordable so long as the ISS acts a vampire on the HSF budget.

        The solution really, is very simple then isn’t it? Rid ourselves before 2025 of an aging space station that has only accomplished third rate science. And suddenly, the money appears.

        • Engineer_in_Houston says:
          0
          0

          There was a purpose in mind for ISS – and it is accomplishing one key item that you have not mentioned: proving out (in LEO) technologies on-orbit for long-distance, crewed, exploration. But, if you think ISS is accomplishing only “third-rate science” what can we expect from SLS?

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Oh and ps…check your math on Shuttle vs. SLS. SLS flying quickly will surpass Shuttle yearly costs (adjust for inflation, add in all parts to support an SLS flying regularly.)

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        It is my understanding that only two cores can be built per year at a cost of 2.8 billion, now add in the 1.1 billion Orion x 2 and you are at 5 billion a year, add in the 5 segment SRB’s, the upper stage, the standing launch army at NASA and you would be looking at almost 10 billion a year.. not counting and lander. It is insane to think SLS will launch often. It costs to much.

    • objose says:
      0
      0

      “It is being built and it will fly. The war is over. Deal with it.”

      and this forum can go a long way to determine what it is going to be used for once everyone realizes that, regardless of the predominant preference of forum members, it is going to fly.

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        Used for? Fly? Where, with what money? A one a decade SLS Orion ICPS sortie to some convenient asteroid?

        The cost details have many nuances, but basically, once you add in the real Earth departure stage (forget the advanced booster for now) and add in items the exploration program is skimping by without for now, but which will be needed for operational phases (KC should inquire about the lack of a real production line for Orion, or the lack of any budget line to fix issues inevitably discovered once flying, or the lack of a production line for engines, and so on) you will have burned through most of the money that might one day be freed up once ISS ends.

        Yet you would still need in-space elements like a habitat, landers, etc. Untill you work backwards from realistic budget scenarios going out just a tangible 10 to 15 years, moving up the pace of exploration to have relevance in the lifetime of the people involved, meaning accepting the reality of needing new ways of doing business, you will always end up with traditional scenarios and items like SLS and Orion that reinforce business as usual and never add up. It would make some sense to defend an SLS Orion business as usual outlook if it added up, even far down the road like in 202x, but even so, it never adds up.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        It may fly once or twice, but at heart the SLS is extremely costly to fly because the technologies it uses are labor-intensive and the GSE and logistical structure is vast, complex and labor-intensive to maintain. There is no way SLS could put more than four Americans in space per year at a cost of over half a billion dollars each. That reduces it to symbolic gestures of no practical value. Its attraction appears to be primarily based on the emotional appeal of its sheer size and power (i.e. lust) rather than its ability to do anything useful at an affordable price. The only way we can afford it is to raise taxes. Ask your neighbors how they feel about that.

        • Jonna31 says:
          0
          0

          And thus the moving goalpost of SLS critics continue.

          A few years ago, they said “it’ll never be funded”. Well, year after year, funding kept showing up, and at a rate beyond their expectation.

          Then it was “it’ll never fly”. Well, now it’s a certainty that it will, albeit with a slight delay, but nothing cataclysmic (looking at you, James Webb Space Telescope).

          Now it’s “It’ll fly once or twice”. And that won’t be the last goalpost move.

          The attraction of the SLS has nothing to do with emotional appeal, and if you think that you’re not paying attention to why it’s proponents like it (or why I support it).

          If you were to ask me “ideally, how would you put people into space”, my vision would be something very close to the reusable Falcon 9 + Dragon. Envisioned. Years ago it was the impetus behind the Ares I, once called the “American Soyuz” or a “space taxi”. Putting people into space should be cheap, reliable and generally speaking, no frills.

          I don’t care and never have cared and likely will never care about SLS in it’s capacity as a manned space vehicle. Like using the Space Shuttle as an ISS taxi service, it’s completely overkill for that role. What I care about, and have always cared about going back until 2004, was the ability of the SLS to put heavy payloads into space in it’s cargo carrying capacity. Going to Mars will require heavy payloads and payloads with a larger diameter than any commercial or EELV variant (even conceptualized) is capable of delivering.

