SLS - On the Scent of Inevitable Capitulation

[Yggdrasill]

Anyone really know what the Orion capsule does differently from Dragon 2? Seems like it's roughly the same size.

Is there any reason (besides political) why you couldn't simply adapt the Orion service module to be compatible with the Dragon 2? Then you could launch a service module on a Falcon Heavy and a Dragon 2 on a Falcon 9, have Dragon dock with the service module in LEO, and then do a lunar mission. If you need more delta-V, it should be possible to strech the service module for more fuel.

But I *think* the upper stage on the falcon heavy would have sufficient fuel for a lunar mission. Basically all you would have to do is replace the Orion crew casule with a docking port, and maybe some small changes on the Dragon 2. Or am I missing something?

 

[e-FTW]

The EM-1 mission we are talking about is unmanned. So no need to have FH go through “human-rating” which is why this could work on FH.

 

[e-FTW]

“IT BEGINS”: Industry and lawmakers go to defense of SLS - SpaceNews.com — SpaceNews

So they call themselves, rather self-importantly “The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration”.
Described as “an industry group whose members include companies involved in development of both SLS and Orion”. So lobbyists.

They are attacking this new plan mainly on the fact it would require “multiple launches” and how that is riskier. Of course it is! It is pure math! If there is a 1% (random number, bear with me, this won’t take long) chance of failure per launch, then two launches leads to a total of, wait for it... 2% chance of mission failure. So they are correct. But it is a pretty weak argument, they really seem to be grasping at straws here.

 

[Yggdrasill]

The EM-1 mission we are talking about is unmanned. So no need to have FH go through “human-rating” which is why this could work on FH.

Ah, right, forgot that. But if EM-1 is done commercially, I think chances are good SLS is SOL for the remainder of the launches.

 

[Yggdrasill]

They are attacking this new plan mainly on the fact it would require “multiple launches” and how that is riskier. Of course it is! It is pure math! If there is a 1% (random number, bear with me, this won’t take long) chance of failure per launch, then two launches leads to a total of, wait for it... 2% chance of mission failure. So they are correct. But it is a pretty weak argument, they really seem to be grasping at straws here.

Definitely. For one thing, the consequence of a failure would be approximately halved. If the first launch fails, you simply hold off on the second launch. If the second launch fails, you may still have time to prep a repeat before the payload of the first launch degrades in any way.

Another thing is that SLS isn't very extensively tested. It may have a failure rate of 5%, while the commercial options might have a failure rate of 1%. So going commercial may reduce risk.

 

[e-FTW]

Ok, Bridenstine does make a good point or two:

From: Chris B - NSF on Twitter

 

[adiggs]

Definitely. For one thing, the consequence of a failure would be approximately halved. If the first launch fails, you simply hold off on the second launch. If the second launch fails, you may still have time to prep a repeat before the payload of the first launch degrades in any way.

Another thing is that SLS isn't very extensively tested. It may have a failure rate of 5%, while the commercial options might have a failure rate of 1%. So going commercial may reduce risk.

You also get disparity in costs, even if the risks are the same, leading to different results.

So if chance of failure is 1% (I'm making up all of these numbers to illustrate an idea, not to make any particular claim about reality) and SLS costs $1B for a launch, while a comparable SpaceX launch has a 1% chance of failure and costs $100M and needs 2 launches to do the same work, even if SpaceX needs 3 launches to get the 2 units of work complete that equals 1 unit of SLS work, you're still to the good by $700M relative to that 1 SLS launch.

Successes and failures aren't equally expensive in other words.

When one option is enough cheaper, and enough faster, it really doesn't leave any oxygen in the room for the slower and more expensive option

 

[Grendal]

Scott Manley avoids the politics but discusses the possibility of EM-1 on something other than SLS.

 

[e-FTW]

Scott Manley, in written form:
SLS Rocket Promises To Do Better - Universe Today — Universe Today

Four years later, Commercial crew is flying and SLS is pushing out timelines and scaling back expectations, but its allies are no doubt already making plans.

Maybe SLS morphs into some other program. Again.

 

[Nikxice]

Bridenstine's recent recommendation to use commercial boosters to launch EM-1 clearly has some folks panties in a wad. He's likely frustrated and doesn't want to be the next NASA caretaker muddling through another decade overseeing a porked out moonshot plan. Perhaps his call is just designed to light a fire under contractors like Boeing. Even after reading Bridenstine's 3 soothing reasons in the "Workforce" letter above, supporters of SLS should still be concerned. Take point #2, noting the complexity and risk of docking in LEO. LOL! He knows that's routine stuff and Boeing knows it too. Uphill battle, but hope he gets the support he'll need to follow through with using commercial boosters for Orion and the upper stage.

Love the hokey name of the lobby backing the earthbound SLS. “The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration”. Aka in political backrooms and corporate boardrooms, "The Coalition for Dealing Spending Entitlements".

 

[Bobfitz1]

Ok, Bridenstine does make a good point or two:

From: Chris B - NSF on Twitter

I haven't seen anything SpaceX has put out the past six months to suggest their Starship redesign and moving fast forward with Starhopper might improve earlier estimates of when Yusaku Maezawa and his selected artists will orbit the moon.
One more major delay of SLS/Orion and it's timeline for orbital mission will be in same year (potentially) as Starships.
Jim Bridenstine seems like a sharp guy. Having SpaceX get Orion to orbit the moon might be good insurance against Orion/SLS being left in the dust by the artists. This is rank speculation, but the past 6 months strike me as confirming Elon's desire to get Starship fully operational as soon as humanly possible. He's been willing to stand the original design on it's head to move faster and better.

