Apollo style mission for Orion/SLS??

carmelo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
11 March 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
25
This concept from the blog
https://ciudad-futura.net/2016/01/03/nueva-generacion/
is new for me!
Seems a Apollo style mission for Orion/SLS....
You have information about this?
 

Attachments

  • orion-lunar.jpg
    orion-lunar.jpg
    122.8 KB · Views: 328
as source is labels "Boeing" and "SLS Mission booklet 2014"

and you know what ?
found under 10 second this booklet by Google
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

they label it as "Crewed Lunar Surface Mission"
 
I think there are a few more robotic missions that were not included in that booklet, but Boeing produced separate flyers of them. I know that one proposal that they evaluated, but left out of the booklet, was a Mars sample return mission. They left it out because they did not want to anger NASA (which has its own preferred architecture for doing sample return).

Keep in mind that mostly what Boeing did was plug some numbers into computer models for SLS lift and trajectory capabilities. They started with certain assumptions and then asked if the rocket could carry the payload. These were not full up mission studies. Boeing was just looking for more opportunities to sell rockets.
 
yes, your right blackstar

As i look true the booklet missions proposal,
I had some hysterical fit of laughter about the Payload size the SLS had to launch.
but let face it for those Mission you need SLS size rocket to bring Probe on trajectory toward the destination.
and off course keep the SLS production running for Boeing profit.

but would NASA finance such expensive multi billion dollar mission like sample return ?
or just order a SpaceX Falcon heavy with 50 tons payload for same mission ?
 
Looking at the proposed hardware (I'm a child of the Mercury era) for the return-to-moon mission proposal reminds me that there's nothing new here: big, expensive throw-away hardware.

The SLS program is aimed at two objectives: to toss SSME's into the Atlantic, and keep legacy aircraft firms in business.

I resent the shit out of my tax dollors being thrown away like this. If anyone needs to go to the moon, mars, or the asteroid-belt they can just pony up the money and hire SpaceX for the ride.

We need more aircraft-carriers, F-35's, and boarder-fences -- that's the job of the Federal government. Not this old-hat Buck Roger's BS.

NASA has not advanced the art of space travel with this system, they're just hiking down a well traveled path; a jobs program for engineer's who elected to bask in the security of a government gig. NASA has lost its fighting edge to PC, political changes in the wind, and institutionalized avoidance of reasonable risk.

SLS: been there, done that. It was called Apollo.

David
 
There is bitter truth in merriman comment

SLS is child of a "inflexible" Government organization (NASA) and legacy aircraft firms who need the money
like ULA, who charging USAF and NASA around $200 million to $450 Million for launching hardware into space

Now the wind is changing drasticly with SpaceX and Blue Origin

Like New Glenn rocket that rival in size with SLS core stage, But with big difference: New Glenn is reusable
And there is SpaceX plans for complete reusable NOVA class size rocket for Mars colonization.
against that is SLS a old fashion Dinosaur

Let's face it
SLS is a "Occupational therapy" from Capitol Hill for personnel of Shuttle after STS program was terminated...
 
Michel Van said:
but would NASA finance such expensive multi billion dollar mission like sample return ?
or just order a SpaceX Falcon heavy with 50 tons payload for same mission ?

The mission will cost a lot of money regardless of the rocket.

People seem to have this mistaken impression that it's all about the rockets. It's not. Launch is a small part of any mission's cost. If you cannot afford the payload, it does not matter what the rocket costs.
 
blackstar said:
Michel Van said:
but would NASA finance such expensive multi billion dollar mission like sample return ?
or just order a SpaceX Falcon heavy with 50 tons payload for same mission ?

The mission will cost a lot of money regardless of the rocket.

People seem to have this mistaken impression that it's all about the rockets. It's not. Launch is a small part of any mission's cost. If you cannot afford the payload, it does not matter what the rocket costs.

Launch costs should be a small part of the total program cost. At $1Billion (or more) per launch, the SLS becomes an issue for any program with a budget below something like the ISS. The same dynamics which resulted in shuttle launches costing so much are at play so there is little hope of price drops over time.
 
fredymac said:
Launch costs should be a small part of the total program cost. At $1Billion (or more) per launch, the SLS becomes an issue for any program with a budget below something like the ISS. The same dynamics which resulted in shuttle launches costing so much are at play so there is little hope of price drops over time.

I know that it's a popular thing on the internets to endlessly bash the SLS. You guys really need a new hobby. This one hasn't gotten you anywhere in six years.
 
merriman said:
Looking at the proposed hardware (I'm a child of the Mercury era) for the return-to-moon mission proposal reminds me that there's nothing new here: big, expensive throw-away hardware.

The SLS program is aimed at two objectives: to toss SSME's into the Atlantic, and keep legacy aircraft firms in business.

I resent the shit out of my tax dollors being thrown away like this. If anyone needs to go to the moon, mars, or the asteroid-belt they can just pony up the money and hire SpaceX for the ride.

Wrong again.

Tell congress that, they mandated it. NASA was going to do technology development missions before directed to build this folly

and there are others beside SpaceX.

merriman said:
NASA has lost its fighting edge to PC, political changes in the wind, and institutionalized avoidance of reasonable risk.

Unsupported claim
 
The SLS is symptomatic of the overarching problem affecting how NASA does everything. Institutionally, they retain the staffing and legacy facilities that grew out of the Apollo program. As a bureaucracy, NASA portions out large programs to sustain job levels which impose an overhead burden on total costs as well as adding schedule and additional layers of management. This results in $18Billion JWST telescopes, $1Billion rockets, and $100Billion space stations.

Ironically, NASA itself becomes the principal financial impediment to the very objectives it is charged with advancing. Compare the speed and cost of execution of private entities such as Spacex, Bigelow Aerospace, and Blue Origin to NASA. In contrast, companies like Boeing and Lockheed are essentially embedded into the government and are content to act as mere conduits for spending while providing the façade of competition.

As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.
 
fredymac said:
The SLS is symptomatic of the overarching problem affecting how NASA does everything. Institutionally, they retain the staffing and legacy facilities that grew out of the Apollo program. As a bureaucracy, NASA portions out large programs to sustain job levels which impose an overhead burden on total costs as well as adding schedule and additional layers of management. This results in $18Billion JWST telescopes, $1Billion rockets, and $100Billion space stations.

Unsupported claim. Same goes for including JWST. Just another case of somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about.
 
fredymac said:
As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.

Have fun in that fantasy.
 
Byeman said:
fredymac said:
As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.

Have fun in that fantasy.

Said before but bears repeating: Wow.
 
fredymac said:
Byeman said:
fredymac said:
As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.

Have fun in that fantasy.

Said before but bears repeating: Wow.

Funny - I'd want private citizens to enjoy the same job security that government employees have ;D...
 
martinbayer said:
fredymac said:
Byeman said:
fredymac said:
As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.

Have fun in that fantasy.

Said before but bears repeating: Wow.

Funny - I'd want private citizens to enjoy the same job security that government employees have ;D...

I'd say something crazy for a contribution; a moderate voice.
Most non-zealots would prefer more not less job security in general.
While reward and protection irrespective of job performance is not healthy for individuals or organisations, job insecurity also has significant long term costs for individuals and organisations, with long term performance of both vulnerable to short term pressures.
It's about continually working towards the right balance; not some ideological driven crusade that hates the very concept of government/ state except the bits they happen to like (like the military).
 
fredymac said:
Byeman said:
fredymac said:
As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.

Have fun in that fantasy.

Said before but bears repeating: Wow.

My comment has nothing to do with the validity or rightness of his comment. Mine was just a statement on reality
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom