Crazy Congress & Naughty NASA

[Captain_Party]

First of all, no-one wants the SLS. NASA doesn't really want to do it, the scientific community don't need to launch above 10t payloads into orbit, and unless there is plans on making one SLS launch place 10 small satellites into orbit in one go, no companies want it/need it. Secondly, the SLS is going to cost loads. Loads. I don't understand why NASA don't just ask congress to build the Ares I instead if all they're going to use the SLS for is sending up the Orion MPCV. Thirdly, the complete Orion weighs about 20-22 tons. Why are they sending it up on a 70t lifter!? If someone could shed light, or explain this, I'd be grateful.

[maccollo]

the scientific community don't need to launch above 10t payloads into orbit

That's silly.

New Horizons was launched on a 30 ton to LEO Atlas V, and I can probably dig up many more that required more than 10 tons.

As for potential for future missions:

Landing on Europa.

It would significantly shorten the transfer time to Saturn or deliver larger payloads. This is significant, because Titan and Enceladus.

Mars sample return.

ANY sample return from any of those.

There's no shortage of potential scientific missions that would require a heavy booster, just a lack of funding.

unless there is plans on making one SLS launch place 10 small satellites into orbit in one go, no companies want it/need it.

[...]

I don't understand why NASA don't just ask congress to build the Ares I instead if all they're going to use the SLS for is sending up the Orion MPCV.

[...]

Thirdly, the complete Orion weighs about 20-22 tons. Why are they sending it up on a 70t lifter!? If someone could shed light, or explain this, I'd be grateful

Why would any satellite company use the SLS? It's not intended launch satellites to LEO. That's what the commercial program is for. The SLS is intended to push manned spacecraft and other heavy payloads beyond low earth orbit.

So why not launch it on the Ares 1? Because now you have a capsule in LEO with only 1500 m/s of delta V, which is completely useless since 1500 m/s can't even get you to geostationary orbit.

Secondly, the SLS is going to cost loads. Loads.

That point is valid. It's going to cost a lot, although the cost per launch varies a lot depending on how often it flies, which is why it's puzzling that there are no payloads planned beyond 2017. NASA has recently said that the SLS must be launched once a year, but there's no sense launching this thing if there is no payload to launch.

Again, there's lots of scientific missions that would require a big booster, but nothing is being funded at this point.

[Captain_Party]

New Horizons weighs 478kg, along with a cruise stage, that totals around 2-3t so...

But there are no planned sample-return payloads or any manned missions to Saturn for at least the next 40 years. I mean, come on, we need to go to Mars first. Like you said, they need to launch it at least once a year, and no-one wants it. The only real reason they are building the SLS, is because there is nothing else to do, and they're getting pressure from congress.

[maccollo]

New Horizons weighs 478kg, along with a cruise stage, that totals around 2-3t so...

Yes and the rocket that launched it was the Atlas 551.

Although I mistook the 551 for the HLV. The 551 only lifts around 19 tons. Still, more than 10 tons. Juno was also launched on the 551.

They needed a lot of delta V so they put a tiny probe on the largest booster available to them.

But there are no planned sample-return payloads or any manned missions to Saturn for at least the next 40 years. I mean, come on, we need to go to Mars first. Like you said, they need to launch it at least once a year, and no-one wants it. The only real reason they are building the SLS, is because there is nothing else to do, and they're getting pressure from congress.

There's nothing planned simply because the politicians who dictate what NASA is going to do is unwilling to provide sufficient funds to develop both the rocket and the payloads it's going to launch (besides the Orion capsule). Even Mars is just a vague "we will do it probably sometime in the 30s maybe perhaps"

It's really quite striking that they are developing the SLS while at the same time the NASA administration is saying things like "there will be no flagship missions".

Edited February 25, 2014 by maccollo

[Motokid600]

Who said no one wants it? Is this written somewhere? But besides that.. the US is cutting funding from the military and Obama is releasing the 2015 budget soon, so well see what happens.

