Author Topic: NASA Exploration Roadmap: A return to the Moon’s surface documented  (Read 110771 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Blah, blah, blah...

Well first, many thanks for your patience.  I appreciate it, and so do the lurkers who also lack my understanding of these particulars.

The various Block iterations are deliberately confusing the issue.  Here's today's example: Block 1+, which covers the timeframe between Block 1 and Block 1A, I suppose.

Quote from: 93
No:

Quote from: NASA
As updates to Block 1 are still in work, Block 1A will be referred to as Block 1+

So Block 1+ is actually Block 1A, probably the old configuration with advanced boosters and a small two-engine 70-tonne CPS.

The "updates are still in work" comment probably refers to Block 1B.

It is still confusing to add another quirky piece of nomenclature, to a naming system which I am still reluctant to buy into.
 
Quote from: JF
I continue to object to their intent to build the 130 ton LV first, before even proposing payloads and missions.

Quote from: 93
It seems to me that they do not have such intent.  Hence Block 1B, which is just the "70-ton" version with a usefully large EDS added.

You're probably aware of ]that other thread, where Shelby is quoted as having said:

Quote from: Shelby
However, NASA is urged to identify and implement ways to accelerate the schedule for the attainment of the 130 ton configuration.

So, we're going to just have to disagree on this point.

However, if Block 1B is what I referred to as "70 ton SLS", then there should have never been any objection to my original point, "70 ton SLS is good enough to build a lunar base", which I've been making since the 2010 Authorization Act:

Interesting look at SLS going to the moon...

Thanks very much for posting.

Block 1 + SLS, without DSH, and no SLS updates needed.  Is HLR feasible?  Yes.

What have I been saying for the last few years?

Build the damn rocket and start using it.  Everybody's profit margin at the feeding trough would go up.

What the problem is?

If in fact, Block 1B is a 70 ton SLS, then it could, with a properly designed EDS, LEO assembly, and a space tug, build a lunar base. Everybody profits, not just the insiders. 

If I haven't used the politically correct term, Block 1B, any assertion that lunar base construction is therefore impossible indicates, by my take, a clear intent not to accomplish much in our nation's HSF program.

Quote from: JF
Now the EDS must be called upon to do the circularization burn. To me, this is ridiculous.

Quote from: 93
Why?  It's not a big deal for the EDS and it simplifies the core.  Also, I think the more even delta-V split from having the EDS do a significant burn to reach orbit results in a larger TLI payload.  Certainly it does in the two-launch case you propose.

If you really want to put a large chunk of inert cargo in LEO, I'm sure a small, cheap solid or hypergolic kick stage could be rigged to either do the circ burn or deorbit the core.

Why? If ya really want to know, I tell ya why.

Core provides circ burn, separates from the payload, which is any number of things mentioned above.  Payload goes on its merry way.

Core's got prop left in it, since it has margin.  Now we're keeping it in orbit, and a new kickstarter, ITAR'd company is free to synch its next launch to go up there and retrieve it.  Private industry can do a lot of things:  Park the empty core in a collection orbit.  Collect half a dozen of the things over time, daisy chain them together, and start a lazy spiral outward to either L-point or lunar surface.  Sell 'em back to the government, or to the highest ITAR'd bidder for private use as prerefined, premanufactured feedstock for lunar or l-point repurposing.

If we're trying to make a new economy in space, which I realize is something that Democrats would consider, but Republicans wouldn't.

Quote from: JF
It starts sounding like a self fulfilling prophecy, with an absurd outcome:  To get three or four astros to ISS in Orion, you need to have a 130 ton SLS, and a partially filled, mostly ballasted EDS.

Quote from: 93
Orion is plenty capable of doing a circ burn by itself, if it ever has to be sent to ISS on SLS (which hopefully it won't).

As for lunar missions with a reusable lander, where Orion heads to L2 alone, you could either send a pack of supplies and/or propellant with Orion, part-fill the CPS (the mismatch isn't as dramatic in this case as it is with your proposed ISS mission), or just extend the ICPS contract and rename it the Itty-bitty Cryogenic Propulsion Stage or something like that.  It's basically common with Delta IV, so there shouldn't be much extra cost.

Great, except for the "part-fill" part.  Fill everything to the top.  Launch costs are not so low that we can pull a "2001" and send one passenger up on the PanAm "shuttle".  Every launch counts.

Quote from: 93
NASA could certainly do something like what you propose.  Just not with Block 1, by definition.

Quote from: JF
They could, but they don't want to.

There is no physical principle which prohibits a comprehensive, multi-decadal lunar, lagrangian, or martian mission profile, using LEO assembly, and multiple launches of Block 1, the 70 ton (or tonne) version of the SLS.

Quote from: 93
No, there isn't - but to get the stack out of LEO you then need a propulsive element that doesn't count as part of SLS.  An SEP tug.  A chainable hypergolic stage.  That sort of thing.

If you want a large cryo EDS, which I see no good reason to avoid, it will be counted towards block incrementation, and you won't (by definition) have a Block 1 any more.

Uhhh.... [raises finger.] [not that finger.] Kemosabe?  Isn't a Block 1B, well, Block 1?  Like this one?

Quote from: 93
When you say "Block 1", you seem to mean "Block 1 plus EDS", which is what NASA calls "Block 1B".

Block 1B is 70 ton SLS.  EDS comes out of the 70 ton payload.  Right, Kemosabe?
« Last Edit: 03/21/2013 11:34 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Very good posts, John - very thorough. **EDIT: I`m referring to both the one above and the long one previous page


Quote from: MattBlack
...it's not funny when I say that, let alone the other guy.

