[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

7 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Considering? Yes. Baselining? No.

Well, that's one.

There's literally nothing else, except sending Orion nowhere.

 

Big dumb boosters need big payloads.

(ideally they should be cheap, too, sort of the point)

[RCgothic]

If the goal is to send Orion *and* a capable lander to the surface of the moon, then as tater said the baseline is 76t to TLI in a single launch. Can any version of SLS do that? No.

Block 1b can comanifest 10t to the moon with Orion. If you use that as additional propellant, that gets you only to LLO. It's not enough to accomplish a mission.

Block 2 can comanifest 19t with Orion. *Maybe* that gets Orion into LLO with a minimal lander. Except that's not planned.

The only architecture which makes any sense using SLS and Orion is to put Orion in LEO using a different booster (falcon heavy can lift the mass, 2/3 reusable, possible form issues), and mate it to a large cargo on an EUS for TLI. The bigger the cargo the better. SLS block 2.

Edited November 15, 2019 by RCgothic

[tater]

There might be other architectures to be sure, I was just throwing one out there that makes sense to me with SLS Cargo. Basically borrowing the bit from Constellation that seems worth keeping, crew/cargo separation, EoR.

Orion is just too big/massive. Think about the 10 ton LES it has. CST-100 and Dragon 2 have LES systems---and the Orion LES masses more than either commercial crew capsule WITH LES included. Bloat, and more bloat. Hate SpaceX? Fine, CST-100 with a better heat shield and a real SM. Just "not Orion" as a start.

[ZooNamedGames]

I’ve said since the beginning that SLS isn’t a permanent solution, just a stop gap until commercial can pick up the slack with developments like Starship. SLS is a guarantee- the government isn’t going to let it go since they spent so much on it during development. Starship could lose funding as SpaceX loses profit margins, or Musk may get bored of the idea and go for something bigger. After all he did spent like 5-6 years boasting about how amazing Falcon Heavy would be and how it would be the heavy lifter of choice and It’s only flown three times and he doesn’t even talk about it anymore.

Anything can happen on the commercial field. A disaster or any sort of game changer could shift what’s being developed from commercial organizations. They don’t have absolute legal commitments like NASA does. As a result- the SLS is a guarantee. Of course when better is made, NASA will use it (once it’s proven safe & reliable). Until then, NASA uses SLS. For everyone claiming that alternatives would work- bare in mind that Musk has been talking about Mars vehicles like ITS since 2014, and as of yet he’s only got what amounts to a flying water tower and a larger version more inline with Delta Clipper. Not even remotely on par with any portion of SLS, and where’s its booster in all this? Even a full starship can only barely get into orbit. It takes super heavy to haul it anywhere else. Let’s also not forget that it’s just a shell with no work even started to make it crew ready. No work on this new orbital reuse program (I would still like to see it tested even in small scale), the entire program is conceptual at this point with as much uncertain promise as SLS ever has. I’ve heard Earth to Earth thrown around, pictures of it docked to the ISS, going to moon, landing on the moon, going to Mars, landing on Mars. Starship is labeled as “versatile & multifunctional” when Orion has had dozens of missions proposed- almost all it could do on paper (which is as far as Starship is right now). Yet SLS and Orion is “missionless” & “built without any goal in mind”. Which makes no sense to me. 
SLS gets us to the lunar surface by 2025- Starship gets us there at a minimum, a decade later. That’s not even speculation- that’s just the time it will take to develop the missing and nonexistent systems and designs which are necessary to land crews on the moon. No space suits, no BLEO radiation shielding, no life support systems, no crew space, no launch abort options, Starship just can’t compete with SLS when it comes to timescale. Starship easily can beat price, but at a decade or more just to get it to the moon, that seems like a vastly less desirable option to me.

[tater]

49 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I’ve said since the beginning that SLS isn’t a permanent solution, just a stop gap until commercial can pick up the slack with developments like Starship. SLS is a guarantee- the government isn’t going to let it go since they spent so much on it during development. Starship could lose funding as SpaceX loses profit margins, or Musk may get bored of the idea and go for something bigger. After all he did spent like 5-6 years boasting about how amazing Falcon Heavy would be and how it would be the heavy lifter of choice and It’s only flown three times and he doesn’t even talk about it anymore.

Anything can happen on the commercial field. A disaster or any sort of game changer could shift what’s being developed from commercial organizations. They don’t have absolute legal commitments like NASA does. As a result- the SLS is a guarantee. Of course when better is made, NASA will use it (once it’s proven safe & reliable). Until then, NASA uses SLS. For everyone claiming that alternatives would work- bare in mind that Musk has been talking about Mars vehicles like ITS since 2014, and as of yet he’s only got what amounts to a flying water tower and a larger version more inline with Delta Clipper. Not even remotely on par with any portion of SLS, and where’s its booster in all this? Even a full starship can only barely get into orbit. It takes super heavy to haul it anywhere else. Let’s also not forget that it’s just a shell with no work even started to make it crew ready. No work on this new orbital reuse program (I would still like to see it tested even in small scale), the entire program is conceptual at this point with as much uncertain promise as SLS ever has. I’ve heard Earth to Earth thrown around, pictures of it docked to the ISS, going to moon, landing on the moon, going to Mars, landing on Mars. Starship is labeled as “versatile & multifunctional” when Orion has had dozens of missions proposed- almost all it could do on paper (which is as far as Starship is right now). Yet SLS and Orion is “missionless” & “built without any goal in mind”. Which makes no sense to me. 
SLS gets us to the lunar surface by 2025- Starship gets us there at a minimum, a decade later. That’s not even speculation- that’s just the time it will take to develop the missing and nonexistent systems and designs which are necessary to land crews on the moon. No space suits, no BLEO radiation shielding, no life support systems, no crew space, no launch abort options, Starship just can’t compete with SLS when it comes to timescale. Starship easily can beat price, but at a decade or more just to get it to the moon, that seems like a vastly less desirable option to me.

You'll say things that are entirely reasonable, and true, then also say things that are utterly unfounded at the same time.

SLS will get us to the Moon by 2025... That requires that SLS launch a lander by 2025 (because if they just launch Orion, they're not getting anyone to the Moon, ever). I don't see the Boeing lander existing as flight ready in 2025 when it has no funding, and they haven't started yet, sorry.

You then say Starship won't land on the Moon until 2035... and they're at least actually building it. I can't give a date for SS to the Moon, neither can you, but if you pull a date out of a hat---2025---and ask me to bet, I'll bet on the one that actually exists, so I'd rationally have to pick SS.

SS can certainly compete with SLS. SLS is literally just a big dumb booster. Expendable SH and expendable SS eat's SLS's lunch as a big dumb booster.

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

38 minutes ago, tater said:

SS can certainly compete with SLS.

Oh, I don't think that's true. That implies there would be a competition at all.

