Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads


_Augustus_
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

So now SLS is NET 2021... And crew is NET 2025... This is just sad... :( At least we'll have more than one flight before crew, although at this point crew may not fly...

EDIT:

So not that hopeless after all.

It's interesting to note that for EM-5 and later NASA needs new engines for the Orion SM and SLS Core Stage. So by completely wasting the remaining engines, NASA may make Congress choose not to fund SLS after EM-4 and kill the program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

And crew is NET 2025.

So SpaceX will send people to Mars before NASA repeats Apollo 8 on endless loop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

So SpaceX will send people to Mars before NASA repeats Apollo 8 on endless loop.  

Dude you gotta be a little bit more realistic. SpaceX will most likely fly people to low earth orbit for the first time next year. There is a huge gap between a few days at most in LEO an a flipping manned mission to mars and back. And this isn‘t just about having a big rocket. I highly doubt BFR will even fly to Space by 2025 much less carry people. And a mars mission hasn’t  happened by 2035, i‘ll guarantee you that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Canopus said:

SpaceX will most likely fly people to low earth orbit for the first time next year.

Which is the fault of NASA.  SpaceX will have the BFR ready by next year, making Dragon 2 obsolete.  My prediction: 2027.    

7 minutes ago, Canopus said:

And a mars mission hasn’t  happened by 2035, i‘ll guarantee you that.

There is no way that could happen, unless your saying SpaceX or someone else will build a moonbase instead.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

There is no way that could happen, unless your saying SpaceX or someone else will build a moonbase instead.  

Focus is definitely on the moon precisely because smart people in the field think that a Mars mission just isn‘t realistic yet. A moon base is possible by 2035, Mars not so much. And by base i mean a glorified ISS sitting on the surface (which i wouldn‘t mind) not some SpaceX style slideshow city.

Edited by Canopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Canopus said:

because smart people in the field think that a Mars mission just isn‘t realistic yet

You know we were supposed to go there in 1976.  We could of done it with apollo technology.  We now have detailed maps, 3-d printers, and computers.  It is extremely possible.  

https://www.wired.com/2012/04/manned-mars-surface-missions-1966/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

You know we were supposed to go there in 1976.  We could of done it with apollo technology.  We now have detailed maps, 3-d printers, and computers.  It is extremely possible.  

https://www.wired.com/2012/04/manned-mars-surface-missions-1966/

We were also supposed to land on the Moon in 1967 (originally, maybe even earlier) and be in orbit of Jupiter by 2001...

Apollo technology could not do a Mars mission. New tech would've been required, but that could've been developed. Mars missions were expected by the late 70s or early 80s if everything went to plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

You know we were supposed to go there in 1976.  We could of done it with apollo technology.  We now have detailed maps, 3-d printers, and computers.  It is extremely possible.  

https://www.wired.com/2012/04/manned-mars-surface-missions-1966/

https://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/projects/bis-lunar-spaceship

 could this have happened in 1938? Certainly not. 

As for Apollo hardware. They would‘ve had the big rocket and the return capsule but no experience in long duration missions or reliable life support, both issues we still haven‘t mastered today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Canopus said:

could this have happened in 1938? Certainly not. 

No... but that has nothing to do with whether mars

2 minutes ago, Canopus said:

no experience in long duration missions

One cosmonaut was on the Mir for 500 days.

2 minutes ago, Canopus said:

reliable life support,

I bet SpaceX could make a better one than NASA did.  Technology has improved a lot since the ISS was built.  Just make a modular system with 3-d printed parts for easy replacing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DAL59 said:

No... but that has nothing to do with whether mars

One cosmonaut was on the Mir for 500 days.

It has something to do with Mars. Just because someone did thought experiments about how it could be done doesn‘t mean it can. And looking back at all these proposals we can see how wrong they were.

And about that cosmonaut you love to bring up that much, he was living on Mir, a station with constant resupplys and a fair share of problems you wouldnt want to have on a mission to mars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Just because someone did thought experiments about how it could be done doesn‘t mean it can.

The BFR is hardly a thought experiment.  

2 minutes ago, Canopus said:

And looking back at all these proposals we can see how wrong they were.

Now we have sent probes to Mars and know what the atmosphere is like.  

3 minutes ago, Canopus said:

a station with constant resupplys and a fair share of problems you wouldnt want to have on a mission to mars. 

The BFR can carry plenty of spare parts.  

Edited by DAL59
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

It's interesting to note that for EM-5 and later NASA needs new engines for the Orion SM and SLS Core Stage. So by completely wasting the remaining engines, NASA may make Congress choose not to fund SLS after EM-4 and kill the program.

I...hope so?

