NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[DAL59]

I agree, however, if China ever says its going to Mars by a certain date, the US would try their best to beat them.  

[Bill Phil]

25 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

I agree, however, if China ever says its going to Mars by a certain date, the US would try their best to beat them.  

Would we, though? The USSR didn't announce an intention to land men on the Moon first. The US decided that landing men on the Moon was the finish line, not anybody else. 

If anything, a new space race would be a bad thing. It causes people to think that there's a finish line, that there's a goal, that after that line is crossed then we're done, finished. Arguably, the space race of old was exactly this. Once it was certain that NASA would put men on the Moon, funding was cut, tremendously. That was the finish line. Heck, they started cancelling the last Apollo missions in what amounts to the blink of an eye. NASA had to fight pretty hard to get what landing missions they did. A space race justifies killing the program as soon as you cross the finish line. Even earlier, really, once it's certain that you will cross the finish line at some point before you actually cross it.

[NSEP]

I apologise if it does not belong here, but i made a SLS/Orion in Realism Overhaul, so i can do proposed missions and stuff, (maybe) for my Youtube Channel. You know, the ultimate verification test 

 

[_Augustus_]

8 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Would we, though? The USSR didn't announce an intention to land men on the Moon first. The US decided that landing men on the Moon was the finish line, not anybody else. 

If anything, a new space race would be a bad thing. It causes people to think that there's a finish line, that there's a goal, that after that line is crossed then we're done, finished. Arguably, the space race of old was exactly this. Once it was certain that NASA would put men on the Moon, funding was cut, tremendously. That was the finish line. Heck, they started cancelling the last Apollo missions in what amounts to the blink of an eye. NASA had to fight pretty hard to get what landing missions they did. A space race justifies killing the program as soon as you cross the finish line. Even earlier, really, once it's certain that you will cross the finish line at some point before you actually cross it.

Also, because we reached the finish line first, the USSR mothballed N1. 

[tater]

There is no space race to Mars. It's not a thing, nor is it likely to be one.

[DAL59]

16 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

If anything, a new space race would be a bad thing. It causes people to think that there's a finish line, that there's a goal, that after that line is crossed then we're done, finished.

I agree, but unlike the last space race, we have private space companies.  Yes, I know that the Apollo rockets were made mostly by private companies, but today we have companies that make their rockets independently.  A space race could mean a large government fund given to Musk. 

[tater]

Apollo was made entirely by private contractors.

The only difference is who is paying for some of the dev now. A race for market share is always a good thing, too.

[DAL59]

Yes, but SpaceX and soon BO will have fully capable launch vehicles of there own.

 

(SpaceX cgi is better)

(I think its a bit disappointing that on the 50th anniversary of apollo 11, NASA will be doing an unmanned, suborbital flight.)

[Nightside]

Wow, that thing really does some acrobatics after separating from the rocket. It seems strange that they aren't bothering to test parachutes at the same time.

[Canopus]

51 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Wow, that thing really does some acrobatics after separating from the rocket. It seems strange that they aren't bothering to test parachutes at the same time.

If by Acrobatics you mean turn the Capsule around then yeah.

[tater]

That LAS system looks very capable... and expensive. It'd be a shame if someone threw it into the sea. Every. Single. Launch.

Edited November 14, 2017 by tater

[Canopus]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

That LAS system looks very capable... and expensive. It'd be a shame if someone threw it into the sea. Every. Single. Launch.

The other Option is to drag the Launch escape system around as dead weight. And i can't imagine it being that expensive compared to the rest of the spacecraft.

[tater]

1 minute ago, Canopus said:

The other Option is to drag the Launch escape system around as dead weight. And i can't imagine it being that expensive compared to the rest of the spacecraft.

True, as when Orion launches with crew they will have spent about 17 Billion $ just on Orion. So entire dev programs for other LV are cheap by comparison.

 I guess throwing that away isn't a big deal, because they don't waste the insanely expensive, reusable SSMEs... oh, wait.

[Canopus]

15 minutes ago, tater said:

True, as when Orion launches with crew they will have spent about 17 Billion $ just on Orion. So entire dev programs for other LV are cheap by comparison.

 I guess throwing that away isn't a big deal, because they don't waste the insanely expensive, reusable SSMEs... oh, wait.

I thought the STS did prove that just because you can recover Elements from the Launcher, it doesn't necessarily reduce Cost. I know that you are most likely referencing SpaceX and their cheap launches for the Air Force. But i wouldn't be so fast and attribute that to the Reusable First stage. SpaceX is the first real Alternative to ULA (for classified Cargo) and they may have just kept the Prices Artificially high. I would also wait until they Have launched a booster more than two times to see if it's really that economical.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Canopus

[tater]

ULA certainly milked their only customers.

