Orion/SLS Discussion Thread!

[Rune]

But this plan is supposed to use Block II!

Yup, to lift EELV-sized payloads two at a time, to an orbit only it can reach under those conditions.

Sorry, but that's not true. SLS Block II's only addition from Block IB (which flies on the second or third total flight) is the advanced boosters. Nothing else is changed. The booster proposals are already out and hardware is already being tested by the companies in question. SLS Block II has a decade to be completed. You can't complain that Congress is overfunding SLS and then complain that Block II is currently unfunded!

By comparison, the only work done on BFR is testing of some of the engine components. Not a single weld has been made on BFR, we don't even know what it looks like, what its payload will be, or whether it will be so specialized that it cannot be used as a general super-heavy lifter.

I don't complain that "Congress is overfunding SLS and then complain that Block II is currently unfunded". I contend that if the SLS is unlikely to be flown much more than once, then the chances of actually seeing the block II are effectively zero. I mean, the shuttle was also supposed to change the boosters early to liquid-fueled ones that would actually make sense to recover, look at that turned out.

By comparison, the entire launch budget of a Mars campaign, launched on existing rockets, how high could that be? If we burn a couple billion a year on EELV's like the SLS is doing, I reckon we could put quite the initial mass in LEO... In fact, let's do a quick back of the envelope calculation with, say, 150 million dollars for each 20mT, and that flat launch budget of two billion/year (about what is being spent in developing the SLS). That tells me that we could launch the whole 1,400mT IMLEO (this architecture was guesstimated to take about that in the other thread, based on number of SLS launches alone) in... [runs the win calc] ... about five years, give or take a few months.

Very rough, but you know, I just fitted the launch cost for this whole thing in a couple of presidential elections, and with less budget than Orion alone will eat during this farce of a Mars program. And I did that using numbers rough enough that they could actually serve for Atlas V, one of the more expensive launch alternatives currently on existence. And you know, before you run the numbers yourself and say that launching 70 rockets in 5 years is crazy, let me tell you that I was very pleasantly surprised when I picked 1965 as a year at random, and found out that the US launched that many rockets that year alone (wiki link).

Rune. So yeah, that is my one of my beefs with this "plan". And we haven't touched the SEP issue...

[cryogen]

And you know, spend the dV that the upper stage uses to launch the pieces to the moon (chemically, I must add) to have extra mass to give yourself dV to depart straight form LEO: good old Oberth will actually save some dV from the budget.

The chemical propulsion variants descend from lunar orbit to low altitude, to get exactly the same Oberth boost. They'd be nuts not to.

On that note, does anyone have a mirror of that paywalled .pdf on NASASpaceFlight? It's a US government publication, so it should be in the public domain, by statute. We're all missing details here.

I wonder if you could you use SEP spirals from LEO to lunar orbit? (It's like a 2:1 to 3:1 mass ratio savings). How critical is the van Allen belt radiation for that, and could you maybe avoid it by spiraling in the polar direction? (I've been curious if you could use this as an upper stage for outer planets probes -- spend 2-3 years prepositioning a storable CH4/LOX stage at EML1, using an SEP spiral, then send up the science package to rendezvous at EML1, dip down to low altitude, and do an interplanetary burn there to a high C3..)

Edited September 26, 2015 by cryogen

[Zucal]

I don't complain that "Congress is overfunding SLS and then complain that Block II is currently unfunded". I contend that if the SLS is unlikely to be flown much more than once, then the chances of actually seeing the block II are effectively zero. I mean, the shuttle was also supposed to change the boosters early to liquid-fueled ones that would actually make sense to recover, look at that turned out.

I agree with many of your criticisms, but I don't think this is a valid one. I think SLS is very likely to be flown more than once. Why on Earth would they abandon a project that they've already completed, is the darling of Congress, and grants them a versatile super-heavy lifting platform? SLS Block IB is going to fly for sure, barring a RUD on EM-1. NASA doesn't have a habit of canceling projects that have already been built and flown'er getting multiple times on missions. They're getting 4 times the payload capacity of the shuttle to LEO for half to a third the price. It's a step forward in every way. BFR is a non-player at this point.

[fredinno]

That figure assumes all three cores are expended rocket, and SpaceX almost certainly won't fly that unless they're paid in full by NASA. Assuming no crossfeed and full reuse, FH's payload to LEO is probably in the high 30s.

