NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[Nibb31]

16 hours ago, DAL59 said:

@_Augustus_BTW, the microwave beam does not significantly heat up the air. 

We don't have any idea about the ecological impact of firing high-power microwave beams from orbit. It might actually do some nasty things with the atmosphere, like messing with the ozone layer. It might also zap any wildlife that it encounters, interfere with telecommunications and transport.

It hasn't been seriously studied because the losses are not worth the effort. If a 1 km² solar farm in orbit is 5 times more efficient than a 1 km² solar farm on the ground, then just build your ground-based solar farms 5 times bigger and save the cost of designing and launching a 1km² space-based solar farm. It's not like we have a shortage of sun-exposed real estate.

[tater]

I'll just leave that here.

[Green Baron]

Well, at least SLS will not break the rule that a launch has - up to now - never been preponed (is that a meaningful English word ?)

[Canopus]

Maybe if they cancel Em-1. But i‘m sceptical.

[NSEP]

28 minutes ago, tater said:

I'll just leave that here.

6/5 years does not seem like much but when i realized what things i have to go through in that time it feels more like 200 years away.

Edited December 6, 2017 by NSEP

[_Augustus_]

28 minutes ago, tater said:

I'll just leave that here.

That's 6 or 7 years behind schedule. No large ($1B+) NASA program has ever been delayed that long AFAIK. Now EM-1 might fly around the same time as BFR, which would be hilariously sad, and even if BFR gets delayed (it probably will) it'll still fly before Europa Clipper and/or EM-2 (if EC still flies on SLS and EM-2 even happens at this point).

POTUS (or Bridenstine, or VP) is going to kill SLS. A first flight of any kind may not happen until the end of POTUS' second term, and it's thus completely pointless if POTUS/VP/Bridenstine want to go back to the Moon, let alone lunar orbit, before then.

Edited December 6, 2017 by _Augustus_

[tater]

 

I preferred the previous thread name.

 

[Canopus]

This is turning into the Polar opposite of the SpaceX thread. One filled with unduly optimism  and naive admiration and the other with overcritical desillusioned people and general resentment. I still prefer this one though.

[_Augustus_]

7 minutes ago, Canopus said:

This is turning into the Polar opposite of the SpaceX thread. One filled with unduly optimism  and naive admiration and the other with overcritical desillusioned people and general resentment.

I don't think we're overcritical... just honest.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, Canopus said:

This is turning into the Polar opposite of the SpaceX thread. One filled with unduly optimism  and naive admiration and the other with overcritical desillusioned people and general resentment. I still prefer this one though.

Yeah, the off topic parts of this veer into the same stuff that is optimistically off topic in the SpaceX thread.

Any news regarding SLS/Orion delays are certainly a real issue, however, as there are a couple commercial vehicles breathing down the neck of SLS.

New Glenn is entirely capable of putting Orion into LEO, though not to a NRO around the Moon. Still, 3 flights might well be vastly cheaper than 1 SLS launch. (1 for Orion, then perhaps a fuel tank and an upper stage for the TLI burn (90 tons total).

[_Augustus_]

22 minutes ago, tater said:

 

I preferred the previous thread name.

 

Fine, I'll change it back.

So basically DSG is going to spend most of its time as an unmanned experiment platform? Gee, why don't we just drop the crew part and just use it as an unmanned experiment platform? Oh, yeah, that's because DSG was created as a job for SLS/Orion, and if we removed the need for SLS to launch it and Orion to visit it it wouldn't be able to do that anymore.

[tater]

Just now, _Augustus_ said:

Fine, I'll change it back.

So basically DSG is going to spend most of its time as an unmanned experiment platform? Gee, why don't we just drop the crew part and just use it as an unmanned experiment platform? Oh, yeah, that's because DSG was created as a job for SLS/Orion, and if we removed the need for SLS to launch it and Orion to visit it it wouldn't be able to do that anymore.