 

May as well give my opinion here- Starship is designed to be so much more capable than SLS ever was. THAT BEING SAID, I still think SLS is worth it- we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. And SLS is designed specifically to be a very safe basket, without dangerous innovation (maybe some expensive padding inside the basket as an analogy?). SLS should NOT be cancelled until SS proves itself, IMO- yes, SS is better and far more sustainable, but SLS makes sure that we get back to the moon even if SS fails. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

In short, the problem I have with "orange rocket bad" is the words "rocket bad." That's just wrong

Edited November 15, 2019 by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

[ZooNamedGames]

44 minutes ago, tater said:

You'll say things that are entirely reasonable, and true, then also say things that are utterly unfounded at the same time.

SLS will get us to the Moon by 2025... That requires that SLS launch a lander by 2025 (because if they just launch Orion, they're not getting anyone to the Moon, ever). I don't see the Boeing lander existing as flight ready in 2025 when it has no funding, and they haven't started yet, sorry.

You then say Starship won't land on the Moon until 2035... and they're at least actually building it. I can't give a date for SS to the Moon, neither can you, but if you pull a date out of a hat---2025---and ask me to bet, I'll bet on the one that actually exists, so I'd rationally have to pick SS.

SS can certainly compete with SLS. SLS is literally just a big dumb booster. Expendable SH and expendable SS eat's SLS's lunch as a big dumb booster.

There’s multiple landers- and it took 7 years for NASA to pick, Grumman to develop, test and then land the lunar module on the moon. That was completely foreign world for them overbuilding to keep the crew safe and completing the mission. Any lander now wouldn’t need to accommodate the same unknown variables since we know things about the moon from our last expeditions. Besides, there’s always Blue Moon. Not to mention NASA’s been testing new landing technologies for decades. Stuff like MORPHEUS.

NASA is building their rocket which is more than SpaceX- and the vastly bigger task. A lander is much smaller, though more complex- just needing more testing- not more production time. So a lander could go from test article to flight article much more quickly.

[tater]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

There’s multiple landers- and it took 7 years for NASA to pick, Grumman to develop, test and then land the lunar module on the moon. That was completely foreign world for them overbuilding to keep the crew safe and completing the mission. Any lander now wouldn’t need to accommodate the same unknown variables since we know things about the moon from our last expeditions. Besides, there’s always Blue Moon. Not to mention NASA’s been testing new landing technologies for decades. Stuff like MORPHEUS.

This is not Apollo. Landers need 1.6 additional billions funded literally right now, or 2024 is not even a pipe dream. The people against that funding have said 2028 sounds more reasonable, and any lander that requires 2 SLS launches... not happening in 2025.

Boeing isn't even bending metal on the (required) EUS yet. SLS past Block 1 is powerpoint right now.

Blue Moon? Ture, but that's besides the point, SLS is not then getting anyone to the Moon. In that case, Blue Origin and LockMart are getting people tot he Moon, not SLS. If the vehicle that lands on the Moon doesn;t fly on SLS, then SLS was never needed in the first place. Orion is too big for SLS without enough capability. Even if SLS can get up to equal Apollo throw to TLI, SLS with Orion cannot do even Apollo. If the goal is to exceed Apollo with SLS, then even if we allow a 2 SLS architecture per flight to the Moon (which is fine), it should be cheaper than each Apollo, or we wasted our money considering that a rocket with 10-20% more mass to LEO might be able to do a lunar mission with the sort of capability we want. That's the clean sheet test. Given the goal first (whatever sort of lunar surface crew duration you want for X crew), what rocket/capsule/lander do you build? I'd say the fixed variable after the people required on the surface and stay time are set is COST. If the all up in one cost would take a rocket that cost 5 billion every flight, and a slightly smaller rocket that took 2 flights cost 3 billion each flight (so 6 for each complete mission), the all up in one wins. If 10 launches of smaller vehicles costs 1.5 billion for the same thing? That wins.

 

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

NASA is building their rocket which is more than SpaceX- and the vastly bigger task.

This is simply delusional. There are literally 4 Starships under construction right now. The booster is in fact trivial, it's a tube with some engines. First stages are easy in general (which makes SLS delays mind boggling). Landing a booster? SOP for SpaceX, not concerning, even if they blow some up landing, it's after they have done their job to completion.

Building a booster stage should not be a vastly bigger task, it's the easier part. If you're dumb enough to build a sustainer architecture, then it's also sort of like building a second stage (which is harder), but sustainers are just dumb, IMO. Wasted mass to orbit, staging makes far more sense.

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

A lander is much smaller, though more complex- just needing more testing- not more production time. So a lander could go from test article to flight article much more quickly.

More testing? Like flying it to the Moon. For X billion dollars?

Any SLS-launched lander should be tested the same way any other lander gets tested---which should be an all-up flight to the lunar surface, unmanned.

 

This is cool:

 

[ZooNamedGames]

55 minutes ago, tater said:

This is not Apollo. Landers need 1.6 additional billions funded literally right now, or 2024 is not even a pipe dream. The people against that funding have said 2028 sounds more reasonable, and any lander that requires 2 SLS launches... not happening in 2025.

Boeing isn't even bending metal on the (required) EUS yet. SLS past Block 1 is powerpoint right now.

Blue Moon? Ture, but that's besides the point, SLS is not then getting anyone to the Moon. In that case, Blue Origin and LockMart are getting people tot he Moon, not SLS. If the vehicle that lands on the Moon doesn;t fly on SLS, then SLS was never needed in the first place. Orion is too big for SLS without enough capability. Even if SLS can get up to equal Apollo throw to TLI, SLS with Orion cannot do even Apollo. If the goal is to exceed Apollo with SLS, then even if we allow a 2 SLS architecture per flight to the Moon (which is fine), it should be cheaper than each Apollo, or we wasted our money considering that a rocket with 10-20% more mass to LEO might be able to do a lunar mission with the sort of capability we want. That's the clean sheet test. Given the goal first (whatever sort of lunar surface crew duration you want for X crew), what rocket/capsule/lander do you build? I'd say the fixed variable after the people required on the surface and stay time are set is COST. If the all up in one cost would take a rocket that cost 5 billion every flight, and a slightly smaller rocket that took 2 flights cost 3 billion each flight (so 6 for each complete mission), the all up in one wins. If 10 launches of smaller vehicles costs 1.5 billion for the same thing? That wins.

 

This is simply delusional. There are literally 4 Starships under construction right now. The booster is in fact trivial, it's a tube with some engines. First stages are easy in general (which makes SLS delays mind boggling). Landing a booster? SOP for SpaceX, not concerning, even if they blow some up landing, it's after they have done their job to completion.

Building a booster stage should not be a vastly bigger task, it's the easier part. If you're dumb enough to build a sustainer architecture, then it's also sort of like building a second stage (which is harder), but sustainers are just dumb, IMO. Wasted mass to orbit, staging makes far more sense.

