Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Work Bench > Scale & Sport Scale Rocketry
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-18-2021, 08:23 PM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 11,155
Default

I seriously doubt the SLS will ever fly.
Space-X does everything Cheaper, Better, and Faster.
I seriously question viability of any future booster designed by NASA.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't
!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-18-2021, 09:31 PM
Ez2cDave's Avatar
Ez2cDave Ez2cDave is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
I seriously doubt the SLS will ever fly.
Space-X does everything Cheaper, Better, and Faster.
I seriously question viability of any future booster designed by NASA.


Agreed . . . Especially if certain "administrations" cut NASA's funding in the future.

Dave F.
__________________
"Failure Is Not An Option . . . Adapt & Overcome ! "

NAR # 26128 L2
TRIPOLI # 517 L2 ( inactive, at present )
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-18-2021, 09:37 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 10,471
Default

Space-X could easily get a single use BFR going within a year or two by stripping down their current Starship project into a pure heavy lifter and not worrying about recovery. If NASA suddenly took the SLS budget and gave it to them to hire more techs and craftsmen, they might shave a few more months off of it. It just won't be quite as cool as the current project.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-20-2021, 02:44 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
I seriously doubt the SLS will ever fly.
Space-X does everything Cheaper, Better, and Faster.
I seriously question viability of any future booster designed by NASA.


Exactly... Elon even offered to build them an HLV capable of 130 tonnes to LEO per the SLS block 2 payload requirement for $3.5 billion dollars, and he was laughed out of the room. Now he's set to do just that AND make it reusable, and I bet the final price tag for development is a h3ll of a lot less than $3.5 billion dollars.

NASA designed launch vehicles are a lot like Amtrak... boldly going in antiquated vehicles at overpriced cost with problems and delays where nobody really wanted to go in the first place... NASA has no more business designing launch vehicles now than they do designing commercial airliners... whatever they come up with will doubtlessly be more expensive and more archaic than anything industry actually comes up with. They should be focusing their development capabilities on new technologies and doing stuff that "only they can do" where industry has no experience base (though I question even that) like deep space habitation modules, landers, and systems integration for life support, shielding, etc that make those sorts of vehicles possible for those sorts of missions. Launch vehicle design has passed LONG ago to industry-- NASA spending billions trying to recreate it "in house" is foolish and wasteful. They should be focusing on cutting edge propulsion, life support, deep space navigation and communication, cutting edge sensor technology, etc. Enabling technologies that will accomplish missions in the long term, not reinventing the wheel at enormous bloated costs and taking decades to do it. Until they get that right, there won't be any money to go anywhere or do anything interesting... That $19 BILLION and decade they've WASTED on SLS (not even counting the nearly TWO decades they've wasted on Orion which has flown EXACTLY ONCE on an unmanned test flight) would have gone a LONG way to developing the landers and propulsion and life support and communications and other systems needed for a sustainable lunar return, in addition to ACTUAL MISSIONS...

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-20-2021, 05:15 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 10,471
Default

NASA has a training infrastructure, so they still have that to keep their toes in the water. Let the commercial companies design and build what it takes to accomplish future missions we dream up.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-20-2021, 05:44 PM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 11,155
Default

Training Astronauts is probably the only thing NASA will keep a strangle hold on.
Even that could be taken over by the USAF.
I envision NASA even giving up launch facilities due to lack of funding.
The funding level NASA has gotten since the Apollo days is DISGUSTINGLY SMALL.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't
!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-21-2021, 05:51 PM
tdracer's Avatar
tdracer tdracer is offline
Scale Modeler Extrodinare
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
I envision NASA even giving up launch facilities due to lack of funding.
The funding level NASA has gotten since the Apollo days is DISGUSTINGLY SMALL.


I disagree - the problems with NASA have little to do with funding. Even corrected for inflation, their funding over the last 40 years hasn't been all that much less than it was during the 60's. But they are not spending it efficiently or effectively - way to much going into bureaucratic overhead and insuring they "spread the butter" across many states/districts to insure congress maintains the funding. They are spending more in inflation corrected dollars to develop the SLS than they did to develop the Saturn V
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-22-2021, 08:01 AM
frognbuff frognbuff is offline
Aggressor Aerospace
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdracer
I disagree - the problems with NASA have little to do with funding. Even corrected for inflation, their funding over the last 40 years hasn't been all that much less than it was during the 60's. But they are not spending it efficiently or effectively - way to much going into bureaucratic overhead and insuring they "spread the butter" across many states/districts to insure congress maintains the funding. They are spending more in inflation corrected dollars to develop the SLS than they did to develop the Saturn V


Well said, tdracer. I spent 20 years in the Air Force, and I get more than a little sick of the complaints about "gubmint" (god, how I hate that stupid spelling) waste. The government isn't inherently wasteful but, like any large organization, tends to become a bit bloated over time. In the DoD, we had regular "Reductions in Force" (RIFs) that at least forced SOME fat-trimming. Commercial businesses do them to stay competitive. NASA has never had a RIF in recent memory, but they desperately need one. Unfortunately, that will likely never happen. NASA provides good jobs in low-paying areas (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama). So they struggle with their own bureaucracy, and (unlike silly things like defending our nation) Congress will never force the issue. I say hold a NASA RIF (say, 10%), but don't cut their budget. I think we'd find they accomplish much more "cool stuff," though sadly some folks will have to seek employment elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-22-2021, 08:31 AM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 10,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frognbuff
Well said, tdracer. I spent 20 years in the Air Force, and I get more than a little sick of the complaints about "gubmint" (god, how I hate that stupid spelling) waste. The government isn't inherently wasteful but, like any large organization, tends to become a bit bloated over time. In the DoD, we had regular "Reductions in Force" (RIFs) that at least forced SOME fat-trimming. Commercial businesses do them to stay competitive. NASA has never had a RIF in recent memory, but they desperately need one. Unfortunately, that will likely never happen. NASA provides good jobs in low-paying areas (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama). So they struggle with their own bureaucracy, and (unlike silly things like defending our nation) Congress will never force the issue. I say hold a NASA RIF (say, 10%), but don't cut their budget. I think we'd find they accomplish much more "cool stuff," though sadly some folks will have to seek employment elsewhere.

It would be a slow process, but instead of cutting jobs, they could let folks retire without replacement, maybe use an early retirement package in certain areas, and restructure as they go. The money saved from RIF wouldn't be much compared to the budget unless huge cuts were made, but research and development should speed up with less bureaucratic hoops to jump through.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-22-2021, 08:54 AM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 11,155
Default

Baloney about the no reduction in spending.
NASA's funding as a % in relation to GDP is far lower since cancellation of Apollo.

I think the cumulative altitude of all SLS launches will NOT increase from what it is now. Exactly ZERO feet !

Also I think the BRAC reduction to the USAF and closure of USAF ONLY bases is a major disaster toward our defense as a whole. This mamby-pamby creation of "joint bases" from former USAF bases is a bunch of garbage. We should have GROSSLY OVERWHELMING force in aircraft numbers, instead of throwing money at GARBAGE platforms like the F-35.
In USN and USMC versions that turd cannot even continuously operate above Mach 1.
The money used on the F-35 should have been spent on more F-22s (to at least the originally planned production number) and upgrades to the F-15, F-16 and F-18 as well as de-mothballing the F-14.
Retiring the F-14 was one of the STUPIDEST moves ever by the USN.

The USMC needs a F-35 "Stealth" fighter about as much as the USAF should bring back the AWFUL F-105 ThunderTURD. What the USMC could use is new-production A-10s.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't
!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe 1998-2021