I just got an email from someone will remain anonymous, to protect the guilty:
This weekend the Washington Post had this marginally interesting article on the Congressional resistance/support for the asteroid mission.
But buried within is a prizewinning quote from the irony-challenged senior Senator from Florida.
Nelson, the Florida senator who is a key advocate for NASA and the administration’s strategy, criticized the Republicans in the House for overreaching.
“A committee of politicians doesn’t know better than the experts in aerospace and science,” Nelson said.
This from a Senator who personally sponsored legislation forcing NASA to build a shuttle-derived heavy-lift launch vehicle, and when they balked, bullied NASA’s senior management to build that “monster rocket” (his phrase) despite their showing him that it didn’t fit in the budget. And that was before sequestration.
I guess committees of politicians are only experts in designing rockets, not in choosing where to send them.
Apparently.
Rocket Scientist is sexy; Mission Planner, not so much.
I vote that the voters get to decide where to send the rockets. I just hope all of the older Senators can bend over far enough TO launch them where I’d vote!
Yeah, but for some of them, it won’t be where no man has gone before.
LOL!! Too true, to true.
I can go you one better than Nelson’s statement. Listen to the debate by the House science committee on July 18 about the new NASA approprations bill. About halfway through, Palazzo of Mississippi says, “We are not, nor should we be, the scientists and engineers who devise the programs and projects to meet the high-level goals set for the agency. That should be left to the capable experts at NASA.” Others echoed this. Coming from a bunch of SLS supporters in Congress, that’s more than a little ironic.
Senator Nelson is the US policy equivalent of Russia’s upside down motion sensors. (Apologies for any missing hyphens and other punctuation)
Again, I think the July 18 House debate provides an even better example of bad space policy than does the senator from KSC. It’s obvious that SLS can’t be used for anything remotely interesting absent a big budget boost. So you’d think that logic would force SLS’s supporters to at least appear to support a bigger NASA budget. Well, in the House debate, the Republicans all opposed amendments by Democrats to raise the budget.
Perhaps there’s a reason, aside from intracranial ossification, why Nelson said that? My guess; the so called “asteroid mission” glaringly highlights the inadequacies of SLS.
On a somewhat tangential issue, I’d like to ask a question: could even the 130 tons-to-LEO Block 2 SLS (which wouldn’t even exist until 2030 or after – the currently developing block 1 has around half that payload) pull off a real asteroid mission with a single launch?
By “Asteroid mission” I’m talking about sending a manned mission going to an asteroid instead of bringing a space pebble to the environs of Earth for the mission.
Okay, what was the mass of the pre-TLI Apollo landing missions? I tried to find out. Per Apollo Flight Journal’s transcript of ground control for Apollo 11,
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/02earth-orbit-tli.htm
it was 297,914 pounds. I’m going to round that up slightly to 300,000 pounds. That’s 150 tons, so more than even Block 2 SLS can do, even assuming it’s performance is as claimed.
But, that includes the LEM, so let’s deduct that. It’s about 33,000 pounds, so that means a TLI vehicle mass of 267,000 pounds (133 tons).
Then there’s the Orion capsule and service module. Let’s assume the Orion could hack the duration needed for an asteroid mission without adding any extra weight and use their initial mass and delta/v figures.
Orion plus service module; total mass, 46,848 pounds.
Apollo capsule plus service module; 66,871 pounds.
So Orion is supposed to be lighter by 20,000 pounds (I’m highly skeptical that will be the case, but I’m using their numbers for this), BUT, it will also have about a third less delta/v potential than the Apollo.
So even if the Orion could hack the time in space needed (weeks, even for near earth space, unless there’s one heck of a lot of Delta V used) is there enough mass capacity to feasibly pull off the mission (stages for the needed delta V, consumables, etc)? I just don’t see it being feasible.
If so, even if SLS actually works as claimed, it’s still a rocket to nowhere, and a phenomenally expensive one at that.
Not that I want to defend SLS, but all of the NEA missions suggested in the Orion/SLS conops document that NASA released in March 2012 involve two or more SLS launches. Hence, the suggestion that a single SLS isn’t large enough doesn’t apply.
If you’re going to use multiple launches, then you might as well use commercially procured launch services instead of an in-house launcher.
I agree completely. In fact, even if you’re not going to use multiple launches, you’d still likely be better off with commercially-procured launch services (e.g., Atlas V Phase n).
Thanks for that info!
Okay, so a mission to an asteroid requires multi launch, and thus in-orbit assembly. But, isn’t the “difficulty” of in-orbit assembly their whole argument for needing SLS in the first place?
Otherwise… why not go with existing launch vehicles? You might need three launches instead of two… but is that really such a big deal?
Indeed, it makes no sense to support SLS on the grounds that multiple-launch missions must be avoided, when all SLS missions themselves require multiple launches. And many SLS supporters suggest that prop depots will eventually be used with SLS. So, why not develop the depots *now* and the heavy lifter later?
could even the 130 tons-to-LEO Block 2 SLS (which wouldn’t even exist until 2030 or after – the currently developing block 1 has around half that payload) pull off a real asteroid mission with a single launch?
Bingo. That’s the big lie about HLVs, they don’t actually help with heavy payloads, they are a hindrance. Because of the rocket equation everything that’s fueled tends not to fit on a single rocket, even a big one, and everything that’s unfueled fits comfortably on a single rocket, even if it’s a relatively small one.
The single-launch approach sure does put a lot of limits on spacecraft design.
I’ve long been a supporter of HLVs if, and ONLY if, they deliver a significant reduction in cost per pound to orbit (for example, FH, if it works as hoped). For example, I’d be fine with SLS if the all-up cost per pound (including development, opps, etc) to LEO was $500, but it looks like it’ll be $20,000 or more. (Probably more).
Propellant depots plus modular architecture are, IMHO, the way to go for most any beyond-LEO missions (manned or unmanned).
I’m always fascinated by the premise that our elected officials serve at the pleasure of NASA and not the other way around. Besides, where was all this care when people were howling for Ares 1 and Ares 5 to be killed for political reasons?
I’m always fascinated by the premise that our elected officials serve at the pleasure of NASA and not the other way around
Just as we’re always fascinated by your moronic strawmen.
Besides, where was all this care when people were howling for Ares 1 and Ares 5 to be killed for political reasons?
What a great example.
Fun to see that Rand is once again using his most intellectual arguments to defend his indefensible position. The fact is that NASA does not determine what it does or even in many cases how it does it. It exists at the pleasure of Congress and the president. The problem is that the president would rather there not be an exploration program and Congress is under the impression that there should be one. Forcing NASA to build the big rocket, which was part of the recommendation of the Augustine Committee that the Administration tried to ignore, is part of Congress’s attempt to impose its will on the matter. Of course it’s not doing a very good job. It’s not appropriating enough money and is currently squabbling about the whole asteroid vs. moon thing.
On the other hand, the folks like Rand with SLS Derangement Syndrome do not have any viable alternatives, so, whether they want to or not, they are in favor of ending American space exploration likely forever.
the folks like Rand with SLS Derangement Syndrome do not have any viable alternatives
Your continuing ignorant nonsense is noted.