More testing? Like flying it to the Moon. For X billion dollars?

Any SLS-launched lander should be tested the same way any other lander gets tested---which should be an all-up flight to the lunar surface, unmanned.

 

This is cool:

 

I can't trust anything from a political front since the current term is coming to a close and if the current administration has shown me, it's that you can't predict what they will do (granted that's always applicable to any administration). Right now they may in favor of delaying it another decade- but a new president and cabinet, a few inspirational launches, and direct discussion between NASA and the new administration may shift the current intention from 2028, to 2025. There's just too many ifs right now to say if it will go sooner or later. So I'm sticking it down the middle and say they miss their 2024 mark- but not by much. By like 2026 at the latest.

This is only furthered by the fact that maybe the EUS isn't even built yet- but alike the lander- it's small and easily produced. In fact it's just 4 RL10C-3 engines modified to fit a SLS sized upper stage fuel tank. It's not insanely complex- just needing to simulations, testing and production to begin. Understandably Boeing is currently focused on Artemis 1 & 2 cores (after all 2 literally will carry crew, so their failure to produce it correctly could mean the lives of the crew onboard)- this doesn't mean that once they finish with Artemis 1, they can't take their RnD budget and shift it to EUS. It's not new technology, just new circumstances for existing hardware. The only thing new will be the fuel tank structure and the interstage it'll be housed in. 

Blue Moon can be launched on an Atlas V, not requiring an additional SLS to be built or be beyond the scope of the Artemis program. It just needs to begin production, and undoubtedly if NASA will continue it's trend to follow taking the fastest means to the moon (while keeping to their desires to be safe), then they are the best option since they have the most progress made so far. Of course, current designs of the lander lacks a crew module- which could be developed by Boeing, if NASA chose to pursue. 

I hear that building boosters like SLS is simple to comparison to SpaceX- but yet SpaceX nor any other corporation, or government has a rocket that can scale with SLS that currently has as much produced and as ready as Artemis does now. Assuming Boeing were to develop their SLS based lander that would surpass LOP-G, that would leave only Boeing to develop their lander and the EUS, then we'd be ready to land on the lunar surface. With the current mission architecture, we require LOP-G, however it only uses a few pieces of new technology like the AEPS engines being developed by AJ-RD, meaning LOP-G can be quickly developed and launched. Permitting quick development of Artemis, leaving only the lander and EUS needing to be developed (as per the earlier scenario), but in this instance, the lander can be developed by Blue Origin while Boeing develops the EUS leaving more of their budget to focus on the EUS.

Starship is a great idea but without Super Heavy, they're just Delta Clippers that one day will glide before making a powered landing... something I remain skeptical of until I see it in small scale. Orion is ready for BLEO, Starship, is not. It currently isn't in any position to be ready for even orbital flight. Number of units being produced is great, but if they aren't ready to even enter LEO, then they can't compete. It's a larger Grasshopper. To begin to push SLS out of the launch market, it would not only need to have Super Heavy produced, but create a crew living space, life support, radiation shielding, and abort modes. Right now SpaceX is struggling to get D2 ready for it's only flight to orbit, meanwhile NASA, an agency with decades of manned spaceflight development, production and oversight experience is producing Orion. There may be mismanagement, but the vehicle is guaranteed to work to spec the first time since NASA has put it's best engineers and developers onto it. Those who have experience developing manned spaceflight systems. 

Also NASA can test a lunar lander in Earth orbit Apollo 9 style, which means it can be launched by any commercial launcher (Atlas V perhaps?), and if NASA was really determined to throw crew onboard, maybe they could work with SpaceX/Boeing to modify the docking node on their spacecraft to match that of the landers, and dock with the lander in Earth orbit, transfer crew, go out 100 miles, stop, turn back, redock and then return to Earth. It isn't in lunar orbit, but the only difference is radiation hardening. Even Apollo 10 only came within 10 miles of the surface, and we had little experience as to what challenges we had to expect having sent roughly a dozen spacecraft into deep space by the time Apollo 11 flew. 

[tater]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I can't trust anything from a political front since the current term is coming to a close and if the current administration has shown me, it's that you can't predict what they will do (granted that's always applicable to any administration). Right now they may in favor of delaying it another decade- but a new president and cabinet, a few inspirational launches, and direct discussion between NASA and the new administration may shift the current intention from 2028, to 2025. There's just too many ifs right now to say if it will go sooner or later. So I'm sticking it down the middle and say they miss their 2024 mark- but not by much. By like 2026 at the latest.

NASA's budget is not changing. No inspirational launch changes that.

2024 is only a mark that matters with funding. We should know soon if they get their 1.6B extra. No, then they are aiming for 2028.

Quote

This is only furthered by the fact that maybe the EUS isn't even built yet- but alike the lander- it's small and easily produced. In fact it's just 4 RL10C-3 engines modified to fit a SLS sized upper stage fuel tank. It's not insanely complex- just needing to simulations, testing and production to begin. Understandably Boeing is currently focused on Artemis 1 & 2 cores (after all 2 literally will carry crew, so their failure to produce it correctly could mean the lives of the crew onboard)- this doesn't mean that once they finish with Artemis 1, they can't take their RnD budget and shift it to EUS. It's not new technology, just new circumstances for existing hardware. The only thing new will be the fuel tank structure and the interstage it'll be housed in. 

Then why does Boeing require literally billions to develop it? It's odd that it can simultaneously be easy, no problem to accomplish quickly, yet other things just as easy---a tank with 4 engines---that's all SLS Core is, after all, and like EUS, the engines already existed, and it has taken how many years and billions?

It will go over schedule, and over budget, regardless (it's Boeing, they even managed to do both on a "firm, fixed price" contract. By magic.).

Quote

Blue Moon can be launched on an Atlas V, not requiring an additional SLS to be built or be beyond the scope of the Artemis program. It just needs to begin production, and undoubtedly if NASA will continue it's trend to follow taking the fastest means to the moon (while keeping to their desires to be safe), then they are the best option since they have the most progress made so far. Of course, current designs of the lander lacks a crew module- which could be developed by Boeing, if NASA chose to pursue. 

Blue Moon will launch on NG, I'd imagine. Also, I'm all for those alternate landers---my point is that if the lander does not sit on top of SLS, then any claim that "SLS sent humans back to the Moon" is nonsense. SLS will send Orion closer to the Moon than LEO, and "Not-SLS" will send people to the lunar surface (all anyone actually cares about). It's like me saying an Uber took me to London, when in fact the Uber took me to the airport, and a 777 took me to London.

 

Quote

I hear that building boosters like SLS is simple to comparison to SpaceX- but yet SpaceX nor any other corporation, or government has a rocket that can scale with SLS that currently has as much produced and as ready as Artemis does now.

