Comments on: Shelby calls for SLS competition

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:34:41 +0000

Dennis Berube wrote @ June 25th, 2011 at 10:46 am

“The SRBs have proven very reliable Id say!”

Reliability is a must when dealing with any kind of transportation, space or otherwise. If something experiences a problem, then something is done to solve it (fix, modify, substitute, etc.). Certainly this was the issue after Challenger, when the SRB’s had to be fixed so they wouldn’t blow up more Shuttles.

The biggest question is cost, and that’s one that you ignore.

Can existing transportation systems satisfy the need, or does a new system need to be created? How much do alternatives cost, such as designing payloads to fit on existing launchers?

Congress bypassed this by specifying a solution (SLS) before a problem was identified (what it is needed for). Until you can identify what the need is, then you can never identify the alternatives, or even a need to spend money at all (i.e. cancel SLS).

That’s where we are today, in that Congress has not provided the funding for NASA to build any payloads for the SLS. Not even one! Much less a whole series of SLS-sized payloads that would be needed to justify operating the SLS for a decade or more.

So stop focusing on just the SRB’s, and look at the need for the SLS (or lack thereof).

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:38:20 +0000

Sorry, first sentence of previous post was in response to:

I really dont see the extra money being spent on developemtn of liquids to assist in lofting heavy loads ot space.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:37:37 +0000

It will be cheaper to do that than to continue to use the SRBs, at least as long as it isn’t done on a NASA cost-plus contract.

I think they have without a doubt proven themselves.

They have proven themselves to be very expensive in operations costs, very heavy to move to launch pads, very rough on hardware in terms of vibration, very dangerous to handle, necessitating evacuation of facilities to all but essential crew, very inflexible in terms of their ability to throttle in real time or shut down, very…

The only reason they were ever chosen was to pinch pennies during the Shuttle program. They were never a good idea for a practical launch system.

By: Dennis Berube

Dennis Berube — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:46:02 +0000

The SRBs have proven very reliable Id say! How many times havethey flown throughout shuttle history, also on the Areas 1-X. I think they have without a doubt proven themselves.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:14:28 +0000

Continuing to use the Shuttle SRBs made sense as long as the Shuttle was flying, as they were a sunk cost. But they require a lot of expensive infrastructure and hazardous ops to process, and it makes no sense to use them in a new program. Time and again we have seen legacy hardware used in an attempt to save on development cost, and the result has often been higher operational cost and lower reliability.

By: Dennis Berube

Dennis Berube — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:36:45 +0000

If solid boosters are used from the onset, I think that is what we will stay with way into the future. I really dont see the extra money being spent on developemtn of liquids to assist in lofting heavy loads ot space.

By: Beancounter from Downunder

Beancounter from Downunder — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:37:45 +0000

The SLS will either be properly competed for or it will just become another dog’s breakfast of a mess. If the current press reports are anywhere near correct, then that’s what’s in progress now. If this happens, then nothing will fly and it’ll just be a jobs program until it becomes too expensive again for Congress. Sad! Unless it’s another holding strategy by Bolden et al to provide time for commercial.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:17:59 +0000

Remember here too, it is like anything else, you get what you pay for

Not when it comes to NASA. You generally get a lot less than you pay for.

By: Dennis Berube

Dennis Berube — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:20:49 +0000

Remember here too, it is like anything else, you get what you pay for, or cheaper isnt always the better…

By: Rhyolite

Rhyolite — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:48:30 +0000

Bill White wrote @ June 16th, 2011 at 12:52 pm

“I believe an SLS that uses J2X rather than RL-10 for the upper stage and uses new all liquid boosters rather than ATK RSRM will cost considerably more and be delayed considerably longer when compared to the simplest inline variations.”

Regarding the booster, there are a couple of possible outcomes. If a proposed liquid booster comes out more expensive than ATK’s, then ATK wins the competition. On the other hand, if a liquid booster comes out more cheaper, then liquids wins. And even ATK wins in the end, they will be forced to bid lower prices and better terms because they know the competition is breathing down their neck.

Regarding the other design choices such as the upper stage engine, this is exactly why the whole vehicle should be put out to bid. Let the bidder with the cheapest solution win, preferably on a fixed price per launch basis.