Register here

Author Topic: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)  (Read 62186 times)

Offline Johnbr

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 03:39:30 pm by flateric »

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2011, 04:58:15 pm »
So after two years of delays caused by Mr. Obama cancelling Constellation, we get...
 
...essentially the 2005 ESAS version of Ares V, with SSMEs for the core stage and an External Tank Diameter core stage; but now painted shiny white and black to try and get Apollo-era cachet.
 
NASA quickly realized how stupid throwing away $50 million dollar engines designed for reuse between 50 flights was back during Constellation; and they switched to RS-68, which was developed out of a 1980s/1990s effort to develop a simplified expendable SSME.
 
But then the fools at DIRECT started coming out of the woodwork, claiming that the ablative nozzle of the RS-68 would never work on Ares V with the heat from the SRBs....
 
...Never mind that they had base heating problems in Apollo, specifically the Saturn V base heating environment was so severe that each F-1 engine had to be covered in about 1,000+ pounds of insulation to work.
 
Later plans to ground launch S-II stages with SRB boosters (look, Ares V forty years early!), ran into this problem of base heating from SRBs, albeit with the J-2s. Their solution was to design a heat shield that would prevent the J-2s from being fried by the SRB heat.
 
Anyway, it gets so much better.
 
Where will the SSMEs come from for the Obama [tm] version of Constellation?
 
Link
 
Quote
NASA’s three retired Space Shuttle orbiters are set to donate their entire Main Propulsion Systems (MPS) to the opening salvo of Space Launch System (SLS) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles (HLV).

I'm sure the museums who paid $50~ million for each Orbiter are loving the fact that they will get defaced artifacts with no SSMEs, but in fact replica SSMEs in the back.
Ultimately, I predict that SLS will be within schedules and budgets for about a year. Maybe it'll actually run a bit ahead of schedule; as:
 

 
  • A lot of tough/costly work on 5-Seg and J-2X was done under CxP, providing immediate boost to appearances of viability for SLS.
  • The program would be in that phase of development that is cheapish
However, winter 2012; issues will unexpectedly arise, and the program will be restructured and then killed after a pretty hefty cost increase/overrun on the scope of what occured to JWST.
 
Mainly I think due to the programmatic costs inherent in redesigning and rechecking everything when you go from the 3 x SSME boattail in the 70 ton version that will fly first, to the 5 x SSME base for the next spiral.
 
Some more minor points:
 
Why will this rocket with many of the same elements as Ares V, be affordable when Ares V wasn't according to Obama?
 
How will they affordably recreate the workforce, which was already laid off by this point? (A lot of shuttle related workers were laid off in late August).
 
It's just a way for Obama to get certain Senators off his butt, and to defuse the use of NASA as a weapon against him in 2012 in certain very important states.
 
Once he's re-elected, he can quietly let SLS die when it cost-implodes in Winter 2012/Spring 2013.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 05:00:58 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2011, 06:40:59 pm »
From
SAE 660442: Adaptation of the Saturn S-II for Ground-Launch Stage
 
Quote
A new base protection heat shield must be developed for the ground launch application of the S-II stage. This heat shield must be capable of in-flight separation when used in configurations in which the 120 in. solid motors operate prior to ignition of the J-2 engines.
 
The present S-II stage is provided with a heat shield which attaches to the J-2 engine below the turbine exhaust manifold (located on the nozzle at an area ratio e = 14:1). This shield is suspended from the thrust structure by a series of tubular struts.
 
The primary requirement for the new heat shield is to provide protection for the base of the thrust structure and LO2 tank, the equipment mounted on the stage thrust structure, and the J-2 engine nozzle, thrust chamber, and systems.
 
The current heat shield is 272 in. in diameter and does not provide protection to the lower portion of the J-2 engine nozzle.
 
Therefore, to provide protection for the base of the stage during solid motor firing, it is proposed to increase the heat shield diameter to close out these exposed areas.
 
It is anticipated that the base pressures experienced during liftoff will be substantially higher than the design values of the existing heat shield.
 
Two design concepts developed during the study for providing protection from the new base environment are illustrated in Fig. 6.
 
In the first approach (configuration A), the flexible curtain currently used to surround the J-2 engine nozzle is extended to protect the full length of the nozzle. Protection inside the nozzle is achieved with a diaphragm or cover placed over the exit area. The diaphragm is designed to separate from the engine prior to ignition. The load-carrying capability in the main body of the base heat shield is increased.
 
This improvement was necessary to counteract the higher base pressures and increased heat loads. As shown, the heat shield is also extended to approximately 396 in. in diameter. Access panels through the heat shield are included to facilitate assembly, maintenance, checkout, and repair procedures.
 
Configuration B forms a complete closeout of the boat tail area of the S-II stage. The heat shield is supported at the periphery of the interstage structure. Externally mounted crossbeams are provided to support the heat shield at four points. This method of mounting the support structure is necessary to:
 
1. Provide a simple method of releasing the heat shield prior to ignition of the J-2 engines.
 
2. Minimize redesign and relocation of equipment within the stage.
 
3. Achieve clearance between the existing engine nozzles and the structure. (During prelaunch checkout of the stage, it will be required to fully gimbal the liquid engines, thereby restricting the envelope for the heat shield support structure.)
 
In the configuration B design, protection to the engine and nozzles during S-II stage firing will be provided by a second heat shield.   This inner heat shield is identical to that currently utilized in the S-II stage. The following limited S-II stage system modifications will be required:
 
1. Jettisonable base protection system.
2. Elimination of the current ullage rocket-motor system.
3. Release of the strap-on solid motors.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2011, 06:51:25 pm »
But then the fools at DIRECT started coming out of the woodwork, claiming that the ablative nozzle of the RS-68 would never work on Ares V with the heat from the SRBs....

They had no influence.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2011, 06:56:27 pm »
Why will this rocket with many of the same elements as Ares V, be affordable when Ares V wasn't according to Obama?
 
How will they affordably recreate the workforce, which was already laid off by this point? (A lot of shuttle related workers were laid off in late August).
 
It's just a way for Obama to get certain Senators off his butt, and to defuse the use of NASA as a weapon against him in 2012 in certain very important states.
 
Once he's re-elected, he can quietly let SLS die when it cost-implodes in Winter 2012/Spring 2013.

Keep in mind (you probably know this) that Obama canceled this rocket before. The only reason that NASA made the announcement today is because the Senate put the rocket back into the authorization bill. NASA leadership--representing the president--does not want it. They dragged their feet on producing a design. And the only reason that the SSMEs are back in there is because Congress pushed for them.

I've read a couple of news articles on this so far that I hope will be edited before they are final, because neither one of them mentioned that this is the same rocket that was announced five years ago, and neither mentioned that the only reason NASA is doing this is because of a few members of the Senate. So some additional money will be pumped to the proper states, but this is not a development program in any real sense.

The only thing that will change the current impasse is a change in political leadership, either in the White House, Congress, or both.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2011, 07:09:51 pm »
Keep in mind (you probably know this) that Obama canceled this rocket before.

And nothing has substantiatively changed between that rocket (Ares V) and this one, other than the clock being reset back to 2005; when Ares V was ET diameter and used SSMEs.
 
Quote
And the only reason that the SSMEs are back in there is because Congress pushed for them.

I believe the law called for STS elements to be used where practicable. That was a huge escape clause which went unused.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2011, 07:36:54 pm »

 
But then the fools at DIRECT started coming out of the woodwork, claiming that the ablative nozzle of the RS-68 would never work on Ares V with the heat from the SRBs....
 
...Never mind that they had base heating problems in Apollo, specifically the Saturn V base heating environment was so severe that each F-1 engine had to be covered in about 1,000+ pounds of insulation to work.
 

Actually the fool is the one made the above post.  F-1 and J-2 are not the same as the RS-68  with an ablative nozzle

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2011, 07:41:20 pm »

 1.  I'm sure the museums who paid $50~ million for each Orbiter are loving the fact that they will get defaced artifacts with no SSMEs, but in fact replica SSMEs in the back.

Ultimately, I predict that SLS will be within schedules and budgets for about a year. Maybe it'll actually run a bit ahead of schedule; as:
 


1.  They are never going to get them as whole.  That was a going in condition.    And they are not "defaced" not all artifacts are complete in museums.

2.  Yes, you are the great know it all.


Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2011, 08:24:24 pm »
Actually the fool is the one made the above post.  F-1 and J-2 are not the same as the RS-68  with an ablative nozzle

The Saturn approach to such base heating issues encountered during development was to brute force their way through, whether with thermal insulation applied to the engines directly (F-1) or using a mixture of an extended heat shield and thermal cocoons (J-2 for S-II Ground Launch concept), rather than declaring such issues were impossible to surmount.
 

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2011, 08:27:21 pm »
1.  They are never going to get them as whole.  That was a going in condition.    And they are not "defaced" not all artifacts are complete in museums.

There's a big difference between safing something for museum display, such as removing explosive bolts or squibs (which they had to do for the NASM's Do-335), or fabricating reproduction parts because the originals were lost somewhere or had deteriorated too badly for restoration purposes (Enola Gay, which sat outside for quite a long time), and deliberately taking major historical components of a valuable historical artifact and deliberately destroying them to save a couple bucks of money. (Removing all the orbiter SSME/MPSes so they can be expended on SLS Block I flights)

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2011, 09:26:52 pm »
1.  They are never going to get them as whole.  That was a going in condition.    And they are not "defaced" not all artifacts are complete in museums.

There's a big difference between safing something for museum display, such as removing explosive bolts or squibs (which they had to do for the NASM's Do-335), or fabricating reproduction parts because the originals were lost somewhere or had deteriorated too badly for restoration purposes (Enola Gay, which sat outside for quite a long time), and deliberately taking major historical components of a valuable historical artifact and deliberately destroying them to save a couple bucks of money. (Removing all the orbiter SSME/MPSes so they can be expended on SLS Block I flights)

NASA is loaning the orbiters.  No one it buying them.  The money is for transport.  NASA loans all its hardware and sometimes goes back a retrieves hardware for reuse.  Skylab 2 donated lots of hardware for Spacelab.  Enterprise donated avionics and systems for the other orbiters.

And you are wrong about your point. 

a.  It is not a big deal that the engines are being removed, they are not the original engines.  So your "historical" point holds no water.
a.  All  shuttle engines are not being destroyed.  There are just as many non flight ones around.   
b.  Even if NASA were to not used the SSME's, they would still be removed because with the non flight ones, they would be sent to more museums.
c.  So as it is, the orbiters are going to be displayed with real nozzles but dummy powerheads and there also will be a full up engine for displace next to the orbiter.

So, a not completely intact orbiter is not a big deal, especially when it visually the same and there is an SSME for a closeup look, which is not possible in the orbiter.

  Only anal people would care about it

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1552
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2011, 11:22:15 pm »
Quote
  Skylab 2 donated lots of hardware for Spacelab


Now that's interesting. What kind of hardware ?
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2011, 06:15:12 am »
I hate to seem like such a killjoy, but those SSME's are never going to fly. They'll spend another 10-20 years in a warehouse before they eventually get shipped off to museums.

On Tuesday I was at a discussion about the current human spaceflight situation and one of the themes was that this may be the beginning of the end of American human spaceflight. We may be seeing the long slow death of the program. The people who were involved in the discussion were pretty knowledgeable and include names that frequently appear in the press. They were fully aware of the pending SLS announcement and they were not optimistic about its chances of ever flying.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2011, 09:20:07 am »
Quote
  Skylab 2 donated lots of hardware for Spacelab


Now that's interesting. What kind of hardware ?

Fans, lights, crew aids, etc

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2011, 04:13:35 pm »
Quote
Skylab 2 donated lots of hardware for Spacelab.  Enterprise donated avionics and systems for the other orbiters.

Hardware that was coming back after each mission, not expended.
 
Any SSMEs given to the SLS program will end up in the vincity of 30.2 deg N 74 deg W at the bottom of roughly 16,000 feet of water.
 
And the plan for SLS is to essentially expend pretty much the entire production run of available Block II SSMEs as a stopgap to save money and development costs before the "expendable" RS-25Es become available at some fuzzy undefined future point.
 
By the way, I can't believe you missed the big point about Skylab B, regarding historical authenticity, further undercutting your point.
 
In order to get Skylab B to fit within the new National Mall building, they had to get out the torches and other cutting implements to remove bits and pieces of it so it could fit into hall 114 at the Mall building; along with opening it up so that tourists could see the interior.
 
That enabled it to be preserved in a fully climate controlled environment; as opposed to being put outside to rot, or being cut up for scrap; so the damage served a useful purpose, similar to how the US Air Force Museum saved the XC-99 from destruction by carefully cutting it up with welding torches so the plane could be reassembled and restored at some future point (it was too large to move by land).
 
The proposed destruction of the Block II SSMEs serves no real practical purpose, other than for mythical cost savings -- because once the new "expendable" SSMEs are being built (I have serious doubts on that), quite a bit of money will have to be spent integrating the SLS stack with the new engines.
 
Quote
a.  It is not a big deal that the engines are being removed, they are not the original engines.  So your "historical" point holds no water.

They're the engines that powered each orbiter's final flight; making them historic artifacts by themselves.
 
Quote
a.  All  shuttle engines are not being destroyed.  There are just as many non flight ones around.

Currently, the plan is to destroy 26% of all flight capable SSMEs ever built, and pretty much every Block II ever built.
 
But that's OK, for they will make Replica Shuttle Main Engines (RSMEs) to fool tourists.
 
Quote
b.  Even if NASA were to not used the SSME's, they would still be removed because with the non flight ones, they would be sent to more museums.

This argument makes no sense. About 46 flight ready SSMEs were built, and there are only three orbiters left, which leaves 37 to dispense to museums with nine left in the orbiters. Then there's the test/developmental SSMEs which are historic in their own right, so there's more than enough to go around to museums, even if we left the final flight engines installed in the orbiters.
 
Quote
Only anal people would care about it

You'd be surprised at how many people would care about it.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2011, 04:28:27 pm »
By the way, SLS suffers from "Lego Rocket Syndrome", AKA "DIRECT syndrome", in how they plan to start out with a 3 x SSME boattail, and then develop an all new 5 x SSME base for the evolved 130 ton vehicle.

And just maybe, maybe replace the SRBs with something else down the line.
 
Somehow this will all be done cheaply and not suffer unexpected cost overruns.  ::)
 
Providing a reality check; the closest we ever got to an actual Lego Rocket; the INT-20 (S-IC/S-IVB) and INT-21 (S-IC/S-II) variants of the Saturn V, which mixed and matched already developed and completed stages would have cost the following in DDT&E/R&D costs at a minimum (reality likely would have seen costs go up):
 
$2.1 billion for the INT-20
$2.49 billion for the INT-21
 
Against this:
 
Completing the cancelled Titan IIIM and finishing up it's man-rating to allow lightweight CSMs to be launched into orbit would have cost $1.3 billion.
 
Space Shuttle SRB DDT&E/R&D costs from 1970-1978 were $1.158 billion, while SSME development costs from 1970-1978 were $3.1 billion.
 
(All dollar costs are in 2010 dollars, by the way).

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2011, 05:26:30 pm »
There's an active thread filled with ranting and raving over on NSF. I actually fail to see the point of getting worked up about this and endlessly debating it. We're at a stalemate and we'll be in stalemate until at least January 2013. Nothing anybody says on the internet is going to change anything about this.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2011, 09:13:35 pm »
There's an active thread filled with ranting and raving over on NSF. I actually fail to see the point of getting worked up about this and endlessly debating it. We're at a stalemate and we'll be in stalemate until at least January 2013. Nothing anybody says on the internet is going to change anything about this.

But that's what 90% of the internet is, to quote Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing"  ;D
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2011, 04:21:27 am »
But that's what 90% of the internet is, to quote Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing"  ;D

Plus a lot of porn.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 675
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2011, 07:17:48 am »
Ranting and raving is an understatement.  I actually subscribe to that site and I can't at the moment understand why.  ::)  I confess to not fully appreciating the reasons for the hate, aside from the SpaceX and DIRECT dweebs.  Even so, the DIRECT guys got what they wanted -- a stake through the heart of Constellation -- so I don't know why they won't just accept victory and shut up.

I would have preferred that NASA specify a particular launch schedule to a particular orbit and a given total lift capability over say, a decade, and see what industry could have come up with.  Appropriate safety and performance guarantees would need to be in place, of course, and access to facilities and technology would need to be provided via an SAA.

It isn't the process I would have preferred and it isn't the booster I would have chosen, but we have a new program and I for one hope that NASA is successful.  They may not be, and if they don’t receive the correct funding they won't be, but some of that is out of NASA's hands.  Hitting their performance targets and refusing to talk happy talk to the White House or the Hill is job 1 at the moment.  When something is broken, own up to it.  Keep credibility at all costs.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2011, 07:30:30 am »

 
This argument makes no sense. About 46 flight ready SSMEs were built, and there are only three orbiters left, which leaves 37 to dispense to museums with nine left in the orbiters. Then there's the test/developmental SSMEs which are historic in their own right, so there's more than enough to go around to museums, even if we left the final flight engines installed in the orbiters.
 

yes, it does make sense because 9 more museums get an engine.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2011, 07:33:58 am »

They're the engines that powered each orbiter's final flight; making them historic artifacts by themselves.