Nothing SLS has flown yet. At all. It's a tube with engines that can't even get off the pad by itself (with nothing else bolted on). Hopefully soon it will do a series of static fires. BTW, SLS Block 1, which flies soonest probably the end of next year, is ~95t to LEO (ref orbits for these numbers vary), and ~26t to TLI. Falcon Heavy, which is already fully operational is just shy of 64t to LEO and probably in the low 20t range to TLI. The number I usually see is ~23t to TLI. So for 150M$ we can send 88% of what SLS can send to TLI. 88% of the mass to TLI for 7.5% of the cost (and I'm being VERY kind to SLS for the cost there).

I'd say that 88% of the cargo to TLI totally compares. SLS wins, no question. But what do we have that;s 26t that needs to go to the Moon? Orion? Why---what can Orion do in a distant orbit around the Moon that a robot can't do? (just being there and getting hit by GCRs to increase cancer risk isn't really useful).

 

Quote

Assuming Boeing were to develop their SLS based lander that would surpass LOP-G, that would leave only Boeing to develop their lander and the EUS, then we'd be ready to land on the lunar surface. With the current mission architecture, we require LOP-G, however it only uses a few pieces of new technology like the AEPS engines being developed by AJ-RD, meaning LOP-G can be quickly developed and launched. Permitting quick development of Artemis, leaving only the lander and EUS needing to be developed (as per the earlier scenario), but in this instance, the lander can be developed by Blue Origin while Boeing develops the EUS leaving more of their budget to focus on the EUS.

The Boeing idea skips Gateway I think, it's not really clear based on their press.

In addition, Boeing would ask for huge piles of money to increase production capability for SLS. They'd also need some way to launch both SLS within a week or two of each other.

Quote

Starship is a great idea but without Super Heavy, they're just Delta Clippers that one day will glide before making a powered landing... something I remain skeptical of until I see it in small scale.

Why do you need to see it on a "small scale?" You will literally see it full scale in a few weeks probably (there are tank pressure test road closures this Month. They are likely to try the skydiver in December at this pace. They have 3 more to play with if there are any issues. (EDIT: closures 17-19th have moved to 25th-27th)

Quote

Orion is ready for BLEO, Starship, is not.

What does Orion have to do with Starship? I've never even suggested SS as a crew vehicle. I'm utterly agnostic on SS with people on it, I have no idea. I do know that SS can likely carry an entire lander, along with an upper stage for TLI that can push that lander AND Orion to TLI from LEO.

Quote

It currently isn't in any position to be ready for even orbital flight. Number of units being produced is great, but if they aren't ready to even enter LEO, then they can't compete. It's a larger Grasshopper.

The large Grasshopper already flew. Mk1 is more capable than Grasshopper. Mk2+ will be even more capable (they all look nicer, certainly). Regardless, it has actually flown, unlike  literally any part of SLS. Orion has had parts fly as similar boilerplate to Mk1. Artemis-1 is in fact only a test of SLS parts (first flight), and Orion's new heatshield. So it's not even an "all up" test. For some reason the first all-up test will have people on it. A huge complaint I have is that Artemis-1 should be all-up. Orion should be an actual crew flight article or the mission is wasted IMO. They're in such a rush to show some progress, they are wasting an important test, then flying actual humans as Guinea Pigs on Artemis-2. Dumb.

Quote

To begin to push SLS out of the launch market, it would not only need to have Super Heavy produced, but create a crew living space, life support, radiation shielding, and abort modes. Right now SpaceX is struggling to get D2 ready for it's only flight to orbit, meanwhile NASA, an agency with decades of manned spaceflight development, production and oversight experience is producing Orion. There may be mismanagement, but the vehicle is guaranteed to work to spec the first time since NASA has put it's best engineers and developers onto it. Those who have experience developing manned spaceflight systems. 

Nope. Stop conflating crew with Starship operations. Starship changes literally everything even as an uncrewed cargo lifter.

SS flying as a robot, without every having people on it means that we can loft whole Moon missions to LEO, then supply crew however you like. If launch is concerning, send crew via commercial crew. EDL from the Moon? Easy, don't do EDL from the Moon. SS could put a huge ACES (or similar) stage in LEO that could take a lander to LLO, wait for the Ascent stage to return to LLO, then take the Ascent stage back to LEO. Ascent stage docks with the CCV that never left LEO, and they go home from LEO. Seriously, if SS works it obviates SLS utterly.

 

Quote

Also NASA can test a lunar lander in Earth orbit Apollo 9 style, which means it can be launched by any commercial launcher (Atlas V perhaps?), and if NASA was really determined to throw crew onboard, maybe they could work with SpaceX/Boeing to modify the docking node on their spacecraft to match that of the landers, and dock with the lander in Earth orbit, transfer crew, go out 100 miles, stop, turn back, redock and then return to Earth. It isn't in lunar orbit, but the only difference is radiation hardening. Even Apollo 10 only came within 10 miles of the surface, and we had little experience as to what challenges we had to expect having sent roughly a dozen spacecraft into deep space by the time Apollo 11 flew. 

Boeing Lander masses 37t, and likely fits in an SLS fairing. No Commercial LV can carry it (except Starship, if it's flying). If they make it small enough to fit in 7m, then NG could take it.

 

My Uber analogy was bad. How about it would be like me saying I took an MD80 or 737 to London, when in fact the 737s took me to NYC, and a 777 took me from NYC to London.

Edited November 15, 2019 by tater

[ZooNamedGames]

41 minutes ago, tater said:

NASA's budget is not changing. No inspirational launch changes that.

2024 is only a mark that matters with funding. We should know soon if they get their 1.6B extra. No, then they are aiming for 2028.

Then why does Boeing require literally billions to develop it? It's odd that it can simultaneously be easy, no problem to accomplish quickly, yet other things just as easy---a tank with 4 engines---that's all SLS Core is, after all, and like EUS, the engines already existed, and it has taken how many years and billions?

It will go over schedule, and over budget, regardless (it's Boeing, they even managed to do both on a "firm, fixed price" contract. By magic.).

Blue Moon will launch on NG, I'd imagine. Also, I'm all for those alternate landers---my point is that if the lander does not sit on top of SLS, then any claim that "SLS sent humans back to the Moon" is nonsense. SLS will send Orion closer to the Moon than LEO, and "Not-SLS" will send people to the lunar surface (all anyone actually cares about). It's like me saying an Uber took me to London, when in fact the Uber took me to the airport, and a 777 took me to London.

 

Nothing SLS has flown yet. At all. It's a tube with engines that can't even get off the pad by itself (with nothing else bolted on). Hopefully soon it will do a series of static fires. BTW, SLS Block 1, which flies soonest probably the end of next year, is ~95t to LEO (ref orbits for these numbers vary), and ~26t to TLI. Falcon Heavy, which is already fully operational is just shy of 64t to LEO and probably in the low 20t range to TLI. The number I usually see is ~23t to TLI. So for 150M$ we can send 88% of what SLS can send to TLI. 88% of the mass to TLI for 7.5% of the cost (and I'm being VERY kind to SLS for the cost there).

