NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[sevenperforce]

10 minutes ago, tater said:

Which specific RS-25s? No idea.

A plus in the column for Bridenstine is that he's very pro commercial launch. Perhaps there is a way to leverage that into a better utilization of SLS.

Aside: I think the mass increase of Orion from the original designs (remember, CST-100 was bidding to be Orion) was specifically to force SLS as the launch vehicle. Nowadays, this is not strictly speaking true in the case of LVs that are actively being developed (yeah, I'm going to other LVs, but staying with Orion, so on topic!). NG could launch the Orion CSM with mass to spare in the cryo upper stage. Dunno if it could send it to DSG, though.

The purpose of Orion is just so vague. Like, it's the Apollo CSM, except the CM is bigger/heavier and the SM is less capable?

[Canopus]

On 16.4.2018 at 9:15 PM, Canopus said:

What a bummer. SLS with ICPS is pretty useless.

I‘d like to retract this statement of mine. Let‘s say we have a worst case scenario and they cancel the EUS. Block 1 could still be used to assemble the gateway if you take the ESM and develop a tug. Both the Orion capsule and the Columbus module of the iss have a mass of around 10 tons. So you take the Capsule away and put a payload adapter in its place. you could probably put even more mass ontop since this configuration wouldn’t need to return to earth. Even the notional boeing landers diameter would fit the 5 meters fairing of the ICPS. Of course this approach would take more launches though.

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The purpose of Orion is just so vague. Like, it's the Apollo CSM, except the CM is bigger/heavier and the SM is less capable?

Orion enables return from beyond low earth orbit, can accommodate four instead of Apollos three astronauts and has more life support endurance.

[sevenperforce]

8 minutes ago, Canopus said:

I‘d like to retract this statement of mine. Let‘s say we have a worst case scenario and they cancel the EUS. Block 1 could still be used to assemble the gateway if you take the ESM and develop a tug. Both the Orion capsule and the Columbus module of the iss have a mass of around 10 tons. So you take the Capsule away and put a payload adapter in its place. you could probably put even more mass ontop since this configuration wouldn’t need to return to earth. Even the notional boeing landers diameter would fit the 5 meters fairing of the ICPS. Of course this approach would take more launches though.

Orion enables return from beyond low earth orbit, can accommodate four instead of Apollos three astronauts and has more life support endurance.

Yet without a destination BLEO, they are just left repeatedly rebuilding faux destinations around Orion's lack of capabilities.

Not that that's something everyone here doesn't already know.

[sh1pman]

15 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The purpose of Orion is just so vague. Like, it's the Apollo CSM, except the CM is bigger/heavier and the SM is less capable?

I think it’s because Orion needs to return to Earth from NRHO, and not from LLO. EUS does the job of boosting the stack to TLI. Orion SM is only needed to circularize at DSG orbit, and then boost the CM back to Earth, which is easier to do from high orbit of DSG (sorry, LOP-G!) than from LLO.

LOP-G will have its own reusable lander as well. No need to carry it to the Moon, hence smaller SM is needed.

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by sh1pman

[Canopus]

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

Yet without a destination BLEO, they are just left repeatedly rebuilding faux destinations around Orion's lack of capabilities.

Not that that's something everyone here doesn't already know.

Well the final destination seems to be the moon, it‘s just not the same mission profile as Apollos.

[tater]

50 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

LOP-G will have its own reusable lander as well. No need to carry it to the Moon, hence smaller SM is needed.

No such lander is under development, however. I'm also unsure when it could be funded as it seems like they have to put that after SLS/Orion dev, then DSG dev. (they can't afford all at once).

Also, reusable requires a propellant depot. I'm sorta unsure how any SLS-related architecture is going to get anything useful to DSG, honestly. You can imagine a lunar station that functions as a way station on the way to the surface, but the stated orbit doesn't make sense, and anything that relies on SLS launches even yearly is suspect, and any cadence better than yearly is impossible.

[Canopus]

I‘m sorry @tater but the orbit makes quite a bit sense, but we‘ve been over that quite a few times already. 

