Register here

Author Topic: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)  (Read 76243 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7598
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 937
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #181 on: February 16, 2016, 04:24:01 am »
Itís big and impressive but what are we going to do with it?  Going to Mars with our current economy is politically improbable.  Going to the moon canít generate or sustain a significant level of support and would still be exceedingly expensive if carried out in the normal NASA process.  Capturing asteroids has failed to capture imaginations.  What would be done in near Earth space that couldnít be done significantly cheaper with smaller boosters?  Using a monster rocket to launch cubesats invites ridicule (whether or not itís merited).  If a giant booster could reduce payload costs to $100/lb then you could open up the potential of creating/servicing a space tourism business but even at just $1Billion per launch (itís probably higher) this would work out to $7100/lb.  It wonít happen but my preference would be to terminate NASAís manned spaceflight program and replace it with a single mission of pursuing all possible technologies that significantly reduce launch costs to a level that enables mass access to space.  It would be interesting to "poll test" this idea so some politician might think about it.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #182 on: February 16, 2016, 05:57:16 am »
If only NASA had stuck with the NACA mission -- comprehensive aero(space) research. Government built the infrastructure (wind tunnels, test stands, university grants, etc.) and defined areas of scientific investigation. Nothing else. Where's Vannevar Bush when you need him!

Once NASA got into the spacecraft production and launch business this government agency was doomed to die at the hands of the self-serving political 'leaders' and bureaucracy. An agency that puts 'safe' and job security ahead of progress. Today NASA is a magnificent white-collar government works program; welfare for accomplished, uninspired drones.

Not so with profit oriented spacecraft builders and operators (however, I choke back a primal scream as I remind myself of the attenuating 'work' the crony capitalists -- the 'legacy' space contractors -- have done). Look at the age and enthusiasm of the start-up rocket guys. Now, take a look at a group photo of NASA administrators and 'researchers' -- bunch of old guys in suits more worried about job retention than advancement of the craft.

NASA. Practitioners of the old rocket-as-expendable-ammunition school (The agencies brief embrace of Shuttle a bust). Once on the public dole it's much easier to embrace the tired and true and not expose yourself by engaging in daring, adventurous activity.

David

We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #183 on: February 16, 2016, 07:33:06 am »
1.  If only NASA had stuck with the NACA mission -- comprehensive aero(space) research. Government built the infrastructure (wind tunnels, test stands, university grants, etc.) and defined areas of scientific investigation. Nothing else. Where's Vannevar Bush when you need him!

2.  Once NASA got into the spacecraft production and launch business this government agency was doomed to die at the hands of the self-serving political 'leaders' and bureaucracy. An agency that puts 'safe' and job security ahead of progress. Today NASA is a magnificent white-collar government works program; welfare for accomplished, uninspired drones.

3.  Not so with profit oriented spacecraft builders and operators (however, I choke back a primal scream as I remind myself of the attenuating 'work' the crony capitalists -- the 'legacy' space contractors -- have done). Look at the age and enthusiasm of the start-up rocket guys. Now, take a look at a group photo of NASA administrators and 'researchers' -- bunch of old guys in suits more worried about job retention than advancement of the craft.

4.  NASA. Practitioners of the old rocket-as-expendable-ammunition school (The agencies brief embrace of Shuttle a bust). Once on the public dole it's much easier to embrace the tired and true and not expose yourself by engaging in daring, adventurous activity.


Nonsense.  NASA =/ SLS
The post is nothing but an idiotic rant.

1.   And we would be way behind.  NASA enabled many of the space systems used today.  Spacex wouldn't exist except for NASA

2. Back off!  You really don't know what you are talking about.  As for wide sweeping stereotypes there are many when it comes to submariners that are more true.

3.  Commercial operations have no need for scientific spacecraft, so how would space exploration be done?

4.  Launch vehicle reuse has yet to be proven as cost effective.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2016, 07:50:23 am by Byeman »

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #184 on: February 16, 2016, 07:43:55 am »
duplicate

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #185 on: February 16, 2016, 09:33:25 am »
Great, got my own personal stalker. Neat! Welcome aboard my fan-base, pal. Kisses.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #186 on: February 16, 2016, 09:56:46 am »
Great, got my own personal stalker. Neat! Welcome aboard my fan-base, pal. Kisses.


Has nothing to do with "stalking", it was just a simple google search on your name and third hit was sub drivers forum.  What did you expect, especially when your statements are unsubstantiated?   But then again, it is all about the kisses for you submariners.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2016, 10:04:20 am by Byeman »

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #187 on: February 23, 2016, 11:51:23 am »
Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) and Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) are the only manned missions for Orion/SLS in 2020s decade? And if yes, can this space system be sustainable with a fly rate so low?

(Which mission, and when after ARM?)

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #188 on: February 24, 2016, 10:03:42 am »
Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) and Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) are the only manned missions for Orion/SLS in 2020s decade? And if yes, can this space system be sustainable with a fly rate so low?

(Which mission, and when after ARM?)
Over at NSF they're discussing internal discussions (yes, that's a weird sentence) going on at NASA to fill out the SLS manifest with unmanned launches. A flight rate of 1 SLS a year is painfully low but would probably keep the booster viable for the whole decade.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1633
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #189 on: February 24, 2016, 03:19:24 pm »
Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) and Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) are the only manned missions for Orion/SLS in 2020s decade? And if yes, can this space system be sustainable with a fly rate so low?

Considering that the 2020s are still a few years away, I think it's premature to act as if we know--or if NASA is expected to know--just how much it will do in the 2020s. We cannot predict the entire decade at this point.





Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7404
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7404
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #191 on: April 10, 2016, 03:14:13 pm »
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7404
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7404
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #193 on: May 23, 2016, 03:18:03 pm »
To the Stars

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #194 on: May 23, 2016, 04:02:43 pm »
From Ars Technica, via Slashdot: Forget the asteroid mission and go to the Moon, lawmakers tell NASA
Pardon my cynicism with respect to the current administration's posture regarding manned exploration, but I have always thought the asteroid mission and the stated goal of skipping the Moon for manned flights to Mars was simply a way for them not to commit any money beyond the bare-minimum to manned exploration.

The asteroid mission serving the purpose of a seemingly lofty goal - that came with the added benefit of not requiring the development any new flight hardware and infrastructure beyond that already being developed for Orion/SLS. Then the Mars program being the "bridge too far" that would solely exist in the form of PowerPoint and through the sound of lip-service.

We've been to the Moon. We have a good idea of all the additional hardware and infrastructure required to develop a robust Moon exploration program because of our prior experience. Which is exactly why I think this administration put the kibosh on the Constellation program. That money could be used to enrich the administration's constituency, and pie-in-the-sky "goals" that replaced Constellation cost nothing more than words.

Again, pardon my cynicism.