Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads


_Augustus_
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

You only need about 300 m/s to brake from TLI into NRHO. That's well within range of solid kick stages for a 5-8-tonne hab, I believe. Or you could buy a cheap hypergolic stage from the Russians. They're supposed to be partnering with this stuff, after all.

With a solid stage you'd have a dead hab in Lunar orbit. Without means of attitude control. Not very good conditions for docking. So a star kick stage is definetly not an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. Of course the PPE can maneuver, right? Just get it there, then rendezvous and dock with the PPE, perhaps. That or fly the hab just in advance of the EM mission, and have Orion meet the hab, then take it to the PPE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Canopus said:

With a solid stage you'd have a dead hab in Lunar orbit. Without means of attitude control. Not very good conditions for docking. So a star kick stage is definetly not an option.

It's almost like we need a long-duration delivery stage with cold gas or hypergolic attitude thrusters.

12 minutes ago, tater said:

True. Of course the PPE can maneuver, right? Just get it there, then rendezvous and dock with the PPE, perhaps. That or fly the hab just in advance of the EM mission, and have Orion meet the hab, then take it to the PPE.

Well, the module needs enough attitude control that it can hold pointing while something grapples or docks to it.

NASA should fund the development of a simple kick stage (solid or hypergolic) with solar panels, comms, batteries, and attitude thrusters. 

Who knows; maybe a COTS comsat bus can do the job if it has a place to mount a Star or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

It's almost like we need a long-duration delivery stage with cold gas or hypergolic attitude thrusters. NASA should fund the development of a simple kick stage (solid or hypergolic) with solar panels, comms, batteries, and attitude thrusters. 

It's not like there could be a COTS-style space tug program...

/overboard/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tater said:

The new MLP has not been procured yet, that will likely happen in the next year. So the second MLP won't be a thing until 2023 at the earliest assuming no delays whatsoever.

It takes NASA five years to build a launch pad.

Let that sink in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said:

It takes NASA five years to build a launch pad.

Let that sink in.

No, it takes their contractor five years to build a Mobile Launch Platform. But I bet they could shave off a year for an extra billion kerfunds....

Edited by StrandedonEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vertical rocket assembly and movement is non-trivial. They have to build a pad (or use the old shuttle one?), then a gantry on top. All has to be fine with movement by crawler, and all the lines, etc need to line up when it's at the actual pad. It's not easy. Most launchers are either horizontal erectors (SpaceX, Roscosmos, etc), or they move the VAB away from the pad (Atlas, etc).

I don't have the know-how to complain about the 5 years, so I won't.

2023 is when they talked about Block 1b anyway (the 33 month delay to change MLP 1 to MLP 1b), so it's not really a delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/exploration-mission-2-gets-a-re-do/#.WuFPubjeBZU.twitter

Quote

The new plan is to use Block 1 for both EM-1 and EM-2 and perhaps other missions.  Since Block 1 is less capable, EM-2 will have to be revised, however.  For example, it cannot also launch the PPE.  Gerstenmaier said today that a commercial launch will be procured for the PPE.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tater said:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/exploration-mission-2-gets-a-re-do/#.WuFPubjeBZU.twitter

Gerstenmaier said today that a commercial launch will be procured for the PPE.

YESSSSSS!!!!

If it masses under 6 tonnes, Falcon 9 Block 5 can throw it toward TLI with ASDS recovery. If it's under 7.5 tonnes, Falcon 9 expendable or Falcon Heavy will do. More than that, and Falcon Heavy, Atlas V, or DIVH are required.

Of course, NG might be flying by then. Or, hell, BFR might do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

YESSSSSS!!!!

Wait. What are we celebrating here? I think I lost the track of this thread a bit. What is MLP?

Edit: Mobile Launch Platform?

Edited by Wjolcz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

Wait. What are we celebrating here? I think I lost the track of this thread a bit. What is MLP?

Celebrating that they have now officially announced that the PPE will fly commercially rather than trying to stuff it onto a nonexistent SLS flight.

MLP is the mobile launch platform for vertical integration of SLS. Nothing to celebrate about there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Celebrating that they have now officially announced that the PPE will fly commercially rather than trying to stuff it onto a nonexistent SLS flight.

MLP is the mobile launch platform for vertical integration of SLS. Nothing to celebrate about there.

And PPE is the LOP-G powering unit, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Yes, it is a beast of a machine. 

It grinds the crawlerway gravel to powder when it turns...

To be honest, I suspect the contractor that made it had to scale down an existing coal strip miner (or the big ones started right after that.  I'm just a little to young to know which came first).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-budgeting-reveals-dim-hopes-for-humans-going-to-mars/

Boeing: SLS is the only launch vehicle capable of reaching Mars. If NASA gives us a ton of money, we'll land on Mars within a decade. SLS is a Boeing rocket. Everything but SLS is a fraud.

NASA Report: We can't afford Mars with SLS anytime soon, and probably not even the Moon. Mars in the 2050s is probably only barely possible with SLS. Moon in the 2030s, maybe. Please save us from SLS.

Gerst: Maybe we are being scammed.........

Grunsfeld: DSG is just ARM without the cool part of the asteroid designed to give the contractors something to do. NASA is a failure until we get an administration that really cares, unlike the past few that merely pretend to and propose vague goals without deliverance of funding.

Dennis Mullenberg is an idiot, as is Jerry Dreilling. SLS is obviously not the only LV capable of reaching Mars (seriously, how dumb do you have to be to say this nonsense?), and even if it was made a "national priority" NASA and the contractors would screw up a Mars mission with SLS before 2030 due to cost overruns and delays anyway.  SLS is not made solely or even 75% by Boeing - only the core stage is and maybe parts of the upper stage. If Boeing really cared about putting humans on Mars, they'd be building a rocket to do so that's better than SLS. Boeing is a typical example of the corrupt military-industrial complex that created boondoggles such as SLS and they like SLS because it gives them lots of cash for relatively little work - they couldn't care less if SLS even actually flies.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

20 billion a year is more than enough.

If it was a pile of cash they could spend at will, sure.

But it's not. That 20 billion is the total. It's divided into small chunks that make up various different programs, spent as dictated by Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

20 billion a year is more than enough.

Not when they're being told to do everything BUT go to Mars.

But yes, $20B/yr is more than enough if that's all they were supposed to do. Hell, if Elon had been given $20B/yr starting when Falcon 1 first flew, he could have taken the entire NASA staff to Mars and back by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

20 billion a year is more than enough.

No, it's not.

Don't bother with Zubrin nonsense, he's a kook, and he doesn't grok NASA , or indeed the government at all.

NASA cannot decide how to spend their money, much less spend it all on one project.

 

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tater said:

NASA cannot decide how to spend their money, much less spend it all on one project.

I agree, and I know that.  I'm just saying that the overall budget does not need to be increased, just redistributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...