Author Topic: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS  (Read 62780 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #160 on: 02/14/2017 05:06 pm »
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.

The projected max GTO payload went up to 21,200 kg from 19,000 kg so why didn't the TLI payload increase also?

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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #161 on: 02/14/2017 05:13 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.

He said "launch vehicles", not "launch services".  It's ridiculous to suggest the ISS components could have been launched on a Pegasus (443 kg to LEO) or Delta II (3m fairing max).

Today we have Atlas V, Delta IV Heavy and Falcon 9, and soon we'll be adding Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, and New Glenn.  We don't need a government launcher if we wanted to recreate the ISS.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online Negan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #162 on: 02/14/2017 05:59 pm »
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.

Thanks. Wikipedia presents the TLI figure incorrectly as it relates it to the 19 tonne figure.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2017 06:57 pm by Negan »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #163 on: 02/15/2017 01:52 am »
He said "launch vehicles", not "launch services".
Same thing.  Atlas 2/3, Delta 2, and Pegasus were commercial launch vehicles by then, though Delta 2 was more closely tethered to USAF needs than the others.
Quote
  We don't need a government launcher if we wanted to recreate the ISS.
I don't expect to see anyone re-create ISS, ever.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #164 on: 02/15/2017 01:56 am »
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.

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.
Discussed this many times. The idea that Congress cares specifically about a huge rocket is naive and itself a fallacy, Congress doesn't care about rockets, they care about jobs and contractors. If it wasn't spent on SLS, it would be porked on something else. Boeing, Lockheed, and OrbitalATK make SLS and Orion. Have them make habitats, SEP tug, lander.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2017 01:58 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #165 on: 02/15/2017 10:25 am »
Boeing, 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.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2017 10:26 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #166 on: 02/15/2017 10:42 am »
Could you give an example of something more harmful?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #167 on: 02/15/2017 10:43 am »
Boeing, 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.

That's silly.  We are paying these contractors -- like we are buying RD-180s -- to keep these engineers from doing dastardly deeds?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #168 on: 03/13/2017 01:09 pm »
???
Egypt has nothing to do with it.

 - Ed Kyle

Greater than 4 percent payload to LEO on a 2 stage, gas generator, kerolox rocket?!?! That's hella good performance.... Comparable to the Ariane 5, and the Proton! Both of those weight about 200 tons more than the Falcon 9!

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #169 on: 03/16/2017 11:18 am »
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 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.

I assume we can agree that the whole "abstract" thing is non-sense then? Clearly if it's abstract for FH, then it's abstract for SLS too.

Quote
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.

Creation of ISS pretty much tied up all the NASA budget, you'll notice Commercial Cargo/Crew didn't really start until Shuttle retired. If you want to create something like ISS in deep space it would tie up NASA budget in traditional space companies for years, I don't see why any commercial space companies would want this.

With Blue Origin's new proposal, it's clear to me that commercial companies are ready to go to the next destination, which is planetary/moon surfaces. They want to build landers, which is exactly what NASA needs. There's no point recreating any space station around the Moon just so that SLS/Orion can have some work to do, the commercial part of the NASA budget should be allocated for a commercial cargo lander project, and let SLS/Orion do their own thing using their own part of the budget.

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #170 on: 03/18/2017 10:23 pm »
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.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #171 on: 03/19/2017 04:02 am »
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.

Pretty much, although no equivalent to SLS is flying just yet.  The best bet for those favoring commercial (and perhaps just a more efficient spaceflight effort) would be for Blue Origin's and SpaceX's HLVs to come into service in the mid-2020s with a gradual phasing out of SLS.  Orion only has its first two flights booked with no further commitments just yet.  Most likely we'll see it and SLS commit at least a few flights.

I think we'll see a combination of traditional government and commercial flights, hopefully with the later becoming more predominant after 2025.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #172 on: 03/19/2017 04:07 am »
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.

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. 
« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 04:40 am by Endeavour_01 »
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 gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #173 on: 03/19/2017 11:59 am »
The idea that the commercial space group would align with SLS makes perfect sense.

Commercial space group backing up a very expensive government launcher while two commercial launch companies are operating, and another is about to appear in ~3 years?

It does not make any sense, much less "perfect" one.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #174 on: 03/19/2017 11:59 am »
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.

But that makes Dragon 2 much, much cheaper than Orion.  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).  Orion does have a greater delta-V and a longer-duration ECLSS, but it's not obvious that NASA has a need for such.  Given the enormous cost differential, it's also not obvious that adding those capabilities to Dragon, should a need for them be determined, wouldn't be much cheaper than using Orion.

Why are Apollo-Saturn's costs a relevant comparator?  Orion/SLS should be cheaper, because it benefits from a more mature technology.  Dragon, Starliner, etc. are relevant comparators, because they or modifications of them could conceivably be procured instead of Orion.

Quote
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 agree 100%.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #175 on: 03/19/2017 12:04 pm »
I admit that the development of SLS/Orion has occurred in an inefficient manner which has resulted in increased costs.

What a surprise. No one ever predicted this outcome, right? ;)

Quote
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.

SLS life cycle costs are unknown. If their cost projections would inflate as badly as they did in the past, I dare not to think what those numbers would be.

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #176 on: 03/19/2017 12:33 pm »
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.

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. 

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.

IF we had a public/private patnership approach to developing new launch systems which where genuinely open tenders and not pork barrels we could have much greater capabilities for much less money IMO. It appears that a factor of 10 savings seems to possible, quite unbelievable if it wasn't actually happening.

Instead we will have a bunch of nearly meaningless missions at huge expense which will always be one step from the budget axe, Apollo with almost none of the excitement.

« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 12:35 pm by corneliussulla »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8183
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #177 on: 03/20/2017 09:10 am »
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).

Dragon 2 initially will only carry four astronauts the same as Orion. Dragon 2 can carry up to seven astronauts and Orion can carry up to to six astronauts, so that is only one astronaut difference. I'm sure Orion could carry more astronauts due to its huge size, but it doesn't need to at this time.

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.

NASA would not directly pay ESA for an SM. That would be a barter arrangement, the same as currently performed with EM-1 and EM-2. ESA would barter an ESM for something NASA would provide, in the previous case access to ISS, which has nothing to with EM-1 and EM-2, so there is a precedent for this.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2017 09:13 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #178 on: 03/20/2017 09:18 am »
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.

That sounds about right.  Orion has propulsion in the ESM, although frankly it can barely do the job of entering lunar orbit but that's partly because Orion has a lot of heft to move around.  Dragon will need modifications to do anything for lunar activity beyond a free return flight, although it can reach and probably survive the lunar environment itself as readily as Orion.  Orion's a heavyweight and Dragon's a lightweight, both with their pros and cons.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8183
Re: Leading Commercial Space Group Embraces SLS
« Reply #179 on: 03/20/2017 09:24 am »
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.

You're assuming that if SLS/Orion didn't exist, some of that money would go into developing "game changing" technologies, which would make future missions much cheaper. First of all, there is no guarantee that money would be spent on "game changing" technologies or that the technologies would be "game changing". That's what the previous administration tried to do and it failed completely at the political level.

I believe the way forward is to use existing technologies to establish Lunar and Mars bases. That will identify which technologies are needed most for future advancement. This is much like how the ISS established a need for cargo and crew transportation to the ISS.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1