Meaningless point

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2011, 07:44:21 am »

Currently, the plan is to destroy 26% of all flight capable SSMEs ever built, and pretty much every Block II ever built.
 

Which is OK because 74% of them will be saved.  You show me where there is that high of a percentage of an aerospace system* product run is preserved  where there were more than 10 units was built. 


* Recovered manned spacecraft excluded.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2011, 07:54:21 am »
yes, it does make sense because 9 more museums get an engine.

Imagine how many *more* museums could get a piece if they chopped 'em into confetti.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2011, 11:13:58 am »
1-Ranting and raving is an understatement.  I actually subscribe to that site and I can't at the moment understand why.  ::)  I confess to not fully appreciating the reasons for the hate, aside from the SpaceX and DIRECT dweebs.  Even so, the DIRECT guys got what they wanted -- a stake through the heart of Constellation -- so I don't know why they won't just accept victory and shut up.

2-I would have preferred that NASA specify a particular launch schedule to a particular orbit and a given total lift capability over say, a decade, and see what industry could have come up with.  Appropriate safety and performance guarantees would need to be in place, of course, and access to facilities and technology would need to be provided via an SAA.

1-Well, there's a lot of meat there. People post real documents (and not only in L2). But it's like so much of the space discussion--the same people making the same arguments that they have for years. You can go someplace like spacepolitics.com and find people posting and then dig in an archive and find the exact same people fighting with each other over the same things from 1998. If you stay out of certain threads on NSF you can increase your enjoyment. There's nothing to be learned about SpaceX, Direct, or SLS that has not been said a million times before, so stay away from those discussions.

2-There are reasons why the government doesn't do stuff like this. Space Act Agreements cannot be used for procurement, and they really limit the ability the government has to actually specify things. I talked to a NASA official a couple of months ago who expressed a lot of frustration with SAAs because he was concerned that he could not specify safety requirements and yet if the vehicle blew up and killed some astronauts, it was going to be NASA that got the blame.

So much of the public discussion of this stuff on boards and blog comments is taken in isolation, as if the rest of the federal government and federal law does not exist. People talk about Space Act Agreements, fixed-price contracts, cost-plus contracts, and the FAR as if they are experts when they have zero contracting experience and zero knowledge of how OTHER government agencies do stuff. (But they're Canadian or Australian and have a blog, so they're qualified to run the American civil space program.) I've always gotten a chuckle out of the prize advocates who suggest that NASA should just offer $10 billion to the first company that lands an American on Mars. They cannot point to a single other government agency that does anything remotely like that. They view all this stuff in isolation and believe that they're experts when they don't know how USAF or NOAA or the Marines or anybody else actually contracts for stuff.

Offline Kevin Renner

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2011, 03:30:28 pm »
Is it just me but this looks a lot like Direct's Jupiter proposal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2011, 02:50:17 am »
To the Stars

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 675
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2011, 08:17:03 am »
Well, with the Shuttle gone, there is no need for the shuttle-specific structures.  The clean-pad concept is similar to how Saturn was envisioned back in the day - move everything from the VAB out to the pad with the booster.  This also gives (in theory) the opportunity to use multiple launchers on the same pad. 

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2011, 07:32:47 am »
Well, with the Shuttle gone, there is no need for the shuttle-specific structures.  The clean-pad concept is similar to how Saturn was envisioned back in the day - move everything from the VAB out to the pad with the booster.  This also gives (in theory) the opportunity to use multiple launchers on the same pad.

Yeah, but wasn't the pad knocked down because they didn't want to pay the maintenance costs? I don't think it is because they have a "clean pad" approach to anything.

They've cut it all down, but they're not planning on building anything on top of it.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 675
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2011, 07:56:31 am »


Yeah, but wasn't the pad knocked down because they didn't want to pay the maintenance costs? I don't think it is because they have a "clean pad" approach to anything.

They've cut it all down, but they're not planning on building anything on top of it.


Yes very true, but there is also the idea that the "next user" will be part of the develoment process for the replacement pad infrastucture -- perhaps NASA itself with the "21st Century Spaceport" or whatever the SLS KSC pie slice is called now.  Or Elon, God help us all.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2604
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2011, 07:58:17 am »
About 46 flight ready SSMEs were built, and there are only three orbiters left, which leaves 37 to dispense to museums with nine left in the orbiters.

This (probably) wont happen, because they are going to use SSME for the SLS rocket. According to the current plan, only SLS-7 and later will have new RS-25E engines in 2026. So the first six missions will use currently available SSME from the Space Shuttle, it means at least 18 examples.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2011, 08:25:03 am »
That's the justification. I'm not really sure that's the plan. I've harbored the suspicion for awhile now that one of the administration's goals has been to eliminate a lot of infrastructure, including facilities and people, because they view that as an impediment to proceeding. I won't argue if that is a good or bad idea, but you can find evidence in various policies.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 681
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #32 on: September 18, 2011, 01:45:56 pm »
There's an active thread filled with ranting and raving over on NSF. I actually fail to see the point of getting worked up about this and endlessly debating it. We're at a stalemate and we'll be in stalemate until at least January 2013. Nothing anybody says on the internet is going to change anything about this.
Excellent analysis.
What are the scenarios after 2013?
I guess the economic situation can be quite different compared to today too...
It seems US human spaceflight infrastructure and capability planning has been dysfunctional on a strategic level for decades.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2011, 01:53:41 pm »
What are the scenarios after 2013?

(How do I write the sound a person makes when shrugging their shoulders and exhaling loudly? It's the sound equivalent of "Heck if I know!")

Nobody knows how the election will go. It's unclear if Obama will be reelected, and if not, who will beat him. If we do get a new president, however, expect another blue ribbon commission to address the issue of human spaceflight policy. And it's not easy to figure out what they might say--we could go down a certain path for the next 15 or so months that might really restrict the options they look at. It's unclear what is going to happen in the near-term. (There are certainly people out there who claim that SpaceX could fix everything in a couple of years if just given the money, but that seems really optimistic and based upon little data; a few launches is not the same as a proven launch vehicle and human spacecraft.)

Don't expect things to get any better in the short term. We're stuck where we're stuck. But the same is true about national politics, so nobody should be surprised.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2011, 07:21:45 pm by blackstar »

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2011, 02:55:33 am »
Quote
There's an active thread filled with ranting and raving over on NSF.

...Surprise = Nil.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2011, 05:35:37 am »
NASA Moving Into Contract Mods For SLS (Aviation Week)

Quote
With the confirmation of a design for NASA’s heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) human exploration rocket, the agency’s hard-pressed spaceflight contractors finally have some information they can use to help them retain space shuttle and Constellation engineers and other workers. The skills of those employees, which come only from many years of experience, will be essential for building and flying the most powerful rocket ever built.

NASA says it will publish its plans for procuring the SLS on Sept. 23, with an industry day on the subject to follow next week. Senators who met with White House Budget Director Jacob Lew on Sept. 13 to vent their frustration at White House delays on starting the SLS program say they will be watching to see how fast NASA moves on modifying existing contracts for the SLS work—as ordered in last year’s NASA reauthorization bill.


A related story: NASA Johnson Faces Competency Challenge (Aviation Week again)

Quote
HOUSTON — The greatest challenge facing NASA’s Johnson Space Center, which marked its 50th anniversary on Sept. 19, is the retention of the installation’s human spaceflight expertise in the face of falling budgets and significant personnel losses, Director Mike Coats says.

In wide-ranging remarks accompanying the anniversary, Coats said last week’s agreement between the White House and Congress over the budget and configuration of the heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) provided a welcome boost to morale at the installation, which has lost nearly 4,000 contractors this year in the wake of the July retirement of the space shuttle and the cancellation of the Constellation program.

“Having a Space Launch System architecture that has been approved by the [Obama] administration and Congress is a big deal. We have a plan to go forward,” Coats says.

“Obviously, how fast we go forward and how soon we get to different destinations beyond the Earth depend on what kinds of funding levels we get. As we change administrations and Congresses, the emphasis will probably shift again. But it’s important at this point on what we will work toward.”
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2011, 09:59:29 am »
Via spacedaily.com: The US will conquer deep space with Russian engines (RIA Novosti)
To the Stars

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2011, 10:22:09 am »
A related story: NASA Johnson Faces Competency Challenge (Aviation Week again)

No surprise to anybody who has worked this issue. A few years ago I ran a congressionally-mandated study on workforce issues for the then-Vision for Space Exploration. The question was how would NASA develop and maintain the required workforce skills so that they could undertake this new effort. Major challenges included anticipated attrition, such as retirements. Now they've got the opposite challenge--they face a lot of people being forced out or leaving out of frustration. They'll lose a lot of unique skills that don't exist anywhere else (and don't exist in the commercial space field).

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2011, 03:17:38 am »
From Aviation Week:

Booster Competition For New NASA Heavy Lifter

Oct 7, 2011


 
By Frank Morring, Jr.
 
 
 
CAPE TOWN, South Africa — NASA plans to open a competition in December for multiple, 30-month contracts to study strap-on booster upgrades for the planned heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS), including an upgrade for the five-segment, solid-fuel strap-ons baselined as the initial boosters for the big new rocket.

One challenge for NASA engineers will be to design an interface that can link different booster types to the SLS core stage, according to William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for human exploration and operations. The SLS will be the vehicle NASA uses to send humans beyond low Earth orbit.

“Our vision is we’ll have an interface that’s generic, and we’ll be able to carry potentially different boosters and change them out as needed,” Gerstenmaier told a session of the International Astronautical Congress here Thursday. “So we could go compete in the future, maybe downsize if something’s easier for a mission that requires less thrust. We have some variability there, so if we do our job right, we’ll have the ability to change the boosters that sit on the side. That’s our ultimate goal. We’re not going to pick one.”

NASA plans to build a 70-metric-ton SLS at first, with only the core stage and strap-ons. The vehicle will grow to a 130-metric-ton capability with the addition of an upper stage and upgraded strap-on. The core stage will be powered by surplus RS-25D space shuttle main engines at first, followed by a throwaway version designated the RS25E. The upper stage will be designed to use the same tooling as the core stage, and will be powered by the J-2X engine now in testing at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.

“If we don’t need an upper stage for certain missions, we don’t have to fly an upper stage,” he said. “We can just add it in for essentially marginal cost for the upper stage. We don’t have to add a new plant, new facilities and new tooling.”

The booster upgrade can be solid-fuel, liquid oxygen (LOX)/kerosene or LOX/liquid hydrogen, Gerstenmaier said. Only the first two SLS flights will be powered by the five-segment version of the space shuttle boosters that were originally developed for the first stage of the terminated Ares I crew launch vehicle.

“It turns out that to get to the 130 metric tons, we’re going to have to redesign the five-segment booster as well,” Gerstenmaier says. “We have to go to potentially a composite case, away from our steel case to save some weight, and we might need to make a propellant change to use the more energetic propellant that sits in the solid rocket motor. So even if we go continuous solids, we’re going to have to make a pretty significant change to the solid-rocket booster segment.”

The competition for an advanced booster will begin in December with study-contract bidding that is likely to include ATK, manufacturer of the current solid-fuel boosters, and a team that includes Aerojet, which has plans to upgrade the Russian-built AJ26 LOX/kerosene engine it modified for the Taurus II launcher that Orbital Sciences Corp. will use to send cargo to the International Space Station.

“We’re not really ready to step up to the booster activity right away with a full-up competition,” Gerstenmaier says. “We think there’s some technology that needs to get explored and understood as we go forward. We think we also need to define a little bit better the core interface with the solid rocket boosters or the liquid rocket boosters, so we have that as a design condition. So we’re going to have kind of a study phase, with potentially multiple contractors participating in that study phase for a period of about 30 months or so, and then we’ll roll right into the actual competition. But the idea is to have the new booster system available, probably in about the 2019 time frame.”


 
LINK
To the Stars

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #39 on: October 08, 2011, 06:11:26 am »
Nothing like wasting money to buy votes for a politician.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2011, 08:28:48 am »
Probably the sadest part of this whole affiar is Congress is probably going to come out of this still smelling like a rose for taking "postive-action" on the "Launch-Gap" and "Knowledge-Loss-at-NASA" issues :(
 
But lets look at the "bright-side" that the Shuttle system WAS designed to be "modular-building-block" system and here's what we COULD have/or/had with a little luck :)
 
http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/ShuttleVariationsFinalAIAA.pdf
 
Randy
(Which begs the question from me, what information has anyone found on the "Lenticular" Cargo Carrier Vehicle? :) )

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2011, 09:56:27 pm »
Probably the sadest part of this whole affiar is Congress is probably going to come out of this still smelling like a rose for taking "postive-action" on the "Launch-Gap" and "Knowledge-Loss-at-NASA" issues :(
 

Congress could save a bunch of orphans and kittens from a fire and would still be hated by the public.

But I don't accept that the administration is virtuous and Congress is evil in this debate. There was a clear political consensus on what to do--codified by two different Congresses in two NASA authorization bills--and the administration blew that to smithereens, producing the biggest slapfest that I've ever seen in the space policy arena. They tossed a hand grenade in the pumpkin patch and then walked away from the mess.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2011, 04:03:36 pm »


http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/588413main_SLS_Web_final.pdf

Artist's impression of Initial Lift Capability of Space Launch System (SLS).

Source:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 04:20:28 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #43 on: November 30, 2011, 04:30:37 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2011, 01:40:13 pm »
Will this launch system also be named Ares?

Offline Johnbr

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #45 on: December 03, 2011, 02:22:38 pm »
But well they make this one.???

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3510
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #46 on: December 03, 2011, 02:52:22 pm »
something wonderful happen at Launch pad 39
last time you saw this was in 1975


http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/MLmoves.html
I love Strange Technology

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2011, 06:16:24 am »
Keep in mind (you probably know this) that Obama canceled this rocket before.
And nothing has substantiatively changed between that rocket (Ares V) and this one, other than the clock being reset back to 2005; when Ares V was ET diameter and used SSMEs.
Quote
And the only reason that the SSMEs are back in there is because Congress pushed for them.
I believe the law called for STS elements to be used where practicable. That was a huge escape clause which went unused.

Here are some cost estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs

 So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production and operations costs.
 If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
 Building large launchers is supposed to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."
http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

  The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be
that they showed in stark terms that privately financed spacecraft, both
launchers and crew capsules, can be developed for 1/10th the cost of
government financed ones.


   Bob Clark

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2011, 08:05:39 pm »
  The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be
that they showed in stark terms that privately financed spacecraft, both
launchers and crew capsules, can be developed for 1/10th the cost of
government financed ones.

Assuming that they're successful.

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2011, 08:44:49 pm »
NASA manned space program is so defunct it is a given that SLS is just another tax payer pipe dream to nowhere. NASA heavy will never go much beyond basic hardware testing. It is all just vaporware to lull the public into thinking that USA really has a manned space program. While in reality none of it is intended to ever come true only a hoax to keep sucking in the tax payer NASA jobs for votes program. Sad irony is the public is so out of touch with the USA manned space program that they continue to believe. Many citizens don't even realize the USA no longer flies the shuttle. Sad day but reality is that the NASA manned program is nothing more than a propaganda program.
Vis Viva

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #50 on: December 20, 2011, 07:40:07 pm »
NASA manned space program is so defunct it is a given that SLS is just another tax payer pipe dream to nowhere. NASA heavy will never go much beyond basic hardware testing. It is all just vaporware to lull the public into thinking that USA really has a manned space program. While in reality none of it is intended to ever come true only a hoax to keep sucking in the tax payer NASA jobs for votes program. Sad irony is the public is so out of touch with the USA manned space program that they continue to believe. Many citizens don't even realize the USA no longer flies the shuttle. Sad day but reality is that the NASA manned program is nothing more than a propaganda program.

A. it always was propaganda program
b.  SLS does not equate to NASA manned space program
c. it is not defunct,
1.  There are USA astronauts on orbit as we speak
2.  NASA and commercial interests will use other systems, such as Atlas and Falcon 9 and CST-100, Dragon and Dreamchaser

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #51 on: December 20, 2011, 11:23:43 pm »
 Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
 to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
 vehicles is privately financed:

 OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
 Elon Musk and the forgotten word.
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/elon-musk-and-the-forgotten-word

 Some great points were made in this article such as this:

Quote
Each new administration wants to create its own space project,
refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for
this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal
the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy-
lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program
created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket
program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other
than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between
these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it.
All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the
taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or
money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as
NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project
make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it.

