Author Topic: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads  (Read 80810 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #1 on: 08/03/2015 02:24 pm »
Hm. Translation: we don't have a budget for the payloads for the missions SLS would be needed. And for the missions we have a budget for, SLS is oversized. So let's find additional cargo to take along?

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 821
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #2 on: 08/03/2015 04:38 pm »
Great headline!

Hm. Translation: we don't have a budget for the payloads for the missions SLS would be needed. And for the missions we have a budget for, SLS is oversized. So let's find additional cargo to take along?

Not really. It is about creating options and then promoting those options to customers. The problem would be to restrict what SLS can do and that wouldn't help anyone because this is going to be the most capable rocket on the planet.

Falcon Heavy isn't in the same league as Block 1B and BFR is a pipe dream.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #3 on: 08/03/2015 05:09 pm »
I think "option 1" (cargo version) is strange.

We have no idea what kind of missions Block 1b Cargo will be flying. The requirements for a 1b fairing and PAF will be so different from anything that flys with MPCV on top... why even think about it at this point?

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #4 on: 08/03/2015 05:53 pm »
It's fascinating that NASA's concept of operations for the Space Shuttle replacement relies on crew + cargo manifests. It's like history repeating itself right before our eyes.

Offline kenny008

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 2079
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #5 on: 08/03/2015 06:01 pm »
I don't think there was anything wrong with sending crew and cargo together, as long as the crew was required for the flight and they could safely escape in case of a problem.  The Augustine report was only concerned about sending crew on a mission that should have been a strictly cargo mission.  As long as the crew and cargo have to go up anyway, and the crew is not restricted from a safe escape when required, I don't think there was a problem.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #6 on: 08/03/2015 06:05 pm »
Hmm, sounds like desperately fishing for missions to subsidize the cost of the rocket because it is a (very expensive) rocket without budget for any missions. I do not see why anyone would choose to piggyback on this unproven and expensive LV when there are proven and less expensive alternatives.

Quote
NASA is planning for an eventual full evolution to the Block 2 configuration, with its 130 mT capability classed as a requirement for Mars missions in the 2030s.

And yet we have been told many times that any evolution will be to Block IIB with Dark Knight advanced solid boosters, a core that remains at four engines, and that this will not meet the 130 mT capability.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #7 on: 08/03/2015 06:12 pm »
Falcon Heavy isn't in the same league as Block 1B and BFR is a pipe dream.

With the possible upcoming stretches and deep cryo cooling of prop, FH may get a good bit more than 53mT. As for BFR being a pipe dream, I believe that not so long ago that's what the establishment said about landing a first stage. Everyone knows we are now on the cusp of that event. It's the same company that continues to achieve pipe dream after pipe dream.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #8 on: 08/03/2015 06:15 pm »
Great headline!

Hm. Translation: we don't have a budget for the payloads for the missions SLS would be needed. And for the missions we have a budget for, SLS is oversized. So let's find additional cargo to take along?

Not really. It is about creating options and then promoting those options to customers. The problem would be to restrict what SLS can do and that wouldn't help anyone because this is going to be the most capable rocket on the planet.

Falcon Heavy isn't in the same league as Block 1B and BFR is a pipe dream.

Wrong, he is dead on.  This is trying to find customers.  Stating otherwise is nothing but ignorance of reality. 

The pipe dream is thinking that there is money for two payloads, much less one.   History proves otherwise.  How many times a year has the largest Atlas V (551), much less the Delta IV Heavy flown?  That is on the national level, now just look for NASA missions.

Also, it is a nothing but spin to call the "most capable rocket", when it will be the most expensive one and won't fly more than 1 or 2 times a year.   "Capable" is meaningless when the rocket is not launching.

SLS will be a short live dinosaur, if not stillborn.  Jobs that depend on it will also disappear much like them too.  It will be sad to see people waste their careers on projects like Ares I, X-33, SLI, etc and have nothing to show for it.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 06:23 pm by Jim »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #9 on: 08/03/2015 07:20 pm »
It's fascinating that NASA's concept of operations for the Space Shuttle replacement relies on crew + cargo manifests. It's like history repeating itself right before our eyes.