I'd say that 88% of the cargo to TLI totally compares. SLS wins, no question. But what do we have that;s 26t that needs to go to the Moon? Orion? Why---what can Orion do in a distant orbit around the Moon that a robot can't do? (just being there and getting hit by GCRs to increase cancer risk isn't really useful).

 

The Boeing idea skips Gateway I think, it's not really clear based on their press.

In addition, Boeing would ask for huge piles of money to increase production capability for SLS. They'd also need some way to launch both SLS within a week or two of each other.

Why do you need to see it on a "small scale?" You will literally see it full scale in a few weeks probably (there are tank pressure test road closures this Sunday. They are likely to try the skydiver in December at this pace. They have 3 more to play with if there are any issues.

What does Orion have to do with Starship? I've never even suggested SS as a crew vehicle. I'm utterly agnostic on SS with people on it, I have no idea. I do know that SS can likely carry an entire lander, along with an upper stage for TLI that can push that lander AND Orion to TLI from LEO.

The large Grasshopper already flew. Mk1 is more capable than Grasshopper. Mk2+ will be even more capable (they all look nicer, certainly). Regardless, it has actually flown, unlike  literally any part of SLS. Orion has had parts fly as similar boilerplate to Mk1. Artemis-1 is in fact only a test of SLS parts (first flight), and Orion's new heatshield. So it's not even an "all up" test. For some reason the first all-up test will have people on it. A huge complaint I have is that Artemis-1 should be all-up. Orion should be an actual crew flight article or the mission is wasted IMO. They're in such a rush to show some progress, they are wasting an important test, then flying actual humans as Guinea Pigs on Artemis-2. Dumb.

Nope. Stop conflating crew with Starship operations. Starship changes literally everything even as an uncrewed cargo lifter.

SS flying as a robot, without every having people on it means that we can loft whole Moon missions to LEO, then supply crew however you like. If launch is concerning, send crew via commercial crew. EDL from the Moon? Easy, don't do EDL from the Moon. SS could put a huge ACES (or similar) stage in LEO that could take a lander to LLO, wait for the Ascent stage to return to LLO, then take the Ascent stage back to LEO. Ascent stage docks with the CCV that never left LEO, and they go home from LEO. Seriously, if SS works it obviates SLS utterly.

 

Boeing Lander masses 37t, and likely fits in an SLS fairing. No Commercial LV can carry it (except Starship, if it's flying). If they make it small enough to fit in 7m, then NG could take it.

Developing an SLS core and EUS is completely different. The core has to handle massively greater thrust, atmospheric heating, vastly higher accelerations, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric drag- EUS only deploys once in space, where most of the stresses on the core are absent. I return to my earlier comment- if such dumb boosters are so simple, why is NASA the only one with a completed lunar capable vehicle in 2020? 

Blue Moon could launch on New Glenn, but that doesn't mean it will. If pressures mount, I don't see why Blue Origin would be against ULA launching their payload. Yes, it's money they have to pay to ULA that they could spend in house, but undoubtedly a half decent contract negotiator would be able to include that cash payment in any NASA contracts for developing lunar landers.

By the logic of "SLS doesn't take us to the moon, Orion does" is utter nonesense. If a crew launches in a Space Shuttle and returns in a Soyuz, you don't say that the ISS carried them there, or the Soyuz. The Shuttle did the heavy lifting of crew into orbit, which is what is considered the start of a crewed mission. The ISS' crew habitation didn't start when it was launched, but when the first crews boarded the vessel. SLS is also the only SHLV capable of sending a vehicle designed to operate BLEO. There are other vehicles that could go to lunar orbit (Starliner, Dragon 2, Soyuz moreso technically), but none of them are rated to operate in deep space beyond LEO. Meaning, until a vehicle designed to protect crews from radiation, operate in those kind of radioactive environments (yes, new digital technology is more resilient to ionized radiation, but not immune). A vehicle needs to prove it can withstand deep space radiation and not suffer a major fault in coding since ionizing radiation has proven to cause serious potentially catastrophic faults on the ISS and it's onboard equipment- radiation and issues in deeper space will only get worse, not better. If the fault occurs with a mission critical system, the whole mission goes under- and Orion is built to survive in that kind of environment- D2 and Starliner are not built to the same spec. 

FH may have similar payload margins, but payload space is tiny, even smaller than that of the Atlas V. Eventually with payload sizes, you get to a point where the only way to utilize most, if not all, of the payload mass is by launching pure lead. A large payload margin is meaningless if you can't put enough spacecraft into the small fairing to utilize the size benefit. Not to mention, SLS at least has the promise of additional payload mass in the future once EUS is developed. FH is about as good as it'll get, price can drop, and maybe a ton or so of mass can be added, but SLS 1B and B2 will make those improvements moot. 

What can Orion do that a probe can't? Uhhh... return man to the moon? Manned exploration? Manned vs robotic exploration is a completely different topic with completely different merits. To which, I don't think really belongs here in this thread.

From what I'm hearing- Boeing intends on making another SLS core just to launch their lander. Which has the promise of skipping LOP-G, but the cost of another core, the time it'll take to make it, and so forth. I don't really support that approach, as much as I like SLS- it isn't time conducive and doesn't utilize NASA's commercial assets. With that approach, the glory is largely heaped on only NASA and Boeing. Artemis should be a diverse and international (where reasonably feasible, ESA having proven to be a pain to get the Orion SM ready, but there are other nations that could develop NASA hardware). Artemis should be using all vehicles, ranging from SLS, to Falcon Heavy and the Atlas V. Though what will happen, is, as mentioned, up in the air. 

I say small scale, because my business sense (which I know means piddle here) suggests that I should put a new theoretical landing method to test on something that costs <$1000 before I spend millions on a larger scale version, not knowing if it will even work aerodynamically. Musk claims it will work, and he's given us CGI video feeds of it landing, but neither are even using real aerodynamic modeling indicating what the forces are, on what part of the vehicle, what stresses are involved, is it stable, if so, at what speeds. For example, what happens if fuel sloshes, and it becomes unstable in it's intended configuration; what if it becomes too stable in a nose down configuration (a fair point, since it is basically a dart with moveable wings, but a dart becomes aerodynamically stable in a nose down angle, not with fins down like Musk is proposing). So I'd like to see how it works with something small. Though progress is smooth, I am bearing in mind Musk scheduling, and adding a fair amount of time from whatever he claims.

