NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[tater]

19 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Remember, the first unmanned BFR Mars missions launch in 2022.  Thats only 4 years.

Quote

Musk believes it’s “conceivable” that SpaceX could perform an orbital test flight of the BFR in three to four years, the CEO said in a press conference after the Falcon Heavy launch.

(from the Verge).

This demonstrates the absurdity of the claim of humans to Mars in 2022, or indeed 2024.

So think first orbital flight in the 2022/2024 time frame.

That said, this is entirely within the EM-2 time frame. This would certainly be the unmanned variant, as well, at least for the first tests, so SLS competition, but not Orion competition. Assuming that they end up doing coincident crew vehicle dev (their Dragon dev people have to do something, after all), then in the time range of early Orion flights, it could well be grossly superseded by BFS. Indeed, a crew version is superior to DSG (and DST, frankly).

 

[PB666]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Raptor has been test fired hundreds of times at this point. Musk said in a press conf under a week ago that the engineering dev team is transitioning to BFR exclusively as block 5 comes online---which he said was pretty much done.

They've... I want to say "bent metal," but in this case I guess "wrapped fiber" on a composite tank, which they destructively tested. Their stated plan is to start fabricating a grasshopper version for testing.

So it's not entirely implausible that certain elements are in fact under construction for testing, though aside from Raptor, that's pretty speculative.

But building a 'grasshopper'- like BFR, given their current state of technology is not revolutionary. Their learning curve was 2012 to 2014, they are now the world's leading expert is doing it, note:they are still testing so. I think when they say engineering they are talking about New Product engineering, which means FH becomes current product refinement which despite what they say never ends until you discontinue the product deployment; and even after that you probably have a couple of design and safety engineers go in and write a complete report on the evolution, problems, solutions and remaining problems.

BFR breaks into to three aspects, the heavy lifter/tanker, the interplanetary transport module and the booster. FH is a heavy lifter, F9 series went from a PL>LEO 8500 F9v1.0 to 22,500 F9FT (probably higher now) to 63,000  w/FH to whatever it will be with B5 cores and boosters. The booster platform is not a spectacular jump, its just an expensive one, but given how much they already know probably not that expense is not so great. How actually expensive it really turns out to be depends on the number of customers for FH, if there are not many customers for FH, then its not probably a profitable venture . . . .its more or less Musk's hobby. Where as the interplanetary transport module is completely (as or right now) without any public or commercial support and will likely not have commercial support for a long while. I would be surprised if we see anything on the transport module anytime soon.

Quote

People around here bash ULA, but when you absolutely, positively want it to get to space safely... ULA is where you go.

 

Atlas Rocket System-
 

Started in 1950s, Atlas II, 1991. Since 2000 there have only been 4275 launches with 1 failure, that is roughly 5   2.27 launches per year and a failure rate higher than STS.

Delta IV

Has only launched 35 times. over the last decade (3.5 times per year). 1/36 losses (greater than STS) But for the RS68A  it is not clear to me what the commercial value of this system is.

Vulcan (under development)
 

Quote

2018

A delay was announced pushing first launch back from 2019 to mid-2020.^[5] Also announced was an upgrade of the Centaur 2nd stage to include 4 RL-10 engines in lieu of 1. This version of the 2nd stage will be called Centaur V.^{[citation needed] _{-Vulcan wikipage}}

Quote

"We know the list price on an RL10. If you look at cost over time, a very large portion of the unit cost of the EELVs is attributable to the propulsion systems, and the RL10 is a very old engine, and there's a lot of craftwork associated with its manufacture. ... That's what this study will figure out, is it worthwhile to build an RL10 replacement?"

— Dale Thomas, Associated Director Technical, Marshall Space Flight Center

Yeah, RL-10 is not a high performance engine, its basically a high dV engine you want to use once required dV < 20% of insertion requirement of any heavy lift to orbit, any attempt to multiply these engines either means the PL diameter has to increase markedly or the reduce the nozzle length and diameter. This problem was easily predictable, if fact I brought the issue here months ago. From what I understand the bell of the RL10b-2 rocket is the hardest part to design and the most expensive part of the engine to make, an RL10b-2 is already very expensive and redesigning it (RL10-C) as a S2--->Orbit multiblock engine is going to be really expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10#Variants

Variant RL10C     RL10B2
Mass - 190           227 kg
Thrus - 102           110 kN <----- note the loss in thrust
V_exhau - 4400      4532 m/s <----- note the loss in ISP
Lengt - 2.2           4.14 m
D_Nozzle   1.44       2.2   m   <----- note the reduction in nozzle diamater

Why would there futurespace rocket rely on the most expensive version of a deep space engine available, modify the engine (increasing the cost and reducing performance) and then add 4 of them and then add that to a new Centuar V rocket? Make sense to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage)#Vulcan-Centaur

Then replace that with this.

