…from the Space Access Society:
NASA HQ just gave in to prolonged Congressional pressure and announced a vehicle configuration for the SLS “Senate Launch System” heavy-lift launch vehicle project. The project will be run under traditional NASA practices; the cost multiplier over doing the job commercially will thus presumably start out on the rough order of fifteen times as expensive.
Note we said, start out. We see indications that the NASA organizational dysfunction that causes that huge cost multiplier is not a constant, but rather has been growing in recent years. We thoroughly expect that SLS project cost will grow and schedule stretch, just as Constellation program costs and schedule did.
We predict that at some point, it will be as obvious that SLS will never fly usefully as it was obvious that Constellation was going nowhere, and SLS too will be expensively cancelled. We hope that SLS will go away before it’s wasted even more scarce dollars (and impacted even more actual useful NASA projects) than Constellation – but we wouldn’t bet on it at this point.
The only hope is that people in Congress who don’t normally pay attention to space will start to notice, given the fiscal issues that the nation faces.
And on CCDev:
Human spaceflight will remain a risky business for a long time no matter who is in charge, the industry and FAA, or NASA. The only way it will become completely safe in our lifetimes is if it is made so expensive that we no longer do it at all. NASA getting their way on changing how CCDev is run may ultimately produce exactly that result.
Indeed.
Are they launching ALL of the Senate? Or do WE get to choose which ones have to go?
Launch the Senate? Hell, I’d prefer to line the pad thrust trenches with them.
“We predict that at some point, it will be as obvious that SLS will never fly usefully as it was obvious that Constellation was going nowhere, and SLS too will be expensively cancelled.”
If anyone had the access or the fortitude to read the things, it would be interesting to know what is in the contracts with providers in the event the program is cancelled.
Larry J,
have you ever been around a sewage incinerator? It stinks WAY awful. I can’t even imagine the stench of burning that much useless crap at one time as you propose!
NWS would have to give them a three day west to east airflow guarantee before they could launch, so the ‘funk’ would blow out to sea.
I think the stink would pass pretty quickly when you have millions of pounds of thrust moving at very high temperatures and velocities. It would introduce a new launch constraint – you’d want the wind at the launch site to be going out to sea instead of towards populated areas.
I forgot to mention: Beyond that, the stench is a risk I’m willing to take.
I say we change the SLS fuel to hypergolic UDMH-Nitric acid, seat the key Senators in a specially designated section real close to the SLS on it’s first few launches, and see if fate works out for them any better than it did for Nedelin and the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces testing of the R-16
Good news?
http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2011/09/senate-committee-boosts-commercial-crew.html
Three came back from the ISS yesterday leaving three there. So now we wait to find out if SpaceX will have a crew left to visit next month.