[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[Kerbal7]

10 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

We're already going to Titan. See NASA's Dragonfly mission. 

That page says Dragonfly cost about a billion to land on Titan.

So, we could easily put at least 50 robots on Titan for the Space Launch System / Orion Moon push money.

I put forward 50 robots on Titan would increase our scientific knowledge a whole lot more than the Moon mission. It might even be "cooler" depending on what info and pictures come back too. The raindrops on Titan are very large and fall like snow. Imagine seeing that on a robots video camera. 

And that's the rub isn't it?

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, Kerbal7 said:

That page says Dragonfly cost about a billion to land on Titan.

So, we could easily put at least 50 robots on Titan for the Space Launch System / Orion Moon push money.

I put forward 50 robots on Titan would increase our scientific knowledge a whole lot more than the Moon mission. It might even be "cooler" depending on what info and pictures come back too. The raindrops on Titan are very large and fall like snow. Imagine seeing that on a robots video camera. 

And that's the rub isn't it?

1) You’d still need money for SHLVs so the money would still be spent and since SHLVs are extremely expensive the expanse is unavoidable. Though others may argue the level of expense I’m not focusing on that and I’ll let others are those points.

2) SLS is about manned exploration. We want to eventually leave earth so we’re developing bigger and more advanced vehicles to go further than ever before- and though the moon isn’t a new destination yet- it’s only fair to point out that we haven’t left LEO in over 50 years. Technology, manufacturing, procedures, hell basic methodology and ethics on the matter has changed (we now let more than just one race of one gender, to fly to the moon). So we aren’t ready for Mars if we can’t make it on the moon. Hence why it’s a pit stop for NASA rather than a final destination. Hell even Mars isn’t- NASA undoubtedly has plans for other planets- we already know of Venusian airships. 

3) Titan is cool but not cool enough for 50 manned dragonflies- and we likely couldn’t run such a mission due to the difficulties of procuring and utilizing enough RTGs to fuel such a mission. Even if we could find enough- NASA would like to explore others places too.

4) SLS will the earliest available SHLV that NASA will actively use. Starship might be scheduling its first orbital flight (perpetually stuck in limbo as is SpaceX’s ways- did SpaceX ever unveil its “updated” design of Starship?). Vulcan will be flying and manrated but not certified for crewed flight- nor will New Glenn (is it even being manufactured yet?), meaning if we want to leave LEO as fast as possible- SLS is the fastest route and though some may mention other routes may be faster if we had taken them in 2000/2010/2015/etc- we can't change the past so the best way forward is to accept that SLS is the only vehicle actually built and ready to fly that’s a SHLV and acceptably certified for manned flight. Though I know people here will argue this.

[tater]

It's reasonable to separate crewed spaceflight from robotic science missions. It's also reasonable to acknowledge that the goal of NASA is not planetary or other basic science. NASA is a government technology program, and it primarily exists to provide tech jobs in different parts of the country. That it does awesome science is incidental.

Crew spaceflight exists mostly to generate public interest, IMO, or at least it did at one time. ISS has made it routine, and to some extent boring as a PR stunt. The Moon in HD---with people---will certainly excite people for at least the first mission. If it becomes like ISS... less so, I think. Crew spaceflight is also incredibly expensive.

On a pure science level, I'm a robot guy. They always come out ahead in terms of value for money---particularly now that they can be launched far cheaper than in the past (a FH launch--fully expended--is under half a Delta IVH launch).

 

[Kerbal7]

4 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

3) Titan is cool but not cool enough for 50 manned dragonflies- and we likely couldn’t run such a mission due to the difficulties of procuring and utilizing enough RTGs to fuel such a mission. Even if we could find enough- NASA would like to explore others places too.

That depends. 

We find something swimming around on Titan and all bets are off. And who is to say it isn't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Titan

[ZooNamedGames]

44 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

That depends. 

