So What Should We Do With the ISS?

[boatgeek]

Just for fun, the shuttle SRB's weigh about 1.3 million pounds each. This converts to a little bit less 5.8 million newtons. Not counting the added weight of the N5800's, it would take 1000 of them firing at once just to barely get your T/W above 1.

You know, you're just sucking all of the reality out of our delusions.

My mellow has been thoroughly harshed. And I was even suggesting C-star instead of Mellow loads!

 

[Alan15578]

Sorry, but I haven't been following this important thread and I see it now exceeds 100 pages.

But I'd like to ask---What do the forum members here think about NASA and ESA astronauts continuing to co-habit with Russian on the International Space Station?

Should we bring our guys home as a rebuke to Russia?
Is it morally defensible to keep doing business up there when Russia is slaughtering innocent Ukrainians?
Or just keep going on because the ISS is so expensive and there's no replacement in sight?

I have my opinion, but would like to learn what people here think. And, if there's anything like consensus?

Just curious... Thanks.

I think it would have been a lot cheaper to just get them a room in good fantasy suite, or even a sewer.

No, bringing our guys home as a rebuke is just childish.

Ummm, I think we want to keep Russia engaged and spending their money on ISS, rather than freeing up those resources.

I think we should just keep it going, but I am not sure what the maintenance costs are, and dodging space junk is a growing issue.

 

[Alan15578]

Several points (and this is coming from a long-time observer and supporter of our space program and as the author of several dozen published articles, commentaries, reviews, and conference papers spanning forty years):

1) The ISS has been up there over twenty years and has yet to produce any Nobel Prize-class research. The last use of it is to collect human factors data by keeping a crew of men and women up there for long enough to simulate around trip to Mars. I don't know why they're not doing that before ISS en

Well then, you may the one to ask. Everyday I expect to read in the newspaper, or popular magazines, news of significant research and breakthroughs aboard the ISS, but I see nothing. I would hope that they are at least doing proprietary corporate research that cannot be publicly released. Yes, I know they are allegedly accumulating data on long term spaceflight that may be useful for a manned Mars mission. Yet is seems every time there is a mechanical issue they just send up replacement parts from Earth; you can't do that on a Mars mission. I do not demand Nobel Prize results, but what noteworthy results had been produced aboard the ISS?

 

[mjennings]

The what I've read the working relationship between astronauts, cosmonauts, and the world wide flight control teams have remained professional. As you go up the chain of command is where the friction is. I'd really like to see the ISS live out it's full useful life.

 

[Sandy H.]

I thought I read (either from a link in the other thread or some other news source) that the main Russian Zarya module was at its official end of life before the hoped 2027-2030 ISS deorbit and that the Russians had to do various certification to allow it to stay in space longer than planned. If that is true and they don't do that work, wouldn't that pretty much force the ISS program to end sooner than 2027? I imagine it would be challenging to have NASA or some other group recertify the Russian module, even if they had all of the technical documents. True, when something breaks, you try to fix it, but if it starts having major fatigue issues, that would be less than ideal to the people on board and the possibility of creating space junk due to loss of control seems scary.

If I have misunderstood, please correct me, as I hate spreading bad information - I was not able to find the link. . .

Sandy.

 

[Rob Campbell]

List it on ebay!

 

[tfrielin]

Well then, you may the one to ask. Everyday I expect to read in the newspaper, or popular magazines, news of significant research and breakthroughs aboard the ISS, but I see nothing. I would hope that they are at least doing proprietary corporate research that cannot be publicly released. Yes, I know they are allegedly accumulating data on long term spaceflight that may be useful for a manned Mars mission. Yet is seems every time there is a mechanical issue they just send up replacement parts from Earth; you can't do that on a Mars mission. I do not demand Nobel Prize results, but what noteworthy results had been produced aboard the ISS?

I can't pretend to know exactly what research is going on up there at ISS. Just haven't been following it.

You're right that some of it is proprietary so results aren't always made public unless the company wants to tout a big breakthrough for the publicity. But, as you say, that story isn't in the papers. So...?

But, overall, it seems the ISS research is more like the hype that surrounded the Shuttle's introduction---That it would be a platform where ultra-pure pharmaceuticals would be perfected and then, later manufactured in orbit. Or that pure, lightweight metals could be made in zero g making cars and planes and tractors lighter and stronger (John Deere actually had a contract to investigate the latter). And all the other wonderful, profitable things we'd make on orbit.

None of this panned out and I suspect it's similar to what's been going on up there for over twenty years now. So, is it worth it to keep ISS when Artemis sure could use a cash influx?