53 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Dude you gotta be a little bit more realistic. SpaceX will most likely fly people to low earth orbit for the first time next year. There is a huge gap between a few days at most in LEO an a flipping manned mission to mars and back. And this isn‘t just about having a big rocket. I highly doubt BFR will even fly to Space by 2025 much less carry people. And a mars mission hasn’t  happened by 2035, i‘ll guarantee you that.

Well, let's be realistic then.

SLS has slipped before and will slip again. SpaceX may fly Dragon 2 this year, definitely by next year. BFS will be conducting flight tests by the end of next year or first quarter of 2020 at the latest. BFR will be flying before SLS flies people.

Whether they are flying BLEO remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

So they're going to look for something to blame besides incompetent NASA management and Congress, turn up with nothing, and proceed like nothing ever happened. Good to know.

NASA is not incompetent.

A few points:

1. SLS does exactly what is was supposed to do, employ people who used to work on Shuttle.

2. NASA has no control over SLS at all, it is dictated by Congress.

3. The things we all know will likely be better, and flying in the same time frame---NASA had no idea would actually exist when their jobs program started years ago.

I don't like the SLS paradigm, but it is functioning as designed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2018 at 1:33 AM, DAL59 said:

You know we were supposed to go there in 1976.  We could of done it with apollo technology.  We now have detailed maps, 3-d printers, and computers.  It is extremely possible. 

Possibility is not just technical things. Economic and political things are much more important in real world. Manned Mars mission would certainly be technically possible, if most of humankind and especially politicians of richest countries and richest people would want to it at any cost. Both economic and cost of lives. It we had attitude the kings had in period of great expeditions and if we sent missions and crews one after another until one lucky would return, I believe Mars-mission would be done in 20 years.

However, reality could not be further from that. Most people are not interested in space missions and think they are wasting of money. Companies can not get profits so rich investors do not spend on space. Politicians are not interested because taxpayers are not. And everyone are also very afraid of losses of life. Lost crew means lost face for politicians, businessmen and state officers. It means losing work and funding. Under current attitude atmosphere great steps in manned space exploration are impossible. There will be infinite plans on bases on Moon or expeditions on Mars, but no one dare to give actual money and begin the project. SpaceX will send commercial satellites and maybe crews to ISS, but Musk's fantasies about Mars will not come true. A culture must be changed, pioneering spirit must arise and we must grow to stand risks before any space fantasies comes true. Such a change takes at least couple of generations. We will not see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

get profits so rich investors do not spend on space.

 

4 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Musk's fantasies about Mars will not come true.

He has said that all of the entrepreneuring he has done his entire life has been for Mars.  Just like we save up for stuff, the ulterior goal for SpaceX is to send him to Mars.  

 

4 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

It we had attitude the kings had in period of great expeditions and if we sent missions and crews one after another until one lucky would return, I believe Mars-mission would be done in 20 years.

If everyone was trying, it would be done in 6 years.  No new technology is needed.

4 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

A culture must be changed, pioneering spirit must arise and we must grow to stand risks before any space fantasies comes true. Such a change takes at least couple of generations. We will not see it.

I'm normally pessimistic about space, but this is just untrue.  Most people would love to send people to Mars.  Remember, the Shuttles weren't canceled after the disasters, but rather a decade later, due to economics.    There is no doubt whatsoever that a manned mars mission will be launched before 2030.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

 

He has said that all of the entrepreneuring he has done his entire life has been for Mars.  Just like we save up for stuff, the ulterior goal for SpaceX is to send him to Mars.  

 

If everyone was trying, it would be done in 6 years.  No new technology is needed.

Well musk can say much but that won't make it any more likely to happen.

 

7 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

There is no doubt whatsoever that a manned mars mission will be launched before 2030.

You may have no doubt, i'm sure if you asked someone in the field they would tell you it's not happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2018 at 6:47 PM, DAL59 said:

No... but that has nothing to do with whether mars

One cosmonaut was on the Mir for 500 days.

I bet SpaceX could make a better one than NASA did.  Technology has improved a lot since the ISS was built.  Just make a modular system with 3-d printed parts for easy replacing.  

Apollo could send an Apollo capsule to Mars and possibly return it.  Finding astronauts willing to live in such a state is another issue (kerbals don't seem to mind, just keep the snacks coming).  The other big difference is while a human managed to stay in Mir for 500 days, that was only after the launch of 9 Salyut [the whole station, not just crewed missions] launches (including some thrown in the memory bin) and the needed experience.  I don't think that the ISS can survive 500 days without resupply, including specific needed parts.