 And then there's this:

Quote
Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different
from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of
parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that
program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over
with something new.
With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety,
and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies
encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that
their product is better than their competitors.
In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are
not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of
Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on,
selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to
cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike
NASA which Congress owns and controls.

 The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
here:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

 Links to hear the show live are here:

http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm

 It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/
 

   Bob Clark
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 11:25:36 pm by RGClark »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2011, 04:07:45 pm »
"At its core, NASA’s government-built rocket is hostile to freedom."

Oh brother...

So, anybody who believes that a heavy-lift rocket is necessary for deep space exploration is not only wrong, but a commie/fascist/totalitarian!

Zimmerman spouts a lot of nonsense on his blog. But if you listen to his interviews, you'll learn that he is an expert on absolutely everything there is on the planet, and has never been wrong once. It's pretty amazing, really.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 04:32:24 pm by blackstar »

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 493
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2011, 02:23:36 am »
Quote
So, anybody who believes that a heavy-lift rocket is necessary for deep space exploration is not only wrong, but a commie/fascist/totalitarian!

No, Zimmerman's point has nothing to do with the statement "a heavy-lift rocket is necessary for deep space exploration".
Ie he doesn't dispute the need for a heavy-lift rocket, just the method chosen for procuring it. And I tend to agree with him (apart from his rant on freedom).
NASA is pretty much dead in the water when it comes to developing new launchers, thanks to its politicised budget and procurement system, and its huge overhead. The way forward is for NASA to buy launchers from private parties.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2011, 06:08:23 am »
Ie he doesn't dispute the need for a heavy-lift rocket, just the method chosen for procuring it. And I tend to agree with him (apart from his rant on freedom).

The whole thing is a rant on freedom (which he doesn't really define). And he has a tendency to write/speak in stark terms--i.e. "government = bad" and "private enterprise (however defined) = good." There's a substantial lack of sophistication and nuance and, yes, comprehension, in his writings. I tend to cringe when I see such a low opinion to content ratio--yeah, he's got lots and lots of opinions, but his knowledge base is pretty limited.

Start with his premise that launch vehicles can be "private enterprise." There's a fundamental problem with grouping that industry in with other aspects of the economy, because it is ALL subsidized in some way. ULA (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) are essentially captured by government contracts. Even the darling SpaceX wouldn't exist if they had not gotten government cash, mostly NASA, over the years. And Orbital Sciences--a major DoD contractor--has a long history of advocating certain government policies that hurt their competitors (like not allowing ICBMs to serve as launch vehicles) right up to the point where they switch their position and then take the opposite view (like allowing ICBMs to serve as launch vehicles). This isn't a free market and never has been. I get a kick out of seeing people like Zimmerman talk about the Atlas and Delta as "commercial" vehicles, especially since I've listened to a senior Intelsat executive (a commercial company that buys rocket launches) speak about them as essentially US government vehicles.

So his tendency to portray this stuff in stark terms is completely at odds with the real situation, where what we are talking about gradations of government involvement in launch vehicles, not either/or situations.

I've been in lots of meetings with NASA, USAF and industry reps, and nobody uses the word "freedom" in the way that Zimmerman does in that essay. They would roll their eyes at that. But Zimmerman likes to wrap himself in the flag and sing the national anthem a lot. Just look at his blog.





Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2011, 08:24:16 am »
Zimmerman spouts a lot of nonsense on his blog. But if you listen to his interviews, you'll learn that he is an expert on absolutely everything there is on the planet, and has never been wrong once. It's pretty amazing, really.

...Amazing? It's pathetically enough of a CT Nutter job that one has to ask whether there's a Maxson in Zimmerman's woodpile somewhere  ::)

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #56 on: December 24, 2011, 03:11:36 pm »
I hate to seem like such a killjoy, but those SSME's are never going to fly. They'll spend another 10-20 years in a warehouse before they eventually get shipped off to museums.

On Tuesday I was at a discussion about the current human spaceflight situation and one of the themes was that this may be the beginning of the end of American human spaceflight. We may be seeing the long slow death of the program. The people who were involved in the discussion were pretty knowledgeable and include names that frequently appear in the press. They were fully aware of the pending SLS announcement and they were not optimistic about its chances of ever flying.

 That's a good reason for moving to commercial spaceflight.

    Bob Clark

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #58 on: July 29, 2012, 04:38:04 pm »
There are so many better sources to cite than Mark Whittington. In case you don't know him, all he does is rewrite stuff he reads on the internet, posting it to pay-for-hits websites. He simply takes other peoples' articles and sucks the information out of them, performs no original research, and then collects a (small) paycheck. He also tries to squeeze partisan points out of everything he writes. For instance, he recently insulted Sally Ride because he didn't approve of her politics. It was a cheap shot at a woman who accomplished a lot.

Plus, he cannot spell.

Here's a better article on the F-1 subject:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_23_2012_p22-477250.xml&p=1


Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3510
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #59 on: July 29, 2012, 08:20:08 pm »
is not the first time NASA look in reuse of F-1 engine,
During S.E.I in 1989 for the use in first stage of new heavy lift rocket
Some were in begin 1980s also study of rebuild the saturn V for Mars mission
But here only F-1 with tank and electronics build of new hardware were consider better. because the Saturn V hardware was obsolete
i think there even consider to proposed the F-1 as engine shuttle liquid booster, for post-challenger time. but i not sure about this last info.

I love Strange Technology

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #60 on: July 29, 2012, 08:52:31 pm »
Yes, it has been considered several times, although the proposals never got very far. Unfortunately, the book "The Saturn V F-1 Engine," by Anthony Young, does not have much information on these latter proposals.

I talked to several people recently (at Marshall and elsewhere) about reusing the F-1. Several of them noted that the originals were hand made, and one of the challenges today would be redesigning them so that they could be machine-manufactured, which would improve quality and ease of production. They would make a lot of other changes as well, but I didn't understand them because I'm not a rocket expert.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #61 on: July 29, 2012, 10:48:27 pm »
They would make a lot of other changes as well, but I didn't understand them because I'm not a rocket expert.

Presumably the turbopumps would be made stronger, lighter and more powerful, which would make a higher chamber pressure possible and thus both higher thrust and higer Isp. Isp is quite low by, say, RD-180 standards. A redesign of the chamber to accomodate that higher pressure would be needed, and a redesign of the injector head to eliminate the combustion instability problems that plagued the early F-1s, solved only by jury rigging. They could always retinker the expansion ratio and the nozzle curvature for improved performance. Material changes all around to make it lighter, stronger, more corrosion resistant.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 675
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #62 on: July 30, 2012, 06:36:54 am »
Here's the AIAA paper (preview) with the SEI-era plan for how the F-1 would be updated, by Shelton (MSFC) and Murphy (Rocketdyne):

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1992/PV1992_1547.pdf

One of the big materials issues would replacing beryllium with something more benign.

I also remember reading sometime in the last several months that, as part of the shutdown of the Canoga Avenue site, P&WR was disassembling an oven that was originally constructed for the F-1 nozzle, I assume for aging/curing or an equivalent process.  Ass*u*ming it was indeed disassembled and not scrapped, that capability would have to be reconstituted elsewhere (Stennis?).  Wish I remembered the source on that, sorry.

For context, here's William Greene's J-2X blog entry on the differences between J-2 and J-2X.  It describes the types of changes necessary to bring such an engine into the modern era.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/J2X/posts/post_1338829889472.html

Edit: added J-2X blog ref.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 08:02:41 am by George Allegrezza »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #63 on: July 30, 2012, 08:40:45 pm »
One of the big materials issues would replacing beryllium with something more benign.

As I understand it, beryllium is only an issue for manufacturing--the dust is toxic, so you have to be careful to remove that. Once it is milled/processed, it's perfectly safe. I seem to remember hearing about a guy who had a beryllium coffee table. It started out as a piece of space hardware, but they made a mistake in the manufacturing and it was not useable, so he used it as a table. I was surprised, but the guy who told me the story said that it's not really any different than having an aluminum coffee table. Doesn't make much sense to me, because I assumed they would have recycled the material.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 675
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2012, 06:06:53 am »
Right, and it's specifically the toxic exposure during manufacturing that they want to avoid.  The Formula 1 community tried using aluminum-beryllium cylinder blocks a decade ago, and even with ultramodern machine tools and particle capture systems, they still couldn't meet the exposure limits.

I understand Sandia or its contractors still manufacture beryllium components for nuclear weapons, but I'd wager they have some kind of OSHA waiver that would be hard to replicate for any other product.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2012, 06:18:13 am »
Right, and it's specifically the toxic exposure during manufacturing that they want to avoid.  The Formula 1 community tried using aluminum-beryllium cylinder blocks a decade ago, and even with ultramodern machine tools and particle capture systems, they still couldn't meet the exposure limits.

I understand Sandia or its contractors still manufacture beryllium components for nuclear weapons, but I'd wager they have some kind of OSHA waiver that would be hard to replicate for any other product.

Beryllium is still used in space optics systems because it apparently has great thermal expansion properties. I was just at a NASA center a few weeks ago (I forget which one--I've been at a bunch in the past few weeks) and saw a lab that had a sign on it that they had beryllium manufacturing equipment inside. I don't think that government labs get waivers. I think the issue is that they probably don't worry too much about the expense.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #66 on: August 28, 2012, 11:11:51 am »
Been traveling around to all the NASA centers as part of a project. Was at Stennis and got to see the test stands, including the stand where they are currently testing the J-2X and the old, rusty, very large, B stand where they will test the SLS first stage. For the B stand we were about 170 feet up. Took a few photos. (We had great weather, but they're about to get hit by a hurricane.)

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 675
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #67 on: August 28, 2012, 01:13:55 pm »
Those are supremely awesome, thanks DD.

I've read that while the B stand was originally rated for 12 million lbs. thrust (Saturn C-8 and all that), it has been "derated" to a much smaller figure.  I wonder if that's a result of the overall deterioration over time or a specific limitation like the crane, water system, etc.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #68 on: August 28, 2012, 02:03:50 pm »
Those are supremely awesome, thanks DD.

I've read that while the B stand was originally rated for 12 million lbs. thrust (Saturn C-8 and all that), it has been "derated" to a much smaller figure.  I wonder if that's a result of the overall deterioration over time or a specific limitation like the crane, water system, etc.

I honestly don't know. I have a few photos of the overall stand. It's massive, and actually consists of two stands--B1 and B2. I forget which is which, but one of them is currently in use. We saw it and they had an RS-68 engine mounted, but because it is a contractor-owned engine, I could not take any photos. The other side of the stand is where they used to mount entire S-IC stages. We went up to the 16th or 17th floor and out on the wing and could look down. You sort of get the sense from one of those photos of just how tall that thing is--I leaned over the railing and looked down to where they plan on mounting the SLS core stage. That's the diamond shape in the center. The base of the SLS will go there, and the core stage will tower probably another 40 feet over where I was standing (dunno what the length of the SLS core stage is).

Although there is a lot of rust, they are starting refurbishment. It was not visible while we were there, but they have been taking out some excess steel down near the base. Actually, if I remember correctly, the first step was to install a platform to enable them to remove some steel. Despite the rust, the test stand was in use a little over a decade ago. Not sure what for. Although there's a lot of rust, the overall stand is not in bad condition. That's mostly surface rust, and they don't have any major structural rust.

The other stand was for the J-2X. We got to go up top on that and see the engine in the test stand. I've got pictures of that as well, and photos looking out over the other test stands. I think they currently have three J-2X stands, two of them active, one undergoing modernization. We also saw the stand where they test the rocket engines for Antares, as well a Blue Origin's R&D work. But the B stand was the coolest for me.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #69 on: August 28, 2012, 02:47:57 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #70 on: August 28, 2012, 04:02:00 pm »
Is that at Marshall or Stennis? Doesn't look like the Stennis B test stand, unless it was upgraded after this film was made. I was also at Marshall, but we only drove past the test stands, which are not really used anymore. Didn't get to climb on them.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 675
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #71 on: August 28, 2012, 05:11:33 pm »
Whichever stand that was, that was seriously badass.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #72 on: August 28, 2012, 07:41:58 pm »
Here's one of the other Stennis test stands. We didn't get to this one. Apparently this was under construction to do high altitude tests of the J-2X, but those tests have been canceled. The stand is still under construction, however, and will be offered to other customers upon completion.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 07:44:55 pm by blackstar »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #73 on: August 28, 2012, 07:42:56 pm »
Here's a barge with LOX on it. They bring the LOX and H2 to the test stands on barges from a centralized facility.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 07:45:13 pm by blackstar »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #74 on: August 28, 2012, 07:44:26 pm »
Here's the B test rig. It's huge. I couldn't get a photo that accurately demonstrated just how big this thing is. They test the RS-68 on one side (I think it is the left side) and the other side is where they will test the SLS core stage.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 675
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #75 on: August 28, 2012, 07:49:36 pm »
Here's one of the other Stennis test stands. We didn't get to this one. Apparently this was under construction to do high altitude tests of the J-2X, but those tests have been canceled. The stand is still under construction, however, and will be offered to other customers upon completion.
   
That's the A-3 stand.  A great capability to have even if the J-2X is shelved.  That would be a shame given its remarkable record of successful tests in the last year, but if it isn't needed right away I guess it's the right decision.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #76 on: August 28, 2012, 09:09:31 pm »

That's the A-3 stand.  A great capability to have even if the J-2X is shelved.  That would be a shame given its remarkable record of successful tests in the last year, but if it isn't needed right away I guess it's the right decision.

I'm guessing that the other ones are the A-1 and A-2 stands. Not sure which one we were at, but it was probably A-1. (We were also at the E stand as well.) I don't know how the J-2X program has been scaled back. They are still doing engine tests, and in fact had done one about five days before we arrived. But the J-2X delivery date has been pushed out. I think that what this has meant is that they are doing more tests at each phase of the development, but progressing to the next phase much more slowly.

Offline jcd132

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #77 on: September 04, 2012, 09:46:19 am »
Is that at Marshall or Stennis? Doesn't look like the Stennis B test stand, unless it was upgraded after this film was made. I was also at Marshall, but we only drove past the test stands, which are not really used anymore. Didn't get to climb on them.


Its the Marshall S-1C stand (re: Saturn V S-1C Stage Testing, 360P video).  I had the pleasure of regularly working on that stand from the late 1980's through most of the '90's when it was being used for instrumented/advanced SSME testing.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 09:53:02 am by jcd132 »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #78 on: September 04, 2012, 10:13:51 am »
Thanks. That's what I suspected. I have a photo of that stand that I took from our van as we drove around the various test sites. We were behind schedule, so we didn't stop and walk around anything there, just did the window tour (actually, our guide was nice enough to let me out to see the original Redstone stand, which is now a historical site, but that was not what we were there for).

Offline jcd132

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #79 on: September 04, 2012, 12:25:28 pm »
Sorry to hear you weren't able to get a closer look.  If you Google "Saturn V test stands", you'll find a link to a lot of Saturn V test facility pictures, this particular stand being just one of many facilities featured.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #80 on: September 04, 2012, 01:18:26 pm »
Sorry to hear you weren't able to get a closer look.  If you Google "Saturn V test stands", you'll find a link to a lot of Saturn V test facility pictures, this particular stand being just one of many facilities featured.

Got to see tons of other stuff, however, including SLS welding machinery, the rocket propulsion lab, some human spaceflight facilities, the ISS backup mission control, etc. And at Stennis we got to stick our heads inside the engine exhaust tube. Had to visit seven NASA field centers in less than three months for work, so I haven't been short of rockety stuff to do.

Offline Johnbr

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #81 on: September 05, 2012, 10:51:35 am »
Dream ChaserIllustration courtesy SNC Space Systems
Now that the U.S. space shuttle program has ended, NASA is turning to the private sector for the next generation of reusable manned spacecraft-including the Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser (illustrated above).
(Related: "After Space Shuttle, Does U.S. Have a Future in Space?")
The brainchild of the Colorado-based Sierra Nevada Corporation, the Dream Chaser is one of five private-spacecraft proposals that won U.S. $50 million in federal grants under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The proposed new shuttle's primary mission is to transport cargo and up to seven astronauts to the International Space Station, and to return crews safely to Earth, according to Sierra Nevada's website.
Among Dream Chaser's advantages: It's designed to launch on top of Atlas rockets, which have been reliably used by NASA since 1957.
Last month Sierra Nevada was awarded an additional $213 million grant—along with $440 million to SpaceX and $460 million to Boeing Corporation—to continue plans that, NASA said, would set the stage for "demonstration missions to low-Earth orbit by the middle of the decade."
—Richard A. Lovett

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #82 on: September 05, 2012, 05:02:08 pm »
That doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the SLS.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2013, 12:22:14 pm »
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate, and the space program (what remains of it) is no exception: Critical Decisions Loom For U.S. Space Program (Aviation Week)
Quote
Human spaceflight does not have as well-defined a group of advocates as robotic space science, and the goal-setting process is trickier. The NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010 reflects a compromise between the White House and Congress over the Obama administration's desire to turn all U.S. human spaceflight over to the private sector. Instead, NASA is also funding development of a government-owned heavy-lift rocket—the Space Launch System (SLS)—and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle to take human explorers beyond low Earth orbit. But the agency comes up for reauthorization again in the new Congress that convenes in January, and there are hints in the ongoing power struggle between Administrator Charlie Bolden and his deputy, Lori Garver, that the White House may try another push to end government development of the SLS in favor of commercial crew funding. Bolden is seen as a backer of the traditional approach, and there have been fairly transparent press leaks from within the agency that the White House—or at least Garver—wants to get rid of him. Watch the budget request for the outcome on that one too.
To the Stars

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2013, 08:27:53 pm »
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate

Really? Everything?