As you mention, though, using ISS for human physiology and human factors research to simulate, as close as possible, a round trip to Mars is one last contribution the ISS could make. But even then it will be imperfect as you can't produce the same radiation environment in LEO that astronauts will experience, nor the fact that logistics for broken equipment or supplies will not be the same rigorous task it will be going to Mars and back where you're months away from home.

Still, overall, subjecting a crew to the best Mars round trip simulation on ISS is a worthy, last goal the ISS can undertake. And we don't need Russia for that.

Then, I say, sell the US portion of ISS to Musk or Bigelow for a dollar and see if they can make a buck renting it out to researchers and tourists.

And then NASA can totally focus on getting astronauts back to the moon to do the real exploration we abandoned all too soon fifty years ago.

Just my opinion, informed by observing and researching the space program for many decades.

 

[Antares JS]

I can't pretend to know exactly what research is going on up there at ISS. Just haven't been following it.

You're right that some of it is proprietary so results aren't always made public unless the company wants to tout a big breakthrough for the publicity. But, as you say, that story isn't in the papers. So...?

But, overall, it seems the ISS research is more like the hype that surrounded the Shuttle's introduction---That it would be a platform where ultra-pure pharmaceuticals would be perfected and then, later manufactured in orbit. Or that pure, lightweight metals could be made in zero g making cars and planes and tractors lighter and stronger (John Deere actually had a contract to investigate the latter). And all the other wonderful, profitable things we'd make on orbit.

None of this panned out and I suspect it's similar to what's been going on up there for over twenty years now. So, is it worth it to keep ISS when Artemis sure could use a cash influx?

As you mention, though, using ISS for human physiology and human factors research to simulate, as close as possible, a round trip to Mars is one last contribution the ISS could make. But even then it will be imperfect as you can't produce the same radiation environment in LEO that astronauts will experience, nor the fact that logistics for broken equipment or supplies will not be the same rigorous task it will be going to Mars and back where you're months away from home.

Still, overall, subjecting a crew to the best Mars round trip simulation on ISS is a worthy, last goal the ISS can undertake. And we don't need Russia for that.

Then, I say, sell the US portion of ISS to Musk or Bigelow for a dollar and see if they can make a buck renting it out to researchers and tourists.

And then NASA can totally focus on getting astronauts back to the moon to do the real exploration we abandoned all too soon fifty years ago.

Just my opinion, informed by observing and researching the space program for many decades.

To add to what you proposed with the Mars simulation, another thing that really needs to be practiced is reducing astronaut dependence on mission control. From my understanding, the astronauts have very little freedom in their work up there, and any time a problem comes up or something doesn't work exactly the way it should, they have to wait for word from mission control before taking any action. One big example of this was how they had to wait for a written procedure before they could change a light bulb on the station. This way of doing things is untenable during a Mars mission where there will be significant light delays.

Aside from that, it's not time to bring down the ISS yet. A for-profit company, Axiom, will be adding modules to the ISS soon. I expect though that the ISS will be shut down in 2030 as more private stations hopefully come to fruition and take over its role.

 

[Peartree]

NASA.gov has an entire page dedicated to what research is ongoing aboard the ISS. Unfortunately, I am on a throttled connection at the moment and can't see much of it.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/index.html

 

[prfesser]

I don't know how much longer the ISS will last, but I do know that it's constantly exposed to a tremendously corrosive (albeit very low pressure) substance---atomic oxygen. As altitude increases, the molecular weight of the prominent gases decreases, and of course O atoms weigh half what an O2 molecule does. O2 is bad enough, but individual O atoms will do their darndest to grab hold of a couple of electrons. From almost anything---paint, metal, plastic, whatever. It would be interesting to see how well predicted (long-term) deterioration matches actual.

 

[tfrielin]

I think it would have been a lot cheaper to just get them a room in good fantasy suite, or even a sewer.

No, bringing our guys home as a rebuke is just childish.

Ummm, I think we want to keep Russia engaged and spending their money on ISS, rather than freeing up those resources.

I think we should just keep it going, but I am not sure what the maintenance costs are, and dodging space junk is a growing issue.

As far as Russia "spending their money on ISS, rather than freeing up those resources" I can only say:

While I agree that Russia spends something more than zero on its space program, cancelling the Russian manned spaceflight program, or all of its non-military space spending, would likely add only a drop in the bucket in freed up resources to prosecute Putin's war. Hardly enough to replace all the tanks, APCs, artillery, jets, and helicopters Ukraine has already destroyed that require replacing. Not to mention the Black Sea's Flagship Ukraine sunk. Replacing all these military hardware losses is far greater than the cost that Roscosmos gets in annual funding.