We find something swimming around on Titan and all bets are off. And who is to say it isn't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Titan

Well if there isn’t life then we waste nearly all of our supply on one moon instead of investigating other planets and moons like Europa. I personally don’t support putting all of our eggs into one basket.

Edited August 28, 2019 by ZooNamedGames

[kerbiloid]

When you design a multi-billion rocket in 3d...

Spoiler

... and forgot to change the number of corners from default 10.

(see the nozzles)

 

[tater]

3-5 million a month---for storage.

[KSK]

Good grief - that could be a nice little earner for the company I work for. I’m sure we could persuade NASA to fly the Clipper over and stash it in one of our clean rooms for a couple of years. We’d charge them at the low end of that $3-5 million pcm, and heck  - for that kind of money we’d have a brand new clean room built from scratch especially for them.

Snarks aside, how does this even add up? I get that they can’t leave Europa Clipper at the local U-Haul for a couple of years but I also have some idea of how much clean rooms cost and it sounds like someone’s creaming off a nice fat profit here.

[Codraroll]

At that point, one almost wonders why they just don't produce a bunch of them (the parts and assembly can't be that expensive once all the design work is complete, right?) and just try to get them to space on other launch vehicles. 

[ZooNamedGames]

It's likely avionics and scientific equipment. Those parts are expensive. Yes, hundreds of thousands of dollars- each. With a dozen or more- that quickly adds up to over a million or 2 for the spacecraft's avionics and science equipment alone. And likely, each one of those are being removed to be kept in a precise environment to not trigger false positives or ruin the equipment's ability to function. Since for some that function based off of (for example) the overall ionic charge of the environment it's stored in.

Of course I'm speaking in general- and not just for EC. So bear that in mind with my comment.

[tater]

If we take the middle of the road 4 M$/mo, and use the minimum 2 years storage, that's $192,000,000.

More than the price of a fully expendable FH launch.

Note that only SLS can send it to Europa direct... FH would require an orbit with a flyby and slingshot. So they could launch it on time (at no cost, effectively), save a billion dollars on top of that, and have the spacecraft arrive on time (slower trajectory, but launched literally years earlier).

That they are even thinking about SLS is absurd, frankly, it's fiscal malpractice.

[jadebenn]

I think there's a good chance EC on SLS will get dropped, but not for the reasons listed above. The primary concern right now (IMO) is manufacturing flow; Whether or not the process is refined enough to get 4 SLSes done in 4 years. This shouldn't be a problem once MAF's got a few core stages under its belt, but right now it's just about to finish up the first. Then, there's another hangup: The Block 1B transition after EC, the manufacturing of which poses a considerable scheduling risk.

What I think it's going to come down to is how badly Artemis needs that 3rd SLS slot. If they need it for Artemis 3, bye SLS EC. If they're willing to wait for the fourth, it stays.

Also, side note regarding SLS capabilities: the payload volume the SLS offers is just as valuable to HSF as the mass it can haul. In-space construction is possible, but there are much better things for astronauts to do than act as a construction crew, and with such a small workforce, you're going to be a pretty significant way through your equipment's lifespan before you finish. Much better to just build things on the ground where all the people and manufacturing infrastructure is.

It's feasible to modify a rocket like FH to launch payloads comparable to the SLS in mass. It's not feasible to modify it to launch payloads comparable in volume.

Edited August 28, 2019 by jadebenn

[KSK]

24 minutes ago, tater said:

If we take the middle of the road 4 M$/mo, and use the minimum 2 years storage, that's $192,000,000.

Uh, I make it 96 million (4m x 24 months). One of us is getting muddled somewhere I think.

 

29 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

It's likely avionics and scientific equipment. Those parts are expensive. Yes, hundreds of thousands of dollars- each. With a dozen or more- that quickly adds up to over a million or 2 for the spacecraft's avionics and science equipment alone. And likely, each one of those are being removed to be kept in a precise environment to not trigger false positives or ruin the equipment's ability to function. Since for some that function based off of (for example) the overall ionic charge of the environment it's stored in.

