Congress, NASA

SLS announcement this morning

Talk about short notice: early this morning the Senate Commerce Committee send out an advisory that there will be a press conference this morning at 10 am EDT with NASA administrator Charles Bolden and “members of Congress”, including Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Bill Nelson (D-FL), to “discuss the NASA announcement on the future of our space program”. What NASA announcement? It’s expected that NASA will finally announce its plans for the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket. Florida Today, citing “senior Obama administration officials”, said the SLS design will be similar to what’s been rumored for months, a design using shuttle-derived technologies although with, at some point, a competition for the booster stages between shuttle-based solid rocket boosters and potential liquid-propellant alternatives. The press conference will be webcast on the Senate Commerce Committee’s web site.

92 comments to SLS announcement this morning

  • If we needed any further evidence that SLS is pure porkery, the press conference is being held to promote the two Senators who’ve been oinking for months demanding the design be released, and it’s being webcast on the Senate Commerce Committee’s web site.

    And it’s awfully coincidental that this press conference comes the day after NASA threw a sop to the Utah congressional delegation by signing an unfunded agreement to “study” the ATK Liberty design, which no one in their right mind will ride. Despite Senator Hatch’s demand that SLS use ATK SRBs, the booster design will be thrown open to competition.

    Senate Launch System, indeed.

  • “It’s expected that NASA will finally announce its plans for the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket.”
    More wasted taxpayer money down the SLS rabbit hole. At least for now. Money that could be used to do something that would actually allow America to actually advance in human spaceflight.

  • amightywind

    Liquid propellant boosters are a waste of time and money. They won’t add to the performance of the vehicle. It is not easy to duplicate the 5 million lbs of thrust of the SRBs at launch. How a bout a competition for the upper stage instead. That’s the problem area. I think it is a mistake to go with a 27′ tank when previous analysis suggested 33′ was they way to go. The best way to make the program affordable and sustainable is true dramatically cut non-HSF activities and transfer the funds to SLS.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Things we need to hear:

    1) What exactly is this thing (details of design and propulsion used)?
    2) What will it cost?
    3) What will it be used for? Mission? Payloads?
    4) Approximate schedule to various milestones such as first flight, first crewed flight and first operational flight.

  • Orlando Sentinel on the SLS announcement.

    After months of debate, NASA has settled on plans for its next spaceship — a space shuttle hybrid that will fly twice in the next decade and cost $30 billion through 2021, according to senior administration officials and internal NASA documents.

  • NASA Twitter states the 10 AM EDT press conference will also be on NASA TV.

  • The porkfest just gets better and better … Buried in the Orlando Sentinel article is this passage:

    … [T]he twin boosters for the new rocket, at least initially, would be the same shuttle boosters built by Alliant Techsystems of Minnesota.

    NASA intends to hold a competition in the years ahead for the boosters. The administration official said NASA definitely would use the ATK boosters for the 2017 launch but that it could have the competition complete in time for new boosters in 2021.

    No rhyme or reason. One flight will use boosters to appease the Utah delegation. The next flight will use boosters to appease the California and Alabama delegations.

    You can’t help but laugh at this.

  • BeanieCounterFromDownunder

    Try $50 to $60 billion and you might be close!

  • amightywind

    Hello Direct. Its been 2 years and 9 months of lies and confusion, but sanity prevails.

  • Coastal Ron

    In Bolden’s video message to NASA employees before the public announcement, the first thing he said the SLS would do is:

    This launch system will create good-paying American jobs

    Can’t get much clearer than that for why the SLS is being built…

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 8:29 am

    The best way to make the program affordable and sustainable is true dramatically cut non-HSF activities and transfer the funds to SLS.

    So the best way to reduce costs is to increase spending? You really do live in a bizarro world, don’t you? ;-)

  • Scott Bass

    I suppose it is getting close to decision time for everyone….. Do you take the patriotic route and support SLS with all it’s flaws and hope for the best or do you continue to criticize….. I suppose some of you think you can do both….. I for one hope this official decision brings stability to NASA and it is my hope they will at least be able to keep this dismal schedule….. 2021 for the first manned flight already seems absurd

  • Karl

    This is a mess but does it also have a cargo only version? I missed the announcement. Just curious.

  • amightywind

    “This launch system will create good-paying American jobs”

    Strange that they didn’t care about the thousands they threw away with the shuttle program. Bolden clearly read the Whitehouse memo. Obama is officially desperate.

  • As I recall, a central tenet of the DIRECT proposal was always a recognition of the need to accept certain political realities. For better and for worse.

    Had NASA brass acknowledged those realities several years ago we would be several years farther along, today. Also, it might have been possible to have adopted a smaller version of SLS, closer to the Jupiter 130 & Jupiter 246 configurations, which would have been a smaller more affordable “monster rocket”

  • kayawanee

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Can’t get much clearer than that for why the SLS is being built…

    My only hope is that Obama/Bolden capitulated to those in favor of SLS in exchange for full funding of CCDEV. Based on Obama’s past negotiating performances, however, I am not that hopeful.