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

By the time they get this baby into orbit (2024.5) , BFR will be a thing.

What is their primary goal?

Quote

Space debris cleanup

One explicit objective of the ACES design from the beginning, as part of the depot-based space architecture, has been to use the longer-stage endurance and the greater fuel capacity as propellant depot with in-space refueling capability to retrieve derelict objects for near-space clean up and deorbit. More specifically, it is an explicitly stated goal that the technical potential for derelict capture/deorbit will be enabled to provide the large delta-v (change in velocity) required to deorbit even heavy objects from geosynchronous orbits. These new approaches offer the technical prospect of markedly reducing the costs of beyond-LEO object capture and deorbit with the implementation of a one-up/one-down launch license regime to Earth orbits.^[14]

Anyone heard of ION drives (HiPEP) and solar panels. Falcon heavy could launch 100 of these for the price of one Vulcan launched vehicle and 1 ACES.

One of the problem with ULA is that all their proprietary technologies have patents that have mostly already expired. That would be a competitive problem except for the fact that no-one except them really wants to use them, they are inefficient. The fact that you see none of their competitors, either here are abroad just stealing these technologies is basically a description development problem.

Bash, no, tell me where the heck they think they are going?

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by PB666

[DDE]

23 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

As much as I admit that SLS isn't what we want, what I want even less is for us to just resign use BFR; a vehicle that doesn't even exist beyond paper, has not been tested.

What alarms me is that SpaceX has removed every stepping stone between a parachute-landing Earth orbit capsule, and a gargantuan interplanetary rocketship. And whenever the issues specific to interplanetary flight comes up, SpaceX flat-out wings it, be it zero-g or radiation.

[DAL59]

3 minutes ago, DDE said:

be it zero-g

As I have mentioned many times, the BFR takes 5 months to get to Mars.  ISS astronauts experience the same amount of zero-gee.  The radiation was accurately meusered by the Curiosity en route to Mars.  

[tater]

Large, propulsively landed LVs are part of NASA's history, at least in terms of seriously considered design studies. Such vehicles were proposed before even the Saturn 1b flew.

Landing gargatuan rockets is already off the shelf at this point. The entry speeds are maginally higher from orbit, which need different solutions, and some testing, but the actual landing is well established. We witnessed 2 in formation just a few days ago.

I would not describe what they are doing as "winging it," I would describe it as doing and testing. NASA has wanted supersonic retropropulsion for their own (notional) Mars missions for decades now, but knew almost nothing about it. What they now really know, they know from SpaceX.

I'd forget Mars right now, people get overly drawn off topic. BFS is a useful vehicle for LEO, and beyond. Phil Bono did the math on reusability in the 60s, and they all knew that it was the key to making space exploitation possible through lower cost to orbit.

[Bill Phil]

The Atlas V has had one partial launch failure. Ever. And even then the payload entered orbit. (75 launches since 2002) A lot of the Atlas V is unrelated to most previous Atlas family vehicles... 

The Delta IV has had one failure in all of its launches as well. Not quite as successful, but it did put one of its payloads into orbit (a demosat).

Bash ULA all you want, their rockets are good. That's built on decades of experience between its constituents.

[DDE]

3 hours ago, DAL59 said:

As I have mentioned many times, the BFR takes 5 months to get to Mars.  ISS astronauts experience the same amount of zero-gee.  The radiation was accurately meusered by the Curiosity en route to Mars.  

Somehow I don’t think a large chunk of NASA wrings hands over these two exact problems for no good reason.

[tater]

The radiation issue is not critical for a flags and footprints mission of limited duration. @DAL59 also tends to push the colonization angle, however, which is not the same problem at all. Sometimes the two get conflated. A flags and footprints mission would be the last spaceflight any astronaut makes as it would exceed their allowed lifetime workplace rad exposure, and they would have to be grounded.

This is a NASA/SLS thread. I would operate in this thread around the idea that any Mars architecture put forth by NASA for the near future would involve some SLS launches.

[PB666]

33 minutes ago, tater said:

The radiation issue is not critical for a flags and footprints mission of limited duration. @DAL59 also tends to push the colonization angle, however, which is not the same problem at all. Sometimes the two get conflated. A flags and footprints mission would be the last spaceflight any astronaut makes as it would exceed their allowed lifetime workplace rad exposure, and they would have to be grounded.

This is a NASA/SLS thread. I would operate in this thread around the idea that any Mars architecture put forth by NASA for the near future would involve some SLS launches.

Though I certainly hope they change, because it would be of benefit to both SpaceX and NASA if the cooperated on the Manned mission more than just feeding them publicly available information.