Don't you think the Romans kinda said the same thing a few thousand years ago?

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #85 on: January 11, 2013, 05:30:40 am »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2013, 06:31:52 am »
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate

Really? Everything?

Don't you think the Romans kinda said the same thing a few thousand years ago?

Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #87 on: January 11, 2013, 08:41:38 am »
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate, and the space program (what remains of it) is no exception: Critical Decisions Loom For U.S. Space Program (Aviation Week)
Quote
Human spaceflight does not have as well-defined a group of advocates as robotic space science, and the goal-setting process is trickier. The NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010 reflects a compromise between the White House and Congress over the Obama administration's desire to turn all U.S. human spaceflight over to the private sector. Instead, NASA is also funding development of a government-owned heavy-lift rocket—the Space Launch System (SLS)—and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle to take human explorers beyond low Earth orbit. But the agency comes up for reauthorization again in the new Congress that convenes in January, and there are hints in the ongoing power struggle between Administrator Charlie Bolden and his deputy, Lori Garver, that the White House may try another push to end government development of the SLS in favor of commercial crew funding. Bolden is seen as a backer of the traditional approach, and there have been fairly transparent press leaks from within the agency that the White House—or at least Garver—wants to get rid of him. Watch the budget request for the outcome on that one too.

 Wow. Thanks for that. I had no idea that there was some disagreement between Bolden and Garver. Think she's angling for his job?

  Bob Clark

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #88 on: January 11, 2013, 08:49:57 am »
Boeing SLS Presentation from October:
 
https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/SE/HSV_AIAA/Downloadable%20Items/AIAA-Chilton_18Oct2012_Final2.pdf


Randy

 Thanks for that. Boeing is building the SLS core stage. On page 11 they give the dry weight of the core stage as 187,500 lbs., 85,000 kg. Also, interesting is that on page 14 it's stated that it will use the aluminum alloy used on the original shuttle ET rather than the aluminum-lithium alloy used on the super lightweight ET. This is to save on costs.

  Bob Clark

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2013, 08:57:24 am »
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate, and the space program (what remains of it) is no exception: Critical Decisions Loom For U.S. Space Program (Aviation Week)
Quote
Human spaceflight does not have as well-defined a group of advocates as robotic space science, and the goal-setting process is trickier. The NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010 reflects a compromise between the White House and Congress over the Obama administration's desire to turn all U.S. human spaceflight over to the private sector. Instead, NASA is also funding development of a government-owned heavy-lift rocket—the Space Launch System (SLS)—and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle to take human explorers beyond low Earth orbit. But the agency comes up for reauthorization again in the new Congress that convenes in January, and there are hints in the ongoing power struggle between Administrator Charlie Bolden and his deputy, Lori Garver, that the White House may try another push to end government development of the SLS in favor of commercial crew funding. Bolden is seen as a backer of the traditional approach, and there have been fairly transparent press leaks from within the agency that the White House—or at least Garver—wants to get rid of him. Watch the budget request for the outcome on that one too.

 I must be one of the few people who is optimistic about the space program. For one thing, I think the commercial crew program will succeed at returning us to space.
 Also, I'm optimistic about commercial plans of sending humans to the Moon such as 'Golden Spike'. The reason is because SpaceX has shown that development costs for both launchers and crew capsules can be as much as 1/10th as costly when following a commercial approach rather than the traditional NASA approach. Then the billion dollar development cost that Golden Spike quoted for their program might only be a tenth of that if following a commercial approach for the funding of its development.

  Bob Clark

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2013, 09:15:35 am »

Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.

unsubstantiated armwaving.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2013, 09:19:56 am »
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate, and the space program (what remains of it) is no exception


There is much more the US space program than NASA manned missions.  NASA=/US space program.  NASA was a cold war agency.  There is no need for a govt managed manned space exploration program.  Lunar bases would be of no benefit to the US govt

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #92 on: January 14, 2013, 04:46:51 pm »

Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.

unsubstantiated armwaving.


...Care to explain that one further, or are you just satisfied at leaving it just an unsubstantiated snark?

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #93 on: January 15, 2013, 08:54:09 am »

Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.

unsubstantiated armwaving.


...Care to explain that one further, or are you just satisfied at leaving it just an unsubstantiated snark?

The onus is on him to explain his comment.  Mine is self explanatory.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #94 on: January 15, 2013, 10:06:58 pm »

Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.

unsubstantiated armwaving.


...Care to explain that one further, or are you just satisfied at leaving it just an unsubstantiated snark?

The onus is on him to explain his comment.  Mine is self explanatory.


...Were that the actual case, I wouldn't have asked for the explanation/clarification. Again, query is posed. Care to answer?

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 681
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #95 on: January 16, 2013, 09:54:59 am »
IMHO, SLS is not a flexible or sustainable capability and should not be developed. Instead, multiple private rockets and spacecraft should be funded.

It is conceivable that Garver drives towards that, she has been consistent in talking about more flexible and organic private sector projects, compared to traditional large NASA ones.

It could prove to be a great choice for NASA. They wouldn't need to compete with private industry: they could procure launches and concentrate on where they have good unique experience like in space operations.

If solid ICBM:s need money, that's not the business of NASA manned spaceflight.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #97 on: February 28, 2013, 04:14:52 pm »
http://www.dvice.com/2013-1-25/nasa-restarts-most-powerful-rocket-engine-ever-built

Yeah, they're going to do a few dozen firings of the gas generator and the powerpack. Unfortunately, no full scale engine firings are planned. They will only do that if there is another contract award for further risk reduction on the engine.

I got a tour of Marshall last summer when we were visiting all the NASA field centers. We got to see some of NASA's F-1 work, including a turbopump cutaway. I'm somewhat kicking myself for talking to the wrong people at that point in the tour. All I heard was that they were scanning the hardware and creating computer models. I didn't hear anything about them planning live firings. Had I heard any of that, I might have gotten myself an invite to the hot fire of the gas generator.

Recently I've gotten some info from PW&R about their planned work. Nothing too interesting. I don't have their schedule or anything.



Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1852
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #100 on: June 12, 2014, 02:05:19 am »

Update Space Launch System
Wind tunnels tests and different nose cones for the boosters.
Code: [Select]
http://youtu.be/eC0sQOGYGlQ
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #101 on: July 02, 2014, 04:05:50 pm »
"NASA finalizes contract to build the most powerful rocket ever"
by WJ Hennigan

July 2, 2014

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/business/aerospace/la-fi-nasa-boeing-mars-rocket-20140702-story.html

Quote
NASA has reached a milestone in its development of the Space Launch System, or SLS, which is set to be the most powerful rocket ever and may one day take astronauts to Mars.

After completing a critical design review, Boeing Co. has finalized a $2.8-billion contract with the space agency. The deal allows full production on the rocket to begin.

“Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS – the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time,” Virginia Barnes, Boeing's Space Launch System vice president and program manager, said in a statement.

The last time NASA’s completed a critical design review of a deep-space human rocket was 1961, when the space agency assessed the mighty Saturn V, which ultimately took man to the moon.

Work on the 321-foot Space Launch System is spread throughout Southern California, including Boeing's avionics team in Huntington Beach. The rocket’s core stage will get its power from four RS-25 engines for former space shuttle main engines built by Aerojet Rocketdyne of Canoga Park.
The rocket will carry the Orion spacecraft, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., which can carry up to four astronauts beyond low Earth orbit on long-duration, deep-space destinations including near-Earth asteroids, the moon, and ultimately Mars.

The rocket, which is designed to carry crew and cargo, is scheduled for its initial test flight from Cape Canaveral, Fla., in 2017.

The first mission will launch an empty Orion spacecraft. The second mission is targeted for 2021 and will launch Orion and a crew of up to four NASA astronauts.

The rocket's initial flight-test configuration will provide a 77-ton lift capacity. The final evolved two-stage configuration will be able to lift more than 143 tons. 


Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #103 on: September 13, 2014, 08:36:42 am »

ORIGINAL CAPTION:
NASA's Orion spacecraft, preparing for it's first flight, departs the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building on its way to the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at the Kennedy Space Center, Thursday, Sept. 11, 2014, in Cape Canaveral, Fla. Orion is scheduled for a test flight in early December. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_NASA_ORION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Another AP photo below via the Japan News:
To the Stars

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #104 on: September 13, 2014, 09:39:12 am »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #105 on: September 14, 2014, 05:37:07 am »
One giant step backwards for Mankind.

Nice work, government-NASA -- just keep tossing my tax dollars into the ocean, after a one-time use, as you always have.

My money is on SpaceX and Blue Origin, thank you very much.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #106 on: September 14, 2014, 07:31:59 am »
NASA probably learned their lesson with the shuttle, that reusability isn't all it's cracked up to be.

They need a shuttle replacement anyways, why not make it better than the shuttle, in terms of payload?

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1044
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #107 on: September 14, 2014, 07:33:59 am »
Unless I'm mistaken, the Orion will be refurbished and used again, up to 10 missions per vehicle.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #108 on: September 14, 2014, 07:38:33 am »
Unless I'm mistaken, the Orion will be refurbished and used again, up to 10 missions per vehicle.

So the tin can up top comes back and the other 98% goes in the ocean?  Are they planning on reusing the solid motors? 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #109 on: September 14, 2014, 07:54:28 am »

So the tin can up top comes back and the other 98% goes in the ocean?  Are they planning on reusing the solid motors?

Wikipedia says that blocks 1 and 1B will not recover the solids. Not sure about block 2, it seems that they're still trying to decide on solids vs liquids. If they decide on liquids, I doubt those will be recovered.

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #110 on: September 14, 2014, 08:31:09 am »
The principle killer of the Shuttle was the real-world operating costs -- too much old-technology being serviced by a  labor-force pulling down today's paycheck. As to Orion: How cost effective will a saltwater landed, 'reusable' capsule be against a capsule that is pinpoint landed on dry land, feet away from a post-mission van and transporter-erector?

I see a cartoon depiction of the Delta-4 lofting this government ode to future-past and all I can think is: Falcon-heavy.

Orion is not money well spent. It's a government space infrastructure jobs program. Money better spent engaging the American private sector. Government, and it's tit sucking contractores: GET THE HELL OUT OF MUSK's WAY! Stop being the problem here.

NASA invented the wheel. Fine. Now, get out of the way and let private industry work up spokes, hubs, and girl-catching rims. NASA was a unique and powerful inovator and mover of technology once. Those days are over.

And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

... secure from Rant.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #111 on: September 14, 2014, 08:48:55 am »
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #112 on: September 14, 2014, 09:36:06 am »
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?

Yes.

Just about any X-plane project (that hit the magic altitude mark) that employed a liquid rocket engine as the prim mover.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #113 on: September 14, 2014, 09:49:52 am »
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?

Yes.

Just about any X-plane project (that hit the magic altitude mark) that employed a liquid rocket engine as the prim mover.

David

Which isn't what we're talking about of course.  Now how about answering the question.  Has any SPACE LAUNCHER ever shut down it's liquid engines in flight and the astronauts escaped?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #114 on: September 14, 2014, 09:51:00 am »
  As to Orion: How cost effective will a saltwater landed, 'reusable' capsule be against a capsule that is pinpoint landed on dry land, feet away from a post-mission van and transporter-erector?

True, however parachute-on-water landings are an extremely reliable way to get home. Take a look at Apollo 15. One way to describe is is that 33 percent of its landing mechanisms failed, and it still landed successfully! Which shows the reliability and redundancy of it.


Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #115 on: September 14, 2014, 10:06:34 am »
They need a shuttle replacement anyways, why not make it better than the shuttle, in terms of payload?

Ah, but what defines "better?" There are no funded programs that require *more* payload than the Shuttle could have provided. Sure, manned missions to the moon and beyond would require bigger payloads... but we have *NO* manned missions to the moon and beyond, except for a bit to study an asteroid rendezvous mission.

Building a bigger rocket is kinda like building an aircraft carrier designed to carrying and launch aircraft the size of the B-1, working on the assumption that once your ship is finished someone else will pay for B-1-sized carrier aircraft.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2014, 11:00:55 am »
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?

Yes.

Just about any X-plane project (that hit the magic altitude mark) that employed a liquid rocket engine as the prim mover.

David

Which isn't what we're talking about of course.  Now how about answering the question.  Has any SPACE LAUNCHER ever shut down it's liquid engines in flight and the astronauts escaped?

And, mid-argument, you change the question. Having lost the first point, you fine tune the discussion to, 'space launcher'. Not a parameter of your initial question.

Enough fencing.

Liquids are safer than solids. The point you are so desperate to avoid. So, I'll say it for you.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #118 on: September 14, 2014, 11:47:46 am »

Ah, but what defines "better?" There are no funded programs that require *more* payload than the Shuttle could have provided.

No funded missions yet (seems like putting the cart before the horse IMHO), but take a look at this pdf to see what the SLS enables (google search):

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

For example:
"SLS delivers the Interstellar Explorer
spacecraft to 200 AU in 15 years
saving 15 years of flight time from
original design concepts."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #119 on: September 14, 2014, 12:53:16 pm »
And, mid-argument, you change the question. Having lost the first point, you fine tune the discussion to, 'space launcher'. Not a parameter of your initial question.

Since the topic of discussion was space launchers I thought it was obvious.  Will note to self that you're not exactly swift on the uptake to avoid confusing you in the future.

Liquids are safer than solids. The point you are so desperate to avoid. So, I'll say it for you.

"Desperate"?  Hardly.  Just don't buy into the "liquid motors are safer" BS.  There's a reason why the Navy doesn't allow liquid-fueled missiles on it's ships and it isn't because they're safer.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2014, 01:02:00 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 493
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #120 on: September 14, 2014, 01:13:16 pm »
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?

No. There has not been an instance of a manned liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of its engines in flight, period (not counting Challenger). 

On Soyuz T-10-1 the launch escape system fired at T-70 seconds after a fire had started on the rocket. Two seconds before the rocket exploded, the LES yanked the crew to safety.
On the N-1 L5 unmanned mission, the LES was also used successfully after a catastrophic failure in the first stage.
 

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #121 on: September 18, 2014, 11:43:32 am »
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?

No. There has not been an instance of a manned liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of its engines in flight, period (not counting Challenger). 



Soyuz 18a?

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 493
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #122 on: September 18, 2014, 12:56:19 pm »
Good find, didn't know about that one.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #125 on: November 07, 2014, 07:12:28 pm »
Future targets for SLS:


http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/sls-manifest-europa-mars-sample-return-missions/

That's a misleading article because it is all written from the point of view of the guys trying to sell the rocket, not the people who would actually have to pay for the payloads. It is sort of like your neighbor planning for you to install a pool and he offers to bring the beer when it's finished.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 578
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #126 on: November 08, 2014, 11:00:46 am »
Future targets for SLS:


http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/sls-manifest-europa-mars-sample-return-missions/

That's a misleading article because it is all written from the point of view of the guys trying to sell the rocket, not the people who would actually have to pay for the payloads. It is sort of like your neighbor planning for you to install a pool and he offers to bring the beer when it's finished.
That's a bit of a stretch, the SLS mission planners aren't mooching neighbors. This is your accountant saying "here's how cool a car you can buy, if you're willing to make the payments." Sure, you're going to end up buying the cheap subcompact with decent mileage instead of the luxury hyrbid because there's other stuff you want to spend money on, but it's no knock against the accountant to lay out the numbers.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #127 on: November 08, 2014, 01:15:40 pm »
Future targets for SLS:


http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/sls-manifest-europa-mars-sample-return-missions/

That's a misleading article because it is all written from the point of view of the guys trying to sell the rocket, not the people who would actually have to pay for the payloads. It is sort of like your neighbor planning for you to install a pool and he offers to bring the beer when it's finished.
That's a bit of a stretch, the SLS mission planners aren't mooching neighbors. This is your accountant saying "here's how cool a car you can buy, if you're willing to make the payments." Sure, you're going to end up buying the cheap subcompact with decent mileage instead of the luxury hyrbid because there's other stuff you want to spend money on, but it's no knock against the accountant to lay out the numbers.

