SLS Insipiration presented by Boeing

[Likasombodee]

Hey guys,

I found this .pdf on the internet and it is absolutely amazing and felt I had to share it. It's a Boeing document that shows different capabilities of SLS.

This is so inspirational. Hopefully not a repost.

 

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

[insert_name]

has nasa taken any concrete steps to implement these plans, because this looks like a bunch of powerpoint probes

[fredinno]

29 minutes ago, insert_name said:

has nasa taken any concrete steps to implement these plans, because this looks like a bunch of powerpoint probes

Nope. However, I collect SLS Boeing presentations since they seem to have the most logical mission plans, and some (like the Lunar lander) are heavily detailed, and are thus interesting reads.

Honestly, I would use the Boeing presentations as a basis for a lunar exploration program with SLS/Orion- but it doesn't matter anyways, the "Journey to Mars" cr@p is still ongoing, at least until a new administration comes along that finally realizes how ridiculous those plans are without significant NASA reform, or increases in budget.

[Nibb31]

I saw that presentation a while back. It seems to be dated january 2014, so it's hardly news.

It's a cool PowerPoint presentation of what SLS could do if Congress granted NASA with the mission to do all that stuff. But they haven't, so NASA can't do it and all we have is PowerPoint presentations.

It takes at least decade to design any large aerospace project, so even if Congress woke up tomorrow and gave NASA a mandate for a single one of those large payloads, it still wouldn't launch until at least the late 2020's. Until then, NASA has to maintain the infrastructure for launching a huge rocket without having anything to put on top of it, and the SLS, sitting around with no payload, will have to survive several election cycles without being cut, until a payload is actually ready to be launched.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Nibb31

[fredinno]

24 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I saw that presentation a while back. It seems to be dated january 2014, so it's hardly news.

It's a cool PowerPoint presentation of what SLS could do if Congress granted NASA with the mission to do all that stuff. But they haven't, so NASA can't do it and all we have is PowerPoint presentations.

It takes at least decade to design any large aerospace project, so even if Congress woke up tomorrow and gave NASA a mandate for a single one of those large payloads, it still wouldn't launch until at least the late 2020's. Until then, NASA has to maintain the infrastructure for launching a huge rocket without having anything to put on top of it, and the SLS, sitting around with no payload, will have to survive several election cycles without being cut, until a payload is actually ready to be launched.

All of which could have been prevented if the Obama Administration gave the SLS a proper goal from the beginning.

Either way, we have SLS test launches until 2023 or so, so SLS would have to stand down for 4-6 years under your scenario.

However, if say, a Lunar Space Station from 2023 to bridge the gap is impossible, then SLS can do what the Shuttle did- putting "science" modules around the Orion SM, and maybe adding a Cyngus-derived HAB/extension module (which can later be modified into a cargo resupply or Space station module) to do manned science around the Moon. Better than a 4 year stand down, even if it would delay a lander by 1 year. The modifications would be mostly internal, carrying extra life support modules instead of strictly pressurized cargo.

However, I think a Lunar HAB/Space station module can be built by 2024 (ISS or Cygnus derived)- we have lots of experience on that side, and it is the fastest next option available for Orion other than the "science" backup plan I described earlier.

[Nibb31]

A Cygnus-based "station" would be too small to be of any use, and probably wouldn't need an SLS to launch anyway. Anything bigger would be a new spacecraft.

US ISS modules are little more than tin cans. To be viable, they would need some sort of service module with propulsion, station-keeping, power generation, life support, etc... Basically a new spacecraft again.

I doubt you could get either of those concepts ready in less than 10 years. And of course, that assumes that US Congress decides today that they want NASA to build them, which they don't seem to be ready to do.

[wumpus]

33 minutes ago, fredinno said:

All of which could have been prevented if the Obama Administration gave the SLS a proper goal from the beginning.

As long as the 22nd amendment exists and 

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

It takes at least decade to design any large aerospace project, so even if Congress woke up tomorrow and gave NASA a mandate for a single one of those large payloads, 

Then every time the President gives NASA a goal, the next president will change it before anything can happen.  Of course, unless congress is willing to fund SLS to do more than exist, it won't go anywhere, either.  It shouldn't be a surprise that Apollo was more or less shut down by Nixon as it was remembered as "Kennedy's project" regardless of whose signature is on the plaque on the Eagle['s base].

[fredinno]

22 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

A Cygnus-based "station" would be too small to be of any use, and probably wouldn't need an SLS to launch anyway. Anything bigger would be a new spacecraft.

US ISS modules are little more than tin cans. To be viable, they would need some sort of service module with propulsion, station-keeping, power generation, life support, etc... Basically a new spacecraft again.

I doubt you could get either of those concepts ready in less than 10 years. And of course, that assumes that US Congress decides today that they want NASA to build them, which they don't seem to be ready to do.

US ISS modules have life support and power wiring. They only need a SM. Granted, that would likely take a while to make, but companies like Boeing with experience in large GEO satellite construction could build it. You can't possibly tell me that it would take longer to make than a manned Lunar lander.

Cygnus and Antares together took 4 years to develop to first test flight, so I'd say a Lunar space station would take 5 years or so, give or take a year.

And a Cygnus based "Station" would use stretched Cygnus Spacecraft (or regular Extended Cygnus) attached to Node 4, aka the Node STA that was proposed for ISS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node_4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_%28spacecraft%29#Development

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

But don't take my word for it: OrbitalATK presented this proposal to NASA for a deep space HAB.

2 minutes ago, wumpus said:

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

 

Then every time the President gives NASA a goal, the next president will change it before anything can happen.  Of course, unless congress is willing to fund SLS to do more than exist, it won't go anywhere, either.  It shouldn't be a surprise that Apollo was more or less shut down by Nixon as it was remembered as "Kennedy's project" regardless of whose signature is on the plaque on the Eagle['s base].

Not all the time, Space Station Freedom survived multiple redesigns and presidencies until it was incorporated into the ISS- and the Shuttle survived that fate by being too long along in the development process to shelve. It was never implemented partially because the Shuttle had enough missions to justify its existence without it. The SLS Orion Program does not have this.

TBH, Apollo's Cancellation was due to much more than a single presidency being against it.

http://www.wired.com/2013/09/ending-apollo-1968/

Quote

The Apollo Program experienced few cuts until Apollo 11 (16-24 July 1969) accomplished – and exceeded – President Kennedy’s stated goal of a man on the moon by 1970. After that, however, the Congress, President Richard Nixon, and the American public increasingly turned their backs on the moon.

Quote

The fatal Apollo 1 fire (27 January 1967), the mounting cost of the war in Vietnam, and a growing Federal budget deficit made ambitious lunar exploration plans increasingly difficult to defend, however.

NASA's budget was huge at the time compared to today, so cutting costs there was much more justified. There is far less against the SLS than there was against Apollo.

Unless a SLS Lunar Program ends up being another Constellation disaster, it can go under enough development in 6-8 years to prevent cancellation. It worked for the Shuttle.