NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[Bill Phil]

I have a sneeking suspicion that the usefulness of the station is, as of now, not apparent. 

Technically we don't need anything in space to do any mission, just build bigger and bigger rockets with better engines, or go straight to nuclear pulse. Single stage to Saturn and back.

As an SLS manifest filler, it'll do its job. But what else could it do? Well, being able to reuse lunar landers would be good, and as far as I know the station is intended to be fairly mobile....

[DAL59]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

But what else could it do?

Literally nothing.  Put the DSG on the lunar surface.  Zubrin just said that 3 FH launches could put a base on the moon, so a couple SLSs could.  Even if that doesn't happen, SpaceX is making the BFR, which could build a huge base cheaply.  NASA loses the nonexistant race.

[Bill Phil]

56 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Literally nothing.  Put the DSG on the lunar surface.  Zubrin just said that 3 FH launches could put a base on the moon, so a couple SLSs could.  Even if that doesn't happen, SpaceX is making the BFR, which could build a huge base cheaply.  NASA loses the nonexistant race.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. Although it's certainly possible that it's not going to do anything. Remember that NASA is a jobs program. It cannot lose the race. All that will happen is they use SLS, FH, NG, as well as the BFR, if those prove their worth.

I think a good option would be nuclear thermal tugs like the old STS proposal. I would add more shielding and perhaps longer lifetime...

[Canopus]

5 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Literally nothing.  Put the DSG on the lunar surface.  Zubrin just said that 3 FH launches could put a base on the moon, so a couple SLSs could.  Even if that doesn't happen, SpaceX is making the BFR, which could build a huge base cheaply.  NASA loses the nonexistant race.

Zubrin can go on all he wants about how bad the DSG is, doesn’t mean his plan makes much more sense. And i think it is save to say the BFR will never work as advertised. So planning a mission around it would be just as crazy.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Canopus

[wumpus]

18 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

I think this quote sums up DSG:

You might be looking at it from a KSP players point of view or perhaps how Spacex would do a similar thing.  In such normal worlds, you spend money and expect to get things done.  You spend money to go into a huge money pit and you have problems.  NASA is a governement agency and deals with the entirely different world of convincing Congress to maintain funding.  In such a world, a huge money pit is ideal (provided said money spills into the right congressional districts) as it would maintain funding above all else and have whatever make-work projects are needed to keep it going.  In such a system, NASA could then go onto the Moon or Mars simply to keep the DSG gravy train going to the right congressional districts.

There are many lessons from the Shuttle.  From an engineering aspect, the shuttle did nearly everything wrong.  Another lesson was that letting the various paymasters pile too many conflicting requirements clearly caused this disaster (I've seen may shuttle design 'improvements'.  None of them would meet the requirements NASA received to build the shuttle).  One *critical* lesson should be that Congress will react to the "sunk cost fallacy" by letting you make 134 launches, compared to Apollos 27 (and most of them were unmanned tests of parts of Saturn).

NASA was created to respond to Sputnic in 1958 and altered in 1962 to put a man on the Moon.  Since then it has been a jobs program with a public face of manned space and secondary turf of space science and aeronautics R&D (secondary missions tend to be underfunded but have less political meddling.  This works well until you have a JWT-sized budget disaster).  It also has the problem of a "long term mission" changing with every new president, so any mission to Mars would likely need to be done by Spacex (or possibly Blue Origin if something happens to Musk/Spacex/BFR).  Spacex is unlikely to have the money, so presumably it would come from Congress, with NASA getting a cut.

My overall point is that NASA may well see DSG as a "white elephant in space" (like plenty of others concerned with space).  But they know they will be the ones getting the budget to feed the elephant, and Congress will have trouble shutting that flow down.  Such "long term budget sources" are seen in a vastly different light inside NASA (especially the high level GS-types and similar contractors).

[tater]

16 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Literally nothing.  Put the DSG on the lunar surface.  Zubrin just said that 3 FH launches could put a base on the moon, so a couple SLSs could.  Even if that doesn't happen, SpaceX is making the BFR, which could build a huge base cheaply.  NASA loses the nonexistant race.

Zubrin's plan is nonsense.

