tater Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 I saw an NSF post about the LM talk that said something I did not know about. The talk was virtually identical to the one they gave last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 On 29/09/2017 at 10:33 PM, insert_name said: and launch outer solar system probes in a more reasonable timescale, Europa clipper is probably going up on one, and Nasa's Ice giant study recommends the use of SLS as a launch Vehicle That last part strikes me as being as genuine a recommendation as 'Dell recommends Windows'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 The ITS, or even Falcon Heavy will probably kill the SLS. Even the Heavy can do half the payload for 1/20th the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 FH cannot lift the size payload. Volume matters. NG, otoh, can replace even those. SLS is a dead man walking, imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 1 hour ago, tater said: Volume matters. Bigelow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 1 hour ago, DAL59 said: Bigelow Doesn't fit in a spacex fairing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Um...a Falcon 9 launched the BEAM. and the 330 would fit. The olympus though, that would require an SLS or ITS launch just for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Have you heard about the Hypernova concept? http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td2703/mcNutt.pdf Page 270 proposes a rocket the size of the Eiffel Tower capable of delivering 10,000 tons to LEO! That is enough for 100 Olympus modules, or a colony of 1,600, in one launch! A "bit" implausible though. Being expendable, the cost would be ludicrous. (Personally, I think the Aldebaran nuclear spaceplane is better.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 3 hours ago, DAL59 said: The ITS, or even Falcon Heavy will probably kill the SLS. Even the Heavy can do half the payload for 1/20th the cost. Remember, it's a jobs program, so it's not likely to go anywhere soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, DAL59 said: Um...a Falcon 9 launched the BEAM. and the 330 would fit. The olympus though, that would require an SLS or ITS launch just for one. BEAM was tiny. B330 does NOT fit. It's over 16m long. 3m longer than the fairing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 11 hours ago, DAL59 said: The ITS, or even Falcon Heavy will probably kill the SLS. Even the Heavy can do half the payload for 1/20th the cost. I hope SpaceX kills the SLS but i still remain unsure if that will happend. But like @tater said, the Falcon Heavy cannot lift the same payload as the SLS. Falcon heavy can only lift 10 tons to LEO, the ~50 ton thing is what it could lift is the rocket is reinforced to actually be capable to hold it, i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted October 3, 2017 Author Share Posted October 3, 2017 8 hours ago, tater said: BEAM was tiny. B330 does NOT fit. It's over 16m long. 3m longer than the fairing. I'm sure that a taller fairing is easier than a wider one, and they have discussed making wider fairings, so...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 What the mass gives you is basically propellant left over in S2, since finding something useful that fits in a fairing (even a stretched one )that uses all the available mass is going to be hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 7 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: It's over 16m long. Since it is actually planned to launch on a FH, I assume they must have contacted spacex and secured a bigger fairing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 16 hours ago, tater said: BEAM was tiny. B330 does NOT fit. It's over 16m long. 3m longer than the fairing. According to the wiki, BA 330 is 13.7 meters long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 It is also expandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 Pence and the rest of the National Space Council are calling for a human return to the lunar surface and have requested NASA to submit a plan within the next 45 days: http://spacenews.com/national-space-council-calls-for-human-return-to-the-moon/ I hope the plan doesn't include DSG...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 The current free flier b330 is longer for the engines, tanks, and other stuff. They keep changing the design, though. They're usually not explicit about the uninflated diameter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said: Pence and the rest of the National Space Council are calling for a human return to the lunar surface and have requested NASA to submit a plan within the next 45 days: Which is about the 227th time in my lifetime that Congress, or the Administration, or a Blue Ribbon panel constituted by one of those two has demanded that NASA present a Brave New Plan for human exploration. Precisely none of them have amounted to much. So, I wouldn't get too excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 The more useful bit was that he also told the regulatory guy to solve Shotwell's problem about launch permits... in the same timeframe. That might actually happen---she wants the ability to switch pads on the same permit. So they can move from 39a to slc40, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, DerekL1963 said: Which is about the 227th time in my lifetime that Congress, or the Administration, or a Blue Ribbon panel constituted by one of those two has demanded that NASA present a Brave New Plan for human exploration. Precisely none of them have amounted to much. So, I wouldn't get too excited. Oh, I'm sure somebody got their pork every time. There seems to be a myth that the Apollo program was pitched as anything but "we will show that the USA is better than the Ruskis". But if you listen to Kennedy's speech, that was precisely why we should "choose to go to the Moon". Before that, the original 7 simply flew on rockets based on ICBMs (Redstone and Atlas were both ICBMs, the switch to solids happened after that). Since then, getting Congress to budget for "human exploration" has been difficult. - Note: I've only heard the clips from Bob Fitch's excellent KSP recreation of Apollo 11, and not the whole 17 minute speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4GG_ZyXvJw But it is pretty clear that the "political stunt" is the real goal/reason for funding. Edited October 6, 2017 by wumpus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 On 06.10.2017 at 2:11 AM, _Augustus_ said: I hope the plan doesn't include DSG...... On the contrary, the DSG is optimized for that kind of a change. It can be pitched as a stopover from Mars or a base for Lunar excursions, wherever the political winds blow. Also, note how many of this year's Mars lander projects have been pitched as (overbuilt) Lunar landers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 DSG is a mission for SLS/Orion. It's make-work for the rocket with no payloads. Companies associated with SLS, or who want a piece of that funding stream are happy to also pitch architectures that use this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 59 minutes ago, tater said: DSG is a mission for SLS/Orion. It's make-work for the rocket with no payloads. Companies associated with SLS, or who want a piece of that funding stream are happy to also pitch architectures that use this. What Rocket other than the Saturn V was built with a specific payload in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 14 minutes ago, Canopus said: What Rocket other than the Saturn V was built with a specific payload in mind? This is different. There's no real sustainable demand for payloads this big, and, as discussed in an earlier thread, there pretty much won't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts