[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[jadebenn]

2 hours ago, tater said:

If they (NASA) don't have an out, we're all being ripped off. It would be far easier to be supportive of SLS if it wasn't for this sort of ugly payoff to the usual suspects. Stuff like this makes me almost want to root for something I never want to see when I watch a launch (sans crew, obviously). (I should add that the fact that I even thought this horrifies me, I want all rockets to fly, but I also want funds used to the best possible outcome, and this is just "yuck.")

Wait, what? No, no, no. You misunderstand. I guarantee you there's an out in whatever contract will be drawn up. But the political will to use it won't be there unless something has gone terribly wrong. No President or Congressmen wants to pay money to stop something being built - and believe me, it's not corruption to have cancellation fees for a contract like this.

Edited October 17, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

2 hours ago, jadebenn said:

Wait, what? No, no, no. You misunderstand. I guarantee you there's an out in whatever contract will be drawn up. But the political will to use it won't be there unless something has gone terribly wrong. No President or Congressmen wants to pay money to stop something being built - and believe me, it's not corruption to have cancellation fees for a contract like this.

Gotcha, I haven't found the actual agreement posted anywhere, but I haven't had time to look.

Cancellation fees? Yeah, hundreds of millions to not do work that is overcharged in the first place. Still, yuck, IMO.

I wish the goal was not pork/jobs, but coming up with a system designed to grow the space economy (which could in turn generate jobs, and even pork). Such a system requires cost effective, operational reuse. People can debate what a system like that looks like---it is VTVL like SpaceX, or something much closer to initial, fully reusable Shuttle concepts---but it looks like relatively inexpensive reuse. Boeing could charge a LOT for a fully reusable spacecraft if it could be used anything like one of their aircraft, the difference is it actually moves the ball down the field to the sort of access to space that makes an interesting future possible. SLS simply doesn't do this at any level.

[tater]

The contract in question is cost plus.

That's honestly appalling. The lander contracts are to be fixed price, and they are unambiguously harder at this point (SLS already exists, production should certainly have been fixed price). This is inexcusable.

[sh1pman]

10 minutes ago, tater said:

That's honestly appalling. The lander contracts are to be fixed price, and they are unambiguously harder at this point (SLS already exists, production should certainly have been fixed price). This is inexcusable.

Is it NASA's decision if the contract should be cost-plus or fixed?

[tater]

Just now, sh1pman said:

Is it NASA's decision if the contract should be cost-plus or fixed?

NO.

That's the problem. I don't blame NASA.

[Barzon]

On 10/16/2019 at 7:09 PM, tater said:

From actual space people, or just randos?

Why bother with Berger then?

On 10/16/2019 at 9:20 PM, tater said:

[A friend ] used to write space stuff for ars

If only he had stayed...

[tater]

41 minutes ago, Barzon said:

Why bother with Berger then?

I read most of the space press.

He's been commenting on this SLS crud, since yesterday... and he's not wrong. The information is consistent with the other sources I read, and I went and listened to the hearing last night (painful, feel really sorry for Bridenstine). I follow SLS/Orion social media as well as Boeing, LockMart, etc, so I see their skewed perspective as well (ditto all the launch providers).

Ars is clearly anti-SLS, which is fine as long as you know that, it's like reading any news source, ALL are biased one way or another.

I'm anti-SLS, myself, and have been since the beginning---because I saw it as a rocket to nowhere. A capability without a mission, and unsuited to any missions I could imagine that were useful (I include cost in useful---so while I would love to send giant probes to all the planets using the huge C3 of Block1b, there is no way NASA can afford multiple multi-billion dollar probes (1+ per year to justify SLS)).

Edited October 17, 2019 by tater

[wumpus]

On 10/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, tater said:

Ars is clearly anti-SLS, which is fine as long as you know that, it's like reading any news source, ALL are biased one way or another.

They managed not to say a word about SLS (not so about NASA) when Marshall's Science and Technology Office manager decided to present a paper to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Propulsion Energy Forum and Exposition on his new reactionless drive.  https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/corkscrewing-bouncy-ion-drive-would-provide-thrust-in-different-universe/

[tater]

Magical unicorn drive, lol.

[ZooNamedGames]

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/first-of-4-rs25-engines-attached-to-artemis-rocket-stage.html

 

[tater]

10 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/first-of-4-rs25-engines-attached-to-artemis-rocket-stage.html

 

 

[sevenperforce]

On 10/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, tater said:

I'm anti-SLS, myself, and have been since the beginning---because I saw it as a rocket to nowhere. A capability without a mission, and unsuited to any missions I could imagine that were useful (I include cost in useful---so while I would love to send giant probes to all the planets using the huge C3 of Block1b, there is no way NASA can afford multiple multi-billion dollar probes (1+ per year to justify SLS)).

I only just recently realized that SLS was proposed even before Jupiter-DIRECT, as the "National Launch System" under Bush Sr. It was to be exactly the same plan as Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-130: slap a few used SSMEs (or cheaper, expendable STMEs) onto the back-end of a Space Shuttle main tank, drop an interstage on top, and go. They also had a plan to put a single STME on a 5-meter tank and add an RL-10 based upper stage, which of course is essentially what became the Delta IV. It was supposed to fly concurrently with the STS program.

