What direction should NASA go after SLS?

[PakledHostage]

To censor my opinion implies you are threatened by them.

Please re-read my post. I did not advocate censoring discussions about project Orion. I advocated a single "megathread" that would be the forum for discussing all things "Orion". As it is, we currently have two threads where you are debating the merits of Orion, and the topic probably comes up in another half dozen threads every week. We've all heard your arguments and recognize that you are entitled to your opinions, but bringing it up over and over again just polarizes the discussion in this science forum.

[crazyewok]

Please re-read my post. I did not advocate censoring discussions about project Orion. I advocated a single "megathread" that would be the forum for discussing all things "Orion". As it is, we currently have two threads where you are debating the merits of Orion, and the topic probably comes up in another half dozen threads every week. We've all heard your arguments and recognize that you are entitled to your opinions, but bringing it up over and over again just polarizes the discussion in this science forum.

Why not do the same with SLS I see that pop up with regulairity? Saturn V the shuttle?

The OP was what would we like to see. I gave a valid oinion on what I would like to see. The other thread was someone wants to send a probe to alpha centuri, well nuclear propulsion is the only way your doing tha in the next 100 years barrering a breakthrough, so valid reply. Tne facts its turned into this is that people have jumped on it and forced a defence of my opinion, if they just ignored it like anyother opinion (and I seen far crazier ones ignored, like building ringed super stations) then we owuldnt be discussing this right here and now the fact it a polraizing subject and procudces such a visceral response is not my problem. Deal with my opinions and move on, if your going to lynch me and force a defence I will defend my opinion until I burn the whole internet down. Disagree with me fine, but repect my opinion and move on.

PS I dont want to respond and suggest not replying as we are derailing the thread. I have given my 50 cents and it should be left at that.

Edited January 21, 2014 by crazyewok

[mdatspace]

I think we should stop talking about Orion on this thread.

[Skyler4856]

Yeah you should. The ideas put forth should be complete and not "project Orion FTW"

[crazyewok]

Yeah you should. The ideas put forth should be complete and not "project Orion FTW"

Im happy too leave it be.

I put my idea forward.

But apprently my idea has been deemed not allowed and so lynched by self appointed "experts" hense the flamewar.

[Skyler4856]

Im happy too leave it be.

I put my idea forward.

But apprently my idea has been deemed not allowed and so lynched by self appointed "experts" hense the flamewar.

Really what paths did you put forward for the development of Orion? Mission objectives? How would man benefit from the introduction of Orion?

[crazyewok]

Really what paths did you put forward for the development of Orion? Mission objectives? How would man benefit from the introduction of Orion?

No more than some of the other vague ideas on this thread (just looke at Duxwing idea!). Anyway I want to leave it be.

Il give a whole detailed post if you like on what I deem the economic benifit and possible pathway but no one wants to hear it so whats the point Il just get lynched again. Its your thead though.

Edited January 21, 2014 by crazyewok

[mdatspace]

Im happy too leave it be.

I put my idea forward.

But apprently my idea has been deemed not allowed and so lynched by self appointed "experts" hense the flamewar.

I think nuclear propulsion is a viable choice for interplanetary travel.

However, I think it is best to stick with what is politically viable and technologically viable today. That does not mean nuclear propulsion should not be developed, but I think I am sticking to fuel and oxidizer.

I think I will make a thread on this subject. Maybe to explain my viewpoint.

Edited January 21, 2014 by mdatspace

[crazyewok]

I think nuclear propulsion is a viable choice for interplanetary travel.

However, I think it is best to stick with what is politically viable and technologically viable today. That does not mean nuclear propulsion should not be developed, but I think I am sticking to fuel and oxidizer.

Thing is this is after SLS. SLS is likley as good as fuel and oxidizer will take you. Ok you get SLS and a man on mars you just reached the limit of the SLS program and traditional rockets in gennerla really. And thats just a man on mars not a colony or anything fancy.

So we got to think how can we push the bounderys after SLS? We are talking 20-50 years time so we are talking about whats in R&D now and can possibly be developed. 50 years is a long time, 50 years ago computers cost millions and would fill a building so a lot can change. In fact we could get a breakthrough that will make us all laugh at Chem rockets, space elevavtor and Orions!

Edited January 21, 2014 by crazyewok

[NASAFanboy]

Thing is this is after SLS. SLS is likley as good as fuel and oxidizer will take you. Ok you get SLS and a man on mars you just reached the limit of the SLS program really.