Except that in your example the accountant is a neutral party. But in this case it is the rocket builders who are pitching this stuff. They benefit if somebody else spends money. They're not disinterested in the outcome.

Understanding that is important to understanding why this is unlikely to happen for Europa Clipper, and WON'T happen for Mars sample return. That MSR concept that they lay out would probably cost $6-8 billion to build. The Planetary Science Division cannot afford it because it would use up all of their money for an entire decade.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
« Last Edit: November 13, 2014, 07:41:49 am by Grey Havoc »
To the Stars

Offline athpilot

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Fly me to the moon...
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #129 on: November 13, 2014, 12:41:40 pm »
Hi!

Chinese American comparism.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #130 on: November 18, 2014, 12:52:47 pm »
A somewhat unexpected development: Europe signs on to Orion venture (BBC News)
To the Stars

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #131 on: November 18, 2014, 02:00:18 pm »
Hi!

Chinese American comparism.

China made a trip to the NASA server did they?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #132 on: November 18, 2014, 04:06:04 pm »
A somewhat unexpected development: Europe signs on to Orion venture (BBC News)

No, that was announced a long time ago. They only signed the contract now.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #133 on: November 19, 2014, 02:54:58 am »
A somewhat unexpected development: Europe signs on to Orion venture (BBC News)

No, that was announced a long time ago. They only signed the contract now.

Thought it had all fallen through.
To the Stars

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #134 on: December 03, 2014, 12:13:08 pm »
Published on Dec 2, 2014

World’s biggest rocket. How would you feel about going to Mars? Or maybe an asteroid? Take a ride on the new SLS built by Boeing and ignite your human spirit. Learn more about how Boeing innovates at http://buildsomethingbetter.com

« Last Edit: December 05, 2014, 02:13:43 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #135 on: December 05, 2014, 02:12:41 pm »
Published on Dec 3, 2014

NASA is setting its eyes on the exploration of Mars, an over two year-long journey that will make history. Today's children will be the first explorers of our neighboring planet with help from Boeing. The current development of Boeing's advanced module technology will make possible a safe excursion for astronauts to Mars to discover ground humans have yet to see. Learn more about the path to Mars at buildsomethingbetter.com.


Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3510
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #136 on: December 06, 2014, 01:22:02 pm »
Interesting, the two Videos mention Solar electric Tugs for Mars Missions
I love Strange Technology

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 578
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #137 on: December 06, 2014, 05:25:25 pm »
Yes Solar Electric Propulsion is becoming higher and higher profile in the Mars planning at NASA according to the people who know such things at Nasaspaceflight.com's forums, and Boeing is pushing SEP hard on its end. For all the ailing and gnashing of teeth about the asteroid mission, its use of a sophisticated SEP tug to retrieve the rock is something that would be a big positive contribution to a future Mars exploration architecture using SEP.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #138 on: December 07, 2014, 06:47:23 am »
Yes Solar Electric Propulsion is becoming higher and higher profile in the Mars planning at NASA according to the people who know such things at Nasaspaceflight.com's forums, and Boeing is pushing SEP hard on its end. For all the ailing and gnashing of teeth about the asteroid mission, its use of a sophisticated SEP tug to retrieve the rock is something that would be a big positive contribution to a future Mars exploration architecture using SEP.

One of the criticisms of the asteroid mission is that there is very little tech that it develops that ultimately carries over to a human Mars mission. The SEP is pretty much the only tech that has a somewhat direct line to a Mars mission. The big baggie for catching the asteroid has none, and that's going to be expensive, as will the control software and systems for the spacecraft, also not needed for Mars.

But the ARM is going to get canceled anyway. It's pretty much inevitable.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline luke strawwalker

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #140 on: February 13, 2015, 10:16:05 pm »
Future targets for SLS:


http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/sls-manifest-europa-mars-sample-return-missions/

HA!  I love it...

Best summation of the actual state of affairs I've read...

Later!  OL JR :)
That's a misleading article because it is all written from the point of view of the guys trying to sell the rocket, not the people who would actually have to pay for the payloads. It is sort of like your neighbor planning for you to install a pool and he offers to bring the beer when it's finished.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #141 on: February 16, 2015, 01:00:58 pm »
Casting ATK's solid's 3.5 million pounds of thrust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0BgLPq6PkE&feature=youtu.be



"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 750
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #142 on: February 16, 2015, 03:16:20 pm »
Casting ATK's solid's 3.5 million pounds of thrust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0BgLPq6PkE&feature=youtu.be

It's more impressive when that controlled thrust turns into instantaneous bang.



If SLS ever makes it to actual launch I will have to take the 3 hour drive to watch.  I would like to hear and feel what 7-8 million pounds of thrust is like.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 03:18:33 pm by fredymac »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #143 on: July 26, 2015, 04:29:44 pm »
"New name for Space Launch System gets backing of lawmakers"
Posted on May 3, 2015 by Stephen Clark

Source:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/03/new-name-for-space-launch-system-gets-backing-of-lawmakers/

Quote
push to give NASA’s Space Launch System a new name is garnering support from lawmakers, who have written into legislation provisions that would order NASA to rename the heavy-lift rocket through a competition among schoolchildren.

If passed into law, the bill would set policy for NASA and includes budget guidelines that would shuffle funding from the agency’s Earth science programs into other areas, primarily the Space Launch System, Orion crew capsule and robotic exploration of the solar system.

The House Science Committee passed the NASA Authorization Act for 2016 and 2017 on Thursday. The bill now goes to the full House for a vote.

The Senate has not yet considered its own version of a NASA authorization act.

Language in the authorization bill would direct NASA to “conduct a well-publicized competition among students in elementary and secondary schools to name the elements of the administration’s exploration program.”

NASA should give a name to the agency’s entire exploration program, including the SLS, Orion spacecraft and future missions. The bill also directs NASA to rename the SLS itself.

An identical section was included in a previous version of an authorization bill that passed the House in February, and NASA officials have had internal discussions of renaming the Space Launch System.

NASA announced Orion as the name of the crew transport capsule in 2006, when it was part of the Constellation program aimed at returning humans to the moon.

The Obama administration canceled the behind-schedule Constellation program in 2010, and refocused NASA on partnering with commercial space companies to carry astronauts to the International Space Station.

The Orion capsule survived the cancellation and emerged as a component of NASA’s new exploration program with the Space Launch System aimed at eventually taking humans to Mars.

Propelled by a pair of solid rocket boosters, four space shuttle-era rocket engines and an upper stage derived from the Delta 4 launcher, the first version of the Space Launch System will stand 321 feet tall and blast off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The SLS will produce 8.4 million pounds of thrust at liftoff — more power than any launcher since the Soviet Union’s ill-fated N1 moon rocket

Its first test flight is scheduled for 2018, when it will dispatch an uncrewed Orion capsule on a 25-day mission to lunar orbit and back to Earth. A flight around the moon with astronauts is scheduled to follow in 2021.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #144 on: July 26, 2015, 04:33:07 pm »
"NASA nears milestone approval for its new Space Launch System"
By Lee Roop | lroop@al.com

Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, updated July 24, 2015 at 9:21 AM

Source:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/07/nasa_nears_milestone_approval.html


Quote
NASA's Space Launch System – the agency's first new deep-space rocket in 40 years - is  nearing a critical milestone on its way to a first launch in 2018. The rocket's critical design review team has completed an 11-week-long review at Huntsville's Marshall Space Flight Center of the system's design and development.

Thirteen teams, including representatives from other NASA field centers, reviewed more than 1,000 files as part the critical design review. Still to come is a pass of that review by an independent board and briefings for Marshall leaders and NASA leaders in Washington. If final CDR approval comes by the end of September, as expected, NASA will move forward on full-scale building of the rocket. It is already building parts.

'Exciting time for NASA, nation'

"Critical design review represents a major commitment by the agency to human exploration," SLS program manager Todd May said in a statement, "and through these reviews, we ensure the SLS design is on track to being a safe, sustainable and evolvable launch vehicle that will meet the agency's goals and missions.

"It's an exciting time for NASA and our nation," May continued, "as we prepare to go to places in deep space that we've never been before."

The design being reviewed is for the first of three versions of SLS known as SLS Block 1. It will be 322 feet tall, weigh 5.5 million pounds and have 8.4 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. It will be able to carry 70 metric tons – 154, 000 pounds – of cargo.

The system's first mission is to launch an uncrewed Orion spacecraft in what will be the first test of the rocket-spacecraft system before a crew climbs aboard. That first launch is targeted for 2018.

Independent review comes next

The review team has turned its work over to the independent Standing Review Board. That board can confirm or reject the team's findings.

 "Much of the benefit of this review is what we do to prepare for it because that's where we really bring things out," Jim Reuter, head of the Standing Review Board, said today. "And you can tell it in the spirit of the people here. They are excited about what they're doing. They can see that this is the review that's going to make it real."

The Orion spacecraft program and the Ground Systems Development Office at Kennedy Space Center in Florida face similar reviews this year. After they're done, NASA will set a date for the first launch called Exploration Mission-1 or EM-1.

"We've nailed our review schedules," said Garry Lyles, chief engineer for the SLS Program Office at the Marshall Center. "The team is performing at a really high level. And I'm unbelievably positive in the structural robustness of this vehicle; it has tremendous performance. We've picked the right vehicle for the journey to Mars."

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #147 on: January 12, 2016, 10:57:12 am »
That is Orion and not SLS

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #148 on: January 12, 2016, 03:40:50 pm »
That is Orion and not SLS

There are closely linked, to the point where you can't really have one without the other.
To the Stars

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #149 on: January 14, 2016, 06:06:52 am »
That is Orion and not SLS

There are closely linked, to the point where you can't really have one without the other.

Orion flew on Delta IV and SLS can fly and will without Orion.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #150 on: January 14, 2016, 09:20:11 am »
The electrons are free, there's no separate Orion thread, and these two subjects can live together here in perfect harmony, like peanut butter and chocolate, Shields and Yarnell, Bert and Ernie.


Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #152 on: February 05, 2016, 10:50:50 am »
Via the Vocativ blog:
To the Stars

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #153 on: February 05, 2016, 04:04:45 pm »
So, NASA comes up with a way of tossing perfectly good engines into the ocean. Works Project for GS-20's. Nice. My tax dollars at work. I don't see SLS moving the ball forward much (space fairing Nation wise).

Thank God for the Jim Barns' of the world. With them we have a chance of getting off this dirt-ball, in mass. They'll do it better than NASA, and at the same time making money as they do it -- not sucking tax dollars for outdated, inefficient lifters only good for for one-way trips.

The ESA, Russia and the other players are reluctantly looking seriously at the paradigm shift -- some have initiated programs. When's NASA going to wake up? I don't accept our Shuttle system as an efficient representation of re-usable hardware.

IF Musk and Bezos can keep their refurbishment costs low enough, and they can get reasonable cycle-life out of their lifters, then it seems propulsive landing of vehicles is the best means of re-use.

Falcon-heavy and the SLS are in the same class, right? If not, BFR is only a few years away. I suggest we hang fire on the SLS and leave those warehoused SSME's be. We've demonstrated that solids and humans don't mix. What the hell are we doing?

David
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 04:17:20 pm by merriman »
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #154 on: February 05, 2016, 04:20:41 pm »
Falcon-heavy and the SLS are in the same class, right? If not, BFR is only a few years away. I suggest we hang fire on the SLS and leave those warehoused SSME's be. We've demonstrated that solids and humans don't mix. What the hell are we doing?

David

Falcon Heavy is only about 1/2 - 1/3 of an SLS.  Solids and humans don't mix?  Uhm, wut?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #155 on: February 05, 2016, 06:43:00 pm »
Challenger

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 578
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #156 on: February 05, 2016, 09:38:57 pm »
There was a lot more to that accident than the type of booster, and had the STS been equipped with a launch escape system the tragedy might have been greatly reduced. Orion is being designed with a LAS, as are the commercial vehicles for that matter.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #157 on: February 05, 2016, 10:53:51 pm »
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #158 on: February 06, 2016, 06:19:47 am »
Yes. 1986.

Does time attenuate fact? Are you suggesting that The Great Chicago Fire is, today, not so 'great' because it happened so, so long ago?

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #159 on: February 06, 2016, 06:50:47 am »
Falcon Heavy is only about 1/2 - 1/3 of an SLS.

SLS is only going to be about 70 metric tonnes (Block I), unless lots of expensive upgrades are funded for continued block development; like Block IB's EUS, which would bring it up to 105~ mt.

FH initially was about 50 mt, but some rumors indicate it may be now 60 mt after various upgrades over the years to the F9 cores (v1.0 to 1.1 to Full Thrust).

Falcon Heavy might cost $100-150 million to launch (who knows at this point); while SLS conservatively would cost between $500m and $1B to launch.

At this point, things are starting to swing to SpaceX, as they've done things thought "impossible", like recovering a spent first stage via retropulsive flyback; so their "believability quotient" has gone up versus what it was when they initially started Falcon Heavy.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 07:08:06 am by RyanCrierie »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #160 on: February 06, 2016, 08:08:42 am »
Challenger

David

Wow, so ONE failure qualifies as "never do it again"?  I guess you walk everywhere then right?  I mean people have died in cars, planes, trains, ships, you name it.  Clearly they're not to be trusted. Furthermore, the failure wasn't a technological one, it was a human one.  They "put on their manager hats" and decided to launch anyway against the recommendation of the engineers.  Now if you'd said, "rough ride" you might have been onto something.  (Interior footage of launch with the astronauts bouncing around like bugs in a jar while the boosters are firing and suddenly goes to Bentley-smooth once they're under liquid only. )
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 08:12:33 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #161 on: February 06, 2016, 08:11:37 am »
Falcon Heavy is only about 1/2 - 1/3 of an SLS.

SLS is only going to be about 70 metric tonnes (Block I), unless lots of expensive upgrades are funded for continued block development; like Block IB's EUS, which would bring it up to 105~ mt.

FH initially was about 50 mt, but some rumors indicate it may be now 60 mt after various upgrades over the years to the F9 cores (v1.0 to 1.1 to Full Thrust).

Falcon Heavy might cost $100-150 million to launch (who knows at this point); while SLS conservatively would cost between $500m and $1B to launch.

At this point, things are starting to swing to SpaceX, as they've done things thought "impossible", like recovering a spent first stage via retropulsive flyback; so their "believability quotient" has gone up versus what it was when they initially started Falcon Heavy.

Thought I saw 150 tons somewhere but that might have been for the previous iteration, that was cancelled.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #162 on: February 06, 2016, 08:44:15 am »
130+ tons is with the following upgrades:

EUS (Exploration Upper Stage) -- this is funded and under development for SLS Block 1B, which will fly EM-2. Could be cancelled between now and 202x.

Advanced Boosters (Solid or liquid) For Block 2 onwards.

They should just have gone with the kerolox Saturn V style inline back in 2011; but oh well.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #163 on: February 06, 2016, 08:47:21 am »
Yes. 1986.

Does time attenuate fact? Are you suggesting that The Great Chicago Fire is, today, not so 'great' because it happened so, so long ago?

David
Please your comment was not 'just' to reflect on the Challenger disaster it was to make a 'judgement' that solid rockets are incompatible with manned space flight.

Have fire code regulations and material technologies and firefighting techniques and technologies changed since the Great Chicago fire? Has there been other major city fire disasters on the scale of the Chicago fire?

Your statement about Challenger would be the same as if you said "Because of the Chicago fire we shouldn't build or live in any large cities" disasters just waiting to happen. Silly comparison isn't it?
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #164 on: February 06, 2016, 08:50:34 am »
It's not just that, but solids impose a huge fixed load onto facilities -- for example, you have to treat them as LOADED explosives all the way through processing and launch -- this places limitations on what you can use / put into the VAB, for example.

Plus, solids are pre-loaded, which places great stress onto the crawler-transporter which has to move the fully loaded mass to LC-39; as opposed to a liquid rocket, which can be moved empty, and fuelled on the pad.

These aren't major problems with the smaller SRBs used by Atlas V and Delta II, but become serious with the huge ones used by STS/SLS.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 08:54:33 am by RyanCrierie »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #165 on: February 06, 2016, 08:53:36 am »
It's not just that, but solids impose a huge fixed load onto facilities -- for example, you have to treat them as LOADED explosives all the way through processing and launch -- this places limitations on what you can use / put into the VAB, for example.

Plus, solids are pre-loaded, which places great stress onto the crawler-transporter which has to move the fully loaded mass to LC-39; as opposed to a liquid rocket, which can be moved empty, and fuelled on the pad.
So then what are the advantages of solid rockets? Why would NASA persist in using them if liquid boosters would be such a easy improvement?
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #166 on: February 06, 2016, 09:10:22 am »
So then what are the advantages of solid rockets?

Supposedly shares infrastructure costs with ICBM program, allowing cheap thrust. Not much of an issue anymore with our present ICBM/SLBM program.

Why would NASA persist in using them if liquid boosters would be such a easy improvement?