  • Scott Bass

    Just to add my 2 cents…….although this decision does for the time being keep NASA intact, it certainly is nothing to get excited about, we are talking 3 or 4 presidents adding and subtracting before we are actually suppose to have a mission….. I mean omg, it 2011 and they are saying 2025 til the first real mission…. It is hard to imagine funding anything that long with nothing to show for it

  • MrEarl

    After two years of fighting, delaying, and dragging their heels, by Holdren, Bolden and Garver, Constellation has been reborn in the SLS and Liberty.
    Not the best of outcomes but one I can live with. The real difference could be the acquisition process. Let ATK and it’s partners develop and bring the Liberty on-line with their own money. If it is to be viable it has to stand on it’s own against the Delta, Atlas and Falcon as a manned launch system.
    It’s good to see the boosters will be put out for bid based on performance. Now NASA should do the same thing with the core but with the added stipulation of using the components like the RS25E and modified ET to meet congressional requirements.
    Obama has too much on his plate and can’t afford to alienate members of congress over this.
    Congress got what it wanted, not it’s put up or shut up time for them. Not something that is likely in this crazy environment.

  • Robert G. Oler

    We are in the last days of SLS…Charlie is playing this one very very well RGO

  • amightywind

    Constellation has been reborn in the SLS and Liberty.
    Not the best of outcomes but one I can live with.

    If the initial SLS is to be an Orion carrier I don’t see the point of Liberty. My goodness but NASA is confused. The Constellation architecture had an Orion carrier (Ares I) and an EDS/Aurora carrier (Ares V). Simple. With the new architecture we have neither. Or is it both? Chaos still reigns.

  • common sense

    @Scott Bass wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 10:57 am

    “Do you take the patriotic route and support SLS with all it’s flaws and hope for the best or do you continue to criticize…..”

    This is the most moronic comment you ever made. The “patriotic route”? Something MUST be wrong with you.

    “2021 for the first manned flight already seems absurd”

    And this may be one of the best comment you made. “Absurd” is the right word. Way to go Scott, way to go.

  • Dennis

    Well guys, in my view if jobs are kept in tact, then that is a good thing. Why always send them overseas! I do suspect however, that if SRBs are initially put on the launcher, they will continue to stay on the launcher from that point on. Why pay out extra money for liquids when solids will do the job. NASA got its own rocket, now lets get on with building it and moving off into space. Lets also hope that future administrations dont continue to upset the apple cart any further.

  • chance

    So, how long before SLS gets cancelled? The “super committee” is supposed to report back in December, right?

  • common sense

    So here goes a little dose of reality for the SLS/MPCV huggers.

    The economy is wasted. People are losing their jobs that by the thousands if not by millions.

    This WH is NOT concerned with SLS. Neither is Congress for all that matters. Be they GOPers or Dems. Makes no difference.

    The budget in there is barely enough to keep some jobs, not all jobs. All the while hoping for some recovery some day. When the recovery occurs if ever then SLS and MPCV will be terminated. There is NOT enough budget to build either. Whether you or I like it or not. This is a move to preserve some jobs. Nothing less nothing more. You believe it or not does not change that fact.

    At least if the Senators were so well intentioned they ought to fund the CCDev at the requested level but since they are resisting they only show that they want to preserve the jobs of those who pay their campaigns, not really save the jobs of the people throughout the US.

    SLS and MPCV only are zombie programs.

  • MrEarl

    All’s quite on the Oler, Major Tom front. It should be interesting to hear the wailing and nashing of teeth.

  • MrEarl

    “We are in the last days of SLS…Charlie is playing this one very very well RGO”

    LOL! The adminitration’s initial FY’11 proposal is on the mat and the ref is up to 8.

    I knew he would have an interesting comment but that eceeded evan my expectations.

  • Scott Bass

    Cmon sense…. As usual you miss the point…. Patriotism oftn takes the place of what otherwise would be a no brainer to scrap…. Just like American pride kept the space shuttle in orbit for 30 years…… If you seriously do not think it plays a role then you do not see the big picture, public opinion will ultimately determine the space launch systems fate

  • Rhyolite

    What a colossal waste.

  • Dennis

    Hey guys the vid of the new SLS, even painted like the Saturn V looks cool. I think both the Orion and NASAs new rocket wll fly. Mars here we come.

  • Dennis

    Unless commercial can prove itself, with regards to carrying astronauts to space, the Orion and SLS will continue. We will not forever rely on the Russians for taxi services. If commercial, like SpaceX and whatever fail, then the US will still have their space program in tact. A good move.

  • Vladislaw

    Windy wrote:

    “The Constellation architecture had an Orion carrier (Ares I) and an EDS/Aurora carrier (Ares V). “

    What is an Aurora carrier? I have never heard of the “Aurora”?

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    “All’s quite on the Oler, Major Tom front. It should be interesting to hear the wailing and nashing of teeth.”

    sorry I have a pretty good but demanding job and sometimes it just overwhelms my free time (I also have a lovely hot wife and a 17 month old and one on the way plus we are moving to our new “farm” soo…)

    Nothing done now means anything. The super committee is about to cut everything in sight and even Obama is going to try a deficit package so…anything that spends money like SLS does and is not absolutely necessary to argue that we are about to start building it is foolish.