He seems to have a notion of a cargo lander that uses the 63.8 tons LEO delivery value, utterly forgetting that you cannot put anything liek that under even a stretched fairing. A delta IV upper stage (the 4m dia version) is 1 m longer than the current fairing, and masses 27 tons, wet. Let that sink in. You are not putting 64 tons of cargo in LEO, you are at best putting 20-something tons in LEO, with 30-something tons of props left in the stage 2 tanks.

For his deliver idea (cargo), that;s fine, the FH is doing the TLI burn.

For the crew part, this means launching simultaneously, or launching the crew ahead, then making sure they rendezvous with FH for the TLI. This likely requires the Falcon upper stage to be improved for substantially longer duration between engine relights.

[_Augustus_]

14 minutes ago, tater said:

Zubrin's plan is nonsense.

He seems to have a notion of a cargo lander that uses the 63.8 tons LEO delivery value, utterly forgetting that you cannot put anything liek that under even a stretched fairing. A delta IV upper stage (the 4m dia version) is 1 m longer than the current fairing, and masses 27 tons, wet. Let that sink in. You are not putting 64 tons of cargo in LEO, you are at best putting 20-something tons in LEO, with 30-something tons of props left in the stage 2 tanks.

For his deliver idea (cargo), that;s fine, the FH is doing the TLI burn.

For the crew part, this means launching simultaneously, or launching the crew ahead, then making sure they rendezvous with FH for the TLI. This likely requires the Falcon upper stage to be improved for substantially longer duration between engine relights.

Just human rate FH (it can't be that hard) and have the Dragon and lunar lander rendezvous in HLO, both launched on FH. Alternatively, launch a Starliner on Vulcan or Atlas and have it dock to a fully fueled ACES or Centaur V to bring it to HLO. Solves both the long duration between relights and the safety issue of not having a capsule in lunar orbit to escape to.

Alternatively, is simultaneous or nearso launch really that hard? You'd need to upgrade SLC-40 to handle D2 or Falcon Heavy, and I imagine there would be range safety issues, but it's doable. IIRC the USSR looked at doing two Proton launches within a minute of each other for a Mars sample return mission, and Skylab II was supposed to launch less than a day after the station itself originally. The FH upper stage has been proven to be able to last at least 6 hours in orbit and relight again.

As many problems as there are with Moon Direct, it still makes more sense than SLS.

Edited March 31, 2018 by _Augustus_

[tater]

18 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Just human rate FH (it can't be that hard) and have the Dragon and lunar lander rendezvous in HLO, both launched on FH. Alternatively, launch a Starliner on Vulcan or Atlas and have it dock to a fully fueled ACES or Centaur V to bring it to HLO. Solves both the long duration between relights and the safety issue of not having a capsule in lunar orbit to escape to.

Alternatively, is simultaneous or nearso launch really that hard? You'd need to upgrade SLC-40 to handle D2 or Falcon Heavy, and I imagine there would be range safety issues, but it's doable. IIRC the USSR looked at doing two Proton launches within a minute of each other for a Mars sample return mission, and Skylab II was supposed to launch less than a day after the station itself originally. The FH upper stage has been proven to be able to last at least 6 hours in orbit and relight again.

As many problems as there are with Moon Direct, it still makes more sense than SLS.

Crew rating would require a vehicle on top with LES, etc. FH is cheap, throw the lander vehicle to lunar orbit. Throw a crew vehicle at lunar orbit. Throw a return stage at lunar orbit. Rendezvous at the Moon with lander. Transfer crew and land. Crew returns to dragon, and they attach to the return stage for TEI burn for direct entry. That's 3 FH launches for the crew part alone. All of 270 M$. Still dirt cheap.

My real point was that the Falcon fairing is small. Musk has said it could be taller. Using off the shelf hardware (we will allow novel fairings) means that you use a lander based on Delta IV upper stage (DCSS, same thing as the SLS ICPS), which is 4m. Allow a 5+ m fairing and the 5m version (EUS) can fit. So a total mass under the fairing of either 27 tons (ICPS, with nothing else on it), to ~34 tons (EUS with no cargo). If you want to add cargo like habs, there is even less room. Pretty much all the mass to LEO is stage 2 propellant. Zubrin seems to think he has 60 tons of non-FH to work with. He doesn't. He has at best around half that.

[insert_name]

One major problem I see with zubrin's plan is that LC39a would have to be modified to provide LH2/O2 to the payload

[Silavite]

Let me make sure if I've missed anything. The arguments against the SLS are as follows.

