“Generally, it wiser as it is more probable to assign stupidity rather than malice….”

Thank you for the philosophy lesson, but I will stick to my own analysis.

“I favor shortening the development of SLS. But from the point of view that there is some limit to funding the development SLS, the idea of one launch per year rather than 2 or more launches per year, shortens the development time.”

No, that simply is not true. You do not save money in development by trying to limit the number of times any vehicle can be flown in any given period of time. In fact it is not clear how, in development, you could design in a very low launch rate limit. But even if you could, it will not save money or shorten development time. I tried to explain the situation to you in my post: Joe says: October 19, 2013 at 9:15 am .

The rest of your post, while lengthy, appears to be trying to say these same (inaccurate) things over and over again in slightly different wording.

If you choose to restate your same points in yet a third post, that is your privilege. But as far as I am concerned this discussion is completed.

“GB do you understand the difference between a HLV and a launch vehicle simply labeled “heavy”?
The classic HLV is of course the Saturn V which could put over a hundred tons into LEO. ”
I understand that Saturn V was retired in 1973.
Or 40 years ago.
That Saturn V actually lifted about 4 to 5 times more payload than any heavy launch vehicle since or before it.
That next year Elon Musk’s is planning on it’s maiden launch of the Falcon Heavy:
53,000kg to LEO.
And if the Falcon Heavy launches next year, and successful gets to orbit, it will be a vehicle able to deliver largest payload into space [LEO}, since Saturn V.
And if NASA is successful in it’s launch of SLS in 2017, it should be first a heavy launch capable of lifting up 70 tons to LEO, since Saturn V.
NASA says:
“NASA’s Saturn V (5) rocket was the most powerful heavy lift launch vehicle to fly successfully. Other heavy lift launch vehicles include the Titan IV (4) and Delta IV (4) Heavy, Russia’s Proton and Europe’s Ariane 5.”
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/rocketry/home/what-is-heavy-lift-launch-vehicle-58.html#.UmNZvVNuvzY

“These inferior launch vehicles cannot land people on the Moon- not without orbital antics that have never been done before and are far more trouble than launching one or two vehicles directly. As for the Falcon “heavy”, it will not have a hydrogen upper stage and this makes all the difference.”

SpaceX may not make hydrogen upper stage. SpaceX doesn’t necessarily need to make such a stage. SpaceX can simply deliver whatever the payload of those who buying a Falcon Heavy launch want, and the payload can include hydrogen upper stage which is fully fueled. Some best makers of hydrogen upper stages are American- have these
companies make the upper stage.
Of course another option is lifting a hydrogen upper stage which too large for Falcon Heavy, if fully fueled, so only have the stage 1/2 full of rocket fuel. And fully fuel this stage in LEO.
Since LOX is the most massive element of rocket fuel, the upper stage could be fully fueled with LH2, and one refuels LOX in LEO.

So lets look at Saturn V upper stage:
“The S-IVB carried 73,280 liters (19,359 U.S. gallons) of LOX, massing 87,200 kg (192,243 lbs). It carried 252,750 liters (66,770 U.S. gallons) of LH2, massing 18,000 kg (39,683 lbs). Empty weight was 9,559 kg (20,000 lb).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB

So dry mass 9,559 kg (20,000 lb) and LH2 mass of 18,000 kg.
That’s 28,000 kg.

So, S-IVB:
Diameter 6.6 m (21.7 ft)
Mass 119,900 kg (253,000 lb)

Falcon Heavy payload width: “Total Width11.6m 38 ft”
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

It could lift Saturn V upper stage, if you refuel the upper stage’s LOX in LEO.
Assuming you had a S-IVB.

-“And I hope NASA never builds the 130 launch vehicle.”-

You might as well say I hope we never build a base on the Moon because it probably will never happen without that 130 ton lift.

I think NASA should start with building rocket fuel depot at KSC inclination. And I think NASA should focus on depot that starts with storing LOX only.

If we only had depots which stored LOX, NASA could mostly handle going to Mars at such point in time with existing launch capability.
And NASA could explore the Moon with LOX only rocket fuel depots.

But think once NASA gets a LOX only depot in KSC inclination, which is operational, then having depots that also store LH2 or Methane, kerosene, or even things like Xenon, or cryogenic helium and water could later added.
If we have depots that can store and transfer, fuel and oxidizer, then we are essential ready to do Manned Mars.
As for lunar bases. I am interested in NASA exploring the Moon to determine if and where there is minable Lunar water. And I think a protracted and expensive lunar operation which focus on building lunar bases, would be undesirable.
But build bases on Mars [something protracted and expensive] requires about same capability or more capability, and I think doing that is possible if and when there are rocket fuel depots, at LEO, L-1 [or Cislunar/high Earth] and Mars orbit.

Generally, it wiser as it is more probable to assign stupidity rather than malice.
And it seems rather unlikely Obama cares much about NASA.