Let's face it---the Ukraine military, backed by the force of NATO arms is bleeding far more Russian money than could ever be "freed up" from curbing or eliminating their space spending.

 

[tfrielin]

NASA.gov has an entire page dedicated to what research is ongoing aboard the ISS. Unfortunately, I am on a throttled connection at the moment and can't see much of it.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/index.html

I'm not suggesting NASA astronauts are up there on ISS just twiddling their thumbs, but I do question---after more than two decades---if the continued efforts up there are worth the candle.

At the least, it risks Congress asking why we need to keep ISS when Artemis is approaching launch status (albeit unmanned and incomplete, hardware wise.)

Washington has never liked to lavish money on space (Apollo the literal exception that proves the rule).

It's not a question NASA should want to confront on Capitol Hill. History has not been kind---see numerous program cancellations. Or, worse, stillborn programs.

 

[bwayne64]

As for boosting the ISS ...

 

[K'Tesh]

If it were up to me, I'd say boost it into a higher orbit, in a stable Lagrange point, with the hopes that one day it can become a part of an off-world international historical museum.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

There used to be a member on the forum who liked to describe the research done aboard ISS as “pissin’ in jars while lookin’ at stars!” I didn’t exactly agree, but it was pretty funny.

If there is actually a budgetary choice between continuing ISS and moving forward with Artemis, I’d vote for Artemis. And while we are trimming dead-end projects, let’s ditch SLS too and put the money toward something that will really advance the Artemis program. I don’t know that these kinds of budgetary trade-offs and choices are actually on the table or if NASA would have much say in making those choices.

Maybe NASA should trade ISS to Musk and get Twitter in return. Elon doesn’t need a social media company. He would do much better to have a space station. Then NASA could shut down Twitter and begin researching and developing a new and better Twitter for the next century. That should kill it. Two birds, one stone!

 

[jqavins]

Yes, I know, I'm late to the party.

One thing no one has noted so far is that there is already very little cooperation on board between the American and Russian sides. There's a little, and now and then a meet up. But to cease all cooperation wouldn't be all that big a change. A change for the worse in my opinion, yet not much of one.

Agreed. Science has always tried to be "above the fray." Scientists often lobbied for exemptions to government bans so that scientists from politically unpopular countries (think Cold War) could attend, or present papers at, international conferences.

Maybe I'm more cynical than others, but I see Russia's invasion as evidence that the original reason for cooperating on ISS is a failure.

International cooperation---especially with Russia---was supposed to bring nations together and promote peace and understanding.

I think that aim has failed here as Putin's war indicates, so end our cooperation.

As I say, maybe I'm just a cynic. But I don't see us sitting in a circle singing Kumabyah is bringing peace.

Putin and his avaricious hostility won't last forever. It'd be good if there is some sort of cooperative project already in place, having been in place all along, when he goes.

In many ways, I'm a cynic too, though I try to be a cynical optimist. If we left the ISS as a "rebuke to Russia" we'd be handing them the 3/4 of the station that we built. That would be seen as a retreat and a public relations win by Russia. The optimist side of me says that there's symbolic value in continuing to work together. But the cynic definitely doesn't want to give them the opportunity to lock the hatches behind us.

In other words, leaving now would be cutting of our nose to spite our face.

Thanks for your thoughts, boatgeek.

Several points (and this is coming from a long-time observer and supporter of our space program and as the author of several dozen published articles, commentaries, reviews, and conference papers spanning forty years):

1) The ISS has been up there over twenty years and has yet to produce any Nobel Prize-class research. The last use of it is to collect human factors data by keeping a crew of men and women up there for long enough to simulate around trip to Mars. I don't know why they're not doing that before ISS end-of-life.

2) Russia has already publicly stated they're leaving year after next. So let them go.

3) We relied on them for ten years to get our guys up there and back after Shuttle. Nobody seemed to care that we let ourselves in such a humiliating position. So, leaving now would not produce a whimper of public sentiment either.

4) As I understand it, the US side provides most of the electricity for all the Station; Russia provides re-boost with the Progress vehicles. Musk has already said a Dragon capsule could do re-boost. So, we don't need Russia for that. But they need our electricity.

5) If NASA has any future in manned spaceflight at all, it is in the Artemis Program. Retire from the ISS, and get going full steam on Artemis, before someone in Congress thinks we should cancel it. And leave before the aging hardware breaks down in a possibly catastrophic way.