[rhoark]

What are you doing in this forum? If you were a KSP player, you'd understand the importance of delta-V.

Here's a brochure that lays it out with more style than I could: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

Congress forced a shuttle-derived design over the RP-1 first stage NASA would have preferred, but don't doubt for a second NASA wants a rocket of this size class.

[rhoark]

There's nothing planned simply because the politicians who dictate what NASA is going to do is unwilling to provide sufficient funds to develop both the rocket and the payloads it's going to launch (besides the Orion capsule). Even Mars is just a vague "we will do it probably sometime in the 30s maybe perhaps"

It's really quite striking that they are developing the SLS while at the same time the NASA administration is saying things like "there will be no flagship missions".

The official line is that SLS is "capability-driven" rather than "destination-driven". This is very savvy on NASA's part, for two reasons:

First, congress has always been inimical to manned Mars missions, on the theory it would lead to a positive feedback loop of space commitments. This kills not only missions themselves, but technologies that could enable them, like NERVA.

Second, if a vehicle is designed for a destination, and the destination gets ruled out, what do you think would happen to the vehicle program?

[maccollo]

The official line is that SLS is "capability-driven" rather than "destination-driven". This is very savvy on NASA's part, for two reasons:

First, congress has always been inimical to manned Mars missions, on the theory it would lead to a positive feedback loop of space commitments. This kills not only missions themselves, but technologies that could enable them, like NERVA.

Second, if a vehicle is designed for a destination, and the destination gets ruled out, what do you think would happen to the vehicle program?

I really want to see the things that can be enabled heavy lift capabilities come to fruition.

My biggest concern is that if missions that require those capabilities don't get funded the same politicians that were so supportive of the program initially might turn around and cut it, which would set back the space program another decade.

Still, you might be right that it would be politicaly easier to defend a program that gives "capabilities" than a program that enables a particular mission.

We shall see how the budget plays out the next few years. In before NASA budget cuts :/

Edited February 25, 2014 by maccollo

[razark]

...don't doubt for a second NASA wants a rocket of this size class.

Last time we gave NASA big rockets, they didn't use them all. They made one into an RV to go camping in LEO, and left another lying in the yard in Houston. Parts of others were left scattered about Alabama and Florida, too.

On a more serious note, how many presidential administrations will come and go, not to mention congressional elections, before SLS and Orion actually fly, much less fly a useful mission? How many times are budgets, goals, and policies going to change? Both sides will scream that the other doesn't know what it's doing, and why their plan is so much better.

And someday, my grandkids can grow up wondering why we haven't been to the moon since Apollo.

[Captain_Party]

True. NASA tends to f**k up when we give them large rockets. Skylab was great, yeah, but they could have done something better with the last Saturn V.

Plus, if they launch a 20t craft with a 70t launcher, alot of delta-v will be lost to gravity and drag losses, because of a huge amount of TWR.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Captain_Party

[rhoark]

Are you trolling? It's 70 tons to LEO, 25 tons to the moon, 4 tons to Europa.

[maccollo]

Plus, if they launch a 20t craft with a 70t launcher, alot of delta-v will be lost to gravity and drag losses, because of a huge amount of TWR.

No.

• First of all a small payload would have a very small effect on the TWR during the first couple of minutes, after which there's no more atmosphere.
  
• Second, high TWR reduces gravity losses.
  
• Third, they aren't JUST launching the orion to LEO with the SLS. They are also launching the ICPS stage, which will weigh more than 30 tons.
  

[Klingon Admiral]

Don't forget that we need a new space station around 2025, probably sooner. With 70-100t to LEO we could build something awesome.

[rdfox]

Last time we gave NASA big rockets, they didn't use them all. They made one into an RV to go camping in LEO, and left another lying in the yard in Houston. Parts of others were left scattered about Alabama and Florida, too.

True. NASA tends to f**k up when we give them large rockets. Skylab was great, yeah, but they could have done something better with the last Saturn V.