    Sorry reality is a dish best served cold RGO

  • Byeman

    “Let ATK and it’s partners develop and bring the Liberty on-line with their own money.”

    Will never happen and same goes for Liberty

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Hey guys the vid of the new SLS, even painted like the Saturn V looks cool. I think both the Orion and NASAs new rocket wll fly.>>

    Keep saying it, kind of like “I think I can I think I can”…and then when it doesnt you wont be so sad RGO

  • common sense

    @ Scott Bass wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    “As usual you miss the point….”

    If you say so then you MUST be right. I miss the point BUT I know a thing or two about budget and what it takes to build some spacecraft. And the budget here will not support either SLS or MPCV. At least when the axe comes down people like you will go out saluting the flag I suppose.

    “Patriotism oftn takes the place of what otherwise would be a no brainer to scrap…. Just like American pride kept the space shuttle in orbit for 30 years…… If you seriously do not think it plays a role then you do not see the big picture, public opinion will ultimately determine the space launch systems fate”

    You MUST live in another world. Special interests In Congress kept the Shuttle going. That and a good crew at the various NASA centers. The average citizen does not give a hoot.

  • @Scott Bass
    “Do you take the patriotic route and support SLS with all it’s flaws and hope for the best or do you continue to criticize….. “
    Actually the opposite argument can be made. A true patriot who wants
    America to succeed in spaceflight will not want to back something that does not lead to a practical economical system allowing the country’s dominance of the high frontier. The Booz-Allen report states that only the first few years of development can be paid for. After that, the American taxpayer is screwed. Better to put the money slated for SLS into something that will truly advance us in human spaceflight.

    Remember, the recently enacted Debt Ceiling law has yet to wield it’s mandatory budget chopping axe to ALL agencies (including NASA), so this latest announcement is probably moot.

  • @Dennis
    “If commercial, like SpaceX and whatever fail, then the US will still have their space program in tact. A good move.”
    See my reply to Scott Bass. SLS isn’t fiscally practical. The only reason why Bolden is going along with this idiocy at the current time is because he has no choice.

  • I watched the press conference (hopefully it’s available online soon).

    The laughs just keep coming.

    The event was run by Bill Nelson. He opened, he unveiled the image, he went into painstaking detail with a pen to demonstrate how much bigger his rocket is than Shuttle. (Read phallic symbolism into that if you wish.)

    Nelson allowed Charlie Bolden to speak for a few minutes before Kay Bailey Hutchison told everyone how wonderful she is. Bolden actually called her the “queen bee,” which she didn’t like at all.

    Other members of Congress, from both houses and both sides of the aisle, paraded up to the microphone to announce how wonderful they are too.

    Lots of blather about preserving the NASA work force (without explaining why), not much about what purpose the rocket serves, its dubious scientific design, or any particular mission.
    At least yesterday’s Liberty press conference was conducted without any politicians and in a NASA facility. Yesterday had dignity. Today had none.

  • John

    RGO, one word for your post… GOOFY !!

  • Vladislaw

    Wonder how much play this letter will get, doesn’t seem to get the attention that KBH and Nelson got with their letter to Bolden:

    http://advertise.spacenews.com/wp-content/themes/thesis_18/custom/cache/Rohrabacher9611.PDF

    Rohrabacher wants to know when Bolden is going to provide him the numbers for a fuel depot.

  • amightywind

    What is an Aurora carrier? I have never heard of the “Aurora”?

    Sorry, I meant ‘Altair’. My mistake. That must have been a bright spot in what must be a dismal day for you.

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    RGO, one word for your post… GOOFY !!>>

    copying someone is the nicest form of flattery and I am pleased to see that from you…anyway dont worry SLS is in the end game of dying…the death panels are already pulling the plug…this is going along just as I predicted. enjoy RGO

  • SpaceColonizer

    Been saying this all over, might as well come say it here:

    This press conference was a joke. The writing is on the wall and the senators know it. This is a last ditch effort to prove to their campagn financers that they really really tried to get the taxpayers to shovel pork money into their coffers. It reminded me of the scene in Zoolander where he goes up to receive the award he didn’t win. They’ll all like “see, we won, we’re building our rocket” but they haven’t been awarded anything. The super congress will cut the budget for this program so much it can’t last more than another budget proposal, and that’s if they don’t end it outright.

  • josh

    i give it three years before it is cancelled after another 10 billion wasted. nasa hsf is incapable of reform and should just go away.

  • Vladislaw

    Windy wrote:

    “That must have been a bright spot in what must be a dismal day for you.”

    No, I was wondering if I missed something and NASA had defined a new piece of hardware.

  • Dennis

    Gentlemen, as I stated earlier, until SpaceX and the few others prove they can deliver people to orbit, we wont rely on the Russians forever. What other way is there to go than give NASA a launch system. If NASA is grounded, do you want us to keep buying seats aboard Soyuz? How long before Russia raises the price of seats again if the US doesnt have its own launch vehicle?