So, yes---still a cynic. Although I prefer to think I'm just a realist.

Most of that post gives very good reasons to be either happy or unconcerned should the Russians leave, not reasons for us to leave. The fifth point is the exception. Artemis and the ISS seem to be intended to serve different purposes. I think there's room for both is a good long term strategy. But there likely isn't money for both, sadly.

It can't be easily disassembled - it wasn't meant to be. It would involve opening access hatches that were designed to shut permanently once modules were connected and disconnecting cables that were built to be permanently connected. As for functioning, I'm less sure about that, but it seems likely that an engineering solution exists to allow the ISS to function without the Russian segment. A more likely scenario has NASA astronauts being trained to operate the Russian segment or replacing their functionality with something else per Elon Musk's suggestion.

All along there have been modules added now and then. It's a darn shame that there weren't older modules retired and replaced, as well as net additions. If that had been done, it might not be facing end of life so soon. Yes, I get that disconnecting modules would be hard, but it would have been doable if it had been planned. And I wonder if it's really too late. But it probably is.

If we want to continue working with the ISS after Russia departs, and our other partners agree, why not boost it into a stable orbit (geosynchronous or other) and continue to do research outside of low earth orbit. Probably a lot less expensive to maintain a somewhat stable orbit than one that requires frequent modification.

Many have already detailed the massive technical problems with that. Just to put it in perspective, NO manned mission has EVER gone above about 300 miles altitude except for the Apollo moon missions. GEO is about 22,000 miles, more than 70 times higher, and nearly a tenth of the way to the moon.

If it were up to me, I'd say boost it into a higher orbit, in a stable Lagrange point, with the hopes that one day it can become a part of an off-world international historical museum.

Oh, dear lord! The only stable Lagrange points are L₄ and L₅; the others require frequent corrections just as GEO orbits do. L₄ and L₅ are 1 AU away, so well outside the Earth-Moon combined gravity well, requiring even more delta-V than reaching the moon does; a lot more if I'm not mistaken, but I haven't done the calculation. The nearest Lagrange points, L₁ and L₂, are nearly a million miles away, so about four times the Earth-Moon distance. (L₃ is on the other side of the sun; enough said about that.)

 

[Antares JS]

Oh, dear lord! The only stable Lagrange points are L₄ and L₅; the others require frequent corrections just as GEO orbits do. L₄ and L₅ are 1 AU away, so well outside the Earth-Moon combined gravity well, requiring even more delta-V than reaching the moon does; a lot more if I'm not mistaken, but I haven't done the calculation. The nearest Lagrange points, L₁ and L₂, are nearly a million miles away, so about four times the Earth-Moon distance. (L₃ is on the other side of the sun; enough said about that.)

There are similar L1-L5 Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system as well. (i.e., an Earth-Moon L1 between Earth and the Moon, an Earth-Moon L2 on the far side of the moon, etc.)

Regardless, significantly raising the orbit of the ISS is not realistic.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

When it’s time to retire it, let’s have the assault troops of Space Force attack it!

They can practice breaching and boarding it. And when that’s done, we can have the Space Force armada obliterate it with our laser cannons and ion torpedos. When Space Force is done with it, there’ll be nothing left to de-orbit! Just a glowing cloud of ionized plasma!

HOOAH! Space Force!

 

[ksaves2]

As far as Russia "spending their money on ISS, rather than freeing up those resources" I can only say:

While I agree that Russia spends something more than zero on its space program, cancelling the Russian manned spaceflight program, or all of its non-military space spending, would likely add only a drop in the bucket in freed up resources to prosecute Putin's war. Hardly enough to replace all the tanks, APCs, artillery, jets, and helicopters Ukraine has already destroyed that require replacing. Not to mention the Black Sea's Flagship Ukraine sunk. Replacing all these military hardware losses is far greater than the cost that Roscosmos gets in annual funding.

Let's face it---the Ukraine military, backed by the force of NATO arms is bleeding far more Russian money than could ever be "freed up" from curbing or eliminating their space spending.

If you ask me, that's good. Kurt

 

[tfrielin]

There used to be a member on the forum who liked to describe the research done aboard ISS as “pissin’ in jars while lookin’ at stars!” I didn’t exactly agree, but it was pretty funny.