"A Japanese billionaire and a coterie of artists will visit the moon as early as 2023, becoming the first private citizens ever to fly beyond low Earth orbit, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announced tonight. "

 

[e-FTW]

I haven't seen anything SpaceX has put out the past six months to suggest their Starship redesign and moving fast forward with Starhopper might improve earlier estimates of when Yusaku Maezawa and his selected artists will orbit the moon.
One more major delay of SLS/Orion and it's timeline for orbital mission will be in same year (potentially) as Starships.
Jim Bridenstine seems like a sharp guy. Having SpaceX get Orion to orbit the moon might be good insurance against Orion/SLS being left in the dust by the artists. This is rank speculation, but the past 6 months strike me as confirming Elon's desire to get Starship fully operational as soon as humanly possible. He's been willing to stand the original design on it's head to move faster and better.

"A Japanese billionaire and a coterie of artists will visit the moon as early as 2023, becoming the first private citizens ever to fly beyond low Earth orbit, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announced tonight. "

So Orion on top of Super Heavy?

 

[Bobfitz1]

So Orion on top of Super Heavy?

I suppose that Orion and it's service module launched by Super Heavy might be another option open to NASA.
What I was suggesting was that the same 2 launch option under consideration for the Orion unscrewed lunar mission,
be used as well for the 2022 crewed lunar mission.
Since if further SLS delays push that crewed mission into 2023, and Starship/Superheavy is ready for the Maezawa
lunar mission earlier than estimated a year ago, NASA Orion/SLS could be upstaged the same as Boeing is being upstaged
by SpaceX Commercial Crew. If Starship can take people to the moon and thereafter Mars, why does NASA need Orion?
A related and larger question is how long lived is a close alliance with NASA if continuing it will slow down Musk's Mars plans?

 

[e-FTW]

Some testing schedule re-jiggering happening: Eric Berger on Twitter

 

[e-FTW]

A really good read on everything that has happened in the last few weeks around SLS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...s-latest-headache-trump-demands-moon-mission/

And a quote, because you really should read the whole thing. This explains many things, but also sets up quite the showdown between the current administration and the senators keeping SLS going for parochial reasons:

President Trump and Vice President Pence wanted NASA to pull off something big and bold with human spaceflight before the 2020 election: sending a crewless capsule around the moon in a precursor to an eventual return of American astronauts to the lunar surface.

Ok, one more:

Construction of the rocket and the Orion spacecraft is spread out so that every state has jobs connected to the program. In all, SLS supports about 25,000 jobs nationwide, with a total economic impact of $4.7 billion, according to NASA.

That has helped the rocket win support among members of Congress, but also has fueled critics who have dubbed it the “Senate Launch System.” In addition to primary contractor Boeing, key contractors are Aerojet Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman and the United Launch Alliance.

I wish I was that punny...

 

[ecarfan]

That is the way government space has always been done. It’s the only way to build support in Congress for approving the money.

“Construction of the rocket and the Orion spacecraft is spread out so that every state has jobs connected to the program. In all, SLS supports about 25,000 jobs nationwide, with a total economic impact of $4.7 billion, according to NASA.

That has helped the rocket win support among members of Congress, but also has fueled critics who have dubbed it the “Senate LaunchSystem.” In addition to primary contractor Boeing, key contractors are Aerojet Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman and the United Launch Alliance.”

 

[e-FTW]

Loren Grush nicely sums up today’s events: Mike Pence tells NASA to accelerate human missions to the Moon ‘by any means necessary’

And that still does not answer the “we would do this with SLS Block 1?” question...

 

[e-FTW]

Thomas Burghardt on Twitter

Thomas Burghardt on Twitter

VP: “Get to the Moon ASAP”
JB: “You cut our budget, we need an increase”
...

 

[e-FTW]

An Alabama representative just let the cat out of the bag with the SLS rocket

A Florida representative wanted to make sure that his state, home of the Kennedy Space Center, continued to receive lucrative contracts to build ground launch systems. A Mississippi representative was concerned that NASA's plan to accelerate development of the SLS rocket would take work away from southern Mississippi's Stennis Space Center, which is slated to perform key test firings. No one, aside from Bridenstine, seemed particularly concerned about the president's goal of a 2024 human landing on the Moon.

That, right there is why the system is pretty broken at times: No one cares about doing great things for the country and humanity, or cares about what our Federal tax dollars actually do. All that matters is each representative’s backyard.

 

[ecarfan]

From that article, a statement by Alabama Rep. Alderholt, quote: “Can you talk about the importance of our national space programs, such as the capabilities, the supplier base, the innovation of SLS, the Orion benefit on a broad range of aerospace industry users?" Aderholt asked.”

Well one thing that Bridenstine can’t talk about is “the innovation of SLS”. As for Pence, it really doesn’t matter what he says, he’s an empty suit who has no influence on Congress and it will vote in its own self-interest, as usual.

@e-FTW even back in the Apollo days the situation was the same: contracts were spread across many Congressional districts to ensure that Congressional funding would be secure. The difference then was that political leaders and the public were caught up in the Cold War and the “race to the moon” with the Russians. Now, the vast majority of the general public has little to no interest in exploring space.

Fortunately, we have a couple of billionaires who are passionate about it, understand the challenges, and are working to solve them. I think they can accomplish their objectives without relying entirely on government support. Of course SpaceX and BO should seek out and take government contracts if they are available. But Bezos has his own money, and Elon is pretty good at figuring out where to find money since he doesn’t have Jeff’s deep pockets.