Sorry, but that's not true. SLS Block II's only addition from Block IB (which flies on the second or third total flight) is the advanced boosters. Nothing else is changed. The booster proposals are already out and hardware is already being tested by the companies in question. SLS Block II has a decade to be completed. You can't complain that Congress is overfunding SLS and then complain that Block II is currently unfunded!

By comparison, the only work done on BFR is testing of some of the engine components. Not a single weld has been made on BFR, we don't even know what it looks like, what its payload will be, or whether it will be so specialized that it cannot be used as a general super-heavy lifter.

No, that's expenable capacity. From Space Launch Report

[Bill Phil]

I agree with many of your criticisms, but I don't think this is a valid one. I think SLS is very likely to be flown more than once. Why on Earth would they abandon a project that they've already completed, is the darling of Congress, and grants them a versatile super-heavy lifting platform? SLS Block IB is going to fly for sure, barring a RUD on EM-1. NASA doesn't have a habit of canceling projects that have already been built and flown'er getting multiple times on missions. They're getting 4 times the payload capacity of the shuttle to LEO for half to a third the price. It's a step forward in every way. BFR is a non-player at this point.

See Apollo.

They stopped building not only the super heavy lifter, but the smaller ones too. And their development was already done. It was cancels in 68, btw.

NASA has very little control. They are pretty much completely ruled by Congress.

[Zucal]

No, that's expenable capacity. From Space Launch Report

Hh? That's what I'm saying. 45 tons is with all three cores expended. With reuse, Falcon Heavy's payload to LEO is drastically reduced.

[Ten Key]

Are we perhaps looking at this the wrong way?

If the only goal is to send people to Mars, then this plan doesn't make any sense. If, however, you look at it as a series of separate objectives that happen to culminate in a Mars landing, does it start to look a bit more appealing?

A space station at the Earth/Moon L2 point has value, doesn't it? Having an opportunity (excuse ) to scale up and test SEP has value, doesn't it? One of the drawbacks I've seen mentioned about SLS is that no one will develop payloads for it, as there's no guarantee the rocket will be around that long-- this roadmap increases the chances of the rocket being available long term, which opens the door for some interesting robotic missions to the outer solar system, doesn't it?

The Apollo program was laser focused on a Moon landing. NASA doesn't have a similar mandate this time around, and while that means getting to Mars will be much slower (and with this timeline, I'm not likely to be around long enough to see it) maybe we'll get to do some other interesting things along the way. Sometimes the scenic route is the right choice.

[Budgie]

Are we perhaps looking at this the wrong way?

If the only goal is to send people to Mars, then this plan doesn't make any sense. If, however, you look at it as a series of separate objectives that happen to culminate in a Mars landing, does it start to look a bit more appealing?

A space station at the Earth/Moon L2 point has value, doesn't it? Having an opportunity (excuse ) to scale up and test SEP has value, doesn't it? One of the drawbacks I've seen mentioned about SLS is that no one will develop payloads for it, as there's no guarantee the rocket will be around that long-- this roadmap increases the chances of the rocket being available long term, which opens the door for some interesting robotic missions to the outer solar system, doesn't it?

The Apollo program was laser focused on a Moon landing. NASA doesn't have a similar mandate this time around, and while that means getting to Mars will be much slower (and with this timeline, I'm not likely to be around long enough to see it) maybe we'll get to do some other interesting things along the way. Sometimes the scenic route is the right choice.

I haven't thought about it this way, and while I've always been a fan of the SLS in general, this makes a lot of sense for to explain this particular mission plan.

[Mitchz95]

Are we perhaps looking at this the wrong way?

If the only goal is to send people to Mars, then this plan doesn't make any sense. If, however, you look at it as a series of separate objectives that happen to culminate in a Mars landing, does it start to look a bit more appealing?

A space station at the Earth/Moon L2 point has value, doesn't it? Having an opportunity (excuse ) to scale up and test SEP has value, doesn't it? One of the drawbacks I've seen mentioned about SLS is that no one will develop payloads for it, as there's no guarantee the rocket will be around that long-- this roadmap increases the chances of the rocket being available long term, which opens the door for some interesting robotic missions to the outer solar system, doesn't it?

The Apollo program was laser focused on a Moon landing. NASA doesn't have a similar mandate this time around, and while that means getting to Mars will be much slower (and with this timeline, I'm not likely to be around long enough to see it) maybe we'll get to do some other interesting things along the way. Sometimes the scenic route is the right choice.

That's an interesting take on it, and I have to admit it makes a sort of sense. Still not sure it's the right way to go about doing it, though.

