View Single Post
Old August 30 2013, 10:20 PM   #28
publiusr
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

Talk about cherry picking...

That's old news, Dumbacher and others rightly took issue with it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...154#msg1080154

But if you scroll down to the comment section, you see this:

It is amazing to see how many so called experts pretend to make anaylises of the work performed by the space agencies without even uderstanding how different and uncomparable the requirements are for a reusable system to LEO such as the Space Shuttle, and a heavy lift rocket for deep space missions to Moon and Mars (forget asteroids, they are not a destination !!!).
Articles like this one only help confusing the political decision makers, by pretending changing physics or by just ignoring it.

Also from nasaspaceflight:

Biased op-eds seem to be the last remaining bastion of the anti-SLS faction.

Meanwhile, SLS has progressed to about to pass PDR, when most of you said it would be cancelled by the start of 2012.

This particular piece from "The Space Review" generally reminds me of the DC beltway lobbyist culture. People with agendas writing "articles". The last part about how his rant should not be construed as dissing NASA or its employees, made me laugh.


Another view

I would say the article is more hysterical than sober. Just a lot of handwaving about made-up SLS costs that the author admits he has no official source for.

His first whack at it results in a per-launch cost of $5 billion, and by the end of the "article" he is claiming per-launch costs of $14.3 billion.

And of course the article make no mention of the progress that SLS is making through the PDR process.

The author does present one chart that shows the impact of the expected low flight rate on the per-launch costs of SLS. It shows that we will need to be launching SLS at least once or twice a year in order to achieve a decent return on investment. Of course, when you plug in more realist costs, the numbers look even better.

As SLS gets closer and closer to reality, the SLS haters will escalate their drumbeat of negativity to a towering crescendo. I just hope that NASA and the good people working on SLS and Orion will be able to ignore the vitriol and continue their good work on these systems.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...853#msg1074853


Strickland actually supports HLVs, he just bought into ULA's BS numbers on Ares V, SLS etc.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zza.html

From nasaspaceflight-

It has been said a Delta IV Heavy cost around $270M per launch, so $500M per launch of a SLS out side of the fixed yearly cost seems reasonable and based on shuttle per launch costs.

Right now the real stagnation is with everyone making EELV class LVs, duplicating effort, and supporting only medium lift. You won't take humanity to the stars with lvs whose size is determined by whatever the latest comsats are.

Some of Musks problems
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=41515 http://www.americaspace.com/?p=34964

Last edited by publiusr; August 30 2013 at 10:30 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote