They show the 200ton+ launch vehicles from DRM1 and explain why they're traded out.The Magnum is introduced which is less capable than the SLS to LEO (85mt) but has a nuclear TMI stage.... Without further ado I give you DRM3.
I'm sure the SLS production rate could be increased from one vehicle every two years with more budget, but it's hard to see how it could be increased nearly four-fold (for DRM5) or nearly ten-fold (for DRM3).
The bottleneck is really the launch infrastructure, which as we've seen can easily handle 10 launches per year.
NASA is designing SLS with the expectation of a launch rate of two per year at design maturity. They've said as much.
The reason SLS doesn't launch often is that it has nothing to do... the White House and OMB are at least as guilty as Congress.
If they have to upgrade some of the production infrastructure back up to near Shuttle levels, so be it; it's just money...
Quote from: 93143 on 09/11/2013 12:59 amThe bottleneck is really the launch infrastructure, which as we've seen can easily handle 10 launches per year.Assuming GAO weighs in soon on the Blue Origin/SpaceX spat, before the year is out, the pads available to SLS will be cut in half (from 2 to 1) from what STS enjoyed.
QuoteIf they have to upgrade some of the production infrastructure back up to near Shuttle levels, so be it; it's just money... Even if there wasn't such a huge disconnect between SLS production requirements and SLS flight rate expectations (or Mars DRM requirements), money is still a problem. If OMB, the White House, and Congress aren't providing enough funding to give SLS payloads and missions, there won't be any funding to increase SLS production, either.
Shuttle-derived systems with two pads available are known to be able to launch at least 10-12 times per year without trouble, possibly a lot more.
Which leaves the known achievable launch rate at... whaddya know: exactly ten times the frequency you said they could never ever multiply by 4, never mind 10.
You're conflating "can't" and "won't".
The STS annual flight rate peaked at 9 in 1985.
The average annual flight rate for STS was 4.5 flights per year (135 missions over 30 years).
The actual, proven, annual launch rate for Shuttle systems is less than one-half to slightly more than one-third of what you think it is in theory.
it's hard to see how SLS will not suffer from many of the same, multi-month schedule delays as STS when they use many of the same subsystems (LH2 leaks in tanks and RS-25x engines, ET/core structure cracks, etc.).
given ~45 years of NASA budget history post-Apollo never providing anything close to those kinds of resources
QuoteYou're conflating "can't" and "won't".I'd put it a different way.
The world needs hope, but I don't think it's a good foundation upon which to build a multi-billion dollar engineering development program.
What I'd like to see is a study supporting use of HLVs when the budget is flat or slightly declining at current levels.
...Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2013 04:34 pmWhat I'd like to see is a study supporting use of HLVs when the budget is flat or slightly declining at current levels.Is there a study that says any exploration is possible with slightly declining budgets? Remember, most of NASA's budget is stuff other than manned spaceflight and exploration systems...
[Remember also that Congress doesn't fund NASA - Congress funds programs at NASA. Eliminate a program, and the funding disappears. Especially if the reason the program is eliminated is so it can be replaced with a different one that does the same thing but without satisfying anyone important's political interests...]As for flat, SLS/Orion development is around $3B per year, and if NASA isn't blowing smoke with their $500M number for one launch per year (which is possible), the system should be a lot cheaper in operation, at least at a low flight rate. That could free up a couple billion per year for payload development, procurement and launch...
In the perennial debate between SLS and alternatives (either smaller rockets combined with propellant depots or commercially-managed HLVs such as Atlas V Phase 2), depot supporters often point to three studies in particular (Zegler & Kutter 2010, the leaked NASA internal study of 2011, and Wilhite et al. 2012). Which studies compare alternatives and don't recommend depots? I'm aware of ESAS of 2005, which of course recommended Ares V (in addition to Ares I). There is also the study that Administrator Bolden mentioned in House testimony in 2011, but this seems never to have been made public and I'm not certain it actually exists. Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?Please note that I am looking for pointers to studies only. Please let us not debate HLVs and depots in this thread.