To get to Mars, you need a whole lot of money, you need the capability of delivering the required mass to Mars, and you need the ability to survive for nearly 3 years with no material support.  Spacex has barely started to complete one of those requirements.  I think you could get the job done with Falcon Heavy and an ion-based system, although it would take a decade or so and you would need to launch the Mars habitat early (which is one of the critical "unknowns" right now).  Spacex is of course insisting that BFR is needed for Mars, and would certainly make things easier.

I have strong doubts that BFR will significantly reduce the pile of money needed.  Trans-Mars spacecraft and ground habitats will be even more expensive than BFR.  The next clear stage is a space habitat: the earth bound Mars simulator and ISS are great ideas, but a Lunar-orbiting system would be far superior as it would be getting all the trans-Mars radiation that is a current unknown.  It would also allow supplies to be sent on a similar schedule to ISS, although at far higher cost (hopefully Falcon Heavy is up to that job).

There is a long way to go to be ready for Mars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wumpus said:

Apollo could send an Apollo capsule to Mars and possibly return it.  Finding astronauts willing to live in such a state is another issue (kerbals don't seem to mind, just keep the snacks coming). 

I'm sure he means there would have been some kind of Mars spacecraft assembled using Saturn V's, not that they would fly in the Apollo CSM all the way. I agree with the rest of your points though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apollo could have gone to Mars.

There was substantial discussion and planning around conducting a manned Venus flyby using a Saturn V SIVB wet workshop and Apollo CSM.

If two SIVB wet workshops had been launched and docked nose to nose around a central docking module launched along with one of them, you could rotate it end-over-end and you'd have artificial gravity with plenty of space for supplies, living, and a very long-duration mission. Spacewalks could be used to cut the J-2 engines free from the bases of each stage, to reduce dry mass.

The central docking module would be reinforced and have four smaller docking ports. One opposing pair would be used for Apollo CSMs, launched periodically on Saturn IBs or Saturn-C for servicing during mission lead-up. One would be used for the Martian Entry assembly (a lander and a large solid braking motor for Mars orbital insertion) and the last would be used for the nuclear transfer stage for TMI.

The Martian Entry assembly and the nuclear transfer stage would each need to be launched on Saturn Vs.

So, a Mars landing (flags and footprints) for the cost of four or five Saturn Vs and an equal number of Saturn IBs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Canopus said:

Well musk can say much but that won't make it any more likely to happen.

 

You may have no doubt, i'm sure if you asked someone in the field they would tell you it's not happening.

Musk and Zubrin are certainly "in the field"

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

I have strong doubts that BFR will significantly reduce the pile of money needed.

Even it was not reusable, it would still be cheaper than the SLS.

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

orbiting system would be far superior as it would be getting all the trans-Mars radiation that is a current unknown. 

"That would be like be shooting your own soldiers to study wound pathology" - Zubrin

Also, the curiosity measured radiation well en route to Mars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How big are those "wet workshops"?  Skylab had a maximum stay of 88 days and would take roughly 9 Saturn Vs worth of fuel to haul it to Mars and back (no lander included).  Obviously something more Salyut sized would work better, but you still are venturing into unknown shielding territory.  NASA stuffed John Young and Micheal Collins into a Gemini capsule and left them in orbit for as long as it would take to go to the Moon and back.  Unless you are expecting to build and man a Salyut sized craft (preferably with the same crew) for the years it would take a Mars mission than this is going well beyond the Apollo program.

Granted, this might mean that such an extended mission might go up in the mid 70s and a full on Mars mission could be scheduled for 1980, but don't forget the relentless small steps that appear to be the hallmark of successful space programs.

10 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Even it was not reusable, it would still be cheaper than the SLS.

SLS isn't going to Mars.  Being cheaper than a program that isn't going to Mars says absolutely zero about capability to go to Mars.  You might as well say they can go to Europa.

6 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

*cough* BFR *cough*

Show me a BFR and what cargo it carried to orbit and you would have a point.  But I *did* admit they can transport the kg to Mars (Falcon Heavy certainly should change things on its own).  But that does absolutely zero to getting the money to fund the project (something Musk has bailed from, spacex will only provide the transportation) and all the rest of the spacecraft (the habitat needed to go to Mars, the lander/return craft, any systems needed for assembly in space).  Remember that the cargo is typically *significantly* more expensive than the launcher.  These are expensive.

 

COuld I ask WHY we still have this strikethrough but that has plauged this forum since the "update"?

Edited by wumpus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wumpus said:

But that does absolutely zero to getting the money to fund the project

Musk has 20 billion dollars.  He could build 40 BFRs.

13 minutes ago, wumpus said:

lander/return craft

Do you know the info about the BFR?  It does not detach a lander, it lands on Mars itself.  

13 minutes ago, wumpus said:

(the habitat needed to go to Mars,

It is the habitat.

SpaceX-BFR-Mars-Mission-720.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...