Yes it is.  Remember, there are three types of people:  Those who can count, and those who have a sense of humor.
[/quote]

Hey! I've got a hell of a sense of humour - Just ask my legion of followers.... (crickets chirping)
« Last Edit: 03/22/2013 08:23 pm by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
A rover scratching at Lunar regolith is hardly a lunar colony...
No. but if that were one of one years projects, with ten projects added a year (several lasting multiple years) and a single years additions concerned gathering regolith (scratching if you will) extracting volatiles, separating iron magnetically, sintering bricks, printing solar power panels, 3d printing with lunar feedstock, combining these to build airtight powered environments, and perhaps three more examples of scratching regolith because it is just so darn useful, and each year getting closer to the ability to build robots out of lunar materials using robotic labour while learning vast amounts about the lunar environment and teleoperation, that would be a darn sight closer to a lunar colony than what we currently have. And for $80m

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Very good posts, John - very thorough.

Thanks.

I summarized my thinking as briefly as possible two years ago:

70 ton SLS is good enough for HLR.  Can we please get on with the work?

All I hear, however, is chirping...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
A rover scratching at Lunar regolith is hardly a lunar colony...

No. but if that were one of one years projects, with ten projects added a year (several lasting multiple years) and a single years additions concerned gathering regolith (scratching if you will) extracting volatiles, separating iron magnetically, sintering bricks, printing solar power panels, 3d printing with lunar feedstock, combining these to build airtight powered environments, and perhaps three more examples of scratching regolith because it is just so darn useful, and each year getting closer to the ability to build robots out of lunar materials using robotic labour while learning vast amounts about the lunar environment and teleoperation, that would be a darn sight closer to a lunar colony than what we currently have. And for $80m

First, remember $80M can only be considered as a launch cost estimate, not an estimate of the series of unmanned missions that you sketch out.

Plus, you need to consider the work that needs to be done to provide up to ten missions a year, both in terms of costs, as well as in terms of years.

You have suggested none of this in your brief post, but still, the thrust of what you propose, at least AIUI, is sound:  We should initiate a comprehensive plan to construct a permanent lunar outpost.

I'm quite aware that the law doesn't require our HSF program to actually accomplish anything; this is why they have deliberately and methodically eliminated our ability to launch people.  The principle our government seems to follow in HSF is that if they are not required to do good work, they will not do it.  And the reason, again, AIUI, that this is so, is because the political process has been gamed to provide entitlements in the form of jobs programs, and profit centers for politically connected corporate interests.

Now, of course, the server has been shut down.  If you, Kelvin, want to see your plans implemented, I hope you have already downloaded the necessary technical information you need.

Good luck with that.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote from: JF
I continue to object to their intent to build the 130 ton LV first, before even proposing payloads and missions.

Quote from: 93
It seems to me that they do not have such intent.  Hence Block 1B, which is just the "70-ton" version with a usefully large EDS added.

You're probably aware of that other thread, where Shelby is quoted as having said:

Quote from: Shelby
However, NASA is urged to identify and implement ways to accelerate the schedule for the attainment of the 130 ton configuration.

So, we're going to just have to disagree on this point.

Uh, Shelby ≠ NASA...

Quote
Private industry can do a lot of things:  Park the empty core in a collection orbit.  Collect half a dozen of the things over time, daisy chain them together, and start a lazy spiral outward to either L-point or lunar surface.  Sell 'em back to the government, or to the highest ITAR'd bidder for private use as prerefined, premanufactured feedstock for lunar or l-point repurposing.

To quote Jim on the subject (or really, on any subject):

No, there is nothing useful

Anyway, that's a different discussion.

Quote
Uhhh.... [raises finger.] [not that finger.] Kemosabe?  Isn't a Block 1B, well, Block 1?  Like this one?

...no?  It's a Block 1B, not a Block 1.  Though I suppose that's a potentially valid way to look at it, especially since the core and boosters are identical in this case...  it's just imprecise, and may give an impression of ignorance (it did to me).

Quote
Block 1B is 70 ton SLS.  EDS comes out of the 70 ton payload.  Right, Kemosabe?

Okay, let's clear this up.  As far as I can tell, this is the current state of play:

Block 0 (~70 tonnes LEO, 0 tonnes BEO): ET-sized tank, 3xRS-25D, 4-seg SRBs.  (Well, 5-seg SRBs with a segment removed, since 4-seg is no longer practicable...)  Basically a J-130.  Deprecated - they aren't doing this one, partly because it doesn't leave the legally-required 130-tonne upgrade path open without a core redesign, and partly because the 5-seg being the available booster implies a slightly larger optimal configuration.

Block 1 (>90 tonnes LEO?, 19 tonnes BEO): Stretched tank, 4xRS-25D, 5-seg SRBsICPS (5-metre Delta IV upper stage with minor application-specific mods) is deposited fully fueled into LEO along with Orion, so as to enable circumlunar flights.  Basically a J-140SH with DHCUS.  Block 1's LEO payload is still being listed as 70 tonnes nominal.  So you could say that it's the "70-ton" version of SLS.

Since Block 1 is a slightly more efficient use of the technology and infrastructure, $/kg (to LEO, at any rate) should be a bit lower than Block 0 if fully utilized.  The key words being "fully utilized"...

Block 1A (105+ tonnes LEO, 0-45 tonnes BEO) Stretched tank, 4xRS-25D/E, advanced boosters.  Most variations have(/had?) a CPS (large hydrolox stage of uncertain specs; IIRC, notional was 7 m diameter, ~70 tonnes with 2xRL-10) either deposited into LEO along with payload or (for larger CPS variants) lit suborbitally to finish the ascent.  The recent Boeing AIAA presentation shows Block 1A as having no upper stage, and hence no BEO capability.

Block 1B (118 tonnes LEO, 43 tonnes BEO) Stretched tank, 4xRS-25D/E, 5-seg SRBs.  CPS (large 8.4 m hydrolox stage with 4xRL-10) lit suborbitally to finish the ascent - or so I assume; otherwise how is it that the max LEO payload is bigger than that of the Block 1, which 1B is otherwise identical to?  TLI performance does seem to be better this way than with a smaller stage placed in orbit with full tanks...  This one is basically a J-244SH.