"Nothing on SLS has flown yet"

• Engines are literally from flown Space Shuttle missions
• Orion SM engine was flown on a Space Shuttle mission
• Solid rocket motors are merely lengthened Shuttle boosters
• Orion flew (albiet in a basic framework) in 2014 on EFT-1
• Orion's LES has been flown multiple times on test flights
• Parachutes in drop tests
• ICPS engine is just a modified DCSS. Same engine design, unmodified

I think many parts of SLS has flown. Some components are literally reused from other missions. Oh Zoo, but it's a waste their throwing out these amazing engines! It's a first launch, not even SpaceX or Blue Origin reused their first engines, they impacted the oceans and were lost. Artemis is not about reuse- although, with the development of other technologies, for example, ULA's SMART reuse, that could be applied to SLS' main engines. However,  reuse is completely irrelevant if it never flies in the first place. So I think SLS is more ahead of the game than you think.

Personally I think Grasshopper looks better than all of the Starship mockups. They all look like they're gonna do an Atlas and collapse in on themselves in a strong breeze. Granted, this is a personal opinion and I understand & respect that others like its look. Artemis 1 is a test flight to prove it can. I think it would be great to have crew, but if something did go wrong- NASA would be at the full brunt of government criticism for flying crews on a vehicle that's never been flown before. Some people still chastise NASA for flying crew on STS-1 rather than leaving it to a test launch. As a result, NASA's intent to appease, leaves it to test the vehicle solo. Artemis 2 puts the vehicle to task, get it to do things that a crew- not mission control want it to do. Crew may want to observe certain areas of the moon, alter their orbit to get precise altitude, speed or inclination. Yes, A1 could do this, but crew operation is different from MC operation, not to mention the additional loads of crew operation, crew LS, and so forth. It's a lot more intensive on the vehicle than flying empty. 

For Starship to compete still requires it to have Super Heavy since without it, it only reaches LEO. For delivering landers, Orion for LEO tests, or delivering space station modules, that's great- but without Super Heavy- SLS is operating in lunar orbit with Starship in LEO. If it's going to haul large stages inside, then it needs to prove it can support such large payloads since at that scale, new stresses and strains are imposed since (as I understand it)- payloads are mounted vertically, bolted down to the fairing base, but the taller you get, the more likely you are to have the payload shift off axis, meaning some sort of support above the base is necessary. What is that? How will it integrate with payloads, how will it disconnnect? All problems to making Starship handle bigger payloads. 

Personally I don't take Boeing's submission seriously. They don't have anyone else backing it. It's a cool idea, but it isn't cost effective, and not time conducive. It will cost us time and money. Which does nothing for Artemis. Blue Moon appears to be more viable and further along in development than Boeing's lander as well. I think they just threw a submission in to have a foot in the door to potentially get the contract, but know they don't really have an edge on the competition. Though that's my opinion.

[tater]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Developing an SLS core and EUS is completely different. The core has to handle massively greater thrust, atmospheric heating, vastly higher accelerations, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric drag- EUS only deploys once in space, where most of the stresses on the core are absent. I return to my earlier comment- if such dumb boosters are so simple, why is NASA the only one with a completed lunar capable vehicle in 2020? 

Um, EUS handles exactly the same g loading, and exactly the same atmospheric heating. It's an in-line tank, same diameter as the core.

Why do you say that NASA has a completed vehicle? SLS is not complete yet, sorry. It will be, mostly, by 2020. Orion for Artemis-1 is not complete, BTW, the first "all up" test of the SLS Orion stack with be Artmeis-II, with people on it.

Soon NASA will not be the only one with a big booster (Big Dumb Boosters was a concept dating back to at least the 1980s, BTW, the idea was a SHLV that didn't have Shuttle/etc on top for lofting heavy payloads). SpaceX already has a SHLV (no gov input at all), and is building another. Blue Origin is building yet another HLV (50% of SLS to LEO, but at a tiny fraction of the cost per flight).

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

What can Orion do that a probe can't? Uhhh... return man to the moon? Manned exploration? Manned vs robotic exploration is a completely different topic with completely different merits. To which, I don't think really belongs here in this thread.

What's the mission  for SLS?

Answer: To launch Orion to near the Moon!

Why?

Answer: So Orion can be near the Moon!

Why?

Answer: Because then Orion will be near the Moon!

Why? To do what?

Answer: To be near the Moon!

There is nothing that needs humans near the Moon. Nothing. On the Moon? Sure, geologists, science, awesome. Orion harms that effort, it doesn;t help it, because Orion is too massive. SLS is a powerful rocket, with a great throw to TLI---but they hamstrung it with a bloated capsule such that it cannot do anything with that capability. That and SLS is just a little bit too weak. For modern missions it probably needs more like 150-175t to LEO, not 130t.

[ZooNamedGames]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

Um, EUS handles exactly the same g loading, and exactly the same atmospheric heating. It's an in-line tank, same diameter as the core.

Why do you say that NASA has a completed vehicle? SLS is not complete yet, sorry. It will be, mostly, by 2020. Orion for Artemis-1 is not complete, BTW, the first "all up" test of the SLS Orion stack with be Artmeis-II, with people on it.

Soon NASA will not be the only one with a big booster (Big Dumb Boosters was a concept dating back to at least the 1980s, BTW, the idea was a SHLV that didn't have Shuttle/etc on top for lofting heavy payloads). SpaceX already has a SHLV (no gov input at all), and is building another. Blue Origin is building yet another HLV (50% of SLS to LEO, but at a tiny fraction of the cost per flight).

What's the mission  for SLS?

Answer: To launch Orion to near the Moon!

Why?

Answer: So Orion can be near the Moon!

Why?

Answer: Because then Orion will be near the Moon!

Why? To do what?

Answer: To be near the Moon!

There is nothing that needs humans near the Moon. Nothing. On the Moon? Sure, geologists, science, awesome. Orion harms that effort, it doesn;t help it, because Orion is too massive. SLS is a powerful rocket, with a great throw to TLI---but they hamstrung it with a bloated capsule such that it cannot do anything with that capability. That and SLS is just a little bit too weak. For modern missions it probably needs more like 150-175t to LEO, not 130t.

EUS isn’t in operation in atmosphere which is my point. During launch, the structure handles more load than any mission critical hardware.

The only thing mission from A1 is life support hardware- and ok it’d be nice to have, but it won’t deplete- it would have no CO2 to cycle, the electrical charge would be minimal, basically just to keep the lights on, which can be simulated in A1 by making sure the electrical system stays above a set margin which accounts for the simulated power loss to crew lighting.

Soon isn’t anytime soon. Right now Musk has a Delta Clipper. It can’t go to orbit, can’t ferry payloads, hell doesn’t even have room for payload. BO’s NG hasn’t even begun production as far as I know. Besides Starship hinges on Super Heavy to haul more than just LEO payloads. Again, structural issues need to be addressed. SLS is built (not a small scale to orbit version either which is where Starship is- but capable of going to the moon). 

I still don’t follow that logic. Orion isn’t to get near it but to support lunar orbit operations- it’s doing the same as the Apollo CSM, it only got close to the moon too- oh and it had to move into a separate lander too- what a surprise. Orion’s mission will only be to go to the moon when that’s what it’s designed to do- it won’t do LEO since commercialization is there and can’t go to Mars because that’d be stupid- there’s no where else to go except ARM but that doesn’t necessitate Orion and even if it did- we would need new EMU hardware to have crews properly operate on and around an asteroid.