  • Official written statement issued by Administrator Bolden:

    NASA ANNOUNCES DESIGN FOR NEW DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION SYSTEM
    New Heavy-lift Rocket Will Take Humans Far Beyond Earth

    Today is a big day at NASA.

    The next chapter of America’s space exploration story is being written, right here, right now.

    We’ve selected the design for a new space exploration system that will take humans far beyond Earth. This important decision will create high-quality jobs here at home and provide the cornerstone for America’s future human space exploration efforts.

    This new heavy-lift rocket will be America’s most powerful since the Saturn V rocket that carried Apollo astronauts to the moon and will launch humans to places no one has gone before, such as asteroids, Mars and other deep space destinations.

    In combination with the crew capsule already under development, increased support for the commercialization of astronaut travel to low Earth orbit, an extension of activities on the International Space Station until at least 2020, and a fresh focus on new technologies— this rocket is key to implementing the plan laid out by President Obama and Congress in the bipartisan 2010 NASA Authorization Act, which the President signed last year.

    President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that’s exactly what we are doing at NASA with this new space exploration system. While I was proud to fly on the space shuttle, tomorrow’s explorers will now dream of one day walking on Mars.

    This launch vehicle decision is the culmination of a months-long, comprehensive review of potential designs to ensure that the nation gets the best possible rocket for the investment—one that is not only powerful but is also evolvable so it can be adapted to different missions as opportunities arise and new technologies are developed.

    The rocket will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel system, where RS-25D/E engines will provide the core propulsion and the J2X engine is planned for use in the upper stage. There will be a full and open competition to develop the boosters based on performance requirements. Its early flights will be capable of lifting 70-100 metric tons before evolving to a lift capacity of 130 metric tons.

    The early developmental flights may take advantage of existing solid boosters and other existing hardware, which will help us control costs and make early tests smoother.

    The selection of the vehicle needed to transport our astronauts beyond low Earth orbit is one of the most important decisions NASA will make this decade, and it requires a major commitment on the part of the American people. That’s why we took the time to get it right.

    The hard work and expertise of you in the NASA Family have brought us to this point and will be critical as we continue to do the big things only NASA can do and challenge ourselves as a people to reach our highest potential. The future is bright for exploration, and we can be proud of the major step forward we are taking today.

  • Click here to watch the press conference on the Senate Commerce Committee web site. It runs 52 minutes.

  • P.S. The press conference doesn’t start until about the 19-minute mark in that Senate Commerce Committee video.

  • @Dennis
    “Gentlemen, as I stated earlier, until SpaceX and the few others prove they can deliver people to orbit, we wont rely on the Russians forever.”
    And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. The only Americans who have proved they can design and develop a working successful system that can deliver people to orbit were the ones who did it with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle and these people are either retired or dead. NONE of those people are designing and developing SLS. Every manned system that NASA has started to develop in the last 30 years (after the Shuttle was developed) had an unsuccessful ending and many of the people associated with SLS were on these unsuccessful projects. Why do you think SLS will be any different? It’s time for a little more skepticism and a little less blind faith.

  • josh

    spacex already has proven they’re a lot more capable than the nasa of today or the primes. nasa doens’t have what it takes to build rockets anymore.

  • MrEarl

    This is the political reality that led to the announcement today;
    “This launch system will create good-paying American jobs,” Charlie Bolden.
    Florida is one of the states hardest hit by the current great recession. It also has been a key state in past presidential elections. If the Obama administration had let the SLS die surely his republican opponent, rightly or wrongly, would have accused him of being responsible for all the jobs lost through the ending of STS and SLS.

  • Assuming the Russians get their Soyuz problem straightened out and the ISS is not abandoned, then late this year SpaceX will fly their COTS 2/3 mission to the station. If that goes well, and if a second manned provider comes on line, then Bigelow will be launching space stations. That will lead to a lot more launches by private companies. Much of that will happen before SLS gets its first test flight.

    I read elsewhere that the projected cost is $3 Billion a year for six years. I don’t know if that is the cost that Booz-Allen said was optimistic and unverifiable more than three years out.

    The supercommittee will be reporting its budget cuts around the same time SpaceX launches its COTS mission to ISS. If SpaceX is successful, then SLS will be dead. NASA will then not build any rockets in future, except as experimental test beds. Instead, NASA will be concentrating on the payloads.

  • Scott Bass

    just of note…..Obama is mia yet again ….i really think he could care less

  • common sense

    @ josh wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    “nasa hsf is incapable of reform and should just go away.”

    I am sure you meant Congress, not NASA HSF because CCDev is NASA you know.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 11:46 am

    “We are in the last days of Bolden’s tenure…Charlie is playing this one very very well to retirement.” There. Fixed that for ‘ya.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Gentlemen, as I stated earlier, until NASA can prove they can build the biggest rocket in the world within the budget Congress has provided…

    There, I fixed it for you.

    I was reading a study the other day about the ability for large projects to stay on budget. The study was done world-wide, and it pretty much concluded that a good 80% of the time budgets went vastly over their estimates. As the Booz-Allen report has already stated, NASA has vague justification for it’s budget projects for the SLS out years, and there is a good chance it will be cancelled for budgetary reasons just like Constellation was.