So we got to think how can we push the bounderys after SLS? We are talking 20-50 years time so we are talking about whats in R&D now and can possibly be developed. 50 years is a long time, 50 years ago computers cost millions and would fill a building.

Orbital construction and NERVAs.

*cough* *cough*

Who says you can't dock in orbit?

Whats next is establishing our Earth-Moon infrastructure with shuttles.

Not Orion.

Orion can wait until we use pure fusion devices and until we need mass-access for full-scale colonization of Mars. That won't happen for another....thirty years, at the least.

[mdatspace]

snip

You can refuel chemical rockets and re-use them. I am not so sure about Orion.

Orbital construction gives you the ability to assemble large ships with current technology. NASAFanboy has a point.

Also, here is the original project Orion paper.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/supplement/GA-5009vIII.pdf

[crazyewok]

Orbital construction and NERVAs.

*cough* *cough*

For what purpose though ? As it wont really sort the main problem out, Earth to orbit cost. That the BIG problem. We can get to mars on chems. For a simple manned mission NERVA is just a nice luxury.

Who says you can't dock in orbit?

No one. Infact any manned mission to mars may very well use a version. SLS will still have to launch it though and we are talking after SLS here. And you still have the problem eart to orbit cost.

Whats next is establishing our Earth-Moon infrastructure with shuttles.

Again how will you get these shuttles into space? Earth to moon not the problem. Its eart to orbit. How will you do it in a cost effective way to make it economical? Normal Chems wont do it. We are left with SKYLON, Space elevators, launch loops or Nuclear pulse. Now we are talking 30- 50 years from now AFTER SLS so SKYLON may live up to its hype, a cost effective and stable method of a space elevator may come around, pure fusion nuclear pulse may be with us or we could have something new and unthought of.

Orion can wait until we use pure fusion devices and until we need mass-access for full-scale colonization of Mars. That won't happen for another....thirty years, at the least.

30 years is what we are talking about.

[crazyewok]

You can refuel chemical rockets and re-use them. I am not so sure about Orion.

Orbital construction gives you the ability to assemble large ships with current technology. NASAFanboy has a point.

Also, here is the original project Orion paper.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/supplement/GA-5009vIII.pdf

I got the book on it and a few papers already Theres alot of missconception behind it. Plus unless the thread owner allows me too I wont go into detail on how we could make it work to economic benifit.

Anyway yes you can build things in orbit. But your still left with the main problem, Earth to Orbit cost. Crack that and you crack it all.

[mdatspace]

I got the book on it and a few papers already Theres alot of missconception behind it. Plus unless the thread owner allows me too I wont go into detail on how we could make it work to economic benifit.

Anyway yes you can build things in orbit. But your still left with the main problem, Earth to Orbit cost. Crack that and you crack it all.

Earth to orbit cost will go down once we succeed in mastering re-usability.

But the issue with Orion is fission. Fusion would mean much less fallout, but still.

What would somebody do if Orion has a launch failure?

Edited January 21, 2014 by mdatspace

[crazyewok]

Earth to orbit cost will go down once we succeed in mastering re-usability.

How? The shuttle tried and failed. Plus the paylaod restriction. Its no KSP you can just aspargus stage monster rockets.

The problem is we are restricted to burning 100's of tons of fuel to get a few dozen tons in orbit.

[tavert]

The OP specifically says 2020. 6 years from now, not 30.

Reusability on otherwise conventional chemical rockets will make a significant difference to orbital launch costs. That's not happening via SLS, hopefully it will happen via commercial means though.

As far as space elevators go, the Elon Musk quote is "why haven't we built a bridge to Europe?" That would be cheaper and more technically feasible than a space elevator, and probably have a faster payback period in terms of economic activity.

[Jacob01]

I'd probably launch a couple of missions to the Moon over the course of the decade, probably later on though as we need time to develop new ideas towards Lunar Landers and things. Then, I'd start thinking for Mars manned missions.

Also, I'd launch probes to Jupiter and Saturn's moons over the course between 2030-2050, see if there is any life under the icy surfaces.

[crazyewok]

The OP specifically says 2020. 6 years from now, not 30.

Well I just took after SLS as 20-30 years and SLS will be around that long. But fair enough. Though I doubt 6 years will be after SLS

As far as space elevators go, the Elon Musk quote is "why haven't we built a bridge to Europe?" That would be cheaper and more technically feasible than a space elevator, and probably have a faster payback period in terms of economic activity.