SLS is essentially a jobs program now, to be honest, as we grind on year after year with no launch in sight. For something that was supposed to use "off the shelf" components; it's taken an awful long time to develop.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #167 on: February 06, 2016, 09:41:51 am »
So then what are the advantages of solid rockets?

Supposedly shares infrastructure costs with ICBM program, allowing cheap thrust. Not much of an issue anymore with our present ICBM/SLBM program.

Why would NASA persist in using them if liquid boosters would be such a easy improvement?

SLS is essentially a jobs program now, to be honest, as we grind on year after year with no launch in sight. For something that was supposed to use "off the shelf" components; it's taken an awful long time to develop.

Sad that it's taking longer to do the SLS with "off the shelf parts" than the original Apollo program.  ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #168 on: February 06, 2016, 09:57:36 am »
It's not just that, but solids impose a huge fixed load onto facilities -- for example, you have to treat them as LOADED explosives all the way through processing and launch -- this places limitations on what you can use / put into the VAB, for example.

Plus, solids are pre-loaded, which places great stress onto the crawler-transporter which has to move the fully loaded mass to LC-39; as opposed to a liquid rocket, which can be moved empty, and fuelled on the pad.

These aren't major problems with the smaller SRBs used by Atlas V and Delta II, but become serious with the huge ones used by STS/SLS.

IIRC that was one strike against the Ares V.  Too heavy for the crawler.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 578
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #169 on: February 06, 2016, 03:04:36 pm »
They should just have gone with the kerolox Saturn V style inline back in 2011; but oh well.
They tried, Congress torpedoed the idea because it wasn't close enough to STS for them.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #170 on: February 06, 2016, 04:47:06 pm »
It's interesting to go back to the first posts in this thread c. 2011 and consider what's happened since then:

Back then, Falcon 9 v1.0 had flown just twice; and the Dragon just once, where the Dragon did nothing but float around and validate various data before re-entering.

Since then, we've had Space X retire the Falcon 1.0 after five launches for the Falcon 1.1, put up six straight CRS successes before CRS-7 blew up; return to flight following the CRS-7 failure, introduce the Falcon 1.1 FT, and conduct a two year campaign (2013-2015) to return to earth a flown booster stage following a successful orbital launch.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #171 on: February 06, 2016, 04:55:31 pm »
But a kerosene (RP-1) powered first stage was never an option for a bunch of reasons, including the fact that the pads have hydrogen plumbing but have not had kerosene plumbing since the 1970s, so choosing a kerosene engine would have required even more ground infrastructure changes.

Saturn V RP-1 plumbing was abandoned in place, not torn out.

The RAC-2 RP-1 launcher(s) won on economics and performance, but politics dictated RAC-1 Shuttle "Derived" had to win.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013881.pdf
RAC-2


Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 785
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #173 on: February 07, 2016, 12:43:00 pm »
Falcon-heavy and the SLS are in the same class, right? If not, BFR is only a few years away. I suggest we hang fire on the SLS and leave those warehoused SSME's be. We've demonstrated that solids and humans don't mix. What the hell are we doing?

David

Falcon Heavy is only about 1/2 - 1/3 of an SLS.  Solids and humans don't mix?  Uhm, wut?

53mT as on their site is an unchanged figure from 2011. Since then F9 is now able to lift more than 2 times to orbit vs v1.0 and hence 53mT is waaay lowballed for FH. It should be very fairly close (within 10-20%) of SLS Block 1 now. But LEO figures is not what matters here - SLS has by far higher performance upper stage.

Price for expendable FH was quoted as 135mil on their site previously but that figure is now removed, the price is likely to be between 135-150mil. Supposedly we might see updated FH data next week.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline libs0n

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 1
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #174 on: February 07, 2016, 09:30:54 pm »

1. Fuel switch at the pad isn't a big deal.  SpaceX is going to launch a kerosene vehicle from the other Shuttle pad and they sure as hell aren't spending what SLS is getting every year for ground ops.

ULA will also add methane supply to the pad they will launch Vulcan from.

2. Part of the plans in the Obama space policy of FY2011 saw the funding of a large hydrocarbon booster engine, aka an RD-180 replacement.  It would have been eligible for HLV designs in their 2015 HLV design selection date.  SLS displaced Obama's space program plan.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 07:35:47 pm by libs0n »

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 750
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #175 on: February 08, 2016, 07:24:20 am »
SLS development cost:  $10Billion (just the booster).  All tax paid.  Each launch costs between $1Billion - $2Billion.

Falcon Heavy cost:  zero (funded out of Spacex private R&D).

If SLS were privately funded I would be rooting for them but skeptical of their business plan.


Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #176 on: February 09, 2016, 01:16:22 pm »
But as you note, payload to LEO is not the relevant measure, and I think somebody calculated that SLS can throw something like 4-5 times beyond LEO.

50 to 60 metric tons is a pretty powerful Earth Departure Stage; and even if Falcon Heavy still ends up costing $200m a launch, it's still going to be significantly cheaper than SLS, allowing Earth Orbit Rendezvous missions.

Quote
We'll get the new specs soon, but Falcon Heavy is the fanboy's favorite paper rocket, because they always assume the most optimistic aspects about it and disregard the rest. (I haven't seen anybody who makes a big deal out of SLS launch date slippage mentioning that FH was supposed to be flying three years ago).

SLS was to use "proven" shuttle technology, and was nothing special sizewise for the big primes who after all, have been building SLS-sized rockets since 1966; with a brief interruption from 1970ish to 1981. So why is it taking so long to get it to launch; particularly after it had been cut down to using off the shelf parts wherever possible (Delta IV upper stage, final flight STS SSMEs, left over SRB segments remanufactured from STS, etc) and prolonging all new stuff like advanced boosters and EUS to well into the 2020s?

By contrast, SpaceX took only about two years to accomplish the impossible, landing a booster stage on a landing pad after an orbital launch.

EDIT: Yes, I know rockets aren't legos; they had to do a bit of work on the SSMEs due to the increased head pressure from SLS' core stage being significantly taller than the STS ET...
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 02:53:07 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 772
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #177 on: February 10, 2016, 12:13:24 pm »
I know I probably do sound like a SpaceX fanboy, but right now as of early 2016; their claims for Falcon Heavy are looking much more credible than they did back in 2011; when they were still a NuSpace upstart with very little booked feats to their name.

Now; they're pretty much one of the leading LPRE facilities in the world -- their own website makes the point clear:

To date, eighty Merlin 1Ds have launched, exceeding the propulsion heritage of the RS-68/68A engine (41 flown) on the Delta and the RD-180 engine (55 flown) on Atlas variants.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #178 on: February 14, 2016, 07:45:05 pm »
So then what are the advantages of solid rockets?

Supposedly shares infrastructure costs with ICBM program, allowing cheap thrust. Not much of an issue anymore with our present ICBM/SLBM program.

Why would NASA persist in using them if liquid boosters would be such a easy improvement?

SLS is essentially a jobs program now, to be honest, as we grind on year after year with no launch in sight. For something that was supposed to use "off the shelf" components; it's taken an awful long time to develop.

Sad that it's taking longer to do the SLS with "off the shelf parts" than the original Apollo program.  ::)

Absolutely...

All the decisions that have been made with respect to rocket design selection, re-use of 'existing parts', etc. have all been POLITICALLY mandated, not decided by good engineering...

SLS is a jobs program designed to keep the main shuttle contractors happy, nothing more.  The main beneficiary is ATK for their solid boosters...

Later!  OL J R :)

Offline luke strawwalker

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #179 on: February 14, 2016, 07:48:03 pm »
They should just have gone with the kerolox Saturn V style inline back in 2011; but oh well.
They tried, Congress torpedoed the idea because it wasn't close enough to STS for them.

Because it wouldn't reward ATK with huge contracts for their solid boosters, which in fact will be flown in EXPENDABLE mode and allowed to impact and sink after every flight now, instead of being recovered and reused as they were in the Shuttle program... eventually necessitating the rewarding of a huge new development contract to ATK to develop advanced throw-away boosters with expendable composite casings. 

It's all about the politics, NOT the engineering... Why I've come to consider NASA's manned space program something of a joke... a very expensive bad joke, but a joke nonetheless... it's a political animal, nothing more. 

Later!  OL J R :)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 750
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #181 on: February 16, 2016, 04:24:01 am »
It’s big and impressive but what are we going to do with it?  Going to Mars with our current economy is politically improbable.  Going to the moon can’t generate or sustain a significant level of support and would still be exceedingly expensive if carried out in the normal NASA process.  Capturing asteroids has failed to capture imaginations.  What would be done in near Earth space that couldn’t be done significantly cheaper with smaller boosters?  Using a monster rocket to launch cubesats invites ridicule (whether or not it’s merited).  If a giant booster could reduce payload costs to $100/lb then you could open up the potential of creating/servicing a space tourism business but even at just $1Billion per launch (it’s probably higher) this would work out to $7100/lb.  It won’t happen but my preference would be to terminate NASA’s manned spaceflight program and replace it with a single mission of pursuing all possible technologies that significantly reduce launch costs to a level that enables mass access to space.  It would be interesting to "poll test" this idea so some politician might think about it.

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #182 on: February 16, 2016, 05:57:16 am »
If only NASA had stuck with the NACA mission -- comprehensive aero(space) research. Government built the infrastructure (wind tunnels, test stands, university grants, etc.) and defined areas of scientific investigation. Nothing else. Where's Vannevar Bush when you need him!

Once NASA got into the spacecraft production and launch business this government agency was doomed to die at the hands of the self-serving political 'leaders' and bureaucracy. An agency that puts 'safe' and job security ahead of progress. Today NASA is a magnificent white-collar government works program; welfare for accomplished, uninspired drones.

Not so with profit oriented spacecraft builders and operators (however, I choke back a primal scream as I remind myself of the attenuating 'work' the crony capitalists -- the 'legacy' space contractors -- have done). Look at the age and enthusiasm of the start-up rocket guys. Now, take a look at a group photo of NASA administrators and 'researchers' -- bunch of old guys in suits more worried about job retention than advancement of the craft.

NASA. Practitioners of the old rocket-as-expendable-ammunition school (The agencies brief embrace of Shuttle a bust). Once on the public dole it's much easier to embrace the tired and true and not expose yourself by engaging in daring, adventurous activity.

David

We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #183 on: February 16, 2016, 07:33:06 am »
1.  If only NASA had stuck with the NACA mission -- comprehensive aero(space) research. Government built the infrastructure (wind tunnels, test stands, university grants, etc.) and defined areas of scientific investigation. Nothing else. Where's Vannevar Bush when you need him!

2.  Once NASA got into the spacecraft production and launch business this government agency was doomed to die at the hands of the self-serving political 'leaders' and bureaucracy. An agency that puts 'safe' and job security ahead of progress. Today NASA is a magnificent white-collar government works program; welfare for accomplished, uninspired drones.

3.  Not so with profit oriented spacecraft builders and operators (however, I choke back a primal scream as I remind myself of the attenuating 'work' the crony capitalists -- the 'legacy' space contractors -- have done). Look at the age and enthusiasm of the start-up rocket guys. Now, take a look at a group photo of NASA administrators and 'researchers' -- bunch of old guys in suits more worried about job retention than advancement of the craft.

4.  NASA. Practitioners of the old rocket-as-expendable-ammunition school (The agencies brief embrace of Shuttle a bust). Once on the public dole it's much easier to embrace the tired and true and not expose yourself by engaging in daring, adventurous activity.


Nonsense.  NASA =/ SLS
The post is nothing but an idiotic rant.

1.   And we would be way behind.  NASA enabled many of the space systems used today.  Spacex wouldn't exist except for NASA

2. Back off!  You really don't know what you are talking about.  As for wide sweeping stereotypes there are many when it comes to submariners that are more true.

3.  Commercial operations have no need for scientific spacecraft, so how would space exploration be done?

4.  Launch vehicle reuse has yet to be proven as cost effective.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2016, 07:50:23 am by Byeman »

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #184 on: February 16, 2016, 07:43:55 am »
duplicate

Online merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #185 on: February 16, 2016, 09:33:25 am »
Great, got my own personal stalker. Neat! Welcome aboard my fan-base, pal. Kisses.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #186 on: February 16, 2016, 09:56:46 am »
Great, got my own personal stalker. Neat! Welcome aboard my fan-base, pal. Kisses.


Has nothing to do with "stalking", it was just a simple google search on your name and third hit was sub drivers forum.  What did you expect, especially when your statements are unsubstantiated?   But then again, it is all about the kisses for you submariners.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2016, 10:04:20 am by Byeman »

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #187 on: February 23, 2016, 11:51:23 am »
Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) and Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) are the only manned missions for Orion/SLS in 2020s decade? And if yes, can this space system be sustainable with a fly rate so low?

(Which mission, and when after ARM?)

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 578
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #188 on: February 24, 2016, 10:03:42 am »
Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) and Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) are the only manned missions for Orion/SLS in 2020s decade? And if yes, can this space system be sustainable with a fly rate so low?

(Which mission, and when after ARM?)
Over at NSF they're discussing internal discussions (yes, that's a weird sentence) going on at NASA to fill out the SLS manifest with unmanned launches. A flight rate of 1 SLS a year is painfully low but would probably keep the booster viable for the whole decade.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #189 on: February 24, 2016, 03:19:24 pm »
Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) and Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM) are the only manned missions for Orion/SLS in 2020s decade? And if yes, can this space system be sustainable with a fly rate so low?

Considering that the 2020s are still a few years away, I think it's premature to act as if we know--or if NASA is expected to know--just how much it will do in the 2020s. We cannot predict the entire decade at this point.





Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #191 on: April 10, 2016, 03:14:13 pm »
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #193 on: May 23, 2016, 03:18:03 pm »
To the Stars

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #194 on: May 23, 2016, 04:02:43 pm »
From Ars Technica, via Slashdot: Forget the asteroid mission and go to the Moon, lawmakers tell NASA
Pardon my cynicism with respect to the current administration's posture regarding manned exploration, but I have always thought the asteroid mission and the stated goal of skipping the Moon for manned flights to Mars was simply a way for them not to commit any money beyond the bare-minimum to manned exploration.

The asteroid mission serving the purpose of a seemingly lofty goal - that came with the added benefit of not requiring the development any new flight hardware and infrastructure beyond that already being developed for Orion/SLS. Then the Mars program being the "bridge too far" that would solely exist in the form of PowerPoint and through the sound of lip-service.

We've been to the Moon. We have a good idea of all the additional hardware and infrastructure required to develop a robust Moon exploration program because of our prior experience. Which is exactly why I think this administration put the kibosh on the Constellation program. That money could be used to enrich the administration's constituency, and pie-in-the-sky "goals" that replaced Constellation cost nothing more than words.

Again, pardon my cynicism.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #195 on: May 24, 2016, 02:55:51 am »
Again, pardon my cynicism.

No apologies necessary, in fact it's well justified I fear.
To the Stars

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #196 on: May 24, 2016, 05:00:21 am »
Again, pardon my cynicism.

No apologies necessary, in fact it's well justified I fear.

Competely.  I still haven't heard a compelling case for cancelling Ares only to recreate it (with years and billions wasted) and calling it "SLS". 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 578
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #197 on: May 24, 2016, 06:39:16 am »
Again, pardon my cynicism.

No apologies necessary, in fact it's well justified I fear.

Competely.  I still haven't heard a compelling case for cancelling Ares only to recreate it (with years and billions wasted) and calling it "SLS".
It was never planned for that to happen, the Administration and NASA leadership didn't plan for the new Launcher to just be "An Ares by any other name" when they killed A-I and A-V. If they had known that Congress would take a "thou shalt use SRBs and HydroLox and thou shall not compete these contracts" hard line, they probably would simply have gone with "Area V Lite" and called it a day.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #198 on: May 25, 2016, 06:17:05 am »
From Ars Technica, via Slashdot: Forget the asteroid mission and go to the Moon, lawmakers tell NASA
Pardon my cynicism with respect to the current administration's posture regarding manned exploration, but I have always thought the asteroid mission and the stated goal of skipping the Moon for manned flights to Mars was simply a way for them not to commit any money beyond the bare-minimum to manned exploration.

The asteroid mission serving the purpose of a seemingly lofty goal - that came with the added benefit of not requiring the development any new flight hardware and infrastructure beyond that already being developed for Orion/SLS. Then the Mars program being the "bridge too far" that would solely exist in the form of PowerPoint and through the sound of lip-service.

We've been to the Moon. We have a good idea of all the additional hardware and infrastructure required to develop a robust Moon exploration program because of our prior experience. Which is exactly why I think this administration put the kibosh on the Constellation program. That money could be used to enrich the administration's constituency, and pie-in-the-sky "goals" that replaced Constellation cost nothing more than words.

Again, pardon my cynicism.