Quote

he Orion program has a 70% confidence level for initial program completion by 2023 according to the Associate Administrator for NASA, Robert Lightfoot.^{[17][99][100]} Assuming the same levels of yearly funding as seen to date, 2022–2023 is approximately $2,400M in additional funding for the Orion program. -wikipage Orion.

This is just orion deployement and its first functional missions are going to be to EM

Quote

The Orion capsule is designed to support future missions to send astronauts to Mars. Since the Orion capsule provides only about 2.25 m³ (79 cu ft) of living space per crew member,^[113] the use of an additional Deep Space Habitat module [ As of March 2017 Phase 1 DSH development is complete, Phase 2 is being worked on and Phase 3 is being planned.^[3]] will be needed for long duration missions. The habitat module will provide additional space and supplies, as well as facilitate spacecraft maintenance, mission communications, exercise, training, and personal recreation.^[114] During such long term missions, the Orion capsule will normally only be fully occupied by the crew during launch, splash-down, and other crew-transfer operations. Some plans for DSH modules would provide approximately 70.0 m³ (2,472 cu ft) of living space per crew member,^[114] though the DSH module is currently only in its early planning stages. DSH sizes and configurations may vary slightly, depending on crew and mission needs.^[115] The mission is planned to launch in 2032. -wikipage Orion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Service_Module#ATV-based_module

 

Quote

Exploration Mission 1 or EM-1 (previously known as Space Launch System 1 or SLS-1) is the unmanned first planned flight of the Space Launch System and the second flight of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. The launch is planned for 2019^[1][5]

By mission they mean they are going to have 13 cubesat satellites delivered to orbits near the moon. My guess is 2020 or 2021.

This will get no-one anywhere by 2024, basically.
 

[tater]

The big issue for SLS is the same that it has always been. Payloads.

The DSG push is because the payloads are all partially done in that the payloads include Orion. The reality is that the other components don’t exist, and either need to be funded soon, or they won’t exist when the need to. 

It has been a mess since the start.

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

Somehow I don’t think a large chunk of NASA wrings hands over these two exact problems for no good reason.

Beurocracy.  

[sevenperforce]

4 hours ago, tater said:

The radiation issue is not critical for a flags and footprints mission of limited duration. @DAL59 also tends to push the colonization angle, however, which is not the same problem at all. Sometimes the two get conflated. A flags and footprints mission would be the last spaceflight any astronaut makes as it would exceed their allowed lifetime workplace rad exposure, and they would have to be grounded.

This is a NASA/SLS thread. I would operate in this thread around the idea that any Mars architecture put forth by NASA for the near future would involve some SLS launches.

NASA should pay contractors to design components for a Mars mission, pay SpaceX to launch all the components individually on FH, use the ISS to put it all together, and then do an SLS launch without payload so they can use the EUS for the TLI burn.

Edited February 12, 2018 by sevenperforce

[Canopus]

6 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

NASA should pay contractors to design components for a Mars mission, pay SpaceX to launch all the components individually on FH, use the ISS to put it all together, and then do an SLS launch without payload so they can use the EUS for the TLI burn.

Why bother with dozens of FH Launches to assemble a mission if you are still using the SLS?

[kerbiloid]

8 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Why bother with dozens of FH Launches to assemble a mission if you are still using the SLS?

When a nonuke Martian ship would be >~1500 t there would be dozens of SLS.

[Canopus]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

When a nonuke Martian ship would be >~1500 t there would be dozens of SLS.

And Hundreds of FH would be the better option then? 

[kerbiloid]

14 minutes ago, Canopus said:

And Hundreds of FH would be the better option then? 

Did I say FH is an option?

P.S.
I think, the only options are ~36 t (for LEO needs (self-delivering 20 t ISS/Mir-type module)), ~120 t (for Moon), ~1200..1500 t for other needs, triple 1500 for too heavy other needs.

Edited February 12, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

When a nonuke Martian ship would be >~1500 t there would be dozens of SLS.

They can't launch more that 1 SLS per year. The industrial capability to build more simply doesn't exist.

[_Augustus_]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

They can't launch more that 1 SLS per year. The industrial capability to build more simply doesn't exist.

I remember reading somewhere that Boeing could probably build two a year if needed.

[DDE]

11 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Beurocracy.  

What a predictable non-response.

Don’t worry, I think these issues can be used to bury Musk and SpaceX if they actually get around to manned BFR flights.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

They can't launch more that 1 SLS per year. The industrial capability to build more simply doesn't exist.

The industrial capability exists. Even if it doesn't they could acquire it. The bureaucracy just can't support that many flights. Also, they'd need to build new engines very soon, and that's not very likely to happen.

[PB666]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

They can't launch more that 1 SLS per year. The industrial capability to build more simply doesn't exist.

The problems are much deeper than that, in a choice between any group of parts that can roughly accomplish the same goal as a different group of parts, they choose the most expensive most time-consuming to make options.