• Behind schedule
• Severely overbudget
• Uses dated hardware
• Shoehorns hardware into roles that they were never designed for
• EM-2 is unreasonably risky and a double standard for man-rating compared to the Dragon 2 or CST-100
• Payload manifest is sparse (Europa Clipper has already been moved to Atlas V) aside from anything specifically supposed to go on the SLS (DSG)
• May be superseded in ability by the BFR soon after the SLS is in service

Arguments for the SLS are as follows.

• Sunk costs
• Even if it is a pork project, it keeps NASA relevant
• The development schedule of the BFR is hardly assured, so the SLS will provide interim capacity
• The DSG is required for the SLS (even though it doesn't exist yet...)

I'm writing a short paper arguing for the cancellation of the SLS for my AP Government class, and I want to make sure I cover everything.

Aside from GAO, what would be good places to hunt for reliable sources evaluating the SLS?

[DerekL1963]

Guys, this is the NASA/SLS thread - please take the SpaceX stuff that's filled the last two pages elsewhere.

[_Augustus_]

3 hours ago, Silavite said:

Let me make sure if I've missed anything. The arguments against the SLS are as follows.

• Behind schedule
• Severely overbudget
• Uses dated hardware, and literally could've been built in the 70s - no carbon fiber tanks, no partial reuse, no new engines, nada.
• Shoehorns hardware into roles that they were never designed for
• EM-2 is unreasonably risky and a double standard for man-rating compared to the Dragon 2 or CST-100
• Payload manifest is sparse (Europa Clipper has already been moved to Atlas V) aside from anything specifically supposed to go on the SLS (LOP-G), which is pointless and expensive
• May be superseded in ability by the BFR soon after the SLS is in service
• Throws away extremely complicated engines that were designed for re-use
• Only has 1 launch pad and cannot fly more than twice a year due to lack of manufacturing capacity

Arguments for the SLS are as follows.

• Sunk costs
• Even if it is a pork project, it keeps NASA relevant
• The development schedule of the BFR is hardly assured, so the SLS will provide interim capacity
• LOP-G modules besides the PPB need SLS and Orion because they lack their own propulsion capability - even though they don't exist yet, would fit on a Falcon just fine, and are completely useless
• Europa Clipper gets to Europa faster
• Europa Lander can fly to Europa without SEP or a big kick stage inside BFR that doesn't exist yet, despite the fact that either would be far cheaper to develop than SLS
• Supports conceptual Cassini follow up, ice giant orbiter, or Pluto orbiter far better than BFR can even with a kick stage, albeit at heavy costs
• Can lift "heavy, wide payloads" that don't exist yet and don't have funds
• Provides government with HLV because they need it for "reasons"
• Gives jobs to former Shuttle contractors
• Gets Congressmen that support it votes in their districts from the contractors

I'm writing a short paper arguing for the cancellation of the SLS for my AP Government class, and I want to make sure I cover everything.

Aside from GAO, what would be good places to hunt for reliable sources evaluating the SLS?

Here, I added some stuff for you. Europa Clipper hasn't actually been moved to AV; that's just a backup that may happen.

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by _Augustus_

[Canopus]

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considers-acquiring-more-than-one-gateway-propulsion-module/

9 hours ago, Silavite said:

May be superseded in ability by the BFR soon after the SLS is in service

There are also other launch vehicles with similar capabilities that should be available far sooner than the BFR, like the New glenn or Vulcan.

[Confused Scientist]

12 hours ago, Silavite said:

Even if it is a pork project, it keeps NASA relevant

At the moment, I see SpaceX as being way more relevant than NASA. Bloated, inefficient projects don't make much of anything relevant. Somebody else on this thread said that "if work on the SLS began today, it would have reusability." It's been said before, but SLS is simply too far behind schedule and over budget for the goals that are on the table (DSG and DSG only, not that DSG will actually accomplish much of anything). (I remember when we were supposed to fly to asteroids in 2019-2026.) It's too bad public opinion doesn't want NASA to build probes and launch them on (gasp!) someone else's rockets.

[Canopus]

2 hours ago, Confused Scientist said:

 It's too bad public opinion doesn't want NASA to build probes and launch them on (gasp!) someone else's rockets.

But thats exactly what they are doing?

Also comparing SpaceX relevancy to NASA doesn‘t work. One is a launch provider the other a National Space Agency. If you compare NASA to ISRO ,or sadly, ESA, then you will see how relevant NASA is. SpaceX too is relevant compared to other launch providers but more to the commercial atleast right now.