    And for commercial crew, I don’t worry about four different designs from four different commercial aerospace companies. That is the kind of diversity and competition that the SLS will lack.

    – If one commercial crew vehicle fails, then there are others to switch to.

    – If the SLS fails, then there is no backup. None. NASA would stop flying missions to space for years, as the Shuttle disasters have shown.

    Why you and others want less choice in space travel is beyond me. Would you rather have one choice of car or one hundred? One choice of cell phone or dozens?

    NASA doesn’t need to build and operate it’s own rocket – Congress is forcing them to, and there is no funded or forecasted missions that require the SLS. None. Zero. Nada.

    The SLS is purely a jobs program, and that’s exactly what the press conference announcing it today said.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    If the Obama administration had let the SLS die…

    As Dick Cheney could tell you, there are some things an Administration can do, and some they can’t. The SLS is a funded program, so NASA is obligated to spend money on it. Not necessarily build anything useful, but definitely spend money.

    If you listened to the news conference, what they didn’t say was that they had placed any contracts or spent any money. This was just an announcement for the design. Next comes the Industry day on Sept. 29th, and then they have to figure out the contracts for those items that they know they will use.

    No money spent just yet, and certainly no large dollar items for a while, since the core has to be designed first (Gerstenmaier said “The core tank is a tech challenge”).

    As it normally is when politicians preen, nothing really happened at the press conference that wasn’t already known. As others have been saying, the real battle begins with the debt reduction committee and the FY12 budget negotiations. Already deemed over-budget before it starts is not a good sign, and not having any missions that depend on the SLS leaves it open for delay or cancellation.

    All they did today was kick the can closer to the cliff…

  • Scott Bass

    I just watched the press conference in full too…..I have to say I am actually impressed….it does appear they have out maneuvered the administration and have at least saved Nasa for the short term…..I view this as a positive thing because there is hope that a leader will materialize in a president or two……obviously 2012 is not looking real good for that to happen but possibly 2016…..all these jobs programs so many here seem to hate I actually do value, the more bright minds we can keep at Nasa the better off we are as a nation. My humble opinion. so for now….go SLS….I love that they painted it black and white lol :)

  • DGM

    Dennis wrote:
    “What other way is there to go than give NASA a launch system.”

    You state that as if it is a reason for building SLS. But A: We don’t need a big honking rocket to get people to the ISS and B: We already have rockets being built that are capable of sending people to orbit. NASA can build the Orion capsule and launch it on an already available rocket. Yea the Orion is intended for BEO but is also supposed to be a “lifeboat” for ISS. So there is no mission for an SLS and it is a very expensive endeavor. I’d rather my tax dollars go towards getting into space sooner and do more stuff, including exploring.

  • Scott Bass

    btw…assuming sls does survive over this decade then if we do decide to ramp up it definitely will be an easier process had we just sat back and hoped the best for commercial flight. Perhaps the moons will align once again one day …..I wonder what the saturn V would have evolved in to by now…..would make good fiction to pretend the space shuttle program never happened and the next successor was an apollo follow on instead of a new direction.

    If SLS gets cancelled because spacex or someone like them does end up conducting deep space missions of its own cheaper then we all still win…..I mean after all if a commercial enterprise needs government money then its not really commercial is it :)

  • vulture4

    This is a sad day. The worst part is that a very large percentage of NASA takes it seriously, and still thinks they will lead America on to its manifest destiny on Mars as long as the national leadership is replaced in 2012.

    The CAIB called for a full and open debate on how we should access LEO. This was never done. They said that the next program should be designed solely for access to LEO, because any more ambitious plan would surely fail. NASA violated their recommendations on both counts.

    I agree that this project should be jettisoned if the NASA budget is slashed, but how do we know they won’t instead cut the few remaining NASA programs that still produce practical benefits for our country?

  • @Scott Bass
    “it does appear they have out maneuvered the administration and have at least saved Nasa for the short term”
    Saving NASA does not equal NASA developing its own rocket. Most of us pro-commercial crew people want to save NASA so that they can do cutting-edge technology development and space exploration, leaving commercial to do the profitable stuff. Making a rocket like SLS that a) may be too expensive to finish developing (as Booz-Allen says) or b) if it is developed, we can only afford to do about 2 launches a year; only supplies excuses to the people who want to kill NASA and use its budget for something else. And some of those people are politicians who can use that excuse to do just that, when SLS goes over budget and way behind schedule.

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    I mean after all if a commercial enterprise needs government money then its not really commercial is it

    You wouldn’t say such silly things if you knew how to read a dictionary…

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Obama is mia yet again

    President’s don’t usually show up at press releases for programs they didn’t lobby for. No contracts were announced, so the only people to congratulate were the members of Congress that were waiting for their pork. And since they have been critical of Obama, why give them a photo op?

    I don’t think you understand politics.

  • The SLS will prove to our fellow countrymen and the world that “America is [still] too great for small dreams” Ronald Reagan.