Orion is a transport. You don’t get rid of a taxi because the car didn’t drop you off in your house- you have to take yourself the rest of the way. 

nothing near the moon- what about LOP-G? Potential to assemble deep space missions. You complain that NASA shouldn’t use astronauts as test subjects but there are other things that can- just as animals, electronics, sensitive and complex science instruments that are best operated by someone closer than 2 light seconds away. Which is another major aspect of LOP-G. The ISS is watched like a hawk. We know what will happen to the ISS, before the crew onboard do. We don’t have that luxury with LOP-G and it forces us to survive in an environment where the crew are the only ones keeping them from encountering for example, micrometeorites. It’s a close to home test ground for us to survive in orbit where the ground can’t be the overseer all the time anymore. Situations where the crew may need to troubleshoot before ground can tell them what to do. In an emergency, 2 seconds is a lifetime.

[Silavite]

13 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Anything can happen on the commercial field. A disaster or any sort of game changer could shift what’s being developed from commercial organizations. They don’t have absolute legal commitments like NASA does. As a result- the SLS is a guarantee.

I'm a bit late to the party, but I don't think a the factors are quite black-and-white with respect to the certainty of the SLS program. For example, take the patronage of Richard Shelby (R-AL) to the SLS. I doubt the program would be cancelled if his support were to be removed, but I think that there would be some shake-ups. This is evidenced by the fact that support for the SLS isn't universal. A few months ago, the chairman of the Senate budget committee sent a letter to Bridenstine which contained (among other things) criticism of the SLS program. We're all used to treating Shelby as some omnipresent, omnipotent god as far as U.S. spaceflight is concerned (I'm exaggerating just a tad ), but his backing of the SLS program is not guaranteed. It is contingent several factors, including that—

1. Shelby is alive and well. Shelby is 85 years old. According to actuarial tables provided by the U.S. Social Security Administration, an 85 year old male has (on average) 6 years of life remaining. I do not know the details of Shelby's personal health, but the chance that he dies or is rendered unfit to serve as a senator due to his health is likely non-trivial.
2. Shelby is elected. If Shelby is alive and fit, then he must be reelected in 2022. Given Alabama's partisan lean and Shelby's own sterling electoral history, I think he is nearly guaranteed reelection.
3. Shelby is the head of the appropriations committee. If Shelby's party were to lose the Senate, then he would cease to be the chairman of the Senate appropriations committee. This isn't likely given the geographic advantages the Republicans have in Senate elections, but I would still deem it to be a non-trivial possibility.
4. Supporting the SLS program is to Shelby's benefit. Unless MSFC sprouts wings and flies to another state, this seems almost guaranteed.

(Hopefully I didn't run afoul of Rule 2.2b in discussing all this. I used an example which is political in nature because it is linked so closely to the SLS program, and because it illustrates the similarities in doubt between government backed and commercial ventures. I think I should be in the clear since 2.2b only prohibits content which is political and unrelated to spaceflight.)

Anyway, this is only a single political example. The point I'm trying to make is that there are very real scenarios which cast doubt upon the success of the SLS program: I would not call it a guarantee. (For the record, I do think that SLS has more inertia due to it's government backing, I just also think that it's not guaranteed.)

[tater]

4 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

EUS isn’t in operation in atmosphere which is my point. During launch, the structure handles more load than any mission critical hardware.

Well, duh, it's 4xRL-10, so of course it's not operating in the atmosphere, and the Core Stage could fly to orbit and only doesn't because they want to dispose it, and RS-25s can't restart.

You specifically said:

Quote

The core has to handle massively greater thrust, atmospheric heating, vastly higher accelerations, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric drag- EUS only deploys once in space, where most of the stresses on the core are absent.

The EUSe experiences exactly the same thrust (force) as the core. It's attached.

Atmospheric heating? Exactly the same, if not higher, being closer to the nose (sort of depends what the launch geometry is AoA wise).

You're suggesting that the EUS somehow is not attached to SLS during launch, or that the EUS has some magic field that results in it somehow accelerating less? Really? The BACK of the rocket is doing 4g, and so is Orion, luckily EUS only ever experiences 1g due to magic. Yeesh.

Pressure and drag? The EUS outer wall touches the air, just like the core, yet it feels no drag and no pressure... maybe they should make the whole rocket out of that!

 

4 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Soon isn’t anytime soon. Right now Musk has a Delta Clipper. It can’t go to orbit, can’t ferry payloads, hell doesn’t even have room for payload. BO’s NG hasn’t even begun production as far as I know. Besides Starship hinges on Super Heavy to haul more than just LEO payloads. Again, structural issues need to be addressed. SLS is built (not a small scale to orbit version either which is where Starship is- but capable of going to the moon). 

This is... ridiculous. Trying to be diplomatic here, that;s the best I can do.

4 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I still don’t follow that logic. Orion isn’t to get near it but to support lunar orbit operations- it’s doing the same as the Apollo CSM, it only got close to the moon too- oh and it had to move into a separate lander too- what a surprise. Orion’s mission will only be to go to the moon when that’s what it’s designed to do- it won’t do LEO since commercialization is there and can’t go to Mars because that’d be stupid- there’s no where else to go except ARM but that doesn’t necessitate Orion and even if it did- we would need new EMU hardware to have crews properly operate on and around an asteroid.

The Apollo CSM did the LOI burn for the entire CSM/LM stack. It then did the TEI burn to send them home. It did that in LLO, which is actually near the Moon. NRHO is not near the Moon. It's just the nearest Orion can easily do.

Orion was NOT designed to go near the Moon for SLS. It was carried over from Constellation. In Constellation it was to be launched to LEO. Altair did the heavy lifting at the Moon (LOI, and descent, landing, and ascent). Orion stayed the same, SLS got weaker (partially because Ares was never going to work). Orion is codifying a bad design. SLS is stuck flying it.

[sevenperforce]

15 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Artemis 1 is a test flight to prove it can. I think it would be great to have crew, but if something did go wrong- NASA would be at the full brunt of government criticism for flying crews on a vehicle that's never been flown before. Some people still chastise NASA for flying crew on STS-1 rather than leaving it to a test launch. As a result, NASA's intent to appease, leaves it to test the vehicle solo. Artemis 2 puts the vehicle to task, get it to do things that a crew- not mission control want it to do.

The problem with this argument is that Artemis 1 is not an all-up test. I agree that a manned vehicle should launch first without crew; that only makes sense. But Artemis 2 is a different vehicle than Artemis 1. The EUS is brand new and never-flown, and it will not fly until it has people on it. It would be like launching Dragon 1 on Falcon 9v1.0, calling that a "test launch," and then flying crew on Dragon 2 on Falcon 9 Block 5 on the next flight. 