Regardless, I think the reuse paradigm will pay, it only needs to be cheaper than making a new one. STS was not reused as much as rebuilt each flight. It ran what, ~1.5 B$/flight, total costs? SLS is going to be 3 B$/flight in just total annual costs, not counting development. Orion is 17 B$ alone in dev cost. That's insane, considering the first all-up test will in fact be the first crew flight.

By the time SLS is actually flying all-up (EM-2), there will likely be 2+ reusable vehicles in use, possibly 3 (F9, NG, and possible BFR).

[Nibb31]

9 hours ago, Nightside said:

It seems strange that they aren't bothering to test parachutes at the same time.

I agree. They'd rather develop a data recorder jettison and recovery system that will only be used once. How much does this extra development cost compared to just packing a new set of parachutes and getting extra data from that. This program is crazy.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Nibb31

[MaxwellsDemon]

17 hours ago, DAL59 said:

(I think its a bit disappointing that on the 50th anniversary of apollo 11, NASA will be doing an unmanned, suborbital flight.)

Agreed.  But at least there will be something, rather than nothing.

Many have said this before... Apollo proved what could be done with enough funding and broad support.  Absent either of those, though, it's a rough road.

[tater]

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

I agree. They'd rather develop a data recorder jettison and recovery system that will only be used once. How much does this extra development cost compared to just packing a new set of parachutes and getting extra data from that. This program is crazy.

Everything is boilerplate until it isn't for Orion/SLS. The first actual SLS launch will really be EM-2. All up. With crew.

Far less methodical than commercial crew, really.

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Everything is boilerplate until it isn't for Orion/SLS. The first actual SLS launch will really be EM-2. All up. With crew.

Far less methodical than commercial crew, really.

I still don't expect crew.  Blowing up a crew is the only way to cancel that thing, otherwise it will lumber on until Congressional districts change enough to make it unwanted.  They could blow up an uncrewed vessel and simply increase the costs in the name of safety theater and the pork would continue, but blowing up a crew for no reason would look too bad.

[kerbiloid]

 

Spoiler

On 14.11.2017 at 4:15 PM, tater said:

There is no space race to Mars. It's not a thing, nor is it likely to be one.

Instead of building N-1, etc, the USSR should just declare with a bored face: "We are not interested in the Moon. We have enough work here on the Earth, why fly to the lifeless piece of rock?"
Then a year later NASA would be being asked from here and there: "Why are we spending money on that Apollo? Look at Russians, they aren't going to get there at all."
And today we would be discussing on this forum: "Can a human fly to the Moon?"

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by kerbiloid

[_Augustus_]

3 hours ago, tater said:

The first actual SLS launch will really be EM-2. All up. With crew.

Europa Clipper will fly first... hopefully. IMO they should really just drop the EUS and continue flying with ICPS. No need for a new mobile launcher, no need to fly Europa Clipper first for safety reasons, and no payload adapter for Orion to fly with DSG parts, so it'd kill DSG. For cargo to LEO they should just fly Block 0 without an upper stage, or build an EDS-like stage.

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

I still don't expect crew.  Blowing up a crew is the only way to cancel that thing, otherwise it will lumber on until Congressional districts change enough to make it unwanted.  They could blow up an uncrewed vessel and simply increase the costs in the name of safety theater and the pork would continue, but blowing up a crew for no reason would look too bad.

I really, really think POTUS will cancel it in the FY2019 budget. I really hope so, too.

[Canopus]

What's the big difference between the EUS and the EDS? Both seem to accomplish the same thing.

[tater]

Looking at the very notional SLS schedule, they have Europa Clipper penciled in for 2022, and EM-2 in June 2022. No way that EM-2 happens the same year.

They have stated it will only fly once a year, so that makes EM-2 2023, assuming they get EC going. 4 years, and they haven't bent metal yet, right? Seems tight.

Of course that assumes that SLS moves along on schedule, and they literally have no slop left in the schedule for contingencies (nor in budget).

 

 

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, tater said:

only fly once a year,

!

What's the point then?  If it could launch even twice a year it might be occasionally better than the FH or the NG, but once a year isn't good for anything!   

[tater]

25 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

!

What's the point then?  If it could launch even twice a year it might be occasionally better than the FH or the NG, but once a year isn't good for anything!   

They don't have 2 SLS-worthy payloads per year to fly. I want to say that they said the marginal launch cost was like 500 M$. The program costs are approaching 3 B$/year. Assuming that 1 launch is folded into the program costs, then at 2 launches/yr, it's about 1.5 B$/launch. With 1 it's 3 B$. Generally with satellites, the payload is the high ticket item, so where are they going to get the $ for two payloads that cost several billions each?