NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[PB666]

45 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Yay.  

Energy production itself does not significantly cause warming, its the byproducts that make the greenhouse effect.  Solar panels in space don't make carbon.  The masers won't be powerful enough to heat up the Earth.  

Clouds and nighttime

Takes up too much space, and wind isn't constant

Meltdowns

Peak energy demand occurs roughly at the same time as peak solar energy for much of the world. The number of deaths associated with nuclear power is well below deaths associated with other industries. In the continental US you can count the number of people who have died in commercial nuclear accidents involving radiation as primary cause of death  . . . .well none.

The number of people who have been killed in space based accidents. Lets see 2 crews of 2 shuttles. Apollo 4, 2 russians died from asphixiation . . . . .Doing business in space is dangerous much, much more dangerous than doing nuclear.

The report is BS, period, hypey B.S. and nothing more.

Edit: I have to retract part of that, in the early 20th century some factory girls were killed because they painted watch 'hands' using liquified radium at a time when the risk of radiation exposure was not clear and there was no occupational health safety administration. Since the end of WWII there are a few incidences, most of them military, SP-1 was the result of physical and not radiation exposure.

Edited December 5, 2017 by PB666

[_Augustus_]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

Not necessarily. EC can fly on Block 1. And it just may do that. It may not, but we don't know for sure. It probably will be if they build a second MLP.

Delta II is getting shut down. Delta IV will be eventually. But, if need be, ICPS production can be extended. After all, it isn't DCSS anymore.

If EC flies on Block 1, what is going to fly on Block 1B before Orion so they can send a crew up on it? If they're going to fly more Block 1 flights I honestly see Orion flying on Block 1 too.

ICPS is pretty much identical to the DCSS other than having some extra avionics and attitude controls.

[Bill Phil]

2 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

If EC flies on Block 1, what is going to fly on Block 1B before Orion so they can send a crew up on it? If they're going to fly more Block 1 flights I honestly see Orion flying on Block 1 too.

ICPS is pretty much identical to the DCSS other than having some extra avionics and attitude controls.

What's going to fly on Block 1B before Orion? Probably nothing. Especially considering that EC would not really prove anything about how "man-rated" the vehicle is. It's a whole different payload. I highly doubt that EC would help to "man-rate" SLS Block 1B even if it did fly on Block 1B. Flying an unrelated payload does not lead to man-rating. Using Block 1B was chosen due to the changes required to the MLP for EM-2. They chose to just make the changes and use that configuration for EC as well. Considering that they "plan" for EC and EM-2 in the same year, there'd be little modifications that they could make to the vehicle to improve its "man-ratedness" in that little time. Building a second MLP for Block 1B would allow two flights that year, or an earlier flight in 2021 for EC (if they could build it in time).

Orion was originally intended to fly on Block 1. But then they decided to have extra payload fly on EM-2, and switched to Block 1B. And they may eventually fly Orion on Block 1, if they keep it. Crew or cargo only flights to DSG could be flown. Currently Block 1B is Crew and Cargo until the later flights (EM-6?). 

ICPS is similar to DCSS, but it's stretched to deal with boil off and somehow gained eleven tonnes of mass.

If a new MLP lets them keep a higher cadence, it's worth it. And it would probably be modified into a Block 1B MLP eventually. Probably in the mid-2020s. Maybe giving room for Block 2, if that ever gets off the ground.

[DAL59]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

Apollo 4

was unmanned.  

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

Lets see 2 crews of 2 shuttles. Apollo 4, 2 russians died from asphixiation

Over the past decade alone, its gotten much safer.  The shuttle program was arguably badly designed from the start. 

[wumpus]

)

7 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Thats not how transfers work.  8.5 months is the worst possible transfer.  Without too much extra fuel, it could be reduced to 6 months, but past 4 months it grows exponentially. SpaceX has done its math. 

Zubrin says that is completely false.    

deltav=Isp*ln(m_full/m_dry)

Fuel usage is *always* exponential for any amount of delta-v.  It might be reasonable to cut it down, but you are adding it on top of 15km/s delta-v.  Those extra few delta-v aren't cheap.

[PB666]

The Space Shuttle and Soyuz have lost statistically rate-equivalent number of individuals.  There are no other human transport system that are notable. Launches into space are inherently dangerous, much more dangerous that operating a civilian nuclear power plant.
 

[Green Baron]

8 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Energy production itself does not significantly cause warming, its the byproducts that make the greenhouse effect. 

Eh ? Please stop claiming false things.

Energy production is No.1 cause of global greenhouse gas production an thus directly adds to global warming, more than 25% of all reviewed sources. Another direct effect is, of course, waste heat, which can have grave local consequences.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

And these guys are meanwhile on the "dark side".

 

I could add to this: global warming is all about energy !

Edited December 5, 2017 by Green Baron

[DAL59]

But if the solar panels in orbit are producing equal electricity that current fossil fuels make, it will have less greenhouse gases.  

[PB666]

3 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

But if the solar panels in orbit are producing equal electricity that current fossil fuels make, it will have less greenhouse gases.  