Block 1A and Block 1B are mutually exclusive options; the pivot point is the decision to proceed with the advanced boosters before/concurrent with the CPS, or not (respectively).

Block 2 (>150 tonnes LEO, ~60 tonnes BEO): Stretched tank, 4xRS-25E, advanced boosters.  According to the Boeing presentation, Block 2 uses the CPS from Block 1B and gets 155 tonnes to LEO and 61 tonnes BEO (TLI or escape; the presentation isn't clear, but the numbers would be similar).  Block 2A denotes the use of a large 8.4 m 1xJ-2X stage, which results in 178 tonnes to LEO and 58 tonnes BEO.  Past Block 2 configurations have used as many as 3xJ-2X on a Large Upper Stage with a 70-tonne CPS on top of that (oh, and 5xRS-25E on the core), but NASA seems to be moving away from this kind of overkill.

Block 2 is generally considered to not be a near-term configuration.

...

So, to sum up:

Block 1: Stretched tank, 4xRS-25, 5-seg boosters, ICPS.  "70-ton" version, but not really.

Evolves to:

either Block 1A: Block 1 + advanced boosters, and maybe CPS.

or Block 1B: Block 1 + CPS.

Evolves to:

Block 2/2A: Block 1B + advanced boosters or Block 1A + large CPS.

Notice how the older idea that Block 1A might have a CPS makes it very hard to distinguish from the newer idea of Block 2?  Apparently the nomenclature does indeed exhibit a bit of travel, but Block 1 and 1B, at least, seem to be pretty well defined at this point.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2013 01:49 am by 93143 »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2

....

Remember, there are three types of people:  Those who can count, and those who have a sense of humor.



“Hope sees the invisible, feels the intangible, and achieves the impossible.”

Astronaut Ino Fool goes to work. Engineer Lulu Kool’s hardworking software team has just created a great new computer simulation called Lunar ISRU. Lulu invites Ino to be the first person to try out the simulation.

Astronaut Ino starts the new simulation and then immediately shuts it down and says, "It won’t work.” Ino adds, “Lulu, why don’t you sit here and try running the Lunar ISRU simulation.”

"Why?” inquires Lulu who knows full well that the simulation of sending astronauts back to the Moon to do ISRU simply follows American space law and has excellent graphics. It is basically a relatively clear and straightforward program. Any astronaut should be able to do the Lunar ISRU program.

"You try Lunar ISRU." Ino calmly suggests.

"Ino, you've been coming here to do mission simulations for twenty-two years. There's never been anything wrong with my team’s computer simulations."

"You try Lunar ISRU." Ino calmly suggests again.

"What's wrong, too large an SLS--not enough engines on the core?" Lulu asks.

""You try Lunar ISRU." Ino calmly suggests again.

"What, the CPS for the SLS doesn't have enough propellant for the needed delta-v?" Lulu asks.

""You try Lunar ISRU." Ino calmly suggests again.

Lulu is really annoyed with Ino and says, "All right! I'll show you how to do Lunar ISRU!” Lulu sits down in front of the large screen and restarts the simulation program. Then, a bit confused, Lulu suddenly whispers to herself, “What? There's no Lander!"

"A-Ha!" chortles Ino.
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
{snip}
Lulu is really annoyed with Ino and says, "All right! I'll show you how to do Lunar ISRU!” Lulu sits down in front of the large screen and restarts the simulation program. Then, a bit confused, Lulu suddenly whispers to herself, “What? There's no Lander!"


However when the time comes ALHAT will have flown solo and be ready to autopilot the lander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Landing_Hazard_Avoidance_Technology

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I continue to object to their intent to build the 130 ton LV first, before even proposing payloads and missions.

Quote from: 93
It seems to me that they do not have such intent.  Hence Block 1B, which is just the "70-ton" version with a usefully large EDS added.

Quote from: Shelby
However, NASA is urged to identify and implement ways to accelerate the schedule for the attainment of the 130 ton configuration.

Quote from: JF
So, we're going to just have to disagree on this point.

Uh, Shelby ≠ NASA...

Straw Senator.  Shelby's comment illustrates and verbalizes in clear English, for a change, their intent.

"Their" intent, NASA and Congress, is to build 130 ton SLS ASAP.  Maybe not "first", since they do have to ramp up construction and testing, but "first" in the sense that no "exploration" takes place until 130 ton SLS is up and running. 

That "they" are calling the unmanned mission, and the Apollo 8 redux mission "exploration" is a reflection of how deeply Lackoff has influenced the truth decay that NASA and Congress practice.  But I digress.

Quote from: JF
Private industry can do a lot of things:  Park the empty core in a collection orbit.  ...

Quote from: He who shall not be named
No, there is nothing useful

This is just patently false.  Disposability and sustainability are not complementary terms.  That discussion can be held with, well, balloons and blunderbusses.

Quote from: JF
Isn't a Block 1B, well, Block 1?

Quote from: 93
...no?  It's a Block 1B, not a Block 1.  Though I suppose that's a potentially valid way to look at it, especially since the core and boosters are identical in this case...  it's just imprecise, and may give an impression of ignorance (it did to me).

I've sniffled here and there about the "impressions of ignorance" hurled, spewn, tossed, chucked, and heaved my way; still, the gap, the mission misprioritization, the funding shell games, the political theatre, yada yada, about HSF continue.

You say that, "apparently the nomenclature does indeed exhibit a bit of travel", but this is your inner Lackoff speaking.  The nomenclature is deliberately confusing and misleading, particularly in the crucial area of throw weight.

The reason that is the case, as I see it, is that whatever the "final" version turns out to be, they'll put a bulls eye around it, and say that they hit their target exactly right.  [Throws head back and laffs.]

Actually, the purpose of the deliberate confusion and misleading is not clear.

Quote from: JF
Block 1B is 70 ton SLS.  EDS comes out of the 70 ton payload.  Right...?

Hence Block 1B, which is just the "70-ton" version with a usefully large EDS added.