SLS's PL>LEO is not that great, and everything is based on cryogenics, which have (as noted above in this thread)  a limited shelf life. Block 1 will be wiped by FH. All SpaceX would have to do is to create a refueling depot, since the majority of heaviest payloads in or passing through LEO is fuel, you get the fuel to a depot and in two flights you have satisfied block 2 (130 kT>LEO). SpaceX could launch 2 FH a month, it would take them >6 months to do the same.

If the price was double you could justify SLS, the price now is already in the 10s of billions.

It doesn't matter how you get fuel to orbit, the fuel doesn't care it doesn't have feelings.....its just a mass to be bound within a volume, you could do it on FH that blows up every second launch (Just saying) but the fuel that gets to space doesn't care how it got there. You could launch a habitation phase, dock, fuel the depot, get the RSA to soyuz in a crew, and bring the fuel up and you don't have to worry about the crew rating for FH at all.

2020-2021 for first unmanned mission
2022-2025 to get Europa Clipper (unmanned)
2022-2025 for EM2 (first manned mission)

Getting a makeshift hub and multiple dockings would be a logistics problem that 3 to 7 years could not solve?
 

Someone please tell me, how is SLS superior to the functionality and the availability we had with STS. With STS you could have a docking port in the shuttle bay, you could bring the crew, and you could use individual fuel tanks to load up a rocket.

Quote

Others suggest it will cost less to use an existing lower payload capacity rocket (Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, or the derivative Falcon Heavy), with on-orbit assembly and propellant depots as needed, rather than develop a new launch vehicle for space exploration without competition for the whole design.^{[125][126][127][128][129]} The Augustine commission proposed an option for a commercial 75 metric ton launcher with lower operating costs, and noted that a 40 to 60 t launcher can support lunar exploration.^[130]

Yep, we have that now, its called FH.

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by PB666

[Nibb31]

47 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

The industrial capability exists. Even if it doesn't they could acquire it. The bureaucracy just can't support that many flights. Also, they'd need to build new engines very soon, and that's not very likely to happen.

It doesn't. There is only one plant in the US that is capable of building SLS cores and only one set of tooling for building a single core at a time. The RS-25 production line doesn't exist, but the engine is not designed for mass production either. And it goes on...  Aquiring the industrial capability to build more SLS cores would require a massive investment and/or a redesign of the rocket. It's not going to happen.

[tater]

The bureaucracy at NASA in fact requires 2+ flights a year for the program to make any sense. That has been known for a while. The "program" costs, just to keep the lights on are a couple billion a year or more. To make that make sense, they need launch cadence. Marginal launch costs are crowed at as being just 500 M$ a flight, but the program costs dwarf that. If it was Shuttle, flying once a month, then while still expensive, the program costs per launch don't dwarf the actual vehicle costs. Then, as others have said, Michaud, et al, cannot build 2+ a year without some massive infusion of cash/infrastructure to do so, which is not forthcoming. On top of that, you then need the payloads to justify the required cadence, and those would have to be in the pipes already (and they're not even a glimmer in anyone's eyes).

That's always been the issue with SLS, and to a lesser extent Shuttle.

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by tater

[PB666]

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

It doesn't. There is only one plant in the US that is capable of building SLS cores and only one set of tooling for building a single core at a time. The RS-25 production line doesn't exist, but the engine is not designed for mass production either. And it goes on...  Aquiring the industrial capability to build more SLS cores would require a massive investment and/or a redesign of the rocket. It's not going to happen.

They have an F1 F-2 class engine (using a SpaceX 9-engine layout) or RS68 either of which can replace SSME.

The reason there will be no build-up not going to happen is the 2 ton elephant in the room.  Demand is being treated as inflexible, if you cut the cost on a function 5-fold, demand is very flexible. If FH does not, by the end of the year, have 3 times as many customers for FH that it has right now I would be surprise. That means 3 customers to 9 customers from now to the end of the year . . .lets see.

https://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idINKBN1FQ38W

http://spacenews.com/38331spacex-challenge-has-arianespace-rethinking-pricing-policies/

ArianeSpace is also reconsidering the viability of their launch vehicles.

The SLS program is so expensively structured that only public sector can support it. If you run a cost up to 1 billion$ per launch with 2 billion$ of gov't support then who in the private sector wants to buy into that. In fact there's lies a very important game-theory metric for a competitor. If a competitor can come in, basically take all of the companies future customers, make it be known that they have acquired these customers and drives the public sector out of the base-line support, the that would drive down the competitor's competition and make what he is doing more profitable.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by PB666

[DAL59]

21 hours ago, DDE said:

Somehow I don’t think a large chunk of NASA wrings hands over these two exact problems for no good reason.

But why aren't they concerned about the equal amount of radiation experienced of the ISS?