If there is actually a budgetary choice between continuing ISS and moving forward with Artemis, I’d vote for Artemis. And while we are trimming dead-end projects, let’s ditch SLS too and put the money toward something that will really advance the Artemis program. I don’t know that these kinds of budgetary trade-offs and choices are actually on the table or if NASA would have much say in making those choices.

Maybe NASA should trade ISS to Musk and get Twitter in return. Elon doesn’t need a social media company. He would do much better to have a space station. Then NASA could shut down Twitter and begin researching and developing a new and better Twitter for the next century. That should kill it. Two birds, one stone!

I have to agree that SLS is an embarrassment to NASA.

Here it is, all warmed over Shuttle parts--the ET, the SSMEs (re-named to confuse younger reporters, no doubt, so they don't ask why erstwhile reusable engines are now expendable), and the SRBs. Only the upper stage can be called new. And even then, its propulsion is decades-old RL-10 based.

That NASA couldn't conduct a successful CDDT on it recently, with so much of it familiar hardware is appalling.

It's the legacy of that fateful decision George Low made in August, 1971 where he almost ditched the Shuttle in favor of an alternate program that was basically the core of Apollo Applications Program---Skylab, then a more permanent follow-on Space Station and, later the Dual Launch Apollo missions that would have sent a LEM Shelter and a LEM Taxi to the moon for 14 days stays by the crews.

All of this would have kept Saturn/Apollo hardware gainfully employed for decades longer and we could have evolved them as new technology became available---A far better program than we ever got out of the Shuttle.

See Logsdon's After Apollo (2015), for more on this (particularly page 205 for that Critical Moment Decision by Low).

 

[Getmore]

I think the ISS should stay where it is and continue on. So far the astronauts are all getting along and putting aside what is going on in the Ukraine.

 

[Antares JS]

Only the upper stage can be called new. And even then, its propulsion is decades-old RL-10 based.

The upper stage of the block 1 is basically the same upper stage as a Delta 4. The Block 1B will introduce the new upper stage.

As for the RL-10, it's a good engine that has been evolving and improving for decades. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No need to knock it.

It's also worth noting that the core stage, while superficially similar-looking to a Space Shuttle's ET, has very little actual hardware commonality.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Maybe we should make ISS a Space Hotel for billionaires.

And when we get enough of them on board, then we de-orbit it.

 

[boatgeek]

Maybe we should make ISS a Space Hotel for billionaires.

And when we get enough of them on board, then we de-orbit it.

An Ark B solution! I like it. The fly in the ointment is that the de-orbit process might give them enough time to board lifeboats. Better to blow a just-big-enough hole and blame it on Russian space junk.

 

[tfrielin]

The upper stage of the block 1 is basically the same upper stage as a Delta 4. The Block 1B will introduce the new upper stage.

As for the RL-10, it's a good engine that has been evolving and improving for decades. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No need to knock it.

It's also worth noting that the core stage, while superficially similar-looking to a Space Shuttle's ET, has very little actual hardware commonality.

Yes, you reinforce my points that this is not never-before-extant hardware (see: Saturn V). The core tankage of the first stage is a modified Shuttle ET. Compare that to the S-IC stage that didn't exist in 1961 when the first Saturn V contract was let to November, 1967 when it flew for the first time. So SLS Shouldn't Take This Long To Fly.

That's an astonishing time frame going from zero to IOC. Then compare that to SLS.

And, I'm not knocking the RL-10, a venerable engine with nearly sixty years of flight history. But, again, it underscores my overall point---SLS should not have taken this long to get to flight status with all this legacy hardware, modified though some of it may be.

And far as the Block I/Block II upper stage goes, I'm just hoping to no one in Congress notices that the initial SLS is incapable of supporting an actual manned lunar landing mission (as opposed to the Saturn V which could)---It will require the larger Block II upper stage version to handle both Orion and a lander.

But, it's entirely possible all of the above will become moot some day and Musk will take over both launch vehicle and lander to get us back to the moon. He's already got a good start.

 

[tfrielin]

I think the ISS should stay where it is and continue on. So far the astronauts are all getting along and putting aside what is going on in the Ukraine.

Geez, this is like saying "Except for that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

 

[Antares JS]

Yes, you reinforce my points that this is not never-before-extant hardware (see: Saturn V). The core tankage of the first stage is a modified Shuttle ET.

And far as the Block I/Block II upper stage goes, I'm just hoping to no one in Congress notices that the initial SLS is incapable of supporting an actual manned lunar landing mission (as opposed to the Saturn V which could)---It will require the larger Block II upper stage version to handle both Orion and a lander.

Your overall point is right, but you got several facts wrong, which was my point.