You won't find me disagreeing with you on much about SLS, lol, but I like my disagreement to have the impression of impartiality  . An impartial thread name helps keep things on track, so it's not all a default bash (only a bash when there is reason to do so, which is frequent).

[Canopus]

I just don‘t see the big downside to the SLS. It is not like it‘s taking money away from any other endeavor other than maybe the iss, and it doesn‘t seem to hinder the development of any other launch vehicle thats on the horizon, since they have other costumers like telecom and defense. Maybe they‘l cancel the SLS after a few flights, but by the time they do, im certain we have a lot of alternatives around.

[_Augustus_]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

New Glenn is entirely capable of putting Orion into LEO, though not to a NRO around the Moon. Still, 3 flights might well be vastly cheaper than 1 SLS launch. (1 for Orion, then perhaps a fuel tank and an upper stage for the TLI burn (90 tons total).

New Glenn can put 13t to GTO in reusable mode, which obviously isn't enough for Orion (20t), but it could probably put Orion in MEO and still land. I don't think you'd need 3 launches to get it to lunar orbit; two could probably do it. Alternatively if you disposed of the New Glenn (no landing) you could probably just get Orion to lunar orbit in one launch.

I ran the numbers in the OP and each SLS launch will probably cost $3+ billion assuming the maximum flight rate. That's more than New Glenn's entire development cost ($2.5 billion).

 

[tater]

1 minute ago, Canopus said:

I just don‘t see the big downside to the SLS. It is not like it‘s taking money away from any other endeavor other than maybe the iss, and it doesn‘t seem to hinder the development of any other launch vehicle thats on the horizon, since they have other costumers like telecom and defense. Maybe they‘l cancel the SLS after a few flights, but by the time they do, im certain we have a lot of alternatives around.

Agreed, and the money is either going to SLS/Orion, or it's not being spent at all, unless it is replaced with a similar, flagship high-ticket item---that we would complain about equally, because it would be made the same way.

[_Augustus_]

3 minutes ago, Canopus said:

It is not like it‘s taking money away from any other endeavor

It's taking $2 billion a year from NASA. That's the cost of TWO Curiosity rovers or Cassini-class gas giant orbiter missions. EVERY YEAR.

 

[Canopus]

3 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

It's taking $2 billion a year from NASA. That's the cost of TWO Curiosity rovers or Cassini-class gas giant orbiter missions. EVERY YEAR.

 

I was under the impression that the manned spaceflight budget was seperate from the unmanned one. But still do we need two more Curiosity rovers? I mean what could they accomplish more? And there doesn‘t seem to be a shortage of Unmanned missions anyway. There is a lot going on in the Solar system.

[wumpus]

5 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

That's 6 or 7 years behind schedule. No large ($1B+) NASA program has ever been delayed that long AFAIK. Now EM-1 might fly around the same time as BFR, which would be hilariously sad, and even if BFR gets delayed (it probably will) it'll still fly before Europa Clipper and/or EM-2 (if EC still flies on SLS and EM-2 even happens at this point).

POTUS (or Bridenstine, or VP) is going to kill SLS. A first flight of any kind may not happen until the end of POTUS' second term, and it's thus completely pointless if POTUS/VP/Bridenstine want to go back to the Moon, let alone lunar orbit, before then.

POTUS: only motivation of POTUS would be to attack the Senate.  Might be possible, especially if Roy loses.
VP: VP's power is traditionally limited to making speeches unless deliberately handed power by POTUS (i.e. any VP action is a POTUS action).  Should Pence have executive powers (for whatever reason), killing SLS could be useful to be seen as "getting something done" (sure, the current POTUS could do that, but it sounds more like a "first 100 days" thing.  So maybe POTUS 2020 as well).
Bridenstine: SLS is something like 1/3 of NASA's budget and it isn't remotely clear that they can simply move the money (it is essentially is earmarked for SLS).  While some Presidential nominations are specifically hired to kill the agency they were hired to "lead", I don't think (and certainly hope not) that Bridenstine was one.  You simply don't gut that much of your agencies' funding.