    For all those hate America first types or those Americans somehow ‘satisfied’ with future missions that just duplicate the last fifty years because they must fit within a 5m fairing; please watch the video below and then get back to me on how you justify your low expectations or small dreams for America’s next generation respectively;

    http://www.youtube.com/user/BillWhittleChannel#p/c/ABCC53F051B98328/17/nuv0K8H8ILM

    All brought to you by a nation built by individuals that other nations drove away.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/BillWhittleChannel#p/c/ABCC53F051B98328/16/DnTus_i2aZI

    “There’s no question, I am an idealist,” which is another way of saying, “I am an American.” Ronald Reagan

    When we sought to turn this CxP battleship around in 2005 we had no idea how hard it would be to do what we did. After all it seemed obvious to us that what NASA just presented today was the logical way to go all things considered (engineering, budget, politics). Frankly it was only our idealism and deep belief in America that ultimately sustained our collective efforts over five years leading up to the NASA 2010 Authorization vote in the House.

    Having said that, there is still a tough road ahead in order to bring this launch system to reality given the fiscal realities that we face as a nation. Even this effort though will in turn be dwarfed by the national commitment needed to fully utilize even the entry level capacity of this new second to none capability in Space exploration and development.

    I for one believe that the SLS and associated missions will cost less and do more to improve our national moral and belief that we can still do the impossible than one more month of fighting in Afghanistan or another round of taxpayer funded Xmas bonuses for JPM and Co, but maybe that’s just me?

    Historic leaders of nations during tough times understand that before a people can accomplish what appears to be impossible they must first be inspired that they can do the impossible. FDR understood this basic principle when he authorized the Doolittle raid on Japan or when JFK pushed for the Moon mission. Both were trying to achieve a much larger objective that needed the inspiration provided by pulling off a ‘smaller’ miracle first. Heh if we can land a man on the Mars we can ……..

    Along those lines, the asymmetrical capabilities this system could give our soldiers’ in the field would be exceedingly more cost effective than what we are doing now. If we charged only the incremental cost of launch of what is in fact a ‘strategic’ national asset (one we would pay for with or without for profit users) a number of commercial space development business case could finally close now as well. I’m also sure SLS will provide a whole new class of breakthrough and synergistic manned/unmanned missions for NASA thereby insuring that NASA best days, and by extension America’s are still ahead.

    Anyway, for the advances now possible in Civilian, Commercial, and Military uses of Space in a SLS world, I prefer to see the payload fairing as half full rather than half empty, until its not. One could only hope that one day even a 10m and 130mT (Jupiter-241 Heavy Stretch) will be seen as too constricting to Americans not yet born wherever in the world that may be.

  • SpaceColonizer

    Scott Bass wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    “If SLS gets cancelled because spacex or someone like them does end up conducting deep space missions of its own cheaper then we all still win…..I mean after all if a commercial enterprise needs government money then its not really commercial is it.”

    Commercial doesn’t “need” government money, but NASA does “need” to start finding ways to make space exploration cheaper so that more can be done in fiscally restrictive times like these. This isn’t the space race anymore. NASA isn’t being given a blank check (which ballooned up to 5% the federal budget at one point) anymore to reach a short term goal. So to think that we can push forward with a strategy that worked back then under those historical conditions and try it now is simply foolish.

    Programs like COTS and CCDev are helping to do exactly that. We’re not giving the money to commercial companies because they “need” it, we’re investing in them so that they can more quickly provide us with the services we want from them. And they have to actually prove certain capabilities in order to get the money, unlike the cost-plus porkers who don’t have to concern themselves with minimizing the bottom line.

    One final comment: Commercial enterprise doesn’t NEED government money, government money NEEDS commercial enterprise (assuming we continue with a state space program at all).

  • Vladislaw

    “For all those hate America first types or those Americans somehow ‘satisfied’ with future missions that just duplicate the last fifty years because they must fit within a 5m fairing; please watch the video below and then get back to me on how you justify your low expectations or small dreams for America’s next generation respectively;”

    I think yours is the small dream. To blow through the billions for 1 launch a year of 4 people versus the larger dream of opening up space to hundreds for the same dollars.

  • Scott Bass

    I do understand the denial everyone is in but you will get over it once they light up that first one ;)

  • Scott Bass

    The MIA comment was not meant to say he should have been at this press conference…. Just generally he has avoided every opportunity to speak on space, Any program that spends this much money should be addressed by the president in my opinion….but you knew that Ron

  • Scott Bass

    Rick, Saving NASA is really based on the premise that with out a rocket program NASA would be an even easier target for cuts and the brightest at NASA would have been absorbed by other industry……….still may happen given the timeline, 10 years is a long time just to get a crew up

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    I liked you better when all you talked about was DIRECT, and not this socio-political pablum you now espouse.

    If you want to believe Whittle, then go ahead. But for the economic stuff he talks about, you’ll end up like General Motors believing that no one will ever buy Japanese cars. He makes the assumption that since China hasn’t caught up to us yet that we’re doing OK economically. How myopic can you get.