You too, are confused by it.  No blame to you from me on that.

Quote from: JF
Okay, let's clear this up.  As far as I can tell, this is the current state of play:

Block 0 (~70 tonnes LEO, 0 tonnes BEO)...

Block 1 (>90 tonnes LEO?, 19 tonnes BEO)...

Since Block 1 is a slightly more efficient use of the technology and infrastructure, $/kg (to LEO, at any rate) should be a bit lower than Block 0 if fully utilized.  The key words being "fully utilized"...

Block 1A (105+ tonnes LEO, 0-45 tonnes BEO)

Block 1B (118 tonnes LEO, 43 tonnes BEO)...

Block 1A and Block 1B are mutually exclusive options; the pivot point is the decision to proceed with the advanced boosters before/concurrent with the CPS, or not (respectively).

Block 2 (>150 tonnes LEO, ~60 tonnes BEO)

Block 2 is generally considered to not be a near-term configuration.

Here's my understanding of this summary.  Again, no reflection or blame on you.  I do hope that your summary is correct.

I just say "lunar base" for brevity.  An L-1 ring station could support the base.  As always, since there's no good reason not to, I suggest demonstrating prop manufacture, then later, building a permanent martian base.

Block 0:  70 ton SLS.  Properly equipped with an EDS, and lander, capable of building a lunar base in 20 ton chunks.

Note that Block 0 would, you'd think, be more capable than FH, which is already "known" by one outfit to be capable of a 505-ish day martian flyby in one launch.

[Currently thought to be equipped with a baking soda based EDS, thus no capability BEO whatsoever.]

Block 1:  >90 ton SLS.  19 tons BEO.  Properly equipped, could build a lunar base in larger chunks.  Probably more than 19 tons.

Block 1A:  105 ton SLS.  Due to technicalities, a completely different rocket from Block 1, somehow thought to be capable of putting as much as 45 tons BEO, even though only having but a 15 ton throw weight advantage over Block 1.

Again, properly equipped, capable of marginally higher performance than Block 1.

Block 1B: 118 ton SLS. Due to technicalities, a completely different rocket from Block 1A, not to mention Block 1, somehow thought to be capable of putting only as much as 43 tons BEO, even though it would have an  8 ton throw weight advantage over Block 1A.

It could also go to the Moon.

Block 2 <150 ton SLS.  Bypassing the 130 ton specification for no apparent reason, yet thought capable, with LEO assembly, of performing an F&F mission to Mars sometime far, far, in the future, when they find the can that this administration has kicked.

All propellant launched from Earth, mind you.  No lunar prop ISRU considered whatsoever.

Color me baffled.

You are explaining in great detail how fat the angel who sits in the fairing could be.  In all honesty, that's less important to me, except that smaller is faster and cheaper.  Remember, all you get is two out of three.  And good enough is actually better than, well, "better".

Unfortunately, you and the authorities miss the point of having a rocket for this angel of endlessly debatable weight.  Therefore, none of you all ever get around to addressing the only thing that matters:

Build the damn rocket and start using it.  Everybody's profit margin at the feeding trough would go up.

What the problem is?  Do we have another elective war coming up?
« Last Edit: 03/22/2013 03:18 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
If you have a large reusable Dual Thrust Axis Lander of around 45,864 kg (101,110 lb) and an Orion and SM of around  21,250 kg (46,848 lb)  that would equal around 67,114 kg (147,659 lb).

Clearly that Orion/Lander stack could be launched into low Earth orbit by the 70 to 90 metric ton version of the SLS.

The second 70 to 90 metric ton SLS launches into low Earth orbit an 8 meter in diameter CPS stage that is somewhat similar in design to the ACES 73 upper stage. This CPS has 73 metric tons (160,000 lb) of hydrolox propellant and five LE-5B rocket engines, each with a thrust of 137 kN (30,798 lbf), for a total thrust of 685 kN (153,990 lbf) and a specific impulse of 447 seconds. If need be, this CPS stage could be stretched and have 100% larger propellant tanks, and also partially serve as an upper stage to put itself into low Earth orbit.   

Then dock the Orion/Lander stack with the CPS and off your stack goes to low Lunar orbit.

The numbers are from:

Altair (spacecraft)   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_%28spacecraft%29


Orion (spacecraft)   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29


H-IIA   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-IIA

Advanced Common Evolved Stage   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Common_Evolved_Stage



And what SLS missions might be publicly contemplated?


"BEO Crewed Lunar Orbit – Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2), a reclassification of SLS-2, is a single launch mission of a Block I SLS with ICPS and lunar Block 1 Orion MPCV with a liftoff mass around 68.8 t with SLS’ Payload Insertion of 50.7 t, which would be a ten to fourteen day mission with a crew of four astronauts who would spend four days in lunar orbit. Its current description is 'Crewed mission to enter lunar orbit, test critical mission events, and perform operations in relevant environments,' 'Expected drivers include: SLS and ICPS performance, crew support for BEO mission duration, MPCV delta V, MPCV re-entry speed.'"

And, "Strategic Timeframe DRMs

    GEO mission – a dual launch mission separated by 180 days to Geostationary Orbit. The first launch would comprise an SLS with a CPS and cargo hauler, the second an SLS with a CPS and Orion MPCV. Both launches would have a mass of about 110 t.
    A set of lunar missions enabled in the early 2020s ranging from EML-1 and low lunar orbit to a lunar surface mission. These missions would lead to a lunar base combining commercial and international aspects.
        The first two missions would be single launches of SLS with a CPM and Orion MPCV to EML-1 or LLO and would have a mass of 90 t and 97.5 t respectively. The LLO mission is a crewed twelve day mission with three in Lunar orbit. Its current description is 'Low Lunar Orbit (LLO): Crewed mission to LLO. Expected drivers include: SLS and CPS performance, MPCV re-entry speed, and LLO environment for MPCV,'
        The lunar surface mission set for the late 2020s would be a dual launch separated by 120 days. This would be a nineteen day mission with seven days on the Moon's surface. The first launch would comprise an SLS with a CPS and lunar lander, the second an SLS with a CPS and Orion MPCV. Both would enter LLO for lunar orbit rendezvous prior to landing at equatorial or polar sites on the moon. Launches would have masses of about 130 t and 108 t, respectively. Its current description is 'Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS): Lands four crew members on the surface of the Moon in the equatorial or Polar Regions and returns them to Earth,' 'Expected drivers include: MPCV operations in LLO environment, MPCV uncrewed ops phase, MPCV delta V requirements, RPOD (Rendezvous, Proximity Operations and Docking), MPCV number of habitable days.'"