NASA bought exactly as many Saturn boosters as they expected to need, actually; the original plan was to fly several manned orbital test missions with the Saturn IB instead of just one, then fly a fairly long and conservative series of unmanned and manned missions with the Saturn V to get to the Moon on Apollo 17 or so, leaving them with three spare Saturn Vs for either missions that failed to complete all objectives and needed to be repeated, or for additional landing missions if everything went right--which, given the state of manned spaceflight at the time, was honestly cutting things a bit close; the odds of needing *only* three spares seemed... very, very low.

As it turned out, delays in the program resulted in George Low's suggestion of "all-up" testing and a general telescoping of the program being adopted as the only way to make the landing before the Kennedy deadline, cutting the Saturn IB program down to three unmanned and one manned CSM tests and one unmanned LM test, cutting the Saturn V program down to only two unmanned tests, and (later) eliminating a manned test flight from the Saturn V program (by eliminating the C and E missions from the schedule in favor of the new C-Prime mission that became Apollo 8 to cover most of the C and E mission objectives), for a net reduction of *six* missions to the first landing attempt (which would give five more launch windows for meeting the Kennedy deadline if the first attempt failed). This did allow a major expansion of the number of planned landings (to nine), albeit with the knowledge that budget cuts would doubtless curtail the landing program. The "Apollo Applications" space station science program that eventually became Skylab was an entirely separate project that was intended to take over from the lunar program in the 70s to pave the way for a Mars landing in the 80s, and was to buy its own Saturn boosters (mainly IBs, though there was a proposal for a lunar-orbital station that would have required a Saturn V for the station and V derivatives like the Saturn INT-20 for the crews) rather than share them with the lunar landing program during the period when the two interlaced. (The original plan was to have either a Saturn V or Saturn IB launch for either Apollo or Apollo Applications *every month*, alternating between the two. Meaning a Saturn V launch *at least* every other month. This is why Complex 39 was planned for five pads, and built with provision for completing a third pad...)

As it turned out, Apollo Applications never got much of a budget due to concentration on the lunar program, and while plenty of planning and design work could be done for both "wet workshop" and "dry workshop" configurations of the converted S-IVB Orbital Workshops (the "dry workshop" was the version actually flown; the "wet workshop" would have been launched on a Saturn IB to Earth orbit, or a Saturn V to lunar orbit, and would have still had its engine and been launched with propellants on board--i.e., "wet"--and then cleaned out and all equipment and stores installed in space by the first few crews. The only legacy of this was the "grating" bulkheads used to separate compartments in Skylab, which would have been installed in a wet workshop before launch), and for ways to "shut down" an Apollo CSM during the stay at the station (and for McDonnell's "Big G" proposal as a more affordable and capable crew/logistics vehicle for Apollo Applications than the actual Apollo, hauling more people and more stuff on the same booster for less weight), there wasn't actually any money to procure any EQUIPMENT for it. Thus, when the Congressional budget cuts started on the lunar program, it was actually a boon to Apollo Applications. Indeed, the very first lunar program cut, cancelling Apollo 20, was specifically to free up its Saturn V for the Apollo Applications/Skylab program, to be converted into a Dry Workshop and a Saturn INT-21 booster to launch it.

Even so, the lunar program was still expected to continue to Apollo 19 and use up all remaining Saturn Vs and all but three of the remaining Apollo CSMs (after four were earmarked for Skylab, three for regular missions and one in a "rescue" configuration that could be used to retrieve a stranded crew--something that came up most heavily in NASA thinking after the movie Marooned was released), so it wasn't really expected to be particularly wasteful. Even with the conversion of a Saturn IB to the Skylab configuration (wet workshop... ironically, using the Apollo 20 Saturn V's S-IVB, while the dry workshop launched used the converted Saturn IB's S-IVB!), there would have been enough of them remaining to send three crews to this second Skylab station.

