Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/14/2017 03:04 pmA Falcon Heavy flying in normal "recoverable" mode would only be able to boost about 6 tonnes TLI. It might get 16 or more tonnes to TLI in total expendable mode, theoretically.The projected max GTO payload went up to 21,200 kg from 19,000 kg so why didn't the TLI payload increase also?
A Falcon Heavy flying in normal "recoverable" mode would only be able to boost about 6 tonnes TLI. It might get 16 or more tonnes to TLI in total expendable mode, theoretically.
Quote from: clongton on 02/14/2017 04:04 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 02/14/2017 03:04 pm... ISS, which was launched and built by governments using government launch vehicles. - Ed Kyle That's a straw-man argument. There were no non-government launch vehicles to choose from.There were commercial launch service providers during the ISS build period. U.S. options included Atlas 2/3 and Delta 2 and, I suppose, Pegasus. None of them matched STS capability, just as none now match SLS.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/14/2017 03:04 pm... ISS, which was launched and built by governments using government launch vehicles. - Ed Kyle That's a straw-man argument. There were no non-government launch vehicles to choose from.
... ISS, which was launched and built by governments using government launch vehicles. - Ed Kyle
Ed is using the same performance estimates that the 21.2 tonne figure is based from, the older ones would be less to TLI. 6 tonnes is still enough to launch a Curiosity-sized rover to the moon and perhaps enough for a cargo Dragon to a station in lunar orbit.Any manned BLEO missions with FH would require expending a core or multiple launches.
He said "launch vehicles", not "launch services".
We don't need a government launcher if we wanted to recreate the ISS.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/07/2017 10:55 pmEven if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.Just checking Chris: are you ever going to acknowledge the fallacy of this "opportunity cost" thinking? Because the funding that doesn't go to SLS in your alternate reality? It doesn't go to a commercially based spaceflight effort either. It just ... disappears from the budget.
Even if the market didn't have too many launch vehicles, the basic development funding for SLS (and ARES) is an ENORMOUS opportunity cost. Like $20-30 billion already, and isn't even in flight yet. Easily enough for a basic hyperbolic lander. We literally could be on the Moon already.
Boeing, Lockheed, and OrbitalATK make SLS and Orion. Have them make habitats, SEP tug, lander.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/15/2017 01:56 amBoeing, Lockheed, and OrbitalATK make SLS and Orion. Have them make habitats, SEP tug, lander.I admit I have no compelling case. It's totally possible your suggestion really might be what would happen! (And I want it as much as you.)So why don't I then stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those who say SLS/Orion is a "waste of money?" Because it seems perfectly plausible to me that if they were cancelled the contractors you mention would -- instead of doing those better things you describe -- instead end up doing things much worse!So like Stern and his organization's members I too see “many potential benefits” from continued work on SLS/Orion. Mainly by sucking up the funding they help prevent Boeing et al. from doing something much more harmful.
Quote from: dror on 02/13/2017 05:32 am Egypt has nothing to do with it. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: su27k on 02/14/2017 03:44 amIf 50+ ton is abstract, so is SLS' 70/100+ ton number, what's the heaviest planned SLS payload? 25 or so ton as I understand it.The Block 1 SLS for EM-1 was, a few years back, required to boost about 55.4 tonnes to a -93 x 1,800 km orbit. The ICPS would then boost the 24.2 tonne Orion payload to a trans-lunar trajectory. Block 1B should increase the TLI number by almost 60%.A Falcon Heavy flying in normal "recoverable" mode would only be able to boost about 6 tonnes TLI. It might get 16 or more tonnes to TLI in total expendable mode, theoretically.
If 50+ ton is abstract, so is SLS' 70/100+ ton number, what's the heaviest planned SLS payload? 25 or so ton as I understand it.
The idea that the commercial space group would align with SLS makes perfect sense. Consider that the commercial cargo and crew contracts both depend on ISS, which was launched and built by governments using government launch vehicles. SLS could serve the same purpose as STS in deep space, with commercial support contracts following.
Orion and SLS are a sick joke. Orion $16 bill when ready to fly, Dragon2 $1 bill. If u can't see that it's pork barrel politics with almost zero interest in outcomes you have only one eye.
The idea that the commercial space group would align with SLS makes perfect sense.
Dragon 2 is costing a bit more than $1 Billion and is less capable than Orion but that is neither here nor there. I admit that the development of SLS/Orion has occurred in an inefficient manner which has resulted in increased costs. There are several reasons for this that have all been discussed ad infinitum on this forum.That said, if you look at the numbers SLS/Orion actually come in cheaper than both shuttle and Apollo if you consider the life cycle cost. Life cycle cost for Apollo was around $110 Billion (~14 yrs development and usage) and shuttle was around $230 Billion (~35 yrs development and usage) if memory serves. Even if SLS/Orion exist for another 25 years we are talking on the level of $120 Billion. By that time, probably earlier, there will be a foothold in space sufficient to allow SLS/Orion to be retired and replaced by a commercial system.
We can have reasonable discussions about costs, inefficiencies, benefits of one system vs. another, etc. Just posting "this system is so dumb" though isn't that helpful or useful.
I admit that the development of SLS/Orion has occurred in an inefficient manner which has resulted in increased costs.
That said, if you look at the numbers SLS/Orion actually come in cheaper than both shuttle and Apollo if you consider the life cycle cost.
Quote from: corneliussulla on 03/18/2017 10:23 pmOrion and SLS are a sick joke. Orion $16 bill when ready to fly, Dragon2 $1 bill. If u can't see that it's pork barrel politics with almost zero interest in outcomes you have only one eye.Dragon 2 is costing a bit more than $1 Billion and is less capable than Orion but that is neither here nor there. I admit that the development of SLS/Orion has occurred in an inefficient manner which has resulted in increased costs. There are several reasons for this that have all been discussed ad infinitum on this forum.That said, if you look at the numbers SLS/Orion actually come in cheaper than both shuttle and Apollo if you consider the life cycle cost. Life cycle cost for Apollo was around $110 Billion (~14 yrs development and usage) and shuttle was around $230 Billion (~35 yrs development and usage) if memory serves. Even if SLS/Orion exist for another 25 years we are talking on the level of $120 Billion. By that time, probably earlier, there will be a foothold in space sufficient to allow SLS/Orion to be retired and replaced by a commercial system. We can have reasonable discussions about costs, inefficiencies, benefits of one system vs. another, etc. Just posting "this system is so dumb" though isn't that helpful or useful.
And I'm not so sure that Orion is more capable. Dragon 2 carries more people, has a higher-spec heat shield, and its price includes a service module, which Orion's doesn't (for now, but if NASA wanted to use Orion for a mission which did not interest ESA, NASA might have to start paying for that too).
My understanding is that Orion and Dragon 2 are both capable of Lunar re-entry (11 km/s). That is all they currently need to do. For re-entry from Mars, at least 13 km/s is required. I think the heat shields of both spacecraft would need to be upgraded for that speed.Dragon 2 does not have a service module. It has a trunk to carry solar panels and internal payloads, the same as Dragon 1. All propulsion and life support is carried in the capsule.
The problem with SLS/Orion is that they make manned exploration of space much less likely than if they didn't exist at all. These once off yearly mission to anywhere that doesn't require a lander at a cost of at least $3-$4 billion a pop if maintenance etc is included ensure that NASA will not be developing the technologies that can be game changers like SEP,NEP, life support systems and Habitats for Mars,moon etc.