And it seems very likely that bureaucracies resemble
glacial flows, rather than rivers.
All bureaucracies have tendency are to focus on slowing or stopping [everything and anything].
It takes creativity to make bureaucracies to flow like a river. And the more stupid, control things solely by trying to stop everything. Neglect and/or stopping are
main factors in all bureaucracies from the beginning of time.
And generally, it seems one could make an argument that neglect has better results.

“Since slowing down the SLS “development program” would further delay not “rush it’s maiden launch”, your second sentence does not make sense.”

I favor shortening the development of SLS. But from the point of view that there is some limit to funding
the development SLS, the idea of one launch per year
rather than 2 or more launches per year, shortens
the development time.
It is also possible that increases in funding could extend the development time.
But if more money is spent to shorten the development time, I favor more money spent.

So favor more money spent to launch sooner, and more money to have launch rate launch one launch per year.

Not more money to have capacity to launch more than 2 launches per year, and not more money to make the 130 rocket launch any sooner [or ever].

So as far as getting to brass tacks. If the only plan is to launch 1 per 4 years- it’s not acceptable.
If it’s 1 every 2 years with idea that latter improvements could increase it to 1 per launch per year, that barely acceptable.
If you get 2 launches per year, and it does not slow development time [most important factor] and also means it does but cost much, that that’s ok. But it means, 2 launches in one year, no launch in next year, 1 launch per year is more valuable.

Of course a 70 rocket launched once per year is same payload as 130 ton launched every 2 years.
The only trigger for possible development of 130 rocket *should be* if NASA ends up *needing* 4 70 ton launches per year.
It’s not clear that if NASA were launching 4 70 ton payloads per year, that NASA should built a 130 rocket, but at least an argument for it.
So let get to NASA launching 1 70 ton rocket per year. See how that goes.
The problem at the moment is any program that actually needs 1 launch per year.
And rather than NASA being insanely obsessed
with trying to justify more NASA rocket launches,
what NASA should focus on [because it’s why we have a NASA agency] is increase of launch from entire US launch industry.
Just in terms of NASA’s budget, NASA should focus on having more America space launch- as NASA uses this industry to lift it’s robotic landers and orbiters. And US government in terms of it’s military
space program also uses this industry.
And if not for US military, there would not be EELV, and quite a few NASA missions have used these
vehicles.
So why should just military be doing something useful for the civilian space industry??

This very crude math tells me that 100 tons in LEO will send about half of that on it’s way to the Moon. So if this holds for the 130 ton lift SLS then a 70 ton unmanned cargo lander can be sent to the Moon by one SLS launch or a 35 ton lander with the first SLS.

There is a huge difference between a Earth rendezvous of two vehicles and the private space plan of depots and dozens of launches (or more) of inferior lift vehicles to effect the same mission of sending a single cargo lander to the Moon. The most efficient way to set up a base on the Moon is to send the largest one way lander possible by parking that lander in LEO and then launch a second SLS with a EDS to dock and boost the combination out of Earth orbit.

How big of a one-way cargo lander can a 130 ton booster send to the Moon? If it was 50 of the 100 tons the Saturn V lifted then would it be 130 tons sent to the Moon for the 260 ton dual launch mission? There is also the question of how much payload is sacrificed to get to these lunar polar sites compared to equatorial.

Consider as a given 8 SLS missions a year and half of them dedicated to the dual launch scheme; this would put a couple of these large one hundred plus ton one-way cargo landers soft landed on the lunar pole each year. The question then becomes how much cargo can these landers carry?

The first big determining factor in cargo mass is of course the fuel; storable or liquid hydrogen and oxygen? The ZBO (zero boil-off) equipment needed to keep stored cryogenic propellents stable is in development but storable propellents may prove more practical despite their extreme toxicity.

So, say in ten years we start landing cargo on the Moon twice a year for the next 30 years and this is what will build the base on the Moon IMO.

There is no substitute for a heavy lift vehicle with hydrogen upper stages.

GB do you understand the difference between a HLV and a launch vehicle simply labeled “heavy”?
The classic HLV is of course the Saturn V which could put over a hundred tons into LEO.

These inferior launch vehicles cannot land people on the Moon- not without orbital antics that have never been done before and are far more trouble than launching one or two vehicles directly. As for the Falcon “heavy”, it will not have a hydrogen upper stage and this makes all the difference.

“And I hope NASA never builds the 130 launch vehicle.”

You might as well say I hope we never build a base on the Moon because it probably will never happen without that 130 ton lift.

Your first sentence seems to agree with what has been said by Marcel and myself, but that of course is not what the administration is having done. They are dragging out the flight schedule in order to make the SLS look as bad as possible.

Since slowing down the SLS “development program” would further delay not “rush it’s maiden launch”, your second sentence does not make sense.

The rest of your dissertation on launch vehicle costs is a bit off the mark.

As with the Space Shuttle the SLS fixed cost (what you have to spend to be able to fly at all) will be so much larger than the incremental costs (the additional cost for each flight) that the incremental costs are lost in the rounding error.