I wonder if the lunar space station might have artificial gravity? Something like Zubrin's "counterweight on a tether" mechanism would be an interesting long-term experiment.

[Requia]

See Apollo.

They stopped building not only the super heavy lifter, but the smaller ones too. And their development was already done. It was cancels in 68, btw.

NASA has very little control. They are pretty much completely ruled by Congress.

A) They flew 2 of the early model and 13 of the finished model. that doesn't at all support the 'we'll fly it once then cancel it' paranoia. Also 68? The last one flew in 75.

the Saturn V was developed on a drastically short timetable, paid for by overengineering everything right down to the screws in order to reduce the amount of time spent testing components. The result is that there was to be no significant price reduction in future Saturn Vs (to get a handle on this, 17 were built and 15 were flown at a inflation adjust cost of 40 billion), they'd have to have essentially started over in the design process to get the price down. SLS doesn't have that problem because its being built on a normal timetable.

[Bill Phil]

A) They flew 2 of the early model and 13 of the finished model. that doesn't at all support the 'we'll fly it once then cancel it' paranoia. Also 68? The last one flew in 75.

the Saturn V was developed on a drastically short timetable, paid for by overengineering everything right down to the screws in order to reduce the amount of time spent testing components. The result is that there was to be no significant price reduction in future Saturn Vs (to get a handle on this, 17 were built and 15 were flown at a inflation adjust cost of 40 billion), they'd have to have essentially started over in the design process to get the price down. SLS doesn't have that problem because its being built on a normal timetable.

They were so expensive because they threw money at it, and that strategy works sometimes. It flew many times, yes, but the last one was built in 68.

[fredinno]

That's an interesting take on it, and I have to admit it makes a sort of sense. Still not sure it's the right way to go about doing it, though.

I wonder if the lunar space station might have artificial gravity? Something like Zubrin's "counterweight on a tether" mechanism would be an interesting long-term experiment.

None of the current designs have Artificial Gravity, though some could be modified to that way, like the SkyLab II proposal. You would probably want a dedicated one in LEO first, we know zil about partial or artificial gravity.

[AngelLestat]

I wonder if the lunar space station might have artificial gravity? Something like Zubrin's "counterweight on a tether" mechanism would be an interesting long-term experiment.

It would not be an easy way to get down from that thing. This does not require too much more mass:

http://s20.postimg.org/jdf1f7a7x/Moon_Artificial_Gravity.jpg

the Saturn V was developed on a drastically short timetable, paid for by overengineering everything right down to the screws in order to reduce the amount of time spent testing components. The result is that there was to be no significant price reduction in future Saturn Vs (to get a handle on this, 17 were built and 15 were flown at a inflation adjust cost of 40 billion), they'd have to have essentially started over in the design process to get the price down. SLS doesn't have that problem because its being built on a normal timetable.

??? saturn V was the first rocket of this size build it in 60th with all new tech, the time it took to build it in fact decrease the overall cost, but the money you need to invest by month is much higher.

The saturn V was not more expensive than the SLS, as you said 17 was build + devepment cost (not sure what is the SLS excuse now)

Many times NASA makes the excuse than back then they had more budget in % to the GDP.

Which is true, but this does not mean they had more money... you talk about inflation, but the increase in GDP is not all "inflation", inflation is when you can not buy the same things with the same money than before.

But here there is another factor, the population grew and become more efective to obtain resources from earth, so now the country makes more money (in base to their resources), it does not matter what % of the GPD you are getting, because a big part of that GDP is new money without inflation.

That is why zubrin said that NASA now has the same money they had back then.

Take a look, there are graphics who take into account these factors into the NASA budget, you will see is the same almost.

[fredinno]

A) They flew 2 of the early model and 13 of the finished model. that doesn't at all support the 'we'll fly it once then cancel it' paranoia. Also 68? The last one flew in 75.

the Saturn V was developed on a drastically short timetable, paid for by overengineering everything right down to the screws in order to reduce the amount of time spent testing components. The result is that there was to be no significant price reduction in future Saturn Vs (to get a handle on this, 17 were built and 15 were flown at a inflation adjust cost of 40 billion), they'd have to have essentially started over in the design process to get the price down. SLS doesn't have that problem because its being built on a normal timetable.

The last saturn was made in '68.

- - - Updated - - -

It would not be an easy way to get down from that thing. This does not require too much more mass:

http://s20.postimg.org/jdf1f7a7x/Moon_Artificial_Gravity.jpg

??? saturn V was the first rocket of this size build it in 60th with all new tech, the time it took to build it in fact decrease the overall cost, but the money you need to invest by month is much higher.