From: Space Launch System   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System


Edited.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2013 04:01 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Warren Platts

Alternatively, the Block 1 SLS could simply launch fully loaded ACES-71 tankers which could be used to fill depots in LEO and L2 (or the 85 degree frozen polar orbit if you prefer Hap). The rest of the stuff can be launched on Atlases or Falcons.

But in truth this little discussion about the throw weight of the SLS is academic. The true bottleneck is the manufacture rate of the SLS. If they can only make 1 every other year, it doesn't really matter if it's launching 70 mT or 130 mT. The annual poundage lifted is going to paltry in either case....
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
"Their" intent, NASA and Congress, is to build 130 ton SLS ASAP.

I don't see any evidence of this.  But the situation is complicated enough that it's easy to get confused...

Quote
That "they" are calling the unmanned mission, and the Apollo 8 redux mission "exploration" is a reflection of how deeply Lackoff has influenced the truth decay that NASA and Congress practice.

They have no choice.  They have to try and make it look good, since the administration is...  wait, do you have L2?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28354.msg1016116#msg1016116

Quote
Block 0:  70 ton SLS.  Properly equipped with an EDS, and lander, capable of building a lunar base in 20 ton chunks.

The EDS would make it something other than a Block 0.  Call it a Block 0B...  regardless, the EDS costs significant cash and time to develop; you can't just assume it exists.

Block 0, as specified, has no EDS at all.  It was a quick hack, a test rocket that was never intended to accomplish anything and was accordingly deemed superfluous.

Quote
Block 1:  >90 ton SLS.  19 tons BEO.  Properly equipped, could build a lunar base in larger chunks.  Probably more than 19 tons.

The 19-tonne BEO capability is due to the use of the ICPS as an EDS.  With a properly-sized EDS it could get much better BEO performance, but then it wouldn't be a Block 1 any more.

Quote
Block 1A:  105 ton SLS.  Due to technicalities, a completely different rocket from Block 1, somehow thought to be capable of putting as much as 45 tons BEO, even though only having but a 15 ton throw weight advantage over Block 1.

If you re-read the description carefully, you'll note that the upper stage is not well defined.  The 45-tonne BEO figure corresponds to a large EDS; the 0-tonne BEO figure (and the 105-tonne LEO figure; you'll note the description actually says 105+) correspond to no EDS, which Boeing seems to think is the most likely result of doing the advanced boosters right away...

The actual performance of the advanced boosters may vary.  Most likely the throw weight of Block 1A would be higher than 105 tonnes even without an upper stage, but as this accomplishes nothing exploration-wise it is apparently not favoured internally, even though it's the current PoR.

Quote
Block 1B: 118 ton SLS. Due to technicalities, a completely different rocket from Block 1A, not to mention Block 1, somehow thought to be capable of putting only as much as 43 tons BEO, even though it would have an  8 ton throw weight advantage over Block 1A.

The 118-tonne capacity is with the EDS used as an upper stage to reach orbit.  The 43-tonne BEO capability is with the same EDS loaded more lightly (with 43 tonnes of payload) so as to make it all the way through the Earth departure burn before running out of propellant.

Aside from the EDS, Block 1B is identical to Block 1.  It therefore corresponds fairly closely to your suggestion, and last I checked it seemed to be the favoured option within NASA.

Quote
Block 2 <150 ton SLS.  Bypassing the 130 ton specification for no apparent reason

The initial idea for Block 2 was even bigger and much less of a natural evolution of Block 1.  I guess NASA was making damn sure they weren't going to fall short of the legal requirement, and it turns out that even with the much less ambitious Block 2 in recent work, they've overshot.

The "70-ton" and "130-ton" labels still exist because of the Authorization Act that defined SLS.  Actual performance may vary.

Really, it's a natural progression:

- 5-seg booster supplants 4-seg for purposes of Ares project (fait accompli)
- SLS project finds that with 5-seg, the optimal core is a stretched 4xRS-25
- cry rings out in favour of booster competition vs. locking in ATK again
- SLS project finds that an EDS with multiple RL-10s is a fast, relatively cheap way to get good TLI
- booster competition preliminaries result in very capable ideas with lower recurring cost than 5-segs

Presto: Block 2.  It's all low-hanging fruit; no bloat involved.  Obviously once you've got the basic rocket and an EDS, there's no rush to replace the boosters, but really the whole SLS program is starting to look a lot more reasonable than it did at the start; certainly more reasonable than Ares ever did once it started mutating...

Quote
when they find the can that this administration has kicked.

Sounds like a job for Planetary Resources...

...okay, that was weak.

...

Block 0 plus an EDS would have been perfectly capable of lunar missions.  Maybe it could have been designed with an extra hole for a fourth RS-25, so as to boost a larger EDS and easily clear the TLI requirement for the capsule and lander combined.  Call it a J-246.

But the J-246 relies on the 4-seg SRB, which is no longer available (I assume the 5-1 was a suboptimal interim configuration; I'm not sure it was ever demonstrated to be any better of an idea than a restartable SSME), and it doesn't have a simple or cheap upgrade path to 130 tonnes.  It seems to me that Block 1B is the simplest, cheapest option that deals with the legal requirements and equipment availability issues while still making BEO capability available as soon as possible.

