NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[Scotius]

On 7/4/2018 at 1:11 PM, sh1pman said:

http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/395163-congress-is-taking-smart-steps-to-make-space-launch-reusability-the

Quote

The NDAA takes aggressive steps forward on embracing reusability — this is to be welcomed. Under Section 1605 of the current draft, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program is renamed the “National Security Space Launch Program”. This is a step forward in recognizing that reusability can and should be part of our nation’s launch portfolio, but the key developments follow next. 

That same section also outlines a requirement that the Secretary of Defense pursue a strategy that includes reusability — partial or fully reusable rockets — in national security launches; mandates the continuation of certification processes to validate the use of these components; and requires justification for why a national security launch contract awards excludes reusable rockets.

 

Heh. Looks like US senators are switching gears to reusability too Are they tired of drowning billions after billions in SLS? About time...

Edited July 12, 2018 by Val
Added quote for context

[Xd the great]

42 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Heh. Looks like US senators are switching gears to reusability too Are they tired of drowning billions after billions in SLS? About time...

Meh, they just want a falcon 9 themselves to support the space force.

NASA takes much less than the US army. Congress does not care.

[CatastrophicFailure]

4 hours ago, Scotius said:

Heh. Looks like US senators are switching gears to reusability too Are they tired of drowning billions after billions in SLS? About time...

Naw, it just means now they’ll sink more billions into making SLS reusable, EM-1 now NET 2031... 

[RealKerbal3x]

39 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Naw, it just means now they’ll sink more billions into making SLS reusable, EM-1 now NET 2031... 

If it gets to that stage, NASA will never build LOP/G, let alone get to Mars....

But this isn’t the NASA discussion thread.

[sh1pman]

5 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Naw, it just means now they’ll sink more billions into making SLS reusable, EM-1 now NET 2031... 

Partially reusable SLS isn't that bad of an idea, actually.  It can alleviate its horrible launch rate of one or two rockets per year. Ditch SRBs for Energia-style or FH-style fly-back kerolox boosters (with something as powerful as RD-170s). Make the core RTLS or land on a barge, ask SpaceX if you don't know how. The only expendable parts will be upper stage and Orion SM, if it's a crewed launch.

Sounds good, right? Imagine all the jobs created! Someone should pitch it to NASA.

[Wjolcz]

4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

If it gets to that stage, NASA will never build LOP/G, let alone get to Mars....

But this isn’t the NASA discussion thread.

I'm sure they will. Just not on LOP-G. I'm 95% sure it will either be a BFR or on whatever BO is planning to build in LEO. 

There's also a third option and it's ULA. AFAIK they don't have any plans for an interplanetary spaceship. Unless they do and that's LOP-G. If that't the case it will take a while before that one is finished and used as a transfer vessel.

I might be fanboying here but I feel like once the BFS grashopper is hopping SpaceX will be much closer to landing one on Mars than whatever NASA is planning to do with LOP-G. Assuming it hops next year. But they still need that factory in place so I'm afraid Elon time will kick in again.

4 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Partially reusable SLS isn't that bad of an idea, actually.  It can alleviate its horrible launch rate of one or two rockets per year. Ditch SRBs for Energia-style or FH-style fly-back kerolox boosters (with something as powerful as RD-170s). Make the core RTLS or land on a barge, ask SpaceX if you don't know how. The only expendable parts will be upper stage and Orion SM, if it's a crewed launch.

Sounds good, right? Imagine all the jobs created! Someone should pitch it to NASA.

I like the idea but the problem is it's not designed to do that. So more R&D which then means it needs more time and more money so Europa Clipper is not happening any time soon.

They would probably be better off ditching this one (expendable SLS) and making a new rocket in its place instead. Or just ask private companies to do their launches.

[Canopus]

9 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Partially reusable SLS isn't that bad of an idea, actually.  It can alleviate its horrible launch rate of one or two rockets per year. Ditch SRBs for Energia-style or FH-style fly-back kerolox boosters (with something as powerful as RD-170s). Make the core RTLS or land on a barge, ask SpaceX if you don't know how. The only expendable parts will be upper stage and Orion SM, if it's a crewed launch.

Sounds good, right? Imagine all the jobs created! Someone should pitch it to NASA.

RTLS is completely incompatible with the SLS design. It‘s core will be extremely fast and high when it is deactivated. The only thing i could imagine working would be a smart style engine only recovery.

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Canopus

[NSEP]

A reusable SLS is bassicly an Energia II. It needs to return at orbital velocity, and thus, need space-shuttle grade heatshielding. This will be different for the boosters however, they can probably use Falcon 9s as boosters. But im not entirely sure about that.

Cons? Well, SLS will be delayed even more, probably to 2040. By the time its 2040 im pretty sure the SLS will be even more useless. Pros? Well, if you make an boostershuttle, what you essentially got is a kind of BFR-like spaceship. All it has to do is switch engines and intergrate a payload compartement, maybe include landing legs for vertical landings on atmosphereless bodies, and badabab-boom-pow, you can join the crazy-asteroid-moon-mars-whatever frenzy the future is all about.

I doubt SLS will ever be reusable however. NASA isn't much about making launch cost lower themselves, commercial companies can do that just fine.

 

...wait this is the spacex thread.

Edited July 5, 2018 by NSEP

[Nibb31]

RS-25 isn't restartable or throttlable, so there is no way you are going to land a core on two of them (out of four). To make SLS reusable would need totally different engines, a totally different core, totally different boosters, and therefore a totally different architecture.

 

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

RS-25 isn't restartable or throttlable, so there is no way you are going to land a core on two of them (out of four). To make SLS reusable would need totally different engines, a totally different core, totally different boosters, and therefore a totally different architecture.