The CAIB Final Report never definitively identified Crew plus Cargo as a contributing factor to the loss of Columbia and her crew. That condition was subsequently discussed by individual members of the board as being among the factors which drove the report conclusions. What was being identified was not the condition of crew accompanying cargo into orbit but the inability of that crew to escape a failing launch vehicle because of the integrated design of the spacecraft and the launch vehicle into a single vehicle. That condition does not exist with the design of Orion and the SLS. By returning to a design of a spacecraft that is physically separate from the launch vehicle and any cargo container that is also being lofted into orbit with it, that condition no longer exists. In the event of a launch vehicle failure the spacecraft can escape, saving the lives of her crew. There is nothing in the Orion-SLS configuration which is at odds with any tenant of the CAIB Final Report.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 08:32 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #10 on: 08/03/2015 07:39 pm »
I can see that the SLS haters are out in full force today. Why can't we discuss the good progress being made on SLS without it degenerating into a "SLS sucks, its too expensive, BFR is prettier, blah, blah, blah," mode? Why can't we just cheer for everybody in the space industry?

It's fascinating that NASA's concept of operations for the Space Shuttle replacement relies on crew + cargo manifests. It's like history repeating itself right before our eyes.

I don't think it is quite the same in this situation. Like Kenny pointed out there is a launch escape system in place now. Also because the cargo will "ride" under Orion there shouldn't be any interference from it in an abort situation. With the shuttle you had to lug all the cargo with you if had a TAL, RTLS or ATO abort.

Falcon Heavy isn't in the same league as Block 1B and BFR is a pipe dream.

With the possible upcoming stretches and deep cryo cooling of prop, FH may get a good bit more than 53mT. As for BFR being a pipe dream, I believe that not so long ago that's what the establishment said about landing a first stage. Everyone knows we are now on the cusp of that event. It's the same company that continues to achieve pipe dream after pipe dream.

Tim S. is absolutely right. Even if the improvements to FH occur (remember they are abandoning cross-feed at least for the moment) SLS IB will still outclass it in LEO and more importantly in BEO (2-3 times more performance) and BFR is at least 15-20 years away. SLS can do the job and the infrastructure to support it is there.

Hmm, sounds like desperately fishing for missions to subsidize the cost of the rocket because it is a (very expensive) rocket without budget for any missions. I do not see why anyone would choose to piggyback on this unproven and expensive LV when there are proven and less expensive alternatives.

As we have seen even proven rockets like Falcon 9 and Proton can fail. SLS is designed to carry crew so if I was a potential customer I would see SLS as a pretty good bet.


Wrong, he is dead on.  This is trying to find customers.  Stating otherwise is nothing but ignorance of reality.
 

And what exactly is wrong with finding customers and other payloads? I would think that would be a good thing.

Quote
The pipe dream is thinking that there is money for two payloads, much less one.   History proves otherwise.  How many times a year has the largest Atlas V (551), much less the Delta IV Heavy flown?  That is on the national level, now just look for NASA missions.

Well if I recall correctly the shuttle took up some pretty big payloads to construct ISS. History would suggest that it is indeed doable to fund such payloads, especially if they were deep space variants of existing hardware (an MPLM or a Cygnus).
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #11 on: 08/03/2015 07:54 pm »
ISS was built with 20 ton and less size payload modules.  It could have been built with traditional rockets for far less money than shuttle.  If shuttle could have launched once a month, its price may have come down.  There just wasn't any need at the time for more than 3-4 flights a year.  SLS is bigger and costs more so it will launch less.  If and when Falcon Heavy gets going, two launches of FH can match SLS for LEO building, assembly, or payloads.  Vulcan maxed out with an ACES upper stage and 6 solids can just about match SLS for BLEO payloads, at least two Vulcans can for less launch costs.  SLS should have been designed for 150 ton or greater payloads, but it wasn't.  Large solids are expensive and the ones for SLS are expendable and not reusable.   If the ISS can be built with 20 ton units, surely with fuel depots, FH and Vulcan can take care of anything deep space related until BFR is built.  Also developments in SEP propulsion, EM drives, and Lockheeds small fusion reactor, might negate the need for larger rockets by the time SLS gets on line.  I am also a taxpayer and want the most bang for the buck, SLS is not it.  They should have gone the Direct Jupiter route and we would already have a 70 ton launcher and maybe even the 130 ton one. 