    The reality is that we are competing against everybody, every day, and countries that weren’t hit as hard in the economic downturn as we were are growing faster than we are, so no, now is not the time to assume everything is OK.

    Even this effort though will in turn be dwarfed by the national commitment needed to fully utilize even the entry level capacity of this new second to none capability in Space exploration and development.

    And so far the commitment isn’t there. In fact Congress is getting ready to cut NASA’s budget, so interest in doing even small things in space are getting harder to do.

    But at least you realize that building a rocket is only a small part what it costs to actually do something with it, and if it costs $1B+ just to launch the SLS, then we’re not going to be able to afford to do much with it.

    We don’t need to figure out ways to SPEND MORE on space exploration, we need to figure out how to DO MORE with the money we have. The SLS doesn’t help that.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    “The SLS will prove to our fellow countrymen and the world that “America is [still] too great for small dreams” Ronald Reagan.”

    what a goofy notion. Associating your project with a quote by a great man who is dead…and never ever voiced an opinion on the project you are associating with him.

    This is what passes for intellectual effort by the nuts on the right wing…try and associate their stupid things with a person long ago faded into history as well as the times that made him great.

    SLS is the worst of big government which Reagan abhored…and it will never be built, in fact in less then six months, it will be dead completely, and you can build a model of it…RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    but you knew that Ron

    Sorry, I’m not a mind reader. I can only read what you write, and if you’ve done a poor job of writing you have no excuse if people don’t get what you mean.

    Just generally he has avoided every opportunity to speak on space

    He is no more interested, or disinterested, in space/NASA than any other President, so I’m not really too concerned with it. I’m more concerned with what he proposes in his budgets, and negotiates out of Congress.

    In that regard Obama did a great job with last years budget by canceling Constellation, extending the ISS, and adding Commercial Crew. He wanted the MPCV, which I don’t care for, but he got that too. Sure Congress slipped in the SLS, but it will implode budget-wise at some point and go away, so that’s a win long-term.

    Any program that spends this much money should be addressed by the president in my opinion

    Congress has only allocated $16B for the SLS. If every President had to preside over a $16B program kickoff they wouldn’t have time to govern. In the grand scheme of things no money changed hands today – it was a design announcement.

    Much to do about nothing… but you knew that Scott. ;-)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    “Historic leaders of nations during tough times understand that before a people can accomplish what appears to be impossible they must first be inspired that they can do the impossible. FDR understood this basic principle when he authorized the Doolittle raid on Japan or when JFK pushed for the Moon mission. Both were trying to achieve a much larger objective that needed the inspiration provided by pulling off a ‘smaller’ miracle first. Heh if we can land a man on the Mars we can ……..

    Along those lines, the asymmetrical capabilities this system could give our soldiers’ in the field would be exceedingly more cost effective than what we are doing now.”

    LOL really Stephen you like Whittington should stay away from historical references…you dont have a clue what you are talking about. first you associate a dead man with your program then this…sigh

    Any project that takes longer then the entire moon landing effort (from Mercury to the end of Apollo) to merely fly a prototype is not a great effort by a great people. That you try and link a program with no innovation (Shuttle C dates back to the mid 80’s) to the J. Doolittle raid which was the definition of innovation is goofy. Besides the Doolittle raid was not mostly aimed at the American people…they were pretty inspired at the time by the defense of places like Corregidor and Wake….who it was aimed at was the “Japs”.

    As for the capabilities it (SLS) would give the military more laughter….where did you get that from the “secret” DoD payloads that you know about? Dont be really goofy RGO

  • If the 5-segment SRBs become part of the private commercial crew launch industry as proposed by ATK and the SRBs remain part of the SLS system, then the cost of the SLS is likely to fall.

    If a private company decides to derive a crew launch vehicle without SRBs from the SLS core vehicle, as proposed by Boeing, for the commercial crew industry then this could also drive down SLS component cost.

    And if the SLS is eventually used to launch the largest commercial space stations and the cheapest space fuel depots into orbit, and maybe even the largest space solar power plants to GEO, then the SLS could end up being a work horse for the private commercial space industry which should reduce its cost even more.

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    Saving NASA is really based on the premise that with out a rocket program NASA would be an even easier target for cuts

    If that were true then none of the non-rocket programs would never have been funded. However there is more to NASA than just big rockets, and there will be more to NASA if we get rid of the SLS and concentrate on launching human exploration spacecraft on existing launchers. We can build more in a shorter period of time without the SLS, and we can afford to do more exploration without the SLS.

    There is no downside to canceling the SLS, even if NASA loses some of it’s budget in the process. The SLS takes far more than it contributes.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    If the 5-segment SRBs become part of the private commercial crew launch industry as proposed by ATK…

    Well of course they would propose that. I propose the U.S. Government should give me $1B. Neither is likely to happen.

    ATK needs to stop proposing things and start building something that the market actually wants. That’s what SpaceX did, and now they have $3B in customer launch backlog.

    If a private company decides to derive a crew launch vehicle without SRBs from the SLS core vehicle…

    You suffer under the same delusions that ATK does. Why would a 20,000 lb commercial crew vehicle need to be flown on a 44,500 lb capacity rocket (Liberty), or even worse, something even bigger? Kinda overkill, don’t cha think?