 

It's throttlable. Well, the design was throttlable. Throttling down for Max Q and to reduce acceleration slightly. Just not enough for a landing. 

[tater]

 

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

RS-25 isn't restartable or throttlable, so there is no way you are going to land a core on two of them (out of four). To make SLS reusable would need totally different engines, a totally different core, totally different boosters, and therefore a totally different architecture.

Unless you use parachutes and/or engine-only recovery. RS-25s would be a good candidate for engine-only recovery, since it's been proven that they can be reused, and with a higher flight rate and some modifications you could probably significantly reduce the refurbishment required. And the RL-10s on the 2nd stage could be made cheaper with mass production. It might actually make sense to pursue partial reusability and cheapening on SLS like this, since BFR will be cheap enough to make SLS completely noncompetitive if full and rapid reusability is possible, no matter what NASA does. On the other hand there's something to be said for just spending the money and being done with it, like the Saturn V.

[Bill Phil]

17 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Unless you use parachutes and/or engine-only recovery. RS-25s would be a good candidate for engine-only recovery, since it's been proven that they can be reused, and with a higher flight rate and some modifications you could probably significantly reduce the refurbishment required. And the RL-10s on the 2nd stage could be made cheaper with mass production. It might actually make sense to pursue partial reusability and cheapening on SLS like this, since BFR will be cheap enough to make SLS completely noncompetitive if full and rapid reusability is possible, no matter what NASA does. On the other hand there's something to be said for just spending the money and being done with it, like the Saturn V.

Competition doesn't matter. Well, not market competition. SLS is a government program. I suspect, if it's not cancelled, that NASA will be forced to use SLS, along with other super heavies.

[NSEP]

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

RS-25 isn't restartable or throttlable, so there is no way you are going to land a core on two of them (out of four). To make SLS reusable would need totally different engines, a totally different core, totally different boosters, and therefore a totally different architecture.

You don't have to use the main engines at all to land back and be reused. You can easily just glide back to destination, especially when the main engines cut-off at near-orbital velocity, when you just have to wait an hour to hit the atmosphere and glide back to the space centre and land on a runway.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Competition doesn't matter. Well, not market competition. SLS is a government program. I suspect, if it's not cancelled, that NASA will be forced to use SLS, along with other super heavies.

True, but there is still competition of philosophies of rocket design. If BFR is successful, NASA will likely build something more like it, and that will probably warrant a ground-up redesign, but if it isn't, they might still want to make it cheaper. To clarify, I personally think BFR will be successful.

[Bill Phil]

7 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

True, but there is still competition of philosophies of rocket design. If BFR is successful, NASA will likely build something more like it, and that will probably warrant a ground-up redesign, but if it isn't, they might still want to make it cheaper. To clarify, I personally think BFR will be successful.

I would prefer NASA work on probes and larger manned spacecraft and stations. Commercial companies can handle the LVs. SLS should be NASA's last rocket.

BFR won't be successful by EM-1.

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

BFR won't be successful by EM-1

I’ll bet you a rep point it is. Musk time included. 

cough JWST coughcough... 

[Bill Phil]

31 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I’ll bet you a rep point it is. Musk time included. 

cough JWST coughcough... 

Huh? EM-1 is currently planned for 2020. It'll probably slip some more, but even as it stands, BFR likely won't be successful at the time of launch. It needs to be developed. It needs customers. It needs to actually fly. And it's not likely to be successful by EM-1. It may be flying, but it likely won't have hit break-even.

JWST isn't really relevant. EM-1 is a different program.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

[...]

BFR won't be successful by EM-1.

Unstoppable object meets an immovable force...

Also, does getting off the ground count? Or is it mission success?

[CatastrophicFailure]

22 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

JWST isn't really relevant. EM-1 is a different program.

It’s a product of the same cascade of bureaucracy. I’ll eat my hat if SLS flies by 2020. SpaceX, on the other hand, is banking pretty much everything on BFR by all appearances. They need it to be successful, and soon (Starlink minimum constellation, etc).

[Bill Phil]

33 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

It’s a product of the same cascade of bureaucracy. I’ll eat my hat if SLS flies by 2020. SpaceX, on the other hand, is banking pretty much everything on BFR by all appearances. They need it to be successful, and soon (Starlink minimum constellation, etc).

Not really. Goddard isn't MSFC. Different, though connected, bureaucracies. 

Just because SpaceX is placing their bets on BFR doesn't mean that it will be successful, nor does it mean that it will fly before SLS. And flying doesn't qualify it as successful.

It doesn't matter anyway. Let's just all be thankful that multiple super heavy launch systems are under development by multiple organizations. That's pretty awesome.

 

49 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Unstoppable object meets an immovable force...

Also, does getting off the ground count? Or is it mission success?

Success of BFR is economic. It's a rocket that a Launch Service Provider wants to use to provide launch services. Success requires money to be made. Not so for SLS. There's no competition between the two. SLS will only launch NASA payloads, and BFR will launch commercial payloads and some NASA payloads, if either of them get off the ground. SLS flying and not breaking is success. BFR has to actually make money to be a success.

[tater]

Summer 2020 for EM-1 is a goal that everyone thinks will slip, probably into 2021. BFR flying is a coin flip by then.

[tater]

 

[Canopus]

All in all this really doesn't change that much of the overall schedule. When em-2 was supposed to fly with the LOP/G propulsion element, they weren't supposed to arrive in Lunar orbit at the same time and wouldn't have done a rendezvous. They basically split the mission, and now it's possible to fly the Block1b unmanned before putting people on it.

[tater]