Remember, a large part of the cause of the miserable schedule is simply the fact that the President, the OMB, and Congress have collectively failed to adequately fund the SLS program, which is doing its best to stay on schedule under a flat development budget.

Yes, I know Congress didn't pull the 130-tonne number out of nowhere.  But it was intended for Mars, and the current push inside NASA seems to be for the L2 Gateway station, which does not require Block 2.

The true bottleneck is the manufacture rate of the SLS. If they can only make 1 every other year

They're aiming to be able to launch 1-2 per year later.  And even that could be upgraded if necessary.  Right now they're trying to minimize fixed costs for budget reasons, but it's not a hard limit.

...

Funny - apparently NASA's estimate for the per-launch cost of SLS at one every two years is $500M.  And apparently development is still on schedule despite the awful funding situation.

It seems odd to me that the people who loudly complain that NASA is full of waste and inefficiency are the same people who insist that asking NASA to develop a rocket on a restricted budget is like ignoring a law of physics.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2013 10:20 pm by 93143 »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
So, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?

Or is it deeper than that?  I submit that it's a little late to rip up the plans for SLS and go back to non-stretched, non-heavy Jupiter...

Did I imagine it, or did one of the DIRECT guys once say that they were staying quiet on their Stretched Heavy configs specifically so that NASA could claim them as their own?

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
So, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?

Or is it deeper than that?  I submit that it's a little late to rip up the plans for SLS and go back to non-stretched, non-heavy Jupiter...

Did I imagine it, or did one of the DIRECT guys once say that they were staying quiet on their Stretched Heavy configs specifically so that NASA could claim them as their own?

I don't remember which Direct launcher the Direct team member was talking about, or even if the version was clearly indicated, but they did have a configuration they thought NASA might want to claim as its own.   
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Well, uhhh... Like the Chile sez:
If the cheapest way is still too expensive, that would be be a problem.

No question that an L-point gateway, particularly a nascent ring station, could support a concerted effort for mankind to actually explore the solar system and carry out the experiment of demonstrating human capacity to live off planet.  But...

Call it a Block 0B...

No more goofy nomenclature.  I'll be forced to check myself in at St. Elizabeth's.  No wait. I can't even do that!

Seriously folks...

Quote from: 93
Block 0, as specified, has no EDS at all.  It was a quick hack, a test rocket that was never intended to accomplish anything and was accordingly deemed superfluous.

Look.  If NASA needs to throw away a few cores, it'll give Bezos something to do in his retirement.  But unfortunately, you're not making a "sustainable" argument which could be justified by an "intelligent design" viewpoint.  YMMV on that.

You seem to be seriously ok with the suggestion you made.  That after launching the $11B Ares rocket empty, in a redux of an unmanned, empty Mercury flight, NASA should consider designing, building, and launching a rocket that was deliberately "never intended to accomplish anything"?

We know that "tea can do many things", but I'm beginning to think that kool-aid can do a great many more things.

Quote from: 93
Block 0 plus an EDS would have been perfectly capable of lunar missions.

It sounds like I'm possibly getting thru the purple haze, at least a little bit.  I know that the objection of funding will always be brought up:

Quote from: 93
Remember, a large part of the cause of the miserable schedule is simply the fact that the President, the OMB, and Congress have collectively failed to adequately fund the SLS program...

...but my family has to live within our means.  So does NASA's family.  Smaller is faster and cheaper and good enough.  Those are the three salient features.  Kinda like my 20 year old Volvo is better than a d-o-n-k-e-y, which is all they get in some poor third world country.

I have no idea how all this is going to play out.

So, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?

...

Did I imagine it, or did one of the DIRECT guys once say that they were staying quiet on their Stretched Heavy configs specifically so that NASA could claim them as their own?

He can be taught!

The 70 ton rocket will do the job, if only we had it to use.  What's missing?  Not the booster, the EDS!  And then what? The P-word!

All that other so-called "evolution", the part that's blind and only profit based, could be actually be "intelligently designed"  [I know, taboo term] for actual accomplishment on a restricted budget.  While they work on reducing launch costs by actually [gasp] launching payloads!  There's no real rush to build the BFR.

The only way to reduce launch costs is to launch, and then count the dollars spent, and tighten up your operation and your manufacturing.  Reducing launch costs in a power point doesn't count.  When I invented the universe, I made it function this way.

Build the freaky deaky rocket and use it.

And no, you didn't imagine that.  My memory also recollects a member of the DIRECT team pointed out NASA's "Not Invented Here" syndrome along the lines you mention.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2013 12:57 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
You seem to be seriously ok with the suggestion you made.  That after launching the $11B Ares rocket empty, in a redux of an unmanned, empty Mercury flight, NASA should consider designing, building, and launching a rocket that was deliberately "never intended to accomplish anything"?

I didn't suggest anything of the kind.  I was merely pointing out that while a J-130 could have been designed to evolve into a J-246 and be a moon rocket, Block 0 was intended to evolve into a J-140SH first, which made the initial configuration pointless.  So NASA wisely dumped it.  (One could argue about which configuration ought to have been dumped, but one or the other had to go.)

Also, NASA didn't spend anything like $11B on Ares I, never mind Ares I-X.  The oft-quoted ~$10B number (which I'm assuming is equivalent to yours) was all of CxP.

Quote
So, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?
He can be taught!

Okay, I think we're pretty much done here.

I had gotten the impression from your somewhat stylized rhetoric that you were unclear on what the actual situation was; what exactly the baseline was and what the upgrades entailed.  I hope I have been able to help alleviate any excess confusion.

Quote
The 70 ton rocket will do the job, if only we had it to use.  What's missing?  Not the booster, the EDS!  And then what? The P-word!

All that other so-called "evolution", the part that's blind and only profit based, could be actually be "intelligently designed"  [I know, taboo term] for actual accomplishment on a restricted budget.  While they work on reducing launch costs by actually [gasp] launching payloads!  There's no real rush to build the BFR.