That is why (when the Shuttle was flying) you would see press accounts from year to year with wildly varying Shuttle launch costs. The reporters were simply taking the total shuttle cost for the year and dividing by the number of flights for that year.

It does not work that way.

The analysis done for the Shuttle Side Mount configuration showed that 8 flights/year could be flown without any increase in fixed cost. The same would be true for the Block I SLS. Therefore, if you build it at all, flying it multiple times a year is not a problem.

It makes no sense at all. However, the rather obvious con-job is (sadly) enough to convince a number of “internet experts”. Note the post by “gbaikie” (October 18, 2013 at 9:38 am).”

I can’t say I have ever supported NASA building a heavy launch vehicle. But since NASA is doing this my view is NASA should get to the point of it’s maiden launch as soon as it is able.
Which doesn’t mean slowing down the development program so as rush it’s maiden launch.
I would want NASA currently, to be not spending money and time getting to point where it could launch more than one launch per year. As said better to have 1 launch per year, than possibly of 2 launches one year and zero launch the next year, and year after this
have 2 or 3 launches.
Obviously according to what I am saying, having 4 year gap is worse than 1 year gap.

And I don’t support the idea of trying to make SLS appear more economical by planning on having more than one launch per year.
Much better would be to plan to have SLS have lowest yearly program cost, AND not have big gaps between each rocket launch.

And I hope NASA never builds the 130 launch vehicle.
And though don’t think NASA needs build a hvy lift launch vehicle, NASA doing so, and I will grant there
is an argument which could be convincing to people, that NASA needs to “have” a hvy launch vehicle- rather than merely buying hvy vehicles from various American launch companies [Altas V, Delta heavy, Falcon Heavy].

“This, again, makes you wonder if the current administration is trying to purposely undermine the development and use of a heavy lift program.”

Unfortunately it does not make me wonder, that is exactly what they are doing.

Look at their “Development Plan” for the SLS.
– First test flight of the Block I SLS in 2017.
– Stand down until 2021 (4 years) and fly an (as yet undefined) operational mission of the Block I SLS.
– Abandon the Block I SLS.
– Another 4 year stand down (until 2025) while they develop the Block II SLS.
– Supposedly fly the Block II SLS only every other year.

It makes no sense at all. However, the rather obvious con-job is (sadly) enough to convince a number of “internet experts”. Note the post by “gbaikie” (October 18, 2013 at 9:38 am).

Well, having 2 or launches of SLS will give the appearance that each SLS is not as costly as it appears.
10 or more launches per year “might” make SLS
appear to be very competitively priced or better.

Or more launches of any launch vehicle will lower the unit costs.

But of course, if NASA does more launches per year it requires more tax dollars per year. And whatever payloads are going on the these launches are generally going to tend cost more money than the launch vehicle itself.

So, one can ask is it desirable for NASA to have launch vehicle which appears to be a as cheap as
a private launch vehicle.
Keep in mind it’s not as cheap- it’s illusion due to the cost of capital is not accounted- 20 billion dollars consumed for development in not counted in the yearly costs.
If Bill Gate did SLS, in terms spending as much on development it would lose money.

So sustainable can’t happen, all that could happen at this point is allowing one to kid yourself that SLS isn’t a expensive launch vehicle it already as proven itself it is and that is about 4 years before the planned maiden test launch.

So, I think NASA should use the SLS when it needs to use SLS. One think of it as expensive insurance.
Don’t care about it’s cost per lb to LEO. Care about NASA mission costs and program cost.

But NASA should care about increasing total US launch in the future. NASA should care about the cost of launch which going to send a NASA lander, satellite somewhere. And also the cost launching for US satellite market.
Because NASA is not a launch company competing with other launch companies. It’s actually forbidden
by law to do this.

Instead NASA will have SLS which is rocket which is said to has unique ability that NASA needs, NASA doesn’t have make private sector build this unique launch capacity.
So NASA can use SLS as core element of say Lunar program and lack of non-NASA launch will not prevent NASA from doing it’s program.
Which is not the same thing as excluding the use of
Non-NASA launch capability.

At minimum NASA can think of SLS as mostly a back-up option. At most, it has potential to handle all NASA needs of hvy launch.

But, I think NASA should do something about the possibility of SLS will only launch once in 2 years.

Instead it should be once a year and perhaps with capability to do 2 launches per year- if this doesn’t cost much.
And also plan to be able get a surge in total launch payload capability from private sector [or other countries].
I think one launch per 2 year or longer is a problem in terms of safety.
So I would think a launch per year, is much better than 2 in one year and no launches the next year, and 3 launches in year after that.

Or plan so to have 1 launch per year, and plan to do this for 5 years or so. And at 5 years, have option this point, to scale up or possibly scale down or terminate, transfer [privatize], or modify/improve rocket in some way.
Which would better than trying to 2 or more launches per year and hope Congress gives you
more money.