The saturn V was not more expensive than the SLS, as you said 17 was build + devepment cost (not sure what is the SLS excuse now)

Many times NASA makes the excuse than back then they had more budget in % to the GDP.

Which is true, but this does not mean they had more money... you talk about inflation, but the increase in GDP is not all "inflation", inflation is when you can not buy the same things with the same money than before.

But here there is another factor, the population grew and become more efective to obtain resources from earth, so now the country makes more money (in base to their resources), it does not matter what % of the GPD you are getting, because a big part of that GDP is new money without inflation.

That is why zubrin said that NASA now has the same money they had back then.

Take a look, there are graphics who take into account these factors into the NASA budget, you will see is the same almost.

I have little clue what you are even saying. Please speak English, not Engrish.

[Motokid600]

??? saturn V was the first rocket of this size build it in 60th with all new tech, the time it took to build it in fact decrease the overall cost, but the money you need to invest by month is much higher.

The saturn V was not more expensive than the SLS, as you said 17 was build + devepment cost (not sure what is the SLS excuse now)

Many times NASA makes the excuse than back then they had more budget in % to the GDP.

Which is true, but this does not mean they had more money... you talk about inflation, but the increase in GDP is not all "inflation", inflation is when you can not buy the same things with the same money than before.

But here there is another factor, the population grew and become more efective to obtain resources from earth, so now the country makes more money (in base to their resources), it does not matter what % of the GPD you are getting, because a big part of that GDP is new money without inflation.

That is why zubrin said that NASA now has the same money they had back then.

Take a look, there are graphics who take into account these factors into the NASA budget, you will see is the same almost.

So essentially what your saying is because of inflation NASA is making the same amount of money now as they did in the 60s? Despite there budget being a fraction of what it was? I'm no expert in economics, but something doesn't sound quite right about that. You said it yourself that money doesn't get you as far as it did back then.

[AngelLestat]

I have little clue what you are even saying. Please speak English, not Engrish.

I will translated for you:

if some agency wanted to make now a similar manned mission to the moon (with many improvements), it will be possible with today NASA budget.

Now NASA has the same amout of money they had back then even with inflation corrections, with the addiction that now technology can help us to reduce the cost in many aspects.

Back then, if you wanted to make big steel tanks, you needed to reform or make new factories just for that job. Now a lot of factories can do it for you with better materials and costs.

The GDP increase rates are already adjusted to inflation corrections.

NASA use the lower % with respect to the GDP they receive as an excuse of not being able to do the same thing now than back then. But this is a lie, more if we have into account they use the same engines from the shuttle and delta4 to make the new SLS.

If you want to understand inflation and GDP:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/gdpinflation.asp

Simple example: Lets said I won 5000$, and I give you 1000$ to do something, the years pass, and now I won 15000$ but I still give you 1000$ to do the same thing, you can not said that you can not do it because the % between what I won and you receive is not the same if the inflation was already adjusted.

Edited September 29, 2015 by AngelLestat

[CptRichardson]

I will translated for you:

if some agency wanted to make now a similar manned mission to the moon (with many improvements), it will be possible with today NASA budget.

Now NASA has the same amout of money they had back then even with inflation corrections, with the addiction that now technology can help us to reduce the cost in many aspects.

Back then, if you wanted to make big steel tanks, you needed to reform or make new factories just for that job. Now a lot of factories can do it for you with better materials and costs.

The GDP increase rates are already adjusted to inflation corrections.

NASA use the lower % with respect to the GDP they receive as an excuse of not being able to do the same thing now than back then. But this is a lie, more if we have into account they use the same engines from the shuttle and delta4 to make the new SLS.

If you want to understand inflation and GDP:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/gdpinflation.asp

Simple example: Lets said I won 5000$, and I give you 1000$ to do something, the years pass, and now I won 15000$ but I still give you 1000$ to do the same thing, you can not said that you can not do it because the % between what I won and you receive is not the same if the inflation was already adjusted.

Except for the issue where NASA is being told to deliberately do things in the least efficient manner possible for 'jobs'.

[KerikBalm]

To make it clearer for those that don't understand.

Angel lestat is claiming that NASA gets more money because GDP went up more than its share of the GDP went down.

I'd rather have 1 % of a GDP of 1,000,000,000 (10,000,000); than 100% of a GDP of 1,000,000.

I don't know if this is true or not.