Then the budget axe fell again. Apollo 18 and 19 were both cancelled. This meant we now had two fully flight-rated Saturn Vs that would never be used. What's more, despite having a fully functional backup Skylab, your choice of two Saturn Vs to launch it, and three fully functional Apollo CSMs and Saturn IBs to fly crews to it--meaning that the cost of flying a second Skylab would have been minimal, merely the personnel and consumables costs that were a tiny fraction of the cost of each flight--the Apollo Applications program was cut back to a single station, to transfer money to the STS program... and even that station only flew because it had reached the point in the contracts where cancelling it would have cost more than flying it.

One more Apollo-Saturn IB mission did get added to the program, when a politically-motivated joint mission with the Soviets (Apollo-Soyuz) was scheduled to fly in 1975, but that was it. NASA was left with two surplus Saturn Vs, four surplus Saturn IBs, one surplus Skylab, four surplus CSMs (including Skylab Rescue one), and either four or five (I can't remember which) surplus LMs. In the end, one Saturn V went to Houston, while the other went on display at the Cape. One Saturn IB went on display at the Cape, one at a rest area/welcome center in Alabama(!), and I can't recall what happened to the other two. The CSMs went on display with the Saturn Vs and IBs, and the surplus Skylab is on display at the National Air and Space Museum. (For the record, the "third" Saturn V, the one on display in Huntsville, was never actually a flight-rated booster; it was the "battleship" test article, built extra-heavy for use in repeated static test firings, and was expected to be surplus at the end of the program because it was too heavy to actually fly. There was also the Saturn 500F, a full-scale test article with dummy engines and spacecraft, used for facilities verification at the Cape; IIRC, parts of it were used in both the Huntsville and Cape display articles--I can't recall why they used parts at the Cape, but in Huntsville, they used its second stage because both the "battleship" second stage and its replacement from the dynamic load test article blew up on the test stand. The remainder of the dynamic load test article was, as expected, stressed to the point of damage in the load testing, and was scrapped after the end of the program.)

Additionally, there was a certain amount of Block I CSM hardware that was surplus; the CMs tended to go to museums, but not all of them wanted the SMs, and as a result, several Block I SMs were sold to a Huntsville junkyard in the 70s (without engines), lingering in the back of the yard until they were finally cut up in the early-to-mid 80s. (Additionally SM-017, a Block I model, was destroyed when a propellant tank exploded in a ground test in 1967, and the wreckage was scrapped. The remainder of the Block I CSMs were at least partially converted to Block II configuration and used for ground trainers and unmanned testing; an example would be the CM at the Detroit Science Center, a Block I vehicle with interior converted to a Block II mockup and the main hatch converted to Block II configuration, used as an emergency egress trainer. IIRC, when it was donated to the DSC, they did cut the tip of the nose off and installed a mockup docking probe, plus added the mylar thermal insulation, so that it would more closely resemble a Block II spacecraft, though the RCS thrusters remain in the Block I configuration...)

[Moon Goddess]

Here's a brochure that lays it out with more style than I could: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

Wow if I can live to see even a 1/4 of the things in that brochure...

several Block I SMs were sold to a Huntsville junkyard in the 70s (without engines), lingering in the back of the yard until they were finally cut up in the early-to-mid 80s.

That's so sad, really ran a shiver down my spine when I thought about it being cut up.

Thanks for the write up though. A lot in there I didn't know the details of, wish we had gotten that Mars mission in the 80's though.

[Wahgineer]

Obviously, some people don't get it: NASA is forgetting about LEO, hence why it's supporting/hiring companies to take care of the ISS. Since NASA now wants to focus on bigger and better missions, they'll need a bigger and better rocket. Which is why the SLS is being funded: it's job is to launch probes, sections of interplanetary vehicles, and a vessel for capturing an asteroid. Once you realize that NASA doesn't want anything to do with LEO for now, then you'll see why the SLS is being funded/developed.

[Nibb31]

Who said no one wants it? Is this written somewhere? But besides that.. the US is cutting funding from the military and Obama is releasing the 2015 budget soon, so well see what happens.