          Were I king of the world, that is exactly what I would use the SLS for. I would completely abandon it in a manned space flight capacity. If Orion had to be launched, I’d use Falcon (if available) or a man-rated EELV. I would use it purely as a big dumb booster to put necessary big things into space. I’d rely on Orion (if needed) or commercial manned spaceflight to get people to and from whatever was being built in order with those SLS launches.

          I see the SLS purely as functionary. People here slam it as a rocket without a mission. To me, I shrug at that real hard. Does a C-5 Galaxy have a mission besides strategic lift? Was it designed for a particular war? What of EELVs? What are their mission? Or even Falcon. What’s the Falcon’s mission? Is it to be used for one purpose or many? The SLS is the same thing. I see it as a a general purpose super-heavy lift rocket fulfilling a requirement NASA and independent experts have identified as needed to make deep space exploration possible. I hope it’s used for a Europa Mission. I hope it’s used by the NRO/DOD. I hope it’s used for Mars Sample Return or a Uranus orbiter on a direct trajectory. It is the tool in the toolbox, existing at the far end of the weight scale, beyond where commercial applications live. And don’t get me wrong: I hope commercial applications catch up one day. But will it before the SLS sees much use? I don’t believe that for a second.

          That’s how I see the SLS. The closest thing we have to a big dumb rocket through the 2040s… NASA’s C-5 Galaxy strategic lifter in a sense.

          Am I overly pleased about the idea of putting the Orion on top of it and launching people in it? No I’m not. That mission design is probably appropriate for a quick lunar trip, or a jaunt around the Moon, or an Asteroid trip, but essentially nothing else. But a trip to Mars, or really anywhere else will involve construction of a vehicle in orbit over successive SLS Cargo launches and a manned launch at the end. That last launch could be done with a commercial launch. It makes the expense and design compromises made in man-rating the SLS superfluous in the longer term.

          But the reality is that the SLS in it’s present form is the only way a super heavy lift rocket – which again, NASA identified as a requirement – was going to get funded. During the Constellation Era, I supported the whole thing, but I barely cared about Ares I. I saw that as something to get past. Ares V was more meaningful because of it’s generalized utility. Combining the “Cargo Launcher” and the “Capsule Launcher” into a unified design was the central argument behind DIRECT. It was also entirely correct from a practical standpoint. Had Constellation continued, Ares V likely never would have been seriously funded. Ares I would fly and we’d rely on EELVs.

          In a world, my support for the SLS is already a compromise. The stuff I see as 2020 excesses are a requirement to get it to where I think it will go (and where BEO spaceflight needs to be). Am I thrilled about an Asteroid Trip? Eh not particularly. I understand the logic behind it (saves you from the expense building a lunar lander, like the one that was axed shortly before Constellation was canceled). But it’ll get it flying and us going places (and equally important, get the odious ISS behind us… Congress will not want to pay for the ISS once Americans are going to other locations and ISS boosters know this).

          So there you go. Nothing emotional or romantic behind it. Just logical and filled with necessary compromise.It would be nice if those who pretend that Commercial and SLS can’t co-exist showed some. It’s so very far from my idealized vision, but it’s the best option that has a chance of succeeding, and is a clean break from years of argument and studies.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            The only reason that SLS is continuing is because of the pork it provides, not because of any technical merits.

          • objose says:
            0
            0

            But the reality is that the SLS in it’s present form is the only way a super heavy lift rocket – which again, NASA identified as a requirement – was going to get funded

            and equally important, get the odious ISS behind us… Congress will not want to pay for the ISS once Americans are going to other locations and ISS boosters know this

            You either are a good writer or are very knowledgeable. Either way, I agree with your analysis of what SLS really is best for. However, it would not have sold well as what you are saying it is. So the Orion on top was how it is sold to the public. Let ISS fall into the ocean. It’s time is over as is stated by knowledgeable charming individuals (Keith) in this forum.

            What is SLS really: It is the Tractor Trailer (18 wheeler whatever) for space. THAT would not have been chosen as a good sales pitch. So the “men to Mars” was determined to be better. “But what will it be used for?” ask the critics. Well you do not start designing 130 metric ton space components until you are sure someone can deliver 130 metric tons.