I know Im skeptical of Space elevators but I was just listeing known alternatives to chems for earth to orbit. Dont shot the messenger. Never said they were "good" alterantives.

[mdatspace]

How? The shuttle tried and failed. Plus the paylaod restriction. Its no KSP you can just aspargus stage monster rockets.

The problem is we are restricted to burning 100's of tons of fuel to get a few dozen tons in orbit.

Re-use everything. The shuttle was complicated, and I don't see how a rocket could be more costly.

Continue development of commercial space. If there was a market for high launch rates, cost would go down. Economies of scale drive the costs of payloads into the sky. That happened with the shuttle. Only 6 were built.

The SLS shares the same low launch rates.

http://www.dunnspace.com/leo-4-6.pdf

Edited January 21, 2014 by mdatspace

[NASAFanboy]

For what purpose though ? As it wont really sort the main problem out, Earth to orbit cost. That the BIG problem. We can get to mars on chems. For a simple manned mission NERVA is just a nice luxury.

No one. Infact any manned mission to mars may very well use a version. SLS will still have to launch it though and we are talking after SLS here. And you still have the problem eart to orbit cost.

Again how will you get these shuttles into space? Earth to moon not the problem. Its eart to orbit. How will you do it in a cost effective way to make it economical? Normal Chems wont do it. We are left with SKYLON, Space elevators, launch loops or Nuclear pulse. Now we are talking 30- 50 years from now AFTER SLS so SKYLON may live up to its hype, a cost effective and stable method of a space elevator may come around, pure fusion nuclear pulse may be with us or we could have something new and unthought of.

30 years is what we are talking about.

If we used Orion to get to LEO, the cost of the wrecked satellites and infrastructure would far exceed the money saved, and it would have every international politican screaming for the blood of your space program. It would save some, yes, but be an disaster on all fronts.

We need to invest in an SSTO.

Like, right now.

[crazyewok]

If we used Orion to get to LEO, the cost of the wrecked satellites and infrastructure would far exceed the money saved, and it would have every international politican screaming for the blood of your space program. It would save some, yes, but be an disaster on all fronts.

I didnt mention it We been over all this anyway. Not my fault if you wont listen.

We need to invest in an SSTO.

Agree, hopefully skylon will work. I wont hold my breath but its certainly worth a long hard look.

[NASAFanboy]

I didnt mention it We been over all this anyway. Not my fault if you wont listen.

Agree, hopefully skylon will work. I wont hold my breath but its certainly worth a long hard look.

With the amount of satellites orbiting Earth...

you'll be lucky to replace 1/2th of the wrecked satellites with a single launch.

And yet again, ti would suck having to replace the ISS everytime you sent up a module, aye?

[Deathsoul097]

Crazyewok, the op said: "where should NASA go after SLS". Meaning after the SLS is finished. The SLS (If done correctly) should be in service for a VERY long time. Meaning we can still use it after it was finished. After the Space shuttle was completed, NASA didn't just go and say: "Yay, we finished it. Now to make its replacement." No. They went and kept on using it for decades. I'll admit I want Skylon to succeed, but right now there isn't much to it. Meaning that the current best HLV will be Falcon Heavy or SLS. NERVA tech should be being researched though, that is currently our best bet at manned interplanetary travel. The problem with Orion is that it is politically and socially unacceptable, so of course if it is mentioned people will start talking about the political and social issues. This is the science forum, but we have to consider everything, including that wretched bureaucratic game known as politics. The best bet we have for interplanetary travel (IMHO) would be a multi part ship such as Copernicus, but equipped with centrifuges, and with the SLS it could be much, MUCH larger.

[Edicius]

My opinion on this.

1) Stick with what you are doing now and finished it. NASA should tell politics hand off, you give us budget and general direction for x years then sit back and let us work with it. yeah i now dream

2) More material research in condition of microgravity or freefall. Swallow price, build smelter in orbit or as modul to ISS, then just keep sending fresh (5ton + return capsule) prepared sample (cca 0.5kg), smelted it and return to earth to study. Concentrate on advanced material for supercondactor at room temperature, skin of return vehicle (high temperature, high resistance, high tensil...), nozle, combustion chamber, etc.

[crazyewok]

With the amount of satellites orbiting Earth...

you'll be lucky to replace 1/2th of the wrecked satellites with a single launch.

And yet again, ti would suck having to replace the ISS everytime you sent up a module, aye?

OP doesnt want the bickering respect his wishes.