Offline nadreck

Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #12 on: 08/03/2015 08:03 pm »
I can see that the SLS haters are out in full force today.

Sorry but the first person to bring up anything to do with SpaceX on this thread brought up both FH in comparison and BFR. The only other response up to your post that mentioned SpaceX were in response to a rather derogatory remark: "pipe dream" is an idiom that refers to smoking opium, calling BFR a drug induced hallucination would be exactly as derogatory to SpaceX as saying that the SLS will suck up another $20B of funding and be transmutted into the next, never to be finished, heavy lift vehicle project by NASA.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Sotar

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Pacific NW
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #13 on: 08/03/2015 08:05 pm »
I agree with Jim,  SLS will soon come to an end.  It is a rocket that doesn't have a clear mission other than to loft really big payloads. 

The first test mission isn't anything other that a test, and is frankly just a waste of time and money.  The second mission isn't much better.  Neither are much more than publicity stuns as  Ares 1-X was.

If there was something like ISS-II on the horizon, or multiple space telescopes, or some sort of really big exploration rover / rover base that could cloned and sent to multiple planets / moons.  That would be something...  However the US doesn't have the money for those kinds of programs.  And wasting the money we do have on SLS is the pipe dream.

I'm very much in support of the space program and having excellent world class capability. However SLS is too costly to afford and lacks clear missions.   I don't wish to bash SLS but to me it is clearly not needed and it using money that could be better spent on real missions.
1% for Space

Offline SteveSpace

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #14 on: 08/03/2015 08:12 pm »
I agree with Jim,  SLS will soon come to an end. 

A rag tag group of internet people have been saying that for more years than I care to remember and I dare say they will be out at the launch pad on launch day for EM-1 with their "SLS will be cancelled before it flies" banners. ;D

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #15 on: 08/03/2015 08:27 pm »
I agree with Jim,  SLS will soon come to an end. 

A rag tag group of internet people have been saying that for more years than I care to remember and I dare say they will be out at the launch pad on launch day for EM-1 with their "SLS will be cancelled before it flies" banners. ;D

A few useless launches is the same no launches.  The point is that SLS is not going to last.  There are any missions for it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #16 on: 08/03/2015 08:28 pm »

And what exactly is wrong with finding customers and other payloads? I would think that would be a good thing.


Build and they will come doesn't work.  If there aren't payload driving requirements, then why is SLS out there?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #17 on: 08/03/2015 08:34 pm »
It's logical that NASA would want a Universal Stage Adaptor (USA), since the premise for the SLS is that it will be needed for a variety of needs over a long period of time.  However, using marketing terms, what is the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for such a capability?

1.  NASA payloads of course, which includes payloads that fly with the Orion, and possible missions like the Europa Clipper.

2.  Since the SLS is a government launcher, other government payloads like the Department of Defense.

3.  Non-U.S. government payloads.

4.  Commercial payloads.

As of today I think we ignore #2, since the DoD gave up depending on NASA after the Challenger accident, and I don't think there are any new threats that require larger payloads than what the DoD/NRO have today.

Along the same lines I think we can ignore #3, since I'm not sure any other government would want to rely on the U.S. for their critical space programs.

For #4, NASA is not allowed to compete against the commercial marketplace, so if a payload is able to fly on existing U.S. launchers NASA would not be able to underbid them.  Plus, does anyone think the private sector is going to build something that can only be launched on a Single-Point-of-Failure (SPOF) transportation system?

So from what I can see this is mainly for NASA's potential use.

Tim S. is absolutely right. Even if the improvements to FH occur (remember they are abandoning cross-feed at least for the moment) SLS IB will still outclass it in LEO and more importantly in BEO (2-3 times more performance) and BFR is at least 15-20 years away. SLS can do the job and the infrastructure to support it is there.

Sure there could be commercial payloads that are larger than what the Falcon Heavy could carry, but do you know of any that are being funded today?  It takes a long time to develop payloads of that size, especially of they need to be human rated, so the need to support this area of demand would not be in the early part of the 2020's.