Solar energy in orbit adds to earths energy budget. Solar energy uses energy that has already penetrated the atmosphere, it would have gone to heating a roof, instead it is diverted to an A/C system or the like that then goes into the air quickly where its heat is more rapidly lost to convection or radiation. Microwave energy is beamed through the atmosphere, heating the air as it passes, then heating elements on the ground and also heating the ground. Anything in its way that blocks sunlight, like clouds will be heated and will tend also to disappear. The best energy choices are wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power since they generate power on the backside of energy flow on earth. Nuclear is also a good choice but only in countries that have tight regulations. Conservation is the best choice.

As for some of the critiques. Wind power is often available when the price per kilowatt*hour is zero, therefore it is prudent to convert wind power into hydrogen during these periods of power excess. The same is also true for solar power; however solar power rarely saturates is local market.

[Green Baron]

And still >=2 years to go until the first SLS launch ... we should stop running in circles :-)

 

The ICPS will not be human rated i read.

What will replace it then, the EUS ? Is the ICPS a modified DCSS or is the DCSS a thing on its own ?

[Hay]

7 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

And still >=2 years to go until the first SLS launch ... we should stop running in circles :-)

 

The ICPS will not be human rated i read.

What will replace it then, the EUS ? Is the ICPS a modified DCSS or is the DCSS a thing on its own ?

The ICPS is a modified DCSS. And yes, it'll be replaced by the EUS.

[PB666]

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/flight-hardware-for-sls-on-its-way-to-cape

BTW, hiding way back behind that rocket is an RL10b-2 with its 110KN of thrust. Thats an awfully big rocket for an engine rated at 220 seconds of burn time.
220 * 110,000 = 24M n*sec, Im guessing the payload is 50 tons of mass (a~2 m/s^2). ~600dV a*sec of thrust, where is that going, there version of the RL10b-2 must have a much longer burn time.
In notice other versions that have 4 RL10b-2 thrusters, which seems more intelligent to me since the thruster only weight 277 kg.
 

[tater]

 

[NSEP]

They made Lockheeds lander a mod for KSP

Time to make RO configs....

[DAL59]

8 hours ago, PB666 said:

The best energy choices are wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power since they generate power on the backside of energy flow on earth.

BTW, the microwave beam does not significantly heat up the air.  Also, there are orbits called sun synchronous orbit that are in constant sunlight.  If anything, space solar panels would negligibly cool the Earth due to shade.       

7 hours ago, Hay said:

ICPS

 

18 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

DCSS

 

7 hours ago, Green Baron said:

EUS

@_Augustus_ can you add these terms to the OP?

[PB666]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

BTW, the microwave beam does not significantly heat up the air.  Also, there are orbits called sun synchronous orbit that are in constant sunlight.  If anything, space solar panels would negligibly cool the Earth due to shade.       

 

 

@_Augustus_ can you add these terms to the OP?

But that is not the sats they were talking about, they were talking GSO satellites, since the almost always are close to the equator and because they are 33 k km from the earth and general at 23' Eath sun axis relative they will seldomly block the sun. If anything beaming microwave energy from large solar panels in space will heat the surface of the Earth, stop propagating BS, please. You get your science from two-bit popular science sites.

[_Augustus_]

3 hours ago, DAL59 said:

BTW, the microwave beam does not significantly heat up the air.  Also, there are orbits called sun synchronous orbit that are in constant sunlight.  If anything, space solar panels would negligibly cool the Earth due to shade.       

 

 

@_Augustus_ can you add these terms to the OP?

They're already in it....

[DAL59]

The microwaves are then used at a receiver station to produce electricity.

[tater]

Space-based solar power is no longer thought to be economically viable according to everything I have read. Microwave power transmission is somewhat notional right now, though JAXA has been at least doing some work on it.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with SLS/Orion/DSG/DST.

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Regardless, this has nothing to do with SLS/Orion/DSG/DST

Well it did, because it was part of boeing's plan, but anyway, let's stop talking about it now.  

[tater]

35 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Well it did, because it was part of boeing's plan, but anyway, let's stop talking about it now.  

I never saw a boeing reference. Perhaps it was hidden in that video, which I didn't look at?

The JAXA work is legit, and It could possibly be useful in space, I was referring to beamed power to Earth.

[DDE]

7 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Well it did, because it was part of boeing's plan, but anyway, let's stop talking about it now.  

Pretty sure the SLS isn’t the kind of LV Boeing counts on for space solar deployment.

[Green Baron]

Space based solar power is far fetched, to say the least.

The purpose of the SLS and Orion is pretty well described on the Nasa page. Should it come into being.

 

[PB666]

8 hours ago, tater said:

I never saw a boeing reference. Perhaps it was hidden in that video, which I didn't look at?

The JAXA work is legit, and It could possibly be useful in space, I was referring to beamed power to Earth.

The video was see-rap, its was absolutely a sales pitch for fluff and nothing more. They referenced putting solar arrays in GTO to power earth, just as they were going to mine the moon and send all wonderful minerals they extracted back to Earth, and a number of other fluffy things.

@DAL59

If you see NASA planning to launch a fully versatile space factory you might take some of the accounts seriously. All they are talking about are gateways, basically way-points between different potential energy points in space.
If there is no factory there is zero ability to build in space, which means there is zero ability to build panels that could significantly impact Earths currently electrical output.

[Canopus]

they don‘t propose to build the satellites or mine the moon, but to provide transportation in case such space based business models arise. Anyway this is really the wrong thread for this discussion.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Canopus