Clinton canceled it because they wanted to focus on SSTOs and increasing STS cadence.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I only just recently realized that SLS was proposed even before Jupiter-DIRECT, as the "National Launch System" under Bush Sr. It was to be exactly the same plan as Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-130: slap a few used SSMEs (or cheaper, expendable STMEs) onto the back-end of a Space Shuttle main tank, drop an interstage on top, and go. They also had a plan to put a single STME on a 5-meter tank and add an RL-10 based upper stage, which of course is essentially what became the Delta IV. It was supposed to fly concurrently with the STS program.

Clinton canceled it because they wanted to focus on SSTOs and increasing STS cadence.

Yeah, the history is complex. The idea of a truly Shuttle-derived LV was not a bad idea back when Shuttle was still a thing. Use parts we already have, etc. Even the RS-25---if Shuttle is still flying, and you get X uses per engine, then fly X-1 on the Shuttle, and dispose of them with the final mission on the SDLV to loft a huge, Shuttle sized 1-off to LEO. Makes total sense.

As a stand alone program? Makes sense if the goal is to loft a huge amount of cash to whatever districts, but not much for spaceflight goals.

[sevenperforce]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, the history is complex. The idea of a truly Shuttle-derived LV was not a bad idea back when Shuttle was still a thing. Use parts we already have, etc. Even the RS-25---if Shuttle is still flying, and you get X uses per engine, then fly X-1 on the Shuttle, and dispose of them with the final mission on the SDLV to loft a huge, Shuttle sized 1-off to LEO. Makes total sense.

As a stand alone program? Makes sense if the goal is to loft a huge amount of cash to whatever districts, but not much for spaceflight goals.

There's something to be said for the presumed simplicity of a 1.5-stage-to-orbit vehicle. You can light everything on the ground, make sure it all checks out, and then launch. Same core for everything and make it modular. IF you have a regular need for high-mass launches (and that's the problem), you get nice economies of scale.

NLS-1 would have been a four-engine version of Jupiter-130, with two four-segment SRBs strapped to an external tank with four SSMEs under it and an interstage+payload on top, placing 22 tonnes in LEO. NLS-2 would have been a Shuttle-derived version of the Saturn V-B concept or the Atlas LV-3B, with two sustainer SSMEs on the external tank and four SSMEs on a jettisonable skirt, placing 6 tonnes in LEO. 

[tater]

6t and 22t better be really, really cheap, however Of curse it's 22t of fluffy cargo in that case because of the awesome volume a large LV provides (which is really useful in certain human spaceflight applications). If the Shuttle were concurrently flying it also seriously mitigates crew risk (that was the really good part of Constellation that they should have kept, IMHO, separating crew from cargo).

[sevenperforce]

48 minutes ago, tater said:

6t and 22t better be really, really cheap, however Of curse it's 22t of fluffy cargo in that case because of the awesome volume a large LV provides (which is really useful in certain human spaceflight applications). If the Shuttle were concurrently flying it also seriously mitigates crew risk (that was the really good part of Constellation that they should have kept, IMHO, separating crew from cargo).

Except for the part about the Shuttle not mitigating crew risk.

I would rather fly on Orion on top of a Proton or Ares V than fly on the Shuttle.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I would rather fly on Orion on top of a Proton or Ares V than fly on the Shuttle.

That was my point, that separating crew to Orion on a LV designed just for lofting the spacecraft makes more sense than crew/cargo together.

If Shuttle were still flying, and there was an option to send 20t (about what Shuttle carried) to LEO minus Shuttle, then any flight that flew crew to carry the 20t gets moved to the uncrewed vehicle, so fewer Shuttle flights (all with crew), so less risk. Minus Shuttle, crew is on a smaller, dedicated LV for crew, and cargo is sent by itself.

[jadebenn]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

NLS-1 would have been a four-engine version of Jupiter-130, with two four-segment SRBs strapped to an external tank with four SSMEs under it and an interstage+payload on top, placing 22 tonnes in LEO. NLS-2 would have been a Shuttle-derived version of the Saturn V-B concept or the Atlas LV-3B, with two sustainer SSMEs on the external tank and four SSMEs on a jettisonable skirt, placing 6 tonnes in LEO. 

You're hitting on something interesting here: If not for Constellation, any SLS-like design would've been a bit closer to STS. No 5-segment SRBs from Ares 1 means no stretched core, which means a slightly smaller rocket.

Sometimes I wonder if that would've been a better path. It kinda feels like Block 1B is in the awkward position where it's not powerful enough to do a Saturn V-style single-launch lunar sortie, but it's too powerful to just waste the extra payload capacity.

I guess the stretched core will really pay off once NASA upgrades the SRBs after flight 8 (I really need to do a write-up on why the BOLE program is a really good idea sometime), but that's gonna be quite a while from now.

[sevenperforce]

16 minutes ago, tater said:

That was my point, that separating crew to Orion on a LV designed just for lofting the spacecraft makes more sense than crew/cargo together.