I'm with you here.  I'd like to see the advanced boosters, but I'd like to see an L2 station servicing a growing moon base more.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
....

I'm with you here.  I'd like to see the advanced boosters, but I'd like to see an L2 station servicing a growing moon base more.


93143, an L1 or L2 space station is not about human Lunar polar ISRU missions.

Direct and efficient polar ISRU mission planning is the key task NASA faces.



From: NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study Pages 14,15, and 685. November 2005
At: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/ESAS_report.html

"1.3.2.1 Option Analysis Approach
The lunar mission mode option space considered the location of “nodes” in both cislunar space and the vicinity of Earth. The study originally considered cislunar nodes at the Earth-Moon L1 libration point, in LLO, and on the lunar surface. Respectively, these translate to Libration Point Rendezvous (LPR), LOR, and Lunar Surface Rendezvous (LSR) mission modes. The study also considered Earth-orbital staging locations in LEO, higher-inclination ISS orbits, and raised-apogee HEOs. In all three cases, elements brought together in any type of Earth orbit were generically termed an EOR mission mode."

And, "LPR was eliminated early from the mission mode trade space. Recent studies performed by NASA mission designers concluded that equivalent landing site access and 'anytime abort' conditions could be met by rendezvous missions in LLO with less propulsive delta-V and lower overall Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit (IMLEO). If used only as a node for lunar missions, the L1 Earth-Moon LPR is inferior to the LOR mission mode[/b].

And, "In support of the lunar architecture mission mode trade studies, several options were identified to vary the rendezvous locations for the CEV and lander. The initial rendezvous could either occur in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) per the EIRA assumptions or they could initially rendezvous in LEO. The LEO rendezvous was preferable from an operational, safety, and reliability perspective because any problems with the rendezvous would occur in close proximity to the Earth and would allow better contingency options. The second major rendezvous occurs when the lander returns from the surface of the Moon. In the EIRA, the lander returns from the lunar surface and rendezvous with the CEV in LLO. Another option is to take the CEV to the lunar surface; then the return to Earth does not require a rendezvous at all."

And, "The lunar direct-return cost was much lower due to the elimination of the habitable volume and crew systems on the lander ascent stage. These were replaced by the CEV going all the way to the lunar surface. The ascent stage of the lander was also eliminated by using the SM capabilities for ascent propulsion from the lunar surface. These cost advantages were offset by reduced safety and reliability due to the loss of the redundant habitable volume provided by the lander. Having both the CEV and the lander as separable crew habitation space was desirable from a crew survival perspective and for operational flexibility."


I added the bold.


Are our international space exploration partners eager to have their astronauts hanging around at an L1 or L2 space station to serve as GCR experimental subjects while twiddling their thumbs far away from the surface of the Moon?

Our international space exploration partners want to see their scientists, geologists, engineers, tourists, and business folks busy doing Lunar propellant ISRU from a polar ice deposit, exploring, and building the basic infrastructure needed for a permanent and international human presence on the Moon.

Obviously, we need a Lander far more than we need a costly and unneeded L1 or L2 space station.

The President doesn't want to spend any money on a Lander as he has friends elsewhere that need money, so instead during a time of flat or declining NASA budgets, we get empty rhetoric about some unfunded L1 or L2 space station, asteroid missions, Mars missions, and also no serious plans to do Lunar ISRU, and no serious plans to follow the law and put astronauts back on the surface of the Moon.

An L1 or L2 space station would add mass, delta-v, complexity, risk, radiation exposure, and cost to doing human Lunar missions. Lunar bound cargo missions won't do a costly and delta-v adding detour to L1 or L2, and there isn't a logical reason for human missions to make such out of the way detours either. 

And in a time of flat or declining NASA budgets, the President trying to add an L1 or L2 space station's inefficiency and cost to legally required human Lunar surface missions probably won't make much sense to Congress.


Edited.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2013 08:16 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
You seem to be seriously ok with the suggestion you made.  That after launching the $11B Ares rocket ...

I didn't suggest anything of the kind ... NASA wisely dumped it.  (One could argue about which configuration ought to have been dumped, but one or the other had to go.)

Also, NASA didn't spend anything like $11B on Ares I...

I choose my words carefully, believe it or not, yet still I miss conveying all that I might want to convey.  Of course you didn't suggest anything of the sort.  Admittedly, my use of the disclaimer, "you seem to be OK with it", is fairly weak, since people around here say "seem" and "with all due respect" to excess, and the true meaning of the terms is not always clear.  In fact, the latter term is more like a shot of disrespect across the bow, but I digress.

There is nothing "wise" about NASA "dumping" the 70 ton SLS.  The legislation, very sensibly, I thought, made it clear that the 70 ton version was satisfactory for our future puposes of HSF; corporate insiders, however, have successfully seen to it that the final version will become the first useful version.

To most of us, who are effectively powerless to prevent this multi-decadal waste of time and effort, it seems certain that any human boots on the ground, even at Mars, is not likely.

I will acknowledge that maybe the bankers are actually engineering a widespread global economic recovery, where the larger LV makes sense economically.  The Liquid Dice Agitator suggests that "signs point to no".  [translation: most people do not see widespread economic recovery, but rather an increasing continuation of resource scarcity.]

The 70 ton SLS could construct an L-point base in roughly 30 ton chunks, and a lunar base in roughly 20 ton chunks.  It could also assemble a 140, 210, or x times 70 ton Mars mothership in LEO.  Over time, as launching becomes more routine, bolstered by a string of successes, and an honest industry effort to reduce costs, we could intelligently design a larger LV, perhaps even a good bit larger than the 130 ton version.

The legislation did not mandate immediate "evolution".  The legislation mandated intent to engineer a larger version.  Literally, they don't need to do any manufacturing whatsoever on that evolution to 130 ton.

The appropriate design approach is to launch early and often, and let experience inform the design process.