[tater]

Yeah, SpaceX is only relevant for the Moon to the extent NASA is willing to pay for them to provide that service.

I think the new space launch market will ultimately change the way NASA does things, though not in the short term of early SLS operations.

While I agree with @DerekL1963 regarding keeping to topic, I think that at a broad level, anyway, the new space issue has a direct bearing on the future of SLS. I simply do not see SLS functioning for decades like Shuttle did given the current pace of change in the private market.

New Glenn was already a threat to SLS payloads as long as assembly on orbit is considered, as NG could easily sport an SLS sized fairing, and the only mass-limited payloads are pretty much propellants. With the cryo upper stage they are now committed to making, not only do they put more in LEO, then can send a second flight and mate the payload with a cryo upper stage. See, we don't even always have to go to SpaceX for this sort of tangent. NG will absolutely be flying before EM-2 in 2023, and given the at best 1/yr proposed mission cadence for SLS, literally none of the missions are cargo.

This is one of the fundamental problems with SLS, the fact that they are building the huge cargo rocket from Constellation, but then sticking the capsule on top, instead of cargo.

[DerekL1963]

4 hours ago, Confused Scientist said:

 It's too bad public opinion doesn't want NASA to build probes and launch them on (gasp!) someone else's rockets.

Well, this statement is wrong in two respects.  First, public opinion doesn't care much one way or another what NASA does.  Very few people care.  (And of those few, the consensus is almost overwhelmingly that they should use other people's rockets.)  Second, the vast majority of NASA launches are already on other people's rockets.
 

27 minutes ago, tater said:

While I agree with @DerekL1963 regarding keeping to topic, I think that at a broad level, anyway, the new space issue has a direct bearing on the future of SLS.

I can't disagree with that...  But the problem is that once the partisans of New Space get involved the discussion become about New Space and the fantasies of said partisans.  Not only are they off topic in this thread, most of them are pretty naive about the matter and don't grasp that NASA is ruled by the policies and actions (or lack thereof) of the Administration  and the budget provided by Congress - not the whims of some ideal fantasy NASA administrator.

It really shouldn't be hard, this thread is about NASA and what it is proposing or is doing.  Not about fantasies of what they should be doing.

[tater]

6 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

It really shouldn't be hard, this thread is about NASA and what it is proposing or is doing.  Not about fantasies of what they should be doing.

Agreed.

I suppose for this thread, we should make an assumption that SLS/Orion flies until at least EM-? (4? 5?) without substantial pressure to replace it. New Space could be included in DSG (LOP-G, whatever) as a possible COTS like service for delivery to leverage SLS/Orion.

It's pretty hard to avoid beating on SLS, frankly, though that could have an "Abuse SLS" thread, lol.

[DerekL1963]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

I suppose for this thread, we should make an assumption that SLS/Orion flies until at least EM-? (4? 5?) without substantial pressure to replace it. New Space could be included in DSG (LOP-G, whatever) as a possible COTS like service for delivery to leverage SLS/Orion.

No assumptions needed - simply stick to the facts relevant to SLS.  In the same vein New Space isn't relevant to the DSG unless and until NASA makes a decision that makes it relevant.  Etc... etc...  Otherwise, once that camel gets its nose in the tent, we're right back where this meta discussion began.

Facts v. fantasy and self control...  these shouldn't be hard concepts to grasp.

And with that being said I'm going to bow out of the meta discussion at the point, before the actual moderators show up with their cattle prods.

[tater]

Heh

[DAL59]

They just announced the possible cancellation of the SLS!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by DAL59

[qzgy]

3 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

They just announced the possible cancellation of the SLS!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

 

>__>

no.

[Confused Scientist]

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

Second, the vast majority of NASA launches are already on other people's rockets.

Good point. I guess I meant the newcomers' rockets instead of ULA launchers.

[insert_name]

NASA has announced that it plans to cancel SLS and divert funds to BFR!

NASA.gov/sls

[DerekL1963]

9 minutes ago, Confused Scientist said:

Good point. I guess I meant the newcomers' rockets instead of ULA launchers.

o.0 

Both Orbital-ATK and SpaceX have launched multiple NASA payloads.  Who else has a demonstrated viable launcher, obtained NASA certification, and is offering launch services?