Quote
And what exactly is wrong with finding customers and other payloads? I would think that would be a good thing.

The important question in all of this is not whether such an interface can be built.  Of course it can.  The important question is that if NASA is planning on launching non-government payloads, what will they be charging, and how do they determine that?

NASA hasn't even estimated what their operational costs will be, and here they are assuming that commercial users will be able to afford to fly on the SLS.  I'd say that's pretty presumptuous...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #18 on: 08/03/2015 09:32 pm »

If and when Falcon Heavy gets going, two launches of FH can match SLS for LEO building, assembly, or payloads.


The problem is that NASA is getting away from LEO as a staging area (which I think is a good idea). For BEO you need 3 Falcon Heavies to match 1 SLS IB. At this point you start getting into massive assembly requirements with just Falcon Heavies. The much better option in my opinion is to tag team them. Use SLS for the big stuff and FH/Vulcan for small payloads (think food delivery).

Quote
Vulcan maxed out with an ACES upper stage and 6 solids can just about match SLS for BLEO payloads, at least two Vulcans can for less launch costs.

From what I understand that is dependent on refueling cryogenic propellants in LEO (which we still haven't figured out). If you can do that then the much better option is to refuel the SLS's EUS to throw more payload BEO.

Quote
Large solids are expensive and the ones for SLS are expendable and not reusable.


I believe reusability is the future but I think it is a mistake to bank everything on it when it still hasn't been proven. Venture Star was supposed to be a grand reusable SSTO vehicle but it didn't work out.

Quote
Also developments in SEP propulsion, EM drives, and Lockheeds small fusion reactor, might negate the need for larger rockets by the time SLS gets on line.


SEP is going to be the in space drive for a Mars transfer vehicle or cargo ship. It isn't gonna put them in orbit. We need a HLV.

Quote
I am also a taxpayer and want the most bang for the buck, SLS is not it.


It is the only rocket that can do the job right now. It isn't perfect but it is the only path forward that is being funded. I would rather see people fly around the moon in 6 years than see a perfectly workable rocket get canceled in favor of "game changing technologies" that may never get funded and have no one BEO for 20 years.


The first test mission isn't anything other that a test, and is frankly just a waste of time and money.  The second mission isn't much better. Neither are much more than publicity stuns as  Ares 1-X was.
 

Maybe this is a generational thing but as a person who never got to see the moon landings and has only seen LEO launches his entire life I am excited to see humanity venture beyond LEO again. All those who are arguing against SLS don't seem to realize the amount of time and effort it has taken to get to this point. Sure it isn't perfect but it is what we have got. The only thing canceling it will accomplish is leaving us stuck in LEO another 20 years.

Quote
If there was something like ISS-II on the horizon

Once the new President gets into office there might very well be something like that. A Skylab II in lunar orbit is totally doable with SLS Block IB and it wouldn't cost that much. In a perfect world we would want to develop the payload and the rocket at the same time but we don't live in a perfect world.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
USA set to adapt SLS for additional payloads
« Reply #19 on: 08/03/2015 09:34 pm »
I agree with Jim,  SLS will soon come to an end.  It is a rocket that doesn't have a clear mission other than to loft really big payloads. 

The first test mission isn't anything other that a test, and is frankly just a waste of time and money.  The second mission isn't much better.  Neither are much more than publicity stuns as  Ares 1-X was.

If there was something like ISS-II on the horizon, or multiple space telescopes, or some sort of really big exploration rover / rover base that could cloned and sent to multiple planets / moons.  That would be something...  However the US doesn't have the money for those kinds of programs.  And wasting the money we do have on SLS is the pipe dream.

I'm very much in support of the space program and having excellent world class capability. However SLS is too costly to afford and lacks clear missions.   I don't wish to bash SLS but to me it is clearly not needed and it using money that could be better spent on real missions.

Well I know one thing I wouldn't entrust an important flagship mission like Europa Clipper to FH. If an SLS isn't available the only other launcher it would put it on would be Vulcan.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 09:34 pm by Star One »

Tags:
 

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