Of course I'm speaking in general- and not just for EC. So bear that in mind with my comment.

I can well imagine that the parts aren’t cheap but the figure quoted was just for storage. And even for storing EC under clean room conditions and having people perform regular maintenance on it under clean room conditions, 3-5 million a month seems excessive unless there’s something fairly major that I’m not taking into account.

Source for gut feeling - working for a biotech company where everything is manufactured under clean room conditions to GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice). 

It’s by no means a direct comparison to storing a spacecraft but I mention it to show that I do have some familiarity with the kind of training, skilled personnel requirements and other overheads that could be involved.

[tater]

24 minutes ago, KSK said:

Uh, I make it 96 million (4m x 24 months). One of us is getting muddled somewhere I think.

I did 48 months like an idiot.

So the price of a FH launch (recovered).

That said, given that it's supposed to launch in 2022, and Artemis takes all the launches until 2024, it seems unlikely it launches until at least 2025, assuming zero delays.

[jadebenn]

It's not a hard 'no,' but it's not wrong to say the schedule's very tight.

The OIG's recent ask to move EC off SLS basically boils down to "trying to launch four SLSes in 4 years is a tight schedule that we can't be certain is actually possible yet." It would probably be fine if the Artemis 3 flight wasn't on such a strict schedule, and the SLS didn't require a 2+ year procurement cycle (at minimum), but the decision will have to be made far before NASA can see how much faster new core stage production proceeds.

Basically: it's almost certain the first SLS will take longer than any built after it, but we don't know by how much.

[Barzon]

well the tankage for CS-2 was started in 2017/18, and is already mostly complete.

[tater]

 

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, tater said:

 

I was wondering what they were going to do with the SLS stuff.

[jadebenn]

That'll delay ML and pad testing, I believe, as it was supposed to stay out there a few months longer.

Thankfully, I doubt that's the long pole here. It hopefully won't effect the overall schedule.

[linuxgurugamer]

Just now, jadebenn said:

That'll delay ML and pad testing, I believe, as it was supposed to stay out there a few months longer.

Thankfully, I doubt that's the long pole here. It hopefully won't effect the overall schedule.

 Unless there is a very long delay, it really won’t affect the schedule that all. You’re talking about a delay of 1 to 2 weeks while the hurricane approaches and leaves. 

[Ultimate Steve]

4 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

 Unless there is a very long delay, it really won’t affect the schedule that all. You’re talking about a delay of 1 to 2 weeks while the hurricane approaches and leaves. 

Assuming this isn't a super destructive hurricane.

[linuxgurugamer]

11 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Assuming this isn't a super destructive hurricane.

It's a category 1, last I heard

[AngrybobH]

36 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

It's a category 1, last I heard

NOAA is saying possible cat 3 by the time it reaches land, last I looked. But, cat 1 can still break stuff. Hopefully it doesn't break any big expensive things at the space center.

[ZooNamedGames]

23 minutes ago, AngrybobH said:

NOAA is saying possible cat 3 by the time it reaches land, last I looked. But, cat 1 can still break stuff. Hopefully it doesn't break any big expensive things at the space center.

Up to 4 from what I’m hearing from local news sources (Floridian here). Damage wise to NASA- it ought to be pretty small. Most of the fixed equipment that will handle the forces of the storm are built to handle them. So they might lose a few placards or loose panels, but buy in large will be intact. More sensitive equipment will be stored- stuff like the SLS hardware will be stored in the VAB which has handled like 30... maybe 40 hurricanes just fine. Lost a few external wall panels in Katrina but came out just fine. 

[jadebenn]

This will delay ML and pad testing though, that's a certainty. They weren't supposed to roll-back the ML yet, so they'll have to roll it out again once the threat has passed.

Edited August 29, 2019 by jadebenn