Obviously the Senate can kill the Senate Launch System (presumably so could the House, but I can't remember the two houses fighting each other and that might "not be done").

Sorry about the politics (I try to keep any mention of politics neutral as far as "what should be done" and more to stick to "who can do x" and "who certainly won't do y".  Since launching rockets into space is primarily done by large governments, completely avoiding politics is impossible for all but Blue Origin launches (Even Bezos builds in Alabama for political reasons)).
 

Edited December 6, 2017 by wumpus

[DAL59]

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

interfere with telecommunications and transport.

It aims at a constant spot.  

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

This is turning into the Polar opposite of the SpaceX thread. One filled with unduly optimism  and naive admiration and the other with overcritical desillusioned people and general resentment. I still prefer this one though.

 

1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said:

I don't think we're overcritical... just honest.

Well, a 5 year unjustified delay certainly overturns everyone's criticisms of the 4 year justified(to create reusability) Falcon Heavy delay.  

5 hours ago, tater said:

I'll just leave that here.

Why was it just delayed 5 years for no reason???  What is the reason???  

[Canopus]

10 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Why was it just delayed 5 years for no reason???  What is the reason???  

Since we know nothing about the “unbiased industry scource“ and its only a tweet, i would wait for some official announcement before getting alarmed.

[DAL59]

49 minutes ago, Canopus said:

And there doesn‘t seem to be a shortage of Unmanned missions anyway.

Yes there is actually a severe shortage.  The US has no probes at Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune, and not even one on the moon. Outside of Mars, there are only 4 missions: one probe heading to an asteroid, one at Ceres, and one at jupiter, and one going to a KBO.  Three rovers on Mars is not enough, given the slow driving.  NASA could launch a Cassini sized mission every year for a fraction of its budget, but it isn't because of bureaucracy.      

[Canopus]

The US had probes basically everywhere and it doesn‘t seem to stop with Mars 2020 and Europa clipper coming up. You also shouldn‘t forget that they colaborate on other unmanned spacecraft missions from Europe with many already flying and soon to be flying missions. So while flying a Cassini type mission every year sounds cool, i doubt they could even support that much activity, from a ground support and Uplink/Downlink point of view.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Canopus

[_Augustus_]

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

I was under the impression that the manned spaceflight budget was seperate from the unmanned one. But still do we need two more Curiosity rovers? I mean what could they accomplish more? And there doesn‘t seem to be a shortage of Unmanned missions anyway. There is a lot going on in the Solar system.

The US will have no orbiters besides at Mars after 2018-2019 when Dawn runs out of fuel and Juno is disposed of. Europa Clipper is nearly a decade away at best from arriving at Jupiter, as is JUICE. BepiColombo has a decade before arriving at Mercury. Psyche and Lucy also won't arrive at their targets until the late 2020s.

46 minutes ago, wumpus said:

POTUS: only motivation of POTUS would be to attack the Senate.  Might be possible, especially if Roy loses.

 

I can see that happening. 

30 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Why was it just delayed 5 years for no reason???  What is the reason???  

It's 3 years, and we don't know.

Edited December 6, 2017 by _Augustus_

[DAL59]

1 minute ago, Canopus said:

Europa clipper

Which is a waste of money becuase it doesn't matter if you find signs of life, they aren't finding actual life until they land.    

1 minute ago, _Augustus_ said:

It's 3 years

2023-2018 = 5.  

[Canopus]

1 minute ago, DAL59 said:

Which is a waste of money becuase it doesn't matter if you find signs of life, they aren't finding actual life until they land.    

I think you underestimate the abilitys of modern remote sensing equipment. Also landing on Europas surface won‘t get you any closer to any hypothetical life, unless you get through the ice which is totally out of scope for many decades. Also finding life isn‘t its only goal even if Nasa loves to say that for every spacecraft they launch.