The lander outlined in the global exploration roadmap for example would make sense. A methalox descent stage that could be used both for crewed and cargo landings similar to Altair but smaller due to denser fuel. The Ascent stage would be reusable thanks to storable hypergolic fuels. Refueling with these is done already on the ISS. After you put the habitats or rovers on the surface, you‘d only need two flights per one lunar landing. Money is a problem though, one possibility being that the LOP/G partners pay for the lander.

[tater]

19 minutes ago, Canopus said:

I‘m sorry @tater but the orbit makes quite a bit sense, but we‘ve been over that quite a few times already. 

The orbit only makes sense if you want to have a space station instead of just going to the lunar surface. There is no reason for a space station. It's also high enough that the Moon itself blocks no radiation. Having your base on the surface instantly reduces radiation exposure by 50%, even if you don't bury the hab, and you can just as well put a prop depot on the surface as in orbit.

What's the point of DSG, anyway?

[sh1pman]

1 hour ago, tater said:

No such lander is under development, however. I'm also unsure when it could be funded as it seems like they have to put that after SLS/Orion dev, then DSG dev. (they can't afford all at once).

Well, I read this article, and it states that there will be a robotic lander, HLEPP, with reusable ascent stage. 

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/imp.html

There is also a possibility of a manned lander, if money allows. NASA can outsource it to some other country.

[sh1pman]

1 hour ago, tater said:

What's the point of DSG, anyway?

The point is to have a lot of people employed, but it also has side products: space station, space ship and a big rocket. And now it has momentum, so I’m pretty sure DSG will happen, and it’ll definitely have some work done (to keep being funded, if anything). 

I understand that it’s all kinda backwards, and could be done much more efficiently, but it’s how it is for now. DSG needs to have a point, because otherwise it won’t be funded, and money is the whole point of this SLS-DSG project.

[Canopus]

Here‘s something:

http://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-working-to-lower-orion-costs/

[_Augustus_]

4 hours ago, tater said:

A plus in the column for Bridenstine is that he's very pro commercial launch. Perhaps there is a way to leverage that into a better utilization of SLS.

If we assume SLS will be around through 2030 I think it makes a lot of sense to try using it for unmanned stuff.

Europa Clipper may end up flying on an Atlas V or Falcon 9, but the Lander needs SLS. BFR can't really do the Europa Lander without some kind of kick stage/tug. FH and Glenn just don't have the oomph to haul it.

An ice giant or Pluto orbiter has been in discussion for decades, and I think we may see real progress towards a real probe in the next 5 years. SLS would be great for a mission like that. Same with a Cassini follow up.

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

Here‘s something:

http://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-working-to-lower-orion-costs/

Quote

 

When you look at ......conducting one mission a year, it's a pretty imposing schedule.

 

Who can actually say this with a straight face?

Quote

Hawes said the company expects a “pretty healthy” cost reduction from EM-1 to EM-2 and EM-3, “on the order of 30-plus percent.” The rest of the cost reductions will come on later missions, although he didn’t give a specific date for achieving that 50 percent goal.

30% of what? 50% of what?

[tater]

1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

Well, I read this article, and it states that there will be a robotic lander, HLEPP, with reusable ascent stage. 

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/imp.html

There is also a possibility of a manned lander, if money allows. NASA can outsource it to some other country.

No need for a station to control a robotic lander.

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

Here‘s something:

http://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-working-to-lower-orion-costs/

Aiming at a 50% cost reduction on future spacecraft. Course the first one will have cost what, 17 B$?

[sh1pman]

1 minute ago, tater said:

No need for a station to control a robotic lander.

It is said to be refuelable. It’ll also bring surface samples to the station through science airlock.

[tater]

One mission a year... would have been better off keeping Shuttle, making Shuttle C, or automating the orbiter after commercial crew could launch crew, then putting a spacecraft in the cargo bay to head for the Moon. Or loft crew on Atlas (planning pre-SpaceX), and loft a Centaur to send them to the Moon on another one. Many ways to do what SLS/Orion?DSG will do with extant LVs.

