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

Fact Checking SLS Propaganda

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 22, 2016
Filed under ,
Fact Checking SLS Propaganda

Upon Closer Look, NASA’s Exploration Systems are Game-Changers, OpEd, Mary Lynne Dittmar, SpaceNews
Dittmar: “The point is that there has never been a launch system like this – one that can deliver NASA human exploration and science missions throughout the solar system.”
Keith’s note: Nonsense. The Saturn V existed and flew more than 40 years ago. Abundant studies were in place whereby it could have been used to send things all over the solar system. But we threw it away. Saturn V’s flew at a pace of 2 times a year. SLS launches, as NASA currently plans them, will be years apart. Your basic Saturn V could put 310,000 lb in to LEO. But the more powerful SLS will put 150,000 to 290,000 lb into LEO.
Dittmar: “For the last several years the President’s budget request and congressional appropriations have been out of sync, forcing NASA and its contractors to work at a slower pace under greater budget pressure for the first part of the year until congressional appropriations are set at the necessary levels.”
Keith’s note: GAO: “In 2014, we found that NASA had not matched cost and schedule resources to requirements for the SLS program and was pursuing an aggressive development schedule. This situation, in turn, was compounded by the agency’s reluctance to request funding in line with the program’s needs. In addition, we found that the agency’s preliminary life-cycle cost estimates for human exploration were incomplete.”
Dittmar: “With the funding levels appropriated by Congress in the FY16 omnibus, the systems that will enable this the Space Launch System, or SLS, and the Orion crew vehicle are on track for launch of an uncrewed test mission in 2018, and a crewed mission in 2021.”
Keith’s note: NASA has been keeping two sets of books – the internal set says that it will launch humans on SLS in 2021 while the public one aims for 2023. Now there’s a third set of books is being kept wherein a 2024-2025 launch date is being worked.
Dittmar: “It will carry three times more than the Space Shuttle and, eventually, fly faster than anything human beings have ever hurled toward the heavens.”
Keith’s note: Faster than the Atlas V that launched New Horizons to Pluto? (It took 9 hours to reach the Moon).
Dittmar: “… the speed of the SLS will cut years off of planetary science missions.”
Keith’s note: What planetary missions? Not a single planetary mission has been approved for flight on SLS. Congress wants a Europa lander. NASA does not. There is no projected budget, no SLS vehicle has been set aside to launch it. SLS was not developed to launch planetary missions. It was designed to send humans to Mars until NASA was desperate for other ways to sell their expensive, delayed rocket – then suddenly it was designed for planetary missions. And the one mission approved by NASA that would send humans to another body in space, ARM, as been specifically banned by Congress. NASA is building the rocket and is now desperately searching for things to do with it.
Dittmar: “Further, every launch of the SLS can enable multiple missions.”
Keith’s note: Duh. Launch vehicles have been able to launch multiple payloads and support multiple missions for half a century.
SLS Upper Stage Woes on The Journey To Nowhere, earlier post
NASA Has Three Different Launch Dates for Humans on SLS, earlier post
ASAP: NASA Has No Plan or Firm Funding For Its #JourneyToMars , earlier post
NASA Employs Faith-Based Funding Approach For SLS, earlier post
SLS/Orion Gets a Lobbying Organization in Washington (Update), earlier post
More SLS postings

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

32 responses to “Fact Checking SLS Propaganda”

  1. EtOH says:
    0
    0

    Keith, when I saw the “Coalition for Deep Space Exploration” as the source of this op-ed earlier today, it rung a bell and when I went googling for their funding sources, your earlier post on the organization was one of the first hits. Thanks.

  2. Brian Thorn says:
    0
    0

    The 2016 budget specifically directed the Europa mission to fly on SLS.

    “Provided further, That the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall use the Space Launch System as the launch vehicle for the Jupiter Europa mission, plan for a launch no later than 2022, and include in the fiscal year 2017 budget the 5-year funding profile necessary to achieve these goals.”

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      NASA’s FY 17 budget does not seem to be paying attention. Congress talks about a lander. NASA does not. No SLS has been set aside to launch it. Get back to me when you can tell me what this mission is and what it will do and where the budget is for it.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        You might try slide 5 of Niebur’s presentation at the last OPAG meeting (three weeks ago.)
        http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opa
        Jim Green’s presentation (also on the OPAG web page) also mentioned it, but not in as much detail.

        Basically it is the Multiple Flyby Mission (formerly Europa Clipper), and they aren’t going to change that. It will fly on SLS and in 2022 if funding continues at its present level, if not, then later. The lander is being studied, but the answer isn’t in. However they do _not_ intend to compromise the Multiple FLyby mission for a lander; if necessary, a lander can be done as a separate (parallel?) mission, but that’s what they are studying.

  3. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    I hope spacenews charged therm the going full page advertising rate for this blatant propaganda puff piece.

