But this is something new that relates to the hearing about SLS. Space Frontier Foundation is looking for things to do with the “Ridiculous Rocket”.
http://tinyurl.com/9tslh2f

Meanwhile, there’s a Gerstenmaier presentation from July 24 that surfaced briefly on NSF but hasn’t received the discussion I, IMVHO, think it deserves …

Thanks for the reference.

I too would like to see anything that might be the 180-Day Report.

Meanwhile, there’s a Gerstenmaier presentation from July 24 that surfaced briefly on NSF but hasn’t received the discussion I, IMVHO, think it deserves:

http://tinyurl.com/95qn9sl

It contains a remarkably detailed three-page “SLS Top Level Milestone Schedule” that lays out what was being considered for SLS for the period out through mid-FY2026 and even, a little and by implication, a bit beyond that.

That report was released on August 31.

Is it online anywhere? Link?

I know a report titled “Voyages” was released in June but I was told that probably wasn’t the 180-Day Report.

Thanks in advance.

Of course that’s precisely where the problem is for us. Science flagship missions are once-in-a-blue-moon launches, and will never contribute to the wholly laughable 6-per-year number that SLS advocates dwell on. But is that really a problem to them? I don’t think so. Congressional supporters for SLS just want to connect the words “science” and “SLS”. They don’t want to do any hard arithmetic and, as I said, the rationale for SLS is currently based on not doing any fiscal arithmetic.

As to win-win, I’d have to argue over value. The “cobble together from space parts” strategy is one that was tried in the faster-cheaper-better generation, the main lesson of which was that you could have two out of the three, but not all three together. In fact, that proposition sounds like a recipe for gross undercosting. Of course, gross undercosting is how you start missions, unfortunately, and two out of three ain’t bad. So yes, I could imagine Matt Mountain being pressed to advocate this strategy. But if anything, SLS is likely to take money from science, once it descends into fiscal hell, so for the Director of STScI to come in and make a case for SLS would be, I think, a sad assertion of science leadership.

NASA was required to submit to Congress this summer a document folks call the 180-Day Report which was supposed to be NASA’s proposal for a schedule of SLS missions.

That report was released on August 31. It has no schedule for SLS launches but, then again, the congressional text that called for the report didn’t explicitly ask for that.

“Consequently, the conferees direct NASA to develop and report to the Committees on Appropriations a set of science-based exploration goals; a target destination or destinations that will enable the achievement of those goals; a schedule for the proposed attainment of these goals; and a plan for any proposed collaboration with international partners.”

That report does have a handwaving schedule for “science-based exploration goals”. But yes, I suspect House Space may be subtly inserting the word “SLS” into the phrase “science-based exploration goals”, even if it wasn’t there to begin with.

Not that Congress particularly cares, since it’s only a jobs program and they don’t care if it ever flies.

“For a just a Hubble-sized instrument, I suspect the launch cost would be a minor part of the total mission cost.”

When NASA uses commercial launch providers, the programs have to pick up the full cost of the launch. Government owned transportation assets are treated differently accounting-wise, so here’s the way I see it.

There isn’t enough money to build a really elaborate telescope out of the NRO spares, or at least not soon enough to be on one of the first SLS flights (SLS supporters need to build up a launch backlog). And there is no way a low-cost program could afford to absorb the full cost of an SLS operational flight (~$1.5-2.5B). But since any such telescope would be undersized for an SLS flight, they could justify the use of the SLS if it is one of their test flights, maybe one that uses an EDS (Earth Departure Stage).

It even sounds logical – a telescope cobbled together from spare parts being launched on a test flight. Win-Win. If the test flight fails, not much is lost, right?

“Actually, if you wanted to launch both a major telescope and a highly capable occulter disk w/spacecraft (aka “New Worlds Observer”) mission, and send them out to Earth-Sun L2 to boot, you’re talking about some more mass and also, if you don’t want to do a lot of deployment for the occulter disk, some fairing diameter.”

Here is the dilemma SLS supporters run into with something like that. The idea sounds like a neat program, but it sounds like something that will need lots of money and time to get it going. How many of those types of programs can NASA afford, and afford to use the SLS to launch? Would the SLS really be needed for the launch, or would Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy be less costly transportation methods?

I wonder if anyone at the hearing will bring up the subject of mission cost for SLS-sized payloads?

For a just a Hubble-sized instrument, I suspect the launch cost would be a minor part of the total mission cost. If that’s the case, then why risk your instrument on a new launch vehicle?

Actually, if you wanted to launch both a major telescope and a highly capable occulter disk w/spacecraft (aka “New Worlds Observer”) mission, and send them out to Earth-Sun L2 to boot, you’re talking about some more mass and also, if you don’t want to do a lot of deployment for the occulter disk, some fairing diameter. Let’s suppose you send several occulter disks up in different places, to optimize the operational efficiency. That would fill more space and mass.

But jeez, the NRO telescopes are very lightweight anyway. About 2 kg. They don’t come close to the mass of a Hubble. That’s what makes me think we could be talking about launch volume instead of launch mass.

Yes, that’s certainly correct about Congress funding wasteful ideas. I suspect what the committee is trying to establish is whether there is any glimmer of possible scientific interest in SLS they could stir up. If there is, that just adds to the ammunition for the proponents of it. Betcha Matt Mountain concludes with something like “Yes, with enough investment of dollars (which we don’t now have), we sure could use an SLS!” That plays right into the rationale for the SLS. Building a launcher for payloads we can’t afford.

“Now, it’s pretty hard to turn a Hubble-sized telescope (in fact, it would be shorter than that) into an SLS payload.”

The Hubble only weighs 11,110 kg (24,500 lb) and is 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in) in diameter, so using the SLS to launch a similar sized instrument would obviously be overkill – unless they called it a “test flight” (i.e. free to the customer), in which case the “test payload” would be the NRO-based telescope. That could happen, but that only extends the life of the SLS by one launch.

“But one wonders what heavier options there might be.”

That’s the $30B question.

“That would take some cojones to propose facilities like that with a straight face.”

Well, this is Congress they are talking to, so wasteful ideas are routinely funded if the politics are right. They just have to pique the interest of the right person in Congress…