Centaur/ACES enables all kinds of cislunar activity. Good cryo stages mean that you have no need for an Orion, propulsively enter LEO upon return (or otherwise brake for a lower energy entry).

1 minute ago, sh1pman said:

It is said to be refuelable. It’ll also bring surface samples to the station through science airlock.

Certainly makes more sense, then, but you still then need to send giant, expensive Orion to get the stuff. If any other crew vehicle can ever make it to DSG in the next decade---Orion was a pointless waste of money.

[Canopus]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

One mission a year... would have been better off keeping Shuttle, making Shuttle C, or automating the orbiter after commercial crew could launch crew, then putting a spacecraft in the cargo bay to head for the Moon. Or loft crew on Atlas (planning pre-SpaceX), and loft a Centaur to send them to the Moon on another one. Many ways to do what SLS/Orion?DSG will do with extant LVs.

Centaur/ACES enables all kinds of cislunar activity. Good cryo stages mean that you have no need for an Orion, propulsively enter LEO upon return (or otherwise brake for a lower energy entry).

I garantee you that without refueling in Lunar orbit an ACES could never  return to circular low earth orbit. What you could do is launch orion to LLO on two Vulcans, maybe an eventual replacement for SLS.

[tater]

Extant LVs includes FH now.

In the timeframe of all up SLS/Orion flying, NG will also be flying, without question. 

[DDE]

On 4/20/2018 at 9:32 PM, tater said:

No such lander is under development, however.

Apparently, Russia has signalled its willingness to tie its dual lunar orbit rendezvous achitecture to the LOP-G. For no apparent reason.

[_Augustus_]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

Apparently, Russia has signalled its willingness to tie its dual lunar orbit rendezvous achitecture to the LOP-G. For no apparent reason.

With what rocket? The SHLV isn't going to be ready until 2028 for even tests, Angara is basically dead, and Sunkar would require several launches to get Federatsiya to the Moon.

[T-10a]

2 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

With what rocket? The SHLV isn't going to be ready until 2028 for even tests, Angara is basically dead, and Sunkar would require several launches to get Federatsiya to the Moon.

And Federatsiya is even more vaporware than DST, and afaik modern Soyuz doesn't have anywhere NEAR the dV to do lunar shenanigans, outside of proposals to slap a Fregat tug on the bottom (which will take time, money and effort that they aren't visibly showing).

Edited April 22, 2018 by T-10a

[NSEP]

13 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

With what rocket? The SHLV isn't going to be ready until 2028 for even tests, Angara is basically dead, and Sunkar would require several launches to get Federatsiya to the Moon.

Are SHLV and Soyuz-5 the same thing?

Soyuz-5 is going to see its first launch in 2024 (apparently)

[sh1pman]

1 hour ago, NSEP said:

Are SHLV and Soyuz-5 the same thing?

Soyuz-5 is going to see its first launch in 2024 (apparently)

No, they are different rockets, but SHLV will use several Soyuz-5 cores as boosters for its first stage.

[_Augustus_]

3 hours ago, NSEP said:

Are SHLV and Soyuz-5 the same thing?

Soyuz-5 is going to see its first launch in 2024 (apparently)

Soyuz-5/Sunkar is basically Russian Zenit.

The SHLV is a bunch of Sunkars strapped together with several upper stages on top.

[tater]

So only 70 tonnes to LEO until after NG, (and likely BFR) are both flying.

I don't see any evolution past block 1 as terribly likely at this point assuming BFR, or NA are ever built. Clearly it still exceeds NG in throw mass, but if NG is literally an order of magnitude cheaper with the same effective diameter, then you can just use multiple flights.

[Bill Phil]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

So only 70 tonnes to LEO until after NG, (and likely BFR) are both flying.

I don't see any evolution past block 1 as terribly likely at this point assuming BFR, or NA are ever built. Clearly it still exceeds NG in throw mass, but if NG is literally an order of magnitude cheaper with the same effective diameter, then you can just use multiple flights.

Well, at least ICPS will see some actual use...