    • Boardman says:
      0
      0

      With their going to biweekly and the new “USA Today all-whitespace” format, Space News has truly jumped the shark. They have lost this long-time subscriber. NASA Watch is infinitely cheaper and much better.

      • TerryG says:
        0
        0

        I agree, and I’d happily make a well-deserved donation to Keith Cowing. His responses where blistering and proportionate. 🙂

        Thank you Keith for keeping it real. We love you.

  4. Rich_Palermo says:
    0
    0

    “…fly faster than anything human beings have ever hurled toward the heavens.”

    Oh, I don’t know. I hurled my lunch vigorously after reading this pile of malarkey.

  5. buzzlighting says:
    0
    0

    Hi Keith Ieave a nice comment for you from spacenewscom and I am first one make a comment about Mary Lynne Dittmar Op-ed piece before anyone else did had lots of fun point-out flaws in several of her statements that were not true and did lengthy big paragraph explaining why her claims about the SLS+Orion capabilities just bunch of lies.

  6. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    Most space news sites tend to handle everyone they interview with kid gloves. The “tough questions” either don’t get asked or when they are asked, the clearly misleading answers to them go unchallenged.

    NASA Watch is one of the few sites that isn’t afraid to take off the kid gloves. That’s why it is the first space news website I look at every day. If I have time for the others, I’ll look at them too, but the endless stream of puff pieces can be tiring, even if they have nuggets of information buried within.

  7. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Readers, call and write your Congressanimals. Though the odds are low it’s the best/most-likely way for us peons to have any effect on the process.

    http://www.house.gov/repres
    http://www.senate.gov/senat

  8. Jason Brennan says:
    0
    0

    “the Apollo CSM was
    designed with a single destination in mind, the Moon”

    As well as LEO destinations: Space Lab and the Soyuz Test
    Project. Apollo was very versatile. Spending several months docked to the Space
    Lab. And docking with a Soviet Space
    craft.

    • Bob Mahoney says:
      0
      0

      The Apollo CSM was originally CONCEIVED as the next spacecraft beyond Mercury (Gemini actually came together after Apollo’s conception) and so was intended as a general-purpose vehicle capable of going farther than LEO, but with a strong expectation of lunar flight.

      Once the contractor (NAA) got down to serious design work (contract awarded Nov 1961) Apollo’s role in lunar flight had firmed up (JFK’s challenge occurred in May ’61) and the constraints imposed by such lunar missions drove the detailed design. So, while her phrasing is a bit of historical cherry-picking, the vehicle WAS designed for the purpose of reaching the Moon.

      More important, the CSM was NOT designed for Skylab or ASTP; it’s design was flexible/robust enough to permit its use in those programs. Skylab itself was part of the Apollo Applications Program which sought other uses for the hardware & capabilities that getting to the Moon required. Thus, CSM as a LEO spacecraft was a derivative application of a spacecraft primarily designed for reaching the Moon.

      • Michael Bradley says:
        0
        0

        Thje SkyLab CSM were new construction with equipment and capability removed, given its short flight up to the SkyLab then shut down until reentry day.

        • Littrow says:
          0
          0

          Nonsense. All Apollo CSMs were new, which was one reason the Apollo program was unaffordable and unsustainable. the Skylab CSMs were excess from Apollo’s 18, 19 and 20. there were minor equipment changes as there were on most Apollo’s.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            True, Skylab and ASTP used surplus Apollo/Saturn hardware leftover from the lunar program. Had that surplus hardware not been available, there would have been few, if any, flights between Apollo 17 and the first space shuttle flight.

      • Arthur Hamilton says:
        0
        0

        A general purpose spacecraft for LEO & BEO use. Now we are back to the Apollo infrastructure.

  9. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Once you see a bunch of lies, propaganda and hyperbole, like this one, you learn to place a value on its source…

  10. fmonahan says:
    0
    0

    The Saturn’s launch rate could be much higher. Between December 1968 and November 1969, we launched 5 Saturn V vehicles. The SLS will never have that capability.

  11. duheagle says:
    0
    0

    Let’s not forget Doug Messier at Parabolic Arc.

  12. duheagle says:
    0
    0

    Good fisking.

  13. Michael Bradley says:
    0
    0

    So why are we reinventing the wheel (or launch vehicle). The S5 did a great job; why not an upgrade in technology and construction techniques and NASA could have at least two per year. There were planned upgrades to the S% when it was flying, such as strap on boostersl and removal of the S1C wings. The order for a second batch of 12 boosters was ready then cancelled. Now we have this lightweight!

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Saturn V is dead and gone. The suppliers are largely gone. Building it now would mean redesigns for modern electronics, manufacturing methods, and etc. In the end, the entire design would need to be re-qualified.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        PWR/Dynetics proposed an F-1 based rocket as a liquid Advanced Booster to replace the 5-segment SRBs for the uprated SLS-130. The F-1B engine is upgraded and modernised, supposedly lowering costs and increasing power to 1.8m lbf (8MN).