Also, NASA is not free to spend that money on a single project.

They've got multiple sats studying Earth, interplanetary probes, commitments to the ISS... etc...

Then there is the pork barrel politics that prevents them from spending money in the most efficient way.

[Darnok]

You should look at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

1960 3,222,000,000$ (2014 Constant Dollars) 0.5% of Fed Budget

1966 43,554,000,000$ 4.41%

2010 20,423,000,000$ 0.52%

Sure they have half of money they had in 1966, but back then they had to invest a lot of money in new studies and new infrastructure. Today they can use this infrastructure they where building for last 50 years right? Of course they could develop new technologies like Orion, but they have data from Apollo program, they don't have to start from scratch.

It looks like NASA is doing many things in very stupid way, first they made very expensive shuttles that were dead-end http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1694/1

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

then they made expensive space station http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/nasa-admits-shuttle-iss-were-mistakes/

When you send modular components into orbit, they should be designed with orbital construction in mind, so that you don't need a $2 billion spacecraft to insert Tab A into Slot B. SkyLab and Mir prove this point. However, if you intend to build a lets-all-join-hands-and-sing politics-over-science international space station, with a dozen countries building a dozen or so parts independently, you're going to need a shuttle to bolt the end-product together. Frankly, this is more an indictment of the ISS than the shuttle, because the ISS was designed to make a bad idea like the shuttle necessary.

And as for ISS, there's pretty much no legitimate scientific reason to build a space station in low Earth orbit other than to study the longterm effects of microgravity on human beings, and we could have done that far simpler and cheaper with a Mir-style station than the motley modular design of ISS. All the other orbital experiment packages could have been done more safely and cheaply as independent probes and satellites.

[Jouni]

1960 3,222,000,000$ (2014 Constant Dollars) 0.5% of Fed Budget

1966 43,554,000,000$ 4.41%

2010 20,423,000,000$ 0.52%

These figures tell us one thing: space exploration is cheap. It's also so utterly boring that nobody wants to spend more money on it.

The Norwegian Oil Fund could probably build a permanent colony orbiting Saturn, if they wanted to.

[Mitchz95]

Except for the issue where NASA is being told to deliberately do things in the least efficient manner possible for 'jobs'.

This, to me, is the whole problem. I have little doubt that if NASA were allowed to ditch SLS and Orion early on, and didn't have to worry about the ISS, we could have been on Mars by 2020. Even with the existing budget.

[Bill Phil]

These figures tell us one thing: space exploration is cheap. It's also so utterly boring that nobody wants to spend more money on it.

The Norwegian Oil Fund could probably build a permanent colony orbiting Saturn, if they wanted to.

The Vietnam War cost nearly twice as much..

[fredinno]

You should look at this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

1960 3,222,000,000$ (2014 Constant Dollars) 0.5% of Fed Budget

1966 43,554,000,000$ 4.41%

2010 20,423,000,000$ 0.52%

Sure they have half of money they had in 1966, but back then they had to invest a lot of money in new studies and new infrastructure. Today they can use this infrastructure they where building for last 50 years right? Of course they could develop new technologies like Orion, but they have data from Apollo program, they don't have to start from scratch.

It looks like NASA is doing many things in very stupid way, first they made very expensive shuttles that were dead-end http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1694/1

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

then they made expensive space station http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/nasa-admits-shuttle-iss-were-mistakes/

They still have to make modifications to hardware- Data from the '60s also really isn't as relavent anymore.

The Shuttle existed because Apollo died, and they needed a way to keep a human presence in space- only they couldn't get the R+D to make is full reusable.

Space stations are not only needed to study effects of microgravity on humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station

Honestly, I would want a new ISS replacement once it dies, just as, or more capable than it currently is. The Shuttle was just a bad way to do it- SLS (even using Block I) could send up its entire mass in Skylab-Style chunks, in 6 launches. That would be 3 billion and 3 years in construction assuming a cost of 500 million per launch and 2 launches per year. A few Atlas/Falcon 9 launches could help construct it, or use Orion with Block IB with 6 launches.

- - - Updated - - -

This, to me, is the whole problem. I have little doubt that if NASA were allowed to ditch SLS and Orion early on, and didn't have to worry about the ISS, we could have been on Mars by 2020. Even with the existing budget.

Another problem is that NASA generally thinks to ambitious- even after 50 years of getting "Battleship Galactica" ultimate plans shut off, it's still going on- meanwhile, money is wasted on studies for missions that will never happen. The SLS mars plans is proof of this.