It's not that nobody "wants" it. It's that there is no demand for ot because can afford to put anything worthwhile on top of it.

There's no point in having a 130t launcher when there are no 130t payloads. NASA has no mandate to build anything beyond EM-1 and EM-2 and the science community hasn't got the money for large expeditions. Even if they did, they'd probably rather put into lots of smaller probes.

[architeuthis]

Great post rdfox!

True. NASA tends to f**k up when we give them large rockets.

Was the Apollo program a f**k up?

Secondly, the SLS is going to cost loads. Loads.

Actually on a marginal costs per ton to LEO basis the SLS will be a whole lot cheaper than either the Space Shuttle or the Saturn V. I just hope NASA has enough money left in their budget to fly some interesting payloads on it. But that's not a NASA problem, that's a congress problem. Have a little faith.

Edited February 25, 2014 by architeuthis

[Captain_Party]

It's not that nobody "wants" it. It's that there is no demand for ot because can afford to put anything worthwhile on top of it.

That's what I meant. I'm sorry if I didn't word it right There are no current payloads that anyone can think of to be launched on top of a SLS, that is completely true.

Was the Apollo program a f**k up?

Not the Apollo program, Skylab wasn't the greatest idea personally. I think we would have benefited more from a Venus flyby or manned Mars orbit.

To everyone, I'm sorry if I caused upset, I wanted to have a discussion about it. Thanks to the incredibly knowledgeable and mature people of the KSP Forums, I have learned a lot more than what I knew at the start. I thank-you

[maccollo]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/asap-claim-nasa-employing-indecision-roadmap-flexibility/

Article at Nasa Spaceflight concerning the flexibility of the SLS.

As someone said over there, it was congress that demanded the SLS, and it is congress that has to pass a budget that provides sufficient funds to the development of payloads.

Failure to do so will most likely lead to cancellation.

Edited February 25, 2014 by maccollo

[Rocketscience101]

As of right now, the American Space program's Orion space capsule without the SLS is without a lifting rocket. It was originally designed to ride the Ares I but that was scrubbed, in the leftover of all the work and even the one test flight, had to be moved into the work with the SLS.

[astropapi1]

I just wish the congress would shut up and let NASA do it's thing. Look at how many projects have been shutdown because of money...

-Apollo Venus fly-by

-HL-20

-Delta Clipper

-Constellation

-NERVA

-MAX-C

Just to mention a few...

[Nibb31]

As of right now, the American Space program's Orion space capsule without the SLS is without a lifting rocket. It was originally designed to ride the Ares I but that was scrubbed, in the leftover of all the work and even the one test flight, had to be moved into the work with the SLS.

Orion can ride the Delta IV Heavy. In fact, that's what EFT-1 is going to demonstrate this september.

Also, Orion has only 3 test flights manifested and only 2 service modules have been ordered. NASA still doesn't know what it's going to do with it. Although it's designed for BEO missions, those missions only make sense with specifici mission modules to be developed (landers, habs, SEP tugs, etc...), which will take another 10-15 years to develop with current budgets.

[rhoark]

The Delta IV nor its RS-68 engines are human-rated. The human-rated RS-68B was going to be developed for Ares V, but there's been silence on the idea lately. I expect if SLS funding were to be pulled, that would be the next step though.

[Wahgineer]

Orion can ride the Delta IV Heavy. In fact, that's what EFT-1 is going to demonstrate this september.

Also, Orion has only 3 test flights manifested and only 2 service modules have been ordered. NASA still doesn't know what it's going to do with it. Although it's designed for BEO missions, those missions only make sense with specifici mission modules to be developed (landers, habs, SEP tugs, etc...), which will take another 10-15 years to develop with current budgets.

NASA wants to go to Mars by 2030, and has some idea of what the modules for the ship will look like. While they were designed for the constellation rockets, it would require minimal to no changes to adapt to the SLS.