So, John, can I interpret your position as opposition to prioritizing the advanced boosters over an EDS and lander?
Quote from: JF
[Yes, more or less.]

Quote from: 93
Okay, I think we're pretty much done here.

I had gotten the impression from your somewhat stylized rhetoric that you were unclear on what the actual situation was; what exactly the baseline was and what the upgrades entailed.  I hope I have been able to help alleviate any excess confusion.

Those of us who would speak truth to power find it necessary to use "stylized rhetoric".

Your description of the baseline and the upgrades, if accurate, clearly points to the shell game being played by NASA, Congress, and their corporate minders. 

While I may not understand the subtleties of the situation, I have a good idea of the chances of the pragmatic execution of the "situation" as it stands.

As Ares and Constellation have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no mandate whatsoever to actually build a functioning launch system; thus literally, no guarantees that there will even be a rocket at the end of this development cycle.

The confusing nomenclature implies a consistency between "models" that does not exist; the throw weights themselves literally do not add up; there is no pressing need to increase the size so quickly, since there is no mission profile of any substance; funding instability is more likely to continue than not; it's hard to see a positive outcome by 2030, at this rate, with these constraints and illogicalities.

Quote from: JF
The 70 ton rocket will do the job, if only we had it to use.  What's missing?  Not the booster, the EDS!  And then what? The P-word!

All that other so-called "evolution", the part that's blind and only profit based, could be actually be "intelligently designed"  [I know, taboo term] for actual accomplishment on a restricted budget.  While they work on reducing launch costs by actually [gasp] launching payloads!  There's no real rush to build the BFR.

Quote from: 93
I'm with you here.  I'd like to see the advanced boosters, but I'd like to see an L2 station servicing a growing moon base more.

Good.

With a little bit of luck, we'll start using liquid boosters.  The core doesn't know whether the boosters are solid or liquid; only the politicans know.

The fact that I cannot personally perform the engineering to make this change to the 70 ton LV, does not prove that such engineering cannot be done, in principle.

Again, it's proper prioritization, not political prioritization, which is what is needed.  Thanks for the history lesson.  But:

Where's the EDS? And where's the L-point station? And where's the lander?
« Last Edit: 03/23/2013 12:45 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
.....

Again, it's proper prioritization, not political prioritization, which is what is needed.  Thanks for the history lesson.  But:

Where's the EDS? And where's the L-point station? And where's the lander?


John, let's forget the costly and unneeded "L-point station" in an unstable and distant orbit. The L1 and L2 stuff was mainly just part of the Presidential asteroid and Mars smokescreen that he used to help end CxP.

Despite the smokescreen and delays we are going back to the Moon. CxP is in the process of being greatly updated, but the basic realities that led to the initial creation of CxP have only improved with the discovery of additional evidence of frozen water and other valuable resources in the Lunar polar regions. 

But don't be disappointed, we might assemble a space station in a stable polar low Lunar orbit. It would have quite a view.



Constellation program   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

"The Constellation Program (abbreviated CxP) was a human spaceflight program within NASA, the space agency of the United States. The stated goals of the program were to gain significant experience in operating away from Earth's environment, develop technologies needed for opening the space frontier, and conducting fundamental science.[1]"

And, "Constellation began in response to the goals laid out in the Vision for Space Exploration under NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe. It had already begun development, under several proposals.[2][3] After Sean O'Keefe's retirement, his successor Michael D. Griffin ordered a complete review, termed the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, which reshaped how NASA would pursue the goals laid out in the Vision for Space Exploration. With the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 formalizing the findings of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, work began on this revised Constellation Program to send astronauts first to the International Space Station, then to the Moon, and afterward to Mars and other destinations beyond.[4]

And, "Subsequent to the findings of the Augustine Committee that the Constellation Program could not be executed without very substantial increases in funding, on February 1, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a proposal to cancel the program, effective with the U.S. 2011 fiscal year budget,[5][6][7][8] but later announced changes to the proposal in a major space policy speech at Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010. Obama signed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 on October 11 which shelved the program,[9] with Constellation contracts remaining in place until Congress acts to overturn the previous mandate.[10][11] The program has been replaced by the U.S. National Space Policy of the Barack Obama administration. NASA announced that it had selected the design of the Space Launch System in September 2011.[12]"

And, "Ares V would have had a maximum payload capacity of about 188 metric tons (414,000 lb) to low earth orbit (LEO), compared to the Space Shuttle's capacity of 24.4 metric tons, and the Saturn V's 118 metric tons. The Ares V would have carried about 71 metric tons (157,000 lb) to the Moon, versus the Saturn V's 45 metric tons moon payload.[24][25]"

And, "The Orion Mars mission plan for NASA's Constellation program is a manned mission with the intent to land humans on Mars in the 2030s. Originally the ultimate goal of NASA's Apollo Applications Program (AAP) in the 1960s, the Orion Mars Mission would utilize the hardware, primarily the Orion spacecraft (or a variation based on the Orion), and the Ares V cargo-launch vehicle, along with methods of carrying out the mission, which would be developed on board the International Space Station and the planned Lunar Outpost which is to be set up on the surface of the Moon after 2020.[59]"


I added the bold.


Right now it seems like the push for LRBs on the SLS could put us on the path of having a large Ares V equivalent SLS launcher.  Ares V could "have carried about 71 metric tons (157,000 lb) to the Moon, versus the Saturn V's 45 metric tons moon payload."

This SLS with LRBs could enable direct one launch based human Lunar polar ISRU missions.

A two launch human Lunar polar mission that uses the Delta IV Heavy for orbiting the Orion and Lunar mission Service Module, and makes good use of a low Earth rendezvous with the SLS launched large Lander, would also be quite doable.

John, you and everyone else should keep on asking your critical question, "And where's the lander?"
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
There's no lander because Luna isn't the destination.

That's still up in the air.

The next POTUS will either decide on a new destination or more likely just stick to the "unknown asteroid in 2025" so he/she doesn't have to increase funding.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0