Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated. Says something about SLS perhaps?Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. Do it.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/08/2017 11:16 amFunny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated. Says something about SLS perhaps?Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. Do it.If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/07/2017 06:38 pmIt is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing, could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition: 1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination 2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF) 3. First to do so wins in each category named.Isn't that what Roadster in space is doing? Next month?
It is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing, could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition: 1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination 2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF) 3. First to do so wins in each category named.
If you say can't use this example because SpaceX got USG $$ -- though clearly not for FH -- then how will Boeing ever qualify?
Problem with Boeing boss claim is the arrogance of calling SLS a Boeing rocket. They didn't fund it, they aren't covering its overruns, they didn't win it based on anything but political chumming. It's the closest thing to their rocket only because there isn't anything they've designed or developed out there that can compete.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/08/2017 11:25 am...In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.Only if SLS still exists in 2030...
...In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.
There's a thread for the SpaceX/Boeing challenge now.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44385.0Let's take any generic (non SLS related, such as mods, schedule changes, new equipment for SLS, etc that might be needed) to that thread. Neither Boeing aircraft nor BFS nor in space assembly of aldrin cyclers or other transport are on topic.( posted my initial post here because it was clear to me that the CEO meant SLS as the "Boeing rocket")Thanks!
Gerst shows slide of the huge test stands etc that will be used for testing SLS components. "This is the role for govt." Make the "massive investment" in facilities and make available to everyone. SpaceX's BFR and Blue Origin's New Glenn can "leverage off of this."
First time I've heard anyone from NASA mention anything about making SLS facilities available to everyone.
I believe that the heavy rocket should lift heavy payloads that cheaper launch vehicles cannot. Especially at one launch a year.President Trump has just signed a Policy Directive ordering NASA to return humans to the Moon. Astronauts are going to need habitats to live in and rovers to drive around. These are big heavy items.Apollo went to the Moon and back each time on a single launch. I suspect lunar payload masses will be increased by staging at one or more spacestations.Reusable lunar landers, such as an enhanced Xeus, can be kept at a lunar spacestation in low lunar orbit (LLO). The spacestation's arm could transfer the cargo from the visiting vehicle to the lander. The connected depot can repair and refuel the lander. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a spacestation in low lunar orbit?Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) space tugs can used to transfer cargo between a low Earth Orbit (LEO) spacestation and a LLO spacestation. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a LEO spacestation in say a 28° orbit?
Quote from: envy887 on 12/12/2017 12:41 pmSLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B. - Ed Kyle
SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/12/2017 02:53 pmQuote from: envy887 on 12/12/2017 12:41 pmSLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B. - Ed KyleThe Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.The race is on.
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/12/2017 08:05 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/12/2017 02:53 pmQuote from: envy887 on 12/12/2017 12:41 pmSLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B. - Ed KyleThe Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.The race is on.2022 is just 4 years away and the PPE development and manufacture is not yet on contract. But then again most estimates as to when EM-2 would occur show NET mid 2023 at best and that is without a previous flight of EC to prove out the EUS. So PPE is unlikely to delay the EM-2 flight. Most likely it would be slowed to free up funds to speed up other delayed items needed to get EM-2 launched. As to B330 and Vulcan/ACES distributed launch in 2022 is an aspirational date as well. A full functional ACES on top of a just became operational Vulcan at best 2 years earlier is not a highly likely event.So you are correct let the race begin.
It would also allow for additional SLS launches between EM-1 and EM-2, provided they use the ICPS, since the first mobile launcher would remain available. “That’s in my mind, the biggest benefit,” Hill said. “We’re not stuck on the ground until we get finished with the modifications. That’s one of the things we’re taking a look at.”
Personally I think it is a philosophy difference. The Jupiter (whose time has come and gone btw so let's not go there) was designed to return Americans to space after Shuttle in the quickest way possible, at the least expense, and still obey the Congressional mandate to be Shuttle-derived. SLS was under no such restraints and NASA wanted the biggest heavy lift they could envision and was willing to spend whatever that cost and take as much time as that may take. Beginning with the vehicle we designed that the Congress had signed off on, NASA immediately began the process of morphing, going thru several painful iterations. NASA wanted the Ares-V, finally admitted that it couldn't have it but could get close. The design effort went sideways from there. There is nothing wrong with the SLS. It's a good HLV. But it is, IMO, just too damn big; good for lofting one-of payloads here and there, once every couple of years at enormous costs, but too big and too expensive to be a truly useful launch vehicle. All that is, of course, just my opinion. YMMV.