    Besides, the SLS is a government design, operated by government contractors and personnel. There is no way anyone will want to depend on NASA for critical transportation needs – it’s not their core competency. Everyone, including the DoD, learned that lesson with the Shuttle.

    And if the SLS is eventually used to launch the largest commercial space stations…

    The ability of Bigelow to sustain a BA330 in orbit profitably hasn’t even been established, so I would think it’s safe to say that anything bigger is quite a ways off. And at that point Bigelow (or whoever) will look for the least expensive way to get their larger product to space, and that won’t be the SLS.

    I don’t know where you live, but it’s not in reality. State of ignorance?

  • Vladislaw

    “If the 5-segment SRBs become part of the private commercial crew launch industry as proposed by ATK and the SRBs remain part of the SLS system, then the cost of the SLS is likely to fall.”

    There is nothing about the liberty on the Arianne website. If you look at ATK there is one entry. The picture ATK uses of the liberty is so outdated it doesn’t even show it with a different upper stage, it still shows the American flag and NASA on it. I am sure that would impress a new partner you are trying to court.

    The liberty is a powerpoint.

  • Rhyolite

    “Saving NASA is really based on the premise that with out a rocket program NASA would be an even easier target for cuts”

    SLS makes NASA a target for cuts because it is expensive and will not produce any results until the 2020s. It’s like painting a big red bullseye on NASA fro the next ten years. NASA would be better “saved” by making use of existing launch vehicles and putting the SLS money towards actually building spacecraft and flying missions.

  • DCSCA

    @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 9:09 am
    “You can’t help but laugh at this.” … SpaceX engine anomaly troubles panelist BY JAMES DEAN FLORIDA TODAYSeptember 14, 2011″

    Indeed. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
    Scott Bass wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    “I mean after all if a commercial enterprise needs government money then its not really commercial is it” “You wouldn’t say such silly things if you knew how to read a dictionary…” And you wouldn’t question it if you weren’t silly yorself- or should we say, ‘a maroon’…. – as Scott is correct.

  • You folks might want to look at this YouTube clip of Hutchison on the Senate floor yesterday:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGeOHu9NbBc

    This was after the press conference. She says that SLS is a ferry to the ISS (!) and she calls SLS a “heavy-loss” vehicle (!) before she corrects herself ans says it’s a “heavy-launch” vehicle.

  • @Scott Bass
    “Rick, Saving NASA is really based on the premise that with out a rocket program NASA would be an even easier target for cuts and the brightest at NASA would have been absorbed by other industry……….still may happen given the timeline, 10 years is a long time just to get a crew up”
    And when the committee set up by the debt ceiling law sees the ridiculous overall cost for SLS, having that rocket will be worse for NASA. Did you guys learn nothing from Constellation? It is ironic that you speak of denial.

  • Ron

    @ Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 15th, 2011 at 6:24 am

    “…and she calls SLS a “heavy-loss” vehicle (!) before she corrects herself ans says it’s a “heavy-launch” vehicle.”

    She was right the first time.

  • Ron

    @Stephen Metschan wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    “The SLS will prove to our fellow countrymen and the world that “America is [still] too great for small dreams” Ronald Reagan.”

    One to two flights a year? A big rocket for small dreams.

  • Ron

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    “SLS is the worst of big government which Reagan abhored (sic)…

    Hmmm… Yes he did, didn’t he? Just like all those “nuts on the right wing…”

  • Bennett

    “One to two flights a year? A big rocket for small dreams.”

    Small correction here. I believe that Mr. Bolden stated “the SLS will fly once a year, or once every two years.”

    I’m surprised that more wasn’t made of that statement.

  • I for one believe that the SLS and associated missions will cost less and do more to improve our national moral and belief that we can still do the impossible than one more month of fighting in Afghanistan or another round of taxpayer funded Xmas bonuses for JPM and Co, but maybe that’s just me?

    This is called a “false choice,” not that we really care what you believe, of course.

  • Byeman

    “If a private company decides to derive a crew launch vehicle without SRBs from the SLS core vehicle,”

    How many times are you going to post that nonsense?

    The core is not going to be designed that way.

  • DCSCA

    Bennett wrote @ September 15th, 2011 at 10:17 am

    If you’re launching to Mars the window optimum opens every two years.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 16th, 2011 at 2:00 am

    If you’re launching to Mars the window optimum opens every two years.

    It’s a money issue, not timing for Mars missions, that will limit the use of the SLS (if it survives to fly). At $1.5B per launch, there is not much budget left to build the expensive payloads that must be SLS-sized in order to justify it’s continued use.

    It takes NASA 10 years to build a telescope, so you can already see the challenges NASA will have in building complex payloads for the SLS. And then you have to operate them for some period of time, which means that since NASA can’t have multiple missions going at the same time, all their missions will have to be short duration disposable ones.

    It will encourage NASA to do the complete opposite of what we really want to do in space, which is to reuse space hardware and stay in space as long as we can.

Leave a Reply to Vladislaw Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>