If the point is to have an all-up test flight before launching crew, then they should have an all-up test flight before launching crew. If they are okay with launching crew on the first all-up test, then they should have just put humans on Artemis 1.

[ZooNamedGames]

11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The problem with this argument is that Artemis 1 is not an all-up test. I agree that a manned vehicle should launch first without crew; that only makes sense. But Artemis 2 is a different vehicle than Artemis 1. The EUS is brand new and never-flown, and it will not fly until it has people on it. It would be like launching Dragon 1 on Falcon 9v1.0, calling that a "test launch," and then flying crew on Dragon 2 on Falcon 9 Block 5 on the next flight. 

If the point is to have an all-up test flight before launching crew, then they should have an all-up test flight before launching crew. If they are okay with launching crew on the first all-up test, then they should have just put humans on Artemis 1.

According to Wikipedia, Artemis 2 is using B1, not B1B, so EUS is not required for A2. 

[ZooNamedGames]

10 hours ago, tater said:

Well, duh, it's 4xRL-10, so of course it's not operating in the atmosphere, and the Core Stage could fly to orbit and only doesn't because they want to dispose it, and RS-25s can't restart.

You specifically said:

The EUSe experiences exactly the same thrust (force) as the core. It's attached.

Atmospheric heating? Exactly the same, if not higher, being closer to the nose (sort of depends what the launch geometry is AoA wise).

You're suggesting that the EUS somehow is not attached to SLS during launch, or that the EUS has some magic field that results in it somehow accelerating less? Really? The BACK of the rocket is doing 4g, and so is Orion, luckily EUS only ever experiences 1g due to magic. Yeesh.

Pressure and drag? The EUS outer wall touches the air, just like the core, yet it feels no drag and no pressure... maybe they should make the whole rocket out of that!

 

This is... ridiculous. Trying to be diplomatic here, that;s the best I can do.

The Apollo CSM did the LOI burn for the entire CSM/LM stack. It then did the TEI burn to send them home. It did that in LLO, which is actually near the Moon. NRHO is not near the Moon. It's just the nearest Orion can easily do.

Orion was NOT designed to go near the Moon for SLS. It was carried over from Constellation. In Constellation it was to be launched to LEO. Altair did the heavy lifting at the Moon (LOI, and descent, landing, and ascent). Orion stayed the same, SLS got weaker (partially because Ares was never going to work). Orion is codifying a bad design. SLS is stuck flying it.

Orion still sends the crew home- as well as putting it into its near to lunar orbit. Not to mention will do it while protecting the crew from deep space radiation and keep it functional. If it completes its mission, does it safely, helps get man to the surface of the moon sooner rather than later- then I don’t see the issue. Especially since LOP-G helps us in ways that a Apollo style LOR would miss. Nothing to keeps us committed, there’s nothing to keep us there aside from moral commitment which as Apollo showed- can shift.

[tater]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

According to Wikipedia, Artemis 2 is using B1, not B1B, so EUS is not required for A2. 

This is true. Initially, Block 1 was to only ever fly once (which makes it mind boggling that it was ever even considered, honestly, it's bizarre given the cost). Boeing dropped the ball on EUS, so they extended Block 1 use.

 

13 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Orion still sends the crew home- as well as putting it into its near to lunar orbit.

We all know this. Not the point. The point is that the orbits Orion can go to are not useful for anything at all involving people. There is nothing to do "near" the Moon that is interesting... gonna channel Yoda here and say, "Lunar surface or not lunar surface, there is no 'near'."

 

13 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Not to mention will do it while protecting the crew from deep space radiation and keep it functional.

Orion doesn't protect anyone from radiation, that's not a thing. If there is a solar flare or something, they pile supplies around and make a place with slightly more protection---any crew on any capsule could do this.

 

13 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

If it completes its mission, does it safely, helps get man to the surface of the moon sooner rather than later- then I don’t see the issue.

Making lemonade from the lemons given. I think we're all OK with that, my arguments are specifically about the fact that all this is driven by a capsule deign and LV design that were divorced from any actual useful mission requirements.

 

13 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Especially since LOP-G helps us in ways that a Apollo style LOR would miss. Nothing to keeps us committed, there’s nothing to keep us there aside from moral commitment which as Apollo showed- can shift.

Gateway is pointless. Even if it was a propellant depot the logistics are a nightmare (thanks, rocket equation!). For every X tons of props you need at Gateway for some sort of "reusable" landing architecture, you need something like 4X tons of props in LEO first. Given affordable LV options this effectively means launching 4X tankers for every reusable vehicle---all of which are then disposed. If the goal is the lunar surface (which is the only interesting thing for people to do "near" the Moon), then the whole mission architecture and related vehicles should be designed for that goal. SLS/Orion was not. It's a rocket to nowhere---this is the old criticism of SLS/Orion, BTW, not the more recent criticism about cost, schedule, etc.

SLS exists, and should fly in the next few years. Ditto Orion. I get that. I see Artemis for what it is---making lemonade out of lemons (good, I like delicious lemonade). What gets me annoyed is when we see stuff like the Boeing lander talking about SLS, since we should minimize the use of this terrible system.

[Barzon]

11 minutes ago, tater said:

Orion doesn't protect anyone from radiation, that's not a thing. If there is a solar flare or something, they pile supplies around and make a place with slightly more protection---any crew on any capsule could do this.

 

Last I heard, Orion had a dedicated solar storm shelter.

[tater]

9 minutes ago, Barzon said:

Last I heard, Orion had a dedicated solar storm shelter.

They pile the supplies around them at the bottom of the capsule. Solar storms are not isotropic, they come from a direction (not directly from the Sun, it's a spiral, but known). So you point the SM in that direction (at least early in the storm when it is more directional), and the mass of the SM, plus the supplies helps you. Any spacecraft with a substantial SM can do this. They also have a vest they can wear I think (again, you can supply a vest to anyone).

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/scientists-and-engineers-evaluate-orion-radiation-protection-plan

Quote

If the warning were to sound, the crew would create the shelter within an hour and in some cases would need to stay inside for as long as 24 hours. Using the stowage bags on board that will contain supplies, food and water, in combination with Orion’s seats will allow astronauts making the shelter to strategically place denser bags in areas of the vehicle with less radiation-protecting materials. For example, the bottom of Orion where the heat shield and service module are attached will provide more shielding than other areas, and stowage bags can be used for parts of the spacecraft’s interior with less shielding.

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by tater

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

They should take operation manuals for that purpose.

 

[KSK]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

  Reveal hidden contents

They should take operation manuals for that purpose.

 

Printed on polyethylene I presume? Every little counts.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

7 hours ago, KSK said:

Printed on polyethylene I presume? Every little counts.

With laminated waterproof pages.

***

When the brand new technologies sick!

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]