If Shuttle were still flying, and there was an option to send 20t (about what Shuttle carried) to LEO minus Shuttle, then any flight that flew crew to carry the 20t gets moved to the uncrewed vehicle, so fewer Shuttle flights (all with crew), so less risk. Minus Shuttle, crew is on a smaller, dedicated LV for crew, and cargo is sent by itself.

Jupiter 120 plus Orion (which is the same as a two-engine NLS-3) would have been cheaper per launch than the Shuttle for crew transport to the ISS. Same SRBs, same tank, same propellants. Sacrifice 2 engines for the price of refurbishing 3, sacrifice one Orion for the price of refurbishing an entire Shuttle. No-brainer.

Way more expensive than Falcon 9 + Dragon 2, of course.

6 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

You're hitting on something interesting here: If not for Constellation, any SLS-like design would've been a bit closer to STS. No 5-segment SRBs from Ares 1 means no stretched core, which means a slightly smaller rocket.

Sometimes I wonder if that would've been a better path. It kinda feels like Block 1B is in the awkward position where it's not powerful enough to do a Saturn V-style single-launch lunar sortie, but it's too powerful to just waste the extra payload capacity.

DIRECT intended to use the core configuration as a workhorse to fulfill as many roles as possible. Baseline configuration (external tank, 2-3 SSMEs, 4-segment SRBs), takes Orion to the ISS at lower cost than a Shuttle launch. Add another engine (still < Shuttle cost), and you can comanifest cargo with Orion a la STS. Add an upper stage, and you can send Orion BLEO or cargo. Upgrade to 5-segment SRBs and a fourth/fifth SSME, and you can comanifest cargo with Orion BLEO.

In contrast, Congress and NASA batted SLS back and forth for so long that they never actually built it (which is still true) and so it could never be a workhorse, and so they had to make it more capable to do Special and Exciting things, so they had to stretch the tank and baseline at 5-segment SRBs and everything else.

[jadebenn]

This announcement seems to have completely slipped under the rug:

Sounds like I was right about Boeing's lander bid!

[sevenperforce]

14 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

This announcement seems to have completely slipped under the rug:

Sounds like I was right about Boeing's lander bid!

I didn't listen to the audio (out in a place where I can't) but I see 6 RL-10s on the descent stage and 4 engines (maybe RL-10s, but probably AJ-10s) on the ascent stage?

[jadebenn]

16 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I didn't listen to the audio (out in a place where I can't) but I see 6 RL-10s on the descent stage and 4 engines (maybe RL-10s, but probably AJ-10s) on the ascent stage?

I wouldn't put too much stock in the pictured design actually being the bid. That image is pretty old.

[tater]

SLS (X2) getting a cryo lander and Orion to Gateway in the same time period? Seems... unlikely.

Edited October 24, 2019 by tater

[jadebenn]

35 minutes ago, tater said:

SLS (X2) getting a cryo lander and Orion to Gateway in the same time period? Seems... unlikely.

I think Bridenstine's quote to Congress about the SLS flight rate "depending on how much Boeing is willing to invest" applies here.

[tater]

1 hour ago, jadebenn said:

I think Bridenstine's quote to Congress about the SLS flight rate "depending on how much Boeing is willing to invest" applies here.

Boeing is not really in a position to invest much right now I would think, and I'll even grant them arbitrarily large sums for the sake of argument. I mean the actual logistics of launching 2X SLS within a few days of each other.

Orion mission duration is usually quoted (with Gateway) as 26-42 days. They only get a (half-day transit) transfer option to the surface every ~7 days (5.9-7.3 days depending on the orbit). So they use the first one up getting to Gateway. That leaves 5 more discrete windows to leave. There's no way the lander leaves right after, so they lose another for sure. They have to stay on the surface for a period to get back as well, so the last one is off the table (maybe even the last 2). That leaves 2 landing windows (or just 1) assuming they can launch within 2 weeks or so of the Orion flight. That launch window likely has some slop, but there are probably no-go days even so to hit NRHO at the right point.

They could fly the lander first, obviously, which increases the opportunities for landing from the standpoint of crew duration to 4 (a whole month). This then requires that the Boeing lander has ZBO tanks so it can stay on station ahead of time. What's the TRL of ZBO tanks? Have they flown flight demos yet (TRL 6)? I know it's being worked on, and everyone wants it, but we're talking 2024 still. There was talk of wanting a demo flying in a Dragon trunk at some point, dunno what happened with that.

Centaur right now loses 1.6-2% per day. They think they can get it to 1%/day with added insulation. That's for the LOX/H combo, the hydrogen itself is much worse, but the LOX is better (2.4-5.1%/day for the H₂). The trouble here might be size, as hydrogen tanks are simply large. It's doable, but if they need to plan for weeks in space at ~1% a day, that's a substantial loss of propellant.

So yeah, throw money at it, but they better start with ZBO, and get that flight tested pronto.

For reference: https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/upper-stages/centaur-upperstage-applicability-for-several-day-mission-durations-with-minor-insulation-modifications-2007-5845.pdf