            SLS, pork and problems and cost aside, is the most forward thinking space technology currently being developed for delivering massive quantities of equipment to space. As I have said again and again, it will be built. It will fly. It CAN fly with the cargo we want IF we set our minds to it. NASA is the only government agency where everyday people have the power to affect decisions. Let’s not squander this opportunity because we do not like what is being built.

          • Engineer_in_Houston says:
            0
            0

            “Going to Mars will require heavy payloads and payloads with a larger
            diameter than any commercial or EELV variant (even conceptualized) is
            capable of delivering.”

            BS. The reason for this line of propaganda is to force a pseudo-requirement for SLS. This goalpost was moved a long time ago.

        • objose says:
          0
          0

          “The only way we can afford it is to raise taxes. Ask your neighbors how they feel about that.”

          My dear vulture4. Please do not take my reply as an insult or my comments to you as being dismissive or but I give you this to think about:

          “The mission of the Energy Department is to
          ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy,environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and
          technology solutions.” In short, to make the US energy independent. DOE was started in 1974, its Budget 2010 was 26.4 BILLION, and we were no more independent of foreign energy than we were in 1974! NONE of my neighbors would fund the DOE if they had a choice, but they don’t.

          I do not want to convince you that SLS is not costly, is not wasteful, or that it could not be better. What I am saying is that making the cost argument to the people in Washington is like discussing Plato with a Chimpanzee. When congress had the opportunity to close down this puppy, and blame the president, (so at no real cost for themselves), the Senate funded this thing to keep it alive. My complaints, or the complaints of my neighbors, will focus on many more things than the NASA budget for SLS.
          Oh and BTW, no US politician ever lost an election for being lustful for power for the country.
          WHAT do you want SLS to do? In my opinion that is the real question we should be asking.

  5. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    The launch rate thereafter is only once “every couple of years,” Lightfoot said.”

    So at that rate, what is the cost per launch?

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      He also says that “we owe it to the taxpayer to get it right”. You can’t make this stuff up.

  6. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    “While the rockets are considered essential to deep space exploration missions like a proposed asteroid visit and eventual flights to Mars, no such missions are currently funded or even in detailed planning.”

    There’s really no need for further explanation after this statement.

  7. RJ says:
    0
    0

    1960’s we had the Apollo Program. Landed a man on the moon within 10 years with ‘ancient’ computer technology… but with a good budget. Fast forward 50 years and we have limited budget but tremendous computing power/technology that one would think…offset the differences from the 60’s. Yet, its taking us twice as long. So Sad!!!

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      But in the 60’s, employees were younger (on average) and management was motivated to produce results quickly. Fast forward to today, and NASA employees are older and NASA management structures are well entrenched and move much more slowly. It’s not so much about the technology, but the work and management culture.

      SpaceX has a younger workforce and a culture that values very hard work, much overtime, and fast progress. Others have commented that this culture isn’t sustainable in the long run, which may be true, but ignoring the culture differences is putting on blinders and ignoring the big differences.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        Even older employees want to get somewhere. Don’t lump us all in the ‘NASA and its management structure’ problems…

  8. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    “This is not the rocket I was looking for.” {waves hand}

  9. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    And a generation of engineers who grew up idolizing Apollo and cut their teeth working on the Shuttle Program, will be disillusioned, dissatisfied and disgusted, as that the next step out of the gravity well that is the Earth, wont be taken until just before their generation begins to head off into retirement…

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      To some of us the real “next step” is making human spaceflight practical, not just possible. As for the engineers that cut their teeth on Shuttle, they were all contractors and were laid off when the Shuttle was terminated.

  10. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    It seems like they are actually trying to be realistic by not promising dates. That’s a good thing given the situation, but overall kind of a sad situation because in a better situation they’d have the justified confidence to put out dates.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Dates are avoided because costs of SLS Orion scenarios never add up with realistic, consistent planning assumptions, with business as usual, not because of realism and accepting there is too much uncertainty. The SLS Orion based numbers certainly never add up to sustainable space exploration ever, and that is why dates are avoided – oh, and orders from the top.