Point 1: Not sure how you made the logical leap to "a modified shuttle ET" from me saying "very little actual hardware commonality." The ET does not have a thrust structure on the bottom of it, nor did it have engine plumbing, nor was it required to structurally support an additional stage and spacecraft on top. I will repeat: The resemblance between an SLS core stage and an STS ET is largely superficial.

Point 2: The SLS was never intended to deliver both the Orion and the lander. It was figured from the outset that the mission objectives for this new series of lunar landing missions would necessitate a lander too large to be delivered on the same launch as the mothership (Orion).

 

[tfrielin]

Your overall point is right, but you got several facts wrong, which was my point.

Point 1: Not sure how you made the logical leap to "a modified shuttle ET" from me saying "very little actual hardware commonality." The ET does not have a thrust structure on the bottom of it, nor did it have engine plumbing, nor was it required to structurally support an additional stage and spacecraft on top. I will repeat: The resemblance between an SLS core stage and an STS ET is largely superficial.

Point 2: The SLS was never intended to deliver both the Orion and the lander. It was figured from the outset that the mission objectives for this new series of lunar landing missions would necessitate a lander too large to be delivered on the same launch as the mothership (Orion).

Right---I forgot two launches will be needed when the Human Lander System is involved.

And at some point, the non-existent Lunar Gateway will come on line, too. Is that currently funded? Or still another paper study? Will have to google that, too.

I just hope I live so long to see any of this come to fruition.

On the other hand, I plan to be at the Press Site for the upcoming SLS launch sometime this summer. Or fall. Or...

 

[jqavins]

@tfrielin, you seem to be taking two, maybe three different positions. The two are not entirely contradictory, but they come close. On one hand you seem to be saying that SLS shouldn't be using so much old tech, and on the other hand saying that, with so much old tech, it shouldn't be taking so long. Do you want it new, or do you want it fast?

For what it's worth, I agree that it's taking too long. NASA is limited - no, make that hamstrung - by what Congress will give them. For the Apollo program, Congress appropriated tons and tons of money^*, and that's not going to happen again; comparisons to Apollo's rate of progress are specious. Not only is that not going to happen again (virtually irrefutable fact) it also shouldn't (opinion). NASA should get a bigger budget than they do, but not the tons they got during the 60s.

New isn't always better, and technology reuse is a good thing. It reduces cost and, done right, shortens schedules. If it ain't broke, don't reinvent it. SLS appears to have borrowed a lot from its cancelled predecessors, Constellation and its Ares rockets. I was working for LockMart Space Systems Company (LMSSC) in 2004 when Constellation was starting up and we were a major bidder (though I was working on commercial satellites). The technology reuse was a huge positive feature. On the other hand, it's been 18 years since then and a lot has changed, so maybe some of that tech is too far out of date to be worth reusing today. On the third hand, a lot on SLS is new or updated @antares is far better informed on that than I am, so I won't try to go into any detail.

Finally, the third position, the one I didn't remember if you've taken while a few people have, is that NASA should just bow out and let SpaceX do it all. I completely disagree. Having SpaceX as a sole source instead of Soyuz I would not call better so much as it is less bad. OK, a lot less bad. Still, having only one source is bad. Maybe ULA should be involved, I doubt Blue Origin or the others will ever be up to the task, or Maybe NASA should keep it in house.

* Through most of the 60s, a ton of gold would only have cost about $1M, and a ton of $100 bills comes to $100M. So, it was literally tons and tons of money.

 

[boatgeek]

New isn't always better, and technology reuse is a good thing. It reduces cost and, done right, shortens schedules. If it ain't broke, don't reinvent it. SLS appears to have borrowed a lot from its cancelled predecessors, Constellation and its Ares rockets.

One of the big traps that I think SLS fell (or was pushed) into is that re-use is great ... to a point. If they had just straight-up reused the SRBs, it might have saved money. But the original flavor didn't have enough power, so they had to add a grain, meaning that they had to do a whole raft of new design (case, grain geometry, nozzle, thrust vectoring, etc.). Likewise, the SSMEs needed at minimum a bunch of software work and some other work to become the SLS main engines. In those cases, you might end up with a more expensive object than if you'd started from a clean sheet because you're locked into compromises made on a previous project.

In my job, we occasionally get people coming in who want a tug just like that other one we designed, except 4' longer, 2' wider, with 15% more horsepower, new propellers, and 2 more berths. They tend to be surprised when we tell them that virtually everything on board is new so they've saved ~3% of the design costs by "copying" the old design.