Oh, it's way beyond that--but you're in the right ballpark. I know various people on the edge of involvement with this who confirmed that the decision was not made with the input of any of NASA's in-house expertise. I'm pretty convinced that it was a PR exercise so that they could claim that they were pursuing a mission without actually doing it. They were not willing to spend the money up-front that was required (for instance, a better asteroid survey, which all the experts told them was needed to identify potential targets).

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #202 on: February 22, 2017, 09:04:18 am »
Here's a decent explanation of the feasibility study:

http://exploredeepspace.com/news/to-crew-or-not-to-crew/


Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #203 on: February 27, 2017, 03:31:12 pm »
Here's a decent explanation of the feasibility study:

http://exploredeepspace.com/news/to-crew-or-not-to-crew/

Looks like Space-X is trying to beat them to the punch:

Two people have paid "significant" deposits to make a weeklong circumlunar flight aboard an automated Dragon next year: http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year
To the Stars

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #204 on: March 03, 2017, 01:27:06 pm »
To the Stars

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #205 on: March 03, 2017, 02:05:45 pm »
Looks like Space-X is trying to beat them to the punch:



Yeah, but I think this announcement is more about politics than anything else. SpaceX wanted to remind the decision makers in the White House and OMB and Congress that they could do this much cheaper--and they claim, faster.

The problem is that it still begs the question of what NASA actually wants to do beyond low Earth orbit. The SLS/Orion circumlunar flight is supposed to prove the capability, not be an end goal in itself. But NASA doesn't really have an end goal for human spaceflight anymore.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #206 on: March 07, 2017, 05:32:56 am »
I don't really bet beyond the British National Lottery, but I wonder who would be the first to go beyond the asteroid belt?  NASA with the SLS or SpaceX with the Falcon Heavy?

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #207 on: March 07, 2017, 10:23:14 am »
I don't really bet beyond the British National Lottery, but I wonder who would be the first to go beyond the asteroid belt?  NASA with the SLS or SpaceX with the Falcon Heavy?

The asteroid belt? That's pretty far. NASA has done it a number of times:

Pioneer 10 and 11
Voyager 1 and 2
Galileo
Cassini
New Horizons

And nobody throws a rocket that far, only a payload on top of a rocket. Maybe someday NASA pays SpaceX to throw a payload using the Falcon Heavy, but why would that be all that notable? It's like caring what kind of truck brings the Amazon package to your door.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2116
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #208 on: March 07, 2017, 10:37:29 am »
I don't really bet beyond the British National Lottery, but I wonder who would be the first to go beyond the asteroid belt?  NASA with the SLS or SpaceX with the Falcon Heavy?

The asteroid belt? That's pretty far. NASA has done it a number of times:

Pioneer 10 and 11
Voyager 1 and 2
Galileo
Cassini
New Horizons

And nobody throws a rocket that far, only a payload on top of a rocket. Maybe someday NASA pays SpaceX to throw a payload using the Falcon Heavy, but why would that be all that notable? It's like caring what kind of truck brings the Amazon package to your door.

NASA was talking about a manned asteroid rendezvous mission, but that was for a near-Earth asteroid, not one out in the belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Mission_2

Of course, NASA's mission was premised on a successful Asteroid Redirect Mission first, which seems pretty unlikely in the near term.

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

It all comes down to the fact that NASA doesn't have a single specific agenda for manned deep-space missions, so they are kind of grasping at straws to find interesting things to do.


Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #209 on: March 07, 2017, 10:38:16 am »
I meant to say to the asteroid belt not beyond.  :o  :-[

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1597
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #210 on: March 07, 2017, 11:39:49 am »
NASA already has the Dawn spacecraft orbiting minor planet Ceres in the asteroid belt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#/media/File:Ceres_Orbit.svg

NASA also has another mission, Psyche, in development to go to the asteroid belt.


Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #212 on: March 19, 2017, 07:31:45 am »
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Trumps_budget_would_cut_NASA_asteroid_mission_earth_science_999.html

"The proposal "focuses the nation's efforts on deep space exploration rather than Earth-centric research," it said."

Sounds good to me.  The asteroid mission will come back when it makes sense.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #213 on: March 19, 2017, 08:54:00 am »
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Trumps_budget_would_cut_NASA_asteroid_mission_earth_science_999.html

"The proposal "focuses the nation's efforts on deep space exploration rather than Earth-centric research," it said."

Sounds good to me.  The asteroid mission will come back when it makes sense.
We need to get off the planet with permanent space colonies (we are too vulnerable alone on this blue marble) Moon, Mars that should be #1 focus IMHO.
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #214 on: March 20, 2017, 07:30:12 am »

We need to get off the planet with permanent space colonies (we are too vulnerable alone on this blue marble) Moon, Mars that should be #1 focus IMHO.

Fine, not with US gov't money.  Let those individuals who wish to contribute, do it separately.  Set up a NGO or company to do it.

permanent space colonies will be of little benefit to the US gov't and its citizens. Especially, when the residents of such colonies are no longer citizens the mother country.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #215 on: March 20, 2017, 08:28:16 am »

permanent space colonies will be of little benefit to the US gov't and its citizens. Especially, when the residents of such colonies are no longer citizens the mother country.

This is of course untrue. Militarily, industrially and culturally, offworld colonies done right (permanent, aimed at self-sufficiency, and large scale) would provide immense benefits for the sponsoring country. And, sure, someday those colonies will become their own nations. Would the US be better off if the Moon becomes "the nation Luna, formerly the US colony Luna" than if the nation of Luna is formerly a *Chinese* or *Russian* colony?

As with colonies in the "New World," the mere existence of distant offworld colonies will provide *all* kinds of benefits for the homeland. People living on Ceres, for example, will be interested in advanced propulsion systems and nuclear explosives in a way that the people back on Earth won't be. So when a comet is detected heading towards Central Park, who's going to have the tech to deal with it? And once again... will the US government be better off if those Cerean colonists speak some language other than English and have no allegiance to the US?

The US government *should* be devoting one percent of the federal budget specifically to exploring, claiming, colonizing and exploiting every single accessible corner of the solar system. There's no good reason why, centuries from now, "the United States" can't be spread from inside the orbit of Mercury to the Oort cloud and beyond. If interstellar travel ever becomes practical, there's no reason why the US flag can't replace those fifty stars with a stylized galaxy. Would you rather have the United Federation of Planets be based on  the US Constitution, or the dictats of the Holy Russian Putinate, or the fatwas of the Interstellar Caliphate?
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #216 on: March 21, 2017, 01:15:27 pm »

This is of course untrue. Militarily, industrially and culturally, offworld colonies done right (permanent, aimed at self-sufficiency, and large scale) would provide immense benefits for the sponsoring country.

That is even more untrue.  There are no resource on the moon or Mars of benefit to earth unlike colonies of the past.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #217 on: March 21, 2017, 01:16:54 pm »

The US government *should* be devoting one percent of the federal budget specifically to exploring, claiming, colonizing and exploiting every single accessible corner of the solar system. There's no good reason why, centuries from now, "the United States" can't be spread from inside the orbit of Mercury to the Oort cloud and beyond. If interstellar travel ever becomes practical, there's no reason why the US flag can't replace those fifty stars with a stylized galaxy. Would you rather have the United Federation of Planets be based on  the US Constitution, or the dictats of the Holy Russian Putinate, or the fatwas of the Interstellar Caliphate?

Wrong again.  Manifest Destiny is no longer a relevant belief and not even a consideration.  Even most flyover citizens don't believe that.
And the US government should not be spend any money on colonization
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 01:25:12 pm by Byeman »

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #218 on: March 21, 2017, 01:44:13 pm »

This is of course untrue. Militarily, industrially and culturally, offworld colonies done right (permanent, aimed at self-sufficiency, and large scale) would provide immense benefits for the sponsoring country.

That is even more untrue.  There are no resource on the moon or Mars of benefit to earth unlike colonies of the past.

Wow. Just... wow. Let me put it plainly: you are entirely wrong. Even if Mars was made entirely of dirt bought at Home Depot and had precisely zero potential for scientific discoveries, the simple fact that there would be people living across the solar system would provide *immediate* economic, social and scientific benefits. Every piece of technology the Martians develop to make their lives better on Mars would have application on Earth. Every bit of propulsion technology developed to make transport too and from easier, safer, more economical would provide materials and power utility on Earth. The knowledge that their are people like out Out There would provide incalculable social benefits.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #219 on: March 21, 2017, 01:52:42 pm »

 Manifest Destiny is no longer a relevant belief

Of course it's not. The western frontier closed in the 1890's; at that point there was nowhere left. But *now* we have the potential for a brand new essentially *infinite* frontier. Manifest Destiny can AND SHOULD make a roaring comeback.



Quote
And the US government should not be spend any money on colonization

Opinion. A wrong opinion, sad, small minded and doomed to extinction, but opinion nonetheless.

Consider two cultures, A and B. Culture A decides that there's nothing to be gained by colonizing the universe. Culture B decides otherwise. Culture B expends it's treasure to do so, scrabbling and scratching. For decades it has little to show, but after a generation or two it has figured it out. After three or four generations it has a foothold on a few planets and asteroids. A few more generations it has well established colonies on dozens of worlds. A few more generations, it has expanded to the Oort cloud. A few more generations it has reached the nearest star and begins the process over again. In all that time, Culture A has smugly held to the belief that "Manifest Destiny" is a relic of the past.

When the stars belong to Culture B, when it's population is measured in quadrillions... of what relevance will Culture A be?
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #220 on: March 21, 2017, 02:19:39 pm »

 Manifest Destiny is no longer a relevant belief

Of course it's not. The western frontier closed in the 1890's; at that point there was nowhere left. But *now* we have the potential for a brand new essentially *infinite* frontier. Manifest Destiny can AND SHOULD make a roaring comeback.



Quote
And the US government should not be spend any money on colonization

Opinion. A wrong opinion, sad, small minded and doomed to extinction, but opinion nonetheless.

Consider two cultures, A and B. Culture A decides that there's nothing to be gained by colonizing the universe. Culture B decides otherwise. Culture B expends it's treasure to do so, scrabbling and scratching. For decades it has little to show, but after a generation or two it has figured it out. After three or four generations it has a foothold on a few planets and asteroids. A few more generations it has well established colonies on dozens of worlds. A few more generations, it has expanded to the Oort cloud. A few more generations it has reached the nearest star and begins the process over again. In all that time, Culture A has smugly held to the belief that "Manifest Destiny" is a relic of the past.

When the stars belong to Culture B, when it's population is measured in quadrillions... of what relevance will Culture A be?

Thanks OBB succinct and brilliant as usual.
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #221 on: March 21, 2017, 05:02:23 pm »

Thanks OBB succinct and brilliant as usual.

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3510
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #222 on: March 22, 2017, 02:11:18 am »
Quote
Thanks OBB succinct and brilliant as usual.

Yes, He's is right,
The current Space Race  are not about competition between USA, China or Russia and India
it's about SpaceX and Blue Origins plans for Solar system
If they they manage there Goals, like colonizing Mars and permanent Settlement on Moon, they are Culture B

The Classical national states become Culture A...

The Sci-fi manga series "Battle Angel Alita" by Yukito Kishiro, give quite excellent impression of such a Future
Earth is a Mad Max kind junkyard for the highly Industrialized Solar System...
highly recommended reading !
I love Strange Technology

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #223 on: March 22, 2017, 05:04:45 am »

 Manifest Destiny is no longer a relevant belief

Of course it's not. The western frontier closed in the 1890's; at that point there was nowhere left. But *now* we have the potential for a brand new essentially *infinite* frontier. Manifest Destiny can AND SHOULD make a roaring comeback.



Quote
And the US government should not be spend any money on colonization

Opinion. A wrong opinion, sad, small minded and doomed to extinction, but opinion nonetheless.

Consider two cultures, A and B. Culture A decides that there's nothing to be gained by colonizing the universe. Culture B decides otherwise. Culture B expends it's treasure to do so, scrabbling and scratching. For decades it has little to show, but after a generation or two it has figured it out. After three or four generations it has a foothold on a few planets and asteroids. A few more generations it has well established colonies on dozens of worlds. A few more generations, it has expanded to the Oort cloud. A few more generations it has reached the nearest star and begins the process over again. In all that time, Culture A has smugly held to the belief that "Manifest Destiny" is a relic of the past.

When the stars belong to Culture B, when it's population is measured in quadrillions... of what relevance will Culture A be?

Thanks OBB succinct and brilliant as usual.

^--- What he said.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #224 on: March 22, 2017, 06:50:21 am »

Wow. Just... wow. Let me put it plainly: you are entirely wrong. Even if Mars was made entirely of dirt bought at Home Depot and had precisely zero potential for scientific discoveries, the simple fact that there would be people living across the solar system would provide *immediate* economic, social and scientific benefits. Every piece of technology the Martians develop to make their lives better on Mars would have application on Earth. Every bit of propulsion technology developed to make transport too and from easier, safer, more economical would provide materials and power utility on Earth. The knowledge that their are people like out Out There would provide incalculable social benefits.

Wrong again.  Because Mars is made of dirt and will be constant importer of goods, it will be nothing but a drag on the mother country.  And hence because propulsion technology is limited and will take months, it won't really help in creating commerce.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #225 on: March 22, 2017, 06:53:53 am »

Opinion. A wrong opinion, sad, small minded and doomed to extinction, but opinion nonetheless.

[/quote]

Wrong again and shows a sad, small minded person who has a reading comprehensive problem.   I said nothing about humanity.  Only the US government.  Other people and organizations can do what they want.  The job of the US gov't is to take care of it citizens on earth and not elsewhere.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #226 on: March 22, 2017, 08:34:39 am »
  Because Mars is made of dirt and will be constant importer of goods, it will be nothing but a drag on the mother country.

Just like a baby.

Quote
And hence because propulsion technology is limited and will take months, it won't really help in creating commerce.

Yes, because if the Internet has taught us anything, it's that there's no money to be made in anything that can't be shipped in a cardboard box.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #227 on: March 22, 2017, 08:48:30 am »
  The job of the US gov't is to take care of it citizens on earth and not elsewhere.

The job of the US government (Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution) is:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Expanding the United States out into space will provide not only economic and military benefits to the United States (note how there are no physical resources located in LEO to geosynchronous orbit there to ship back to Earth for direct profit, yet nobody seems to complain much that the US government has sent thousands of spacecraft that have benefited the US and its people directly), but will also make the United States virtually *immortal.* Compared to *not* expanding, and thus ensuring that the US sooner or later comes to an end, official US colonization efforts are *clearly* well within the "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" function of the government.

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #228 on: March 22, 2017, 09:21:25 am »

Expanding the United States out into space will provide not only economic and military benefits to the United States (note how there are no physical resources located in LEO to geosynchronous orbit there to ship back to Earth for direct profit, yet nobody seems to complain much that the US government has sent thousands of spacecraft that have benefited the US and its people directly),

Spacecraft are not people

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #229 on: March 22, 2017, 09:23:49 am »

Yes, because if the Internet has taught us anything, it's that there's no money to be made in anything that can't be shipped in a cardboard box.

Thanks, you made my point, if doesn't have quick delivery, it is there is no money in it.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #230 on: March 22, 2017, 02:43:28 pm »

Yes, because if the Internet has taught us anything, it's that there's no money to be made in anything that can't be shipped in a cardboard box.

Thanks, you made my point, if doesn't have quick delivery, it is there is no money in it.

A few points:
1: There are lots of things the US FedGuv is terrible at. Doing things collectively that people can and should do themselves - healthcare, charity, retirement, moral policing and so on - have all been nightmarish unkillable disasters. But there are several things the FedGuv *has* been good at... investment in science, technology and infrastructure primarily. NASA, and the NACA before it, were spectacular aids in developing and driving the aeronautical industry.

2: the Internet: again, it bolsters *my* point. It was a government effort begun in the 1960's. And it wasn't until the 1990's that private industry started making money hand over fist from the internet.

So: history has shown that things can work really, really well when the government is involved in driving technological investment and infrastructure construction. No company would have gone ahead and created the transcontinental railroad, transcontinental air travel or the interstate highway system if the FedGuv wasn't shoveling money into the early stages. Once the projects were up and running, privatization was possible and often worked pretty well... privately run highways are apparently some of the best maintained in the West, privatized Social Security is vastly better then the current government mandated Ponzi scheme. But for many major projects, to get over the hump requires an input of capital risk that most companies simply can't sustain.

If installing a successful (self sustaining, capable of growth and survival on its own) colony on Mars was known to take ten billion dollars per year for forty years, no company could or would even bother to try. Because they simply don't have that kind of money to risk in the first place. But the US FedGuv? Ten billion a year is literally chump change for the Feds. Forty years of it is substantially less than will be squandered this year on social welfare programs that not only won't add to the economy, they'll actively promote a system that *drags* on the economy.