        PWR & Dyn claim their boosters would allow the SLS to carry 150 tonnes to LEO.

        (Two F1B engines for a single booster would have more thrust than the Falcon Heavy’s 27 Merlins.)

        To return to a Saturn V-like vehicle, the rest is tanks and avionics and an upper-stage. Kero/LOx tanks are cheaper than Boeing’s ET-based LH/LOx tanks. And new avionics and upper-stage is required for any launch system.

        Alternatively, a triple-core launch vehicle (like Delta-IVH and FH) based around a F-1B based triple-engine common core. This would give you the flexibility to fly a single-core variant for smaller missions, such as USAF satellite launches, replacing Delta IV and IVH.

        And surely it couldn’t cost more than SLS?

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          Perhaps. But, I wouldn’t assume that with NASA doing the R&D that costs would be lower. Part of the problem is NASA’s overall approach to the problem from a government management and government contractor point of view.

          A better approach would be to fund two launchers from two different providers, similar to commercial cargo and commercial crew. Actual competition with the providers doing the R&D will result in lower cost in the long run when compared to NASA doing the R&D.

          A far better approach would have been to simply purchase launches on existing vehicles to start with (e.g. launching Orion on Delta IV Heavy) rather than intertwining the development of the crewed capsule with the launch vehicle. This was a completely unnecessary “requirement” that has driven up costs of both the capsule and launch vehicle(s).

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            A better approach would be to fund two launchers from two different providers, similar to commercial cargo and commercial crew. Actual competition with the providers doing the R&D will result in lower cost in the long run when compared to NASA doing the R&D.

            Heh, I actually wrote something like that and deleted it because my comment was turning into one of my usual long-winded rants and I figures you didn’t deserve that.

            Frankly I’d love to see what the industry would come up with if given a “we don’t care how you do it, just do it” competitive 100t-to-LEO challenge.

            PWR, Dynetics and maybe Boeing creating an F-1B based HLV. Lockheed maybe creating a triple-core Vulcan around BO’s BE-4. SpaceX maybe creating a mini-MCT around Raptor.

            SLS/Orion will consume around $35 billion by 2027 and launch up to four times. Call it half for each program.

            So $17 billion for SLS. Let’s halve that (to save money) and have a pair of contracts on offer for $4.25 billion each to deliver four launches by 2025 of, let’s say, at least one 100 tonne payload to LEO and at least one 30 tonne payload to a TLI trajectory, plus two more 100/30 tonne launches (vendor’s choice.)

            Another $17b for Orion. Let’s halve that (to save money) and have a pair of contracts on offer for $4.25 billion each to deliver three BEO capable human vehicles by 2025. All three vehicles must be launched around the moon and back, and at least two vehicles must carry at least four crew or two crew and two full EVA suits. (NASA sets the radiation safety levels and communications and ECLSS requirements, obviously. But the vendors choose how to deliver. For eg, Orion is an all-in-one system, making it very large and expensive. A vendor might use a non-BEO capsule (Dragon/CST-100) and mate it with an expendable mission habitat that contains the long-range comms, rad-protection and long-duration ECLSS.)

            That leaves NASA with an extra $1.5b a year for the next decade. Plenty of money to invest in payloads to exploit those 8 launches and 4 manned BEO flights.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Ideas that have been hashed here before, but certainly worth reframing, as you have done.

            The only quibble, at least from me, would be in developing more expendable systems. The thinking must change from throwaway rockets and capsules to reliable up and down, machines that dock with interplanetary vehicles.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Re: Reusable launchers

            While I agree in general. The danger of imposing a requirement like reusability is that it often then becomes the “goal” without regard for the reason for wanting it in the first place. (Think the Shuttle.)

            I’d rather create a competition based on cost and capacity. If a vendor is able to beat the cost of other vendors by creating a reusable system, bonus! But if you require reusability, then reusability is not being pressured commercially by comparison with expendable systems. You may end up with more expensive bids than just buying an expendable system.

            Which is the opposite of the purpose of making it a competitive bid.

  14. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    It’s an Op-ed, people. Very clearly stated in the headline.

    Anybody following the space biz knows Ms. Dittmar and knows her POV.

    Nothing new here. Move along.

  15. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    A couple of worthy mentions: spacerockethistory.com for an excellent historical perspective via podcasts; and centaurs-dreams.com keeps up to date on efforts to learn more about truly deep space.

  16. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    You have to wonder, is Ditmar’s fundamental understanding of rocketry and the space program, that she talks about the rocket’s speed or ability to carry multiple payloads; is her understanding that poor or that naive? Or does she really think that for most us, to whom this might matter at all, are that stupid or naive?