If Weyland-Yutani, SpaceX, Drax Industries, Blue Sun or some other major megacorp goes ahead and successfully creates off-world colonies, good for them. But those colonies will be beholden to those megacorps, not to the US. They will be populated by the people the megacorp decided to send. Their culture, language, beliefs and so on may well have absolutely nothing to do with those of the US. Which is again fine... but that colony does *not* aid the defense or general welfare of the United States. If you want to defend the US, you need Americans.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 10:52:58 am by Orionblamblam »
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #231 on: March 22, 2017, 02:49:35 pm »

Expanding the United States out into space will provide not only economic and military benefits to the United States (note how there are no physical resources located in LEO to geosynchronous orbit there to ship back to Earth for direct profit, yet nobody seems to complain much that the US government has sent thousands of spacecraft that have benefited the US and its people directly),

Spacecraft are not people

Indeed they are not. Spacecraft can't make babies or have loyalties. Thus, eventually you need to start sending people.

But you of course missed - or at least avoided - the point. You said that if Mars has no physical resources to ship back to Earth, there'd be nothing to gain economically by going there. Well, there's nothing to mine in geosynchronous... except for information. What do you think the Martians will provide in abundance? Information. Information that will materially improve life on Earth. As I've pointed out and you've ignored, Martians will *need* to be innovative in ways Terrans need not be. And yet those innovations will be damned useful back here. Look at the history of NASA technologies and spinoffs.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #232 on: March 23, 2017, 07:04:42 am »
If you want to defend the US, you need Americans.

Lunar and Mars colonies won't help in the defense of the US.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #233 on: March 23, 2017, 09:32:03 am »
If you want to defend the US, you need Americans.

Lunar and Mars colonies won't help in the defense of the US.

I have to wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse for some reason, especially considering that this has been explained to you already. But, fine, I'll play along:

1: The existence of US-loyal, US-derived extraterrestrial colonies will provide for the US defense because they will be sources of advanced technology. The propulsion systems alone developed to make transit to and from the colonies will aid in planetary and national defense.

2: The existence of self sustaining extraterrestrial US colonies will aid in defense of the US by simply being bits of the US physically separated from the US. If the Putinate decides to launch nuclear Armageddon and destroys all life on Earth, there's a chance that the off world colonies will survive and keep going. The US will survive. A sizable asteroid strike off the eastern seaboard could conceivably destroy the original 13 States but if the western half of the US survive, the US survives. Same principle applies with new colonies. When the US expands to Alpha Centauri and beyond, the sun could *explode* and the US will survive.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #234 on: March 23, 2017, 12:29:24 pm »
If you want to defend the US, you need Americans.

Lunar and Mars colonies won't help in the defense of the US.

I have to wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse for some reason, especially considering that this has been explained to you already. But, fine, I'll play along:

1: The existence of US-loyal, US-derived extraterrestrial colonies will provide for the US defense because they will be sources of advanced technology. The propulsion systems alone developed to make transit to and from the colonies will aid in planetary and national defense.

2: The existence of self sustaining extraterrestrial US colonies will aid in defense of the US by simply being bits of the US physically separated from the US. If the Putinate decides to launch nuclear Armageddon and destroys all life on Earth, there's a chance that the off world colonies will survive and keep going. The US will survive. A sizable asteroid strike off the eastern seaboard could conceivably destroy the original 13 States but if the western half of the US survive, the US survives. Same principle applies with new colonies. When the US expands to Alpha Centauri and beyond, the sun could *explode* and the US will survive.
Agree completely but for me the macro-issue is always "we have to get off this planet" We know life ending events can happen and humanity must survive and that will only be among the stars.
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #235 on: March 23, 2017, 12:50:18 pm »

Agree completely but for me the macro-issue is always "we have to get off this planet" We know life ending events can happen and humanity must survive and that will only be among the stars.

One might argue that things are getting slightly off topic... but then, who cares. Assuming no nuclear apocalypse or zombie outbreak or major solar flare or other such civilization-crashing event, it's looking increasingly likely that mankind is finally, at last, if slowly, getting around to looking at moving off-world. And that's great. Any form of off-world civilization is better than no off world civilization. But since moving off world is a capability open to any sizable government, the question starts to become what sort of civilization we want off world. British colonies on Mars? Great. Canadians on Ceres? Fine. Americans controlling the Oort cloud? Good. The UN having so much as an orbiting Kwik-E-Mart? No. No, no, no, nonononono. Because the UN provides an equal voice to Australia as it does to North Korea; India as to Syria; Japan as to Cuba, the UN is inappropriate as a promulgator of human civilization. There are some civilizations that reasonable people should be able to agree we don't want owning the stars. The Nazis. The Commies. McDonalds. The Caliphate.

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #236 on: March 23, 2017, 02:06:47 pm »
You forgot about the "Make America Great Again" flag-waving propaganda value of a manned mission to a previously unvisited astronomical body. Not much propaganda value in a manned return to the Moon or an manned asteroid rendezvous. Mars is a bigger propaganda splash.

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 326
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #237 on: March 23, 2017, 02:49:16 pm »
But probably unattainable within the reign of a single administration...

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #238 on: March 23, 2017, 03:10:14 pm »
Not much propaganda value in a manned return to the Moon or an manned asteroid rendezvous.

Kinda hard to say, since that's unexplored territory. But one thing that seems likely is that if someone other than the US gets back to the Mon or to an asteroid before the US, the *negative* propaganda value within the US could be substantial. It just might be an incentive to move on to the *next* objective, like the Soviets launching Sputnik and Gagarin spurred the US to greater things. Or it might be a general depressant to the national mood, something that would surprise me not at all.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #239 on: March 23, 2017, 04:39:48 pm »
You forgot about the "Make America Great Again" flag-waving propaganda value of a manned mission to a previously unvisited astronomical body. Not much propaganda value in a manned return to the Moon or an manned asteroid rendezvous. Mars is a bigger propaganda splash.

Who cares if it has a side-benefit of a propaganda boost?   ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8942
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #240 on: March 23, 2017, 04:50:40 pm »
You forgot about the "Make America Great Again" flag-waving propaganda value of a manned mission to a previously unvisited astronomical body. Not much propaganda value in a manned return to the Moon or an manned asteroid rendezvous. Mars is a bigger propaganda splash.

Who cares if it has a side-benefit of a propaganda boost?   ::)

Go ahead and roll your eyes! Doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #241 on: March 23, 2017, 05:47:53 pm »
You forgot about the "Make America Great Again" flag-waving propaganda value of a manned mission to a previously unvisited astronomical body. Not much propaganda value in a manned return to the Moon or an manned asteroid rendezvous. Mars is a bigger propaganda splash.

Who cares if it has a side-benefit of a propaganda boost?   ::)
I WANT that flag to be American and the astronaut who plants it to be eating apple pie while wearing a baseball glove
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #242 on: March 23, 2017, 07:49:01 pm »

I WANT that flag to be American ...

As a fellow American, and one who thinks that the foundational ideals of this country - one of the very few nations that was founded on ideals, rather than geography, language, religion or ethnicity - are the best humanity has come up with yet, I would also want that flag to be Old Glory. And still... it would bother me not in the slightest if those loyal to Britain or Germany or Russia or Japan or wherever want *their* flags out there as well. When it comes to progress, the more competition, the better.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #243 on: March 23, 2017, 08:36:56 pm »

I WANT that flag to be American ...

As a fellow American, and one who thinks that the foundational ideals of this country - one of the very few nations that was founded on ideals, rather than geography, language, religion or ethnicity - are the best humanity has come up with yet, I would also want that flag to be Old Glory. And still... it would bother me not in the slightest if those loyal to Britain or Germany or Russia or Japan or wherever want *their* flags out there as well. When it comes to progress, the more competition, the better.
I agree but the 'first' flag is the Stars and Stripes
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #244 on: March 24, 2017, 07:25:54 am »
You forgot about the "Make America Great Again" flag-waving propaganda value of a manned mission to a previously unvisited astronomical body. Not much propaganda value in a manned return to the Moon or an manned asteroid rendezvous. Mars is a bigger propaganda splash.

Who cares if it has a side-benefit of a propaganda boost?   ::)

Go ahead and roll your eyes! Doesn't mean that it isn't true.

I don't care if His Yugeness plants a flag of the Sun God on Mars.  As long as Old Glory is flying next to it it's a good thing for the USA.

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3510
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #245 on: March 24, 2017, 01:25:52 pm »
guys...

I think we are going a little bit off topic here !
This about NASA Space Launch System  not who has better government in Solar system

Move the overheating discussion to the Bar and go back to Topic...

I love Strange Technology

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #246 on: March 25, 2017, 06:36:24 pm »

1: The existence of US-loyal, US-derived extraterrestrial colonies will provide for the US defense because they will be sources of advanced technology. The propulsion systems alone developed to make transit to and from the colonies will aid in planetary and national defense.


Chemical and electrical propulsion are not going to advance enough to make a difference.  Anyways, the source of the advanced technologies will be the home planet and not the colonies.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #247 on: March 25, 2017, 07:14:18 pm »

Chemical and electrical propulsion are not going to advance enough to make a difference.

Gosh, if only there were possibilities beyond chemical and electric . If only...

Quote
  Anyways, the source of the advanced technologies will be the home planet and not the colonies.

Uh-huh. Just like all the advanced technologies in history came from the Olduvai Gorge.

Sigh.

For those reading along who *aren't" intellectually ossified, new challenging environments have *always* been spurs to innovation. What use would the Epstein Drive be to Earthers? Minimal. To Belters? Vital.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2045
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #248 on: March 26, 2017, 08:47:18 am »
I got those references! Now gimme my cookie!
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #249 on: March 26, 2017, 01:49:37 pm »

Chemical and electrical propulsion are not going to advance enough to make a difference.

Gosh, if only there were possibilities beyond chemical and electric . If only...

Quote
  Anyways, the source of the advanced technologies will be the home planet and not the colonies.

Uh-huh. Just like all the advanced technologies in history came from the Olduvai Gorge.

Sigh.

For those reading along who *aren't" intellectually ossified, new challenging environments have *always* been spurs to innovation. What use would the Epstein Drive be to Earthers? Minimal. To Belters? Vital.
I posted this before, I'm sure, on another space thread but a really good book is Marshall Savage's "The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps" which is a step by step plan to get off the planet and eventually out into the galaxy. I'm sure those in the know can argue some of the science he presents but broadly the theme is we better do this or humanity it at risk. 
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #250 on: March 26, 2017, 04:07:40 pm »
... a step by step plan to get off the planet and eventually out into the galaxy. I'm sure those in the know can argue some of the science he presents but broadly the theme is we better do this or humanity it at risk.

Strictly speaking that's not accurate. If humanity doesn't spread out into space, it's not 'at risk," it's "outright doomed." Same goes for bunnies and carrots and humpack whales... and for American/Chinese/Lithuanian/Whatever culture.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #251 on: March 27, 2017, 02:12:12 am »
... a step by step plan to get off the planet and eventually out into the galaxy. I'm sure those in the know can argue some of the science he presents but broadly the theme is we better do this or humanity it at risk.

Strictly speaking that's not accurate. If humanity doesn't spread out into space, it's not 'at risk," it's "outright doomed." Same goes for bunnies and carrots and humpack whales... and for American/Chinese/Lithuanian/Whatever culture.

If we cannot get something like a warp drive system installed on a spacecraft then the best that we can do would be to design a so called Worldship that would take humanity to the stars at sub light speed otherwise humanity is finished.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #252 on: March 27, 2017, 06:39:29 am »
... a step by step plan to get off the planet and eventually out into the galaxy. I'm sure those in the know can argue some of the science he presents but broadly the theme is we better do this or humanity it at risk.

Strictly speaking that's not accurate. If humanity doesn't spread out into space, it's not 'at risk," it's "outright doomed." Same goes for bunnies and carrots and humpack whales... and for American/Chinese/Lithuanian/Whatever culture.

If we cannot get something like a warp drive system installed on a spacecraft then the best that we can do would be to design a so called Worldship that would take humanity to the stars at sub light speed otherwise humanity is finished.
From the book I mentioned earlier Mars is the logical first step and as for the stars the distances are so large even for our nearest neighbors that the author postulated that you shouldn't try (manned missions) unless you can reach .1c because those on a slower Worldship would look on helplessly as a better technology flew past them.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 10:40:22 am by bobbymike »
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #253 on: March 27, 2017, 08:09:06 am »
Just saw this news article about the testing of the RS-25 with a new engine controller at NASA's Stennis Space Center.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Brain_of_the_Space_Launch_System_RS_25_Engine_Passes_Critical_Test_999.html

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7137
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #255 on: March 29, 2017, 03:25:06 pm »

Gosh, if only there were possibilities beyond chemical and electric . If only...


In the context of this discussion, there isn't any.   Because if there is a new physics discovery or game changing technology, it is likely that the financial resources of gov'ts are not needed.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #256 on: March 29, 2017, 03:29:53 pm »
There are some civilizations that reasonable people should be able to agree we don't want owning the stars.

Like citizens of Idaho, Montana and Utah.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8838
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #257 on: March 29, 2017, 04:39:24 pm »
There are some civilizations that reasonable people should be able to agree we don't want owning the stars.

Like citizens of Idaho, Montana and Utah.

Clearly you've never lived there.  No doubt your perpetually sunny disposition is due to the Utopian surroundings you dwell in. 
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 04:46:38 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6707
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #258 on: March 29, 2017, 07:43:18 pm »

Gosh, if only there were possibilities beyond chemical and electric . If only...


In the context of this discussion, there isn't any.   Because if there is a new physics discovery or game changing technology, it is likely that the financial resources of gov'ts are not needed.

Does this make sense to you? Really?

Kinda curious if that makes sense to anyone else, because it sure doesn't to me. How can anyone actually believe that colonists on Mars or in the asteroid belt, whose lives and the futures of their children, will somehow restrict themselves solely to chemical or electrical propulsion systems, when they already have full knowledge of nuclear thermal systems, solar sails, magsails, electromagnetic coilguns, plasma thrusters and a whole bunch of other, better systems? Never mind more theoretical systems like nuclear pulse, fusion rockets and such?
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #259 on: April 04, 2017, 06:34:18 am »
when they already have full knowledge of nuclear thermal systems, solar sails, magsails, electromagnetic coilguns, plasma thrusters and a whole bunch of other, better systems?

Really?  How are any of those better?  None of those are going to radically change the time of travel.  Still going to take months.

Offline Rhinocrates

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 113
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #260 on: April 04, 2017, 04:36:56 pm »
Time is not the only criterion. Some could drastically lower the cost of cargo transport.
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6725
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #261 on: April 12, 2017, 09:57:13 pm »

Gosh, if only there were possibilities beyond chemical and electric . If only...


In the context of this discussion, there isn't any.   Because if there is a new physics discovery or game changing technology, it is likely that the financial resources of gov'ts are not needed.

Does this make sense to you? Really?

Kinda curious if that makes sense to anyone else, because it sure doesn't to me. How can anyone actually believe that colonists on Mars or in the asteroid belt, whose lives and the futures of their children, will somehow restrict themselves solely to chemical or electrical propulsion systems, when they already have full knowledge of nuclear thermal systems, solar sails, magsails, electromagnetic coilguns, plasma thrusters and a whole bunch of other, better systems? Never mind more theoretical systems like nuclear pulse, fusion rockets and such?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/fusion-enabled-pluto-orbiter-and-lander.html

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/imploding-liner-fusion-propulsion-system.html
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #262 on: April 13, 2017, 08:13:04 am »

Gosh, if only there were possibilities beyond chemical and electric . If only...


In the context of this discussion, there isn't any.   Because if there is a new physics discovery or game changing technology, it is likely that the financial resources of gov'ts are not needed.

Does this make sense to you? Really?

Kinda curious if that makes sense to anyone else, because it sure doesn't to me. How can anyone actually believe that colonists on Mars or in the asteroid belt, whose lives and the futures of their children, will somehow restrict themselves solely to chemical or electrical propulsion systems, when they already have full knowledge of nuclear thermal systems, solar sails, magsails, electromagnetic coilguns, plasma thrusters and a whole bunch of other, better systems? Never mind more theoretical systems like nuclear pulse, fusion rockets and such?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/fusion-enabled-pluto-orbiter-and-lander.html

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/imploding-liner-fusion-propulsion-system.html

The list of theoretical systems is much larger and just as useless.  Until they get off the list, they don't help with colonization. 

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #263 on: April 13, 2017, 08:15:53 am »
Time is not the only criterion. Some could drastically lower the cost of cargo transport.

Time is the issue for personnel transport.   

Offline Rhinocrates

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 113
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #264 on: April 13, 2017, 06:04:13 pm »
Time is not the only criterion. Some could drastically lower the cost of cargo transport.

Time is the issue for personnel transport.

For personnel, yes, but personnel need material support and a crewed spacecraft can be smaller, less massive, faster and therefore cheaper if the equipment and and supplies are sent ahead separately by slower but much less expensive means. Cost is one thing that cannot be left out of the equation.
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.