$500 million is the "marginal" cost
Quote from: Proponent on 09/10/2013 01:56 amIn the perennial debate between SLS and alternatives (either smaller rockets combined with propellant depots or commercially-managed HLVs such as Atlas V Phase 2), depot supporters often point to three studies in particular (Zegler & Kutter 2010, the leaked NASA internal study of 2011, and Wilhite et al. 2012). Which studies compare alternatives and don't recommend depots? I'm aware of ESAS of 2005, which of course recommended Ares V (in addition to Ares I). There is also the study that Administrator Bolden mentioned in House testimony in 2011, but this seems never to have been made public and I'm not certain it actually exists. Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?Please note that I am looking for pointers to studies only. Please let us not debate HLVs and depots in this thread.Q: Is your question directed at LVs in between the 20 mT class and the 70 mT class?Q: Are both "depots" and "refueling stages" excluded.Q: For lunar only or for Mars class missions? (one could possible have a two launch ~50 mT for the moon).
Q: Is your question directed at LVs in between the 20 mT class and the 70 mT class?Quote from: muomega0 on 09/11/2013 08:22 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/10/2013 01:56 amIn the perennial debate between SLS and alternatives (either smaller rockets combined with propellant depots or commercially-managed HLVs such as Atlas V Phase 2), depot supporters often point to three studies in particular (Zegler & Kutter 2010, the leaked NASA internal study of 2011, and Wilhite et al. 2012). Which studies compare alternatives and don't recommend depots? I'm aware of ESAS of 2005, which of course recommended Ares V (in addition to Ares I). There is also the study that Administrator Bolden mentioned in House testimony in 2011, but this seems never to have been made public and I'm not certain it actually exists. Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?Please note that I am looking for pointers to studies only. Please let us not debate HLVs and depots in this thread.Q: Is your question directed at LVs in between the 20 mT class and the 70 mT class?Q: Are both "depots" and "refueling stages" excluded.Q: For lunar only or for Mars class missions? (one could possible have a two launch ~50 mT for the moon).Basically what I'm looking for is studies which conclude "It's better to use a Shuttle-derived HLV to perform mission X than to use Y," where Y is anything. Actually, any studies concluding "It's better to use an HLV to perform mission X than to use Y" would also be of interest.
They could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.
You know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument. It gets exhausting. It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.
Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.
"NASA is laying the ground work to enable humans to safely reach multiple potential destinations, including the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs. 6.0 This BAA is soliciting proposals for Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology Systems Analysis and Trade study and seeks industry input on technical solutions in support of heavy lift system concepts studies. These studies will capture potential system architectures and identify propulsion technology gaps (to include propellant tanks, main propulsion elements, health management, etc.). This BAA request Offerors to expand upon the initial NASA technical assessments provided in the technical data package included. This effort will include architecture assessments of a variety of heavy lift launch vehicle and in-space vehicle architectures employing various propulsion combinations and how they can be employed to meet multiple mission objectives. A variety of in-space architectural elements, such as space transfer stages, space transfer vehicles, propellant depots may be included. The focus will be on developing system concepts that can be used by multiple end users with a strong emphasis on affordability, based on the offeror’s business assumption.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2013 04:34 pmThey could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.Reminds me of a quote about tolerancing parts from my freshman CAD professor (back in '96): "Ten thousandths?!? You could send a dog through that if you got it going fast enough!"I removed the rest of my comment as it was a bit much even for me.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 09/11/2013 09:47 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2013 04:34 pmThey could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.Reminds me of a quote about tolerancing parts from my freshman CAD professor (back in '96): "Ten thousandths?!? You could send a dog through that if you got it going fast enough!"I removed the rest of my comment as it was a bit much even for me.~JonI think that was "if you got it spinning fast enough", but yes, Dr. Raisor was hilarious. I also loved his "This will be true, always and forever - world's without end," and "Whoa, mister, back up the truck!" quotes. (Sorry that that was off topic. I now return you to your regularly scheduled HLV vs depot study conversation.)
The heavy lift studies BAA initiated in 2010 contained a HLV study
And it would have kept climbing, if not for a system vulnerability that SLS doesn't share.
Quote from: muomega0The heavy lift studies BAA initiated in 2010 contained a HLV studyAm I mistaken or did the 33' RP-1 version win the competition hands down?
Quote from: 93143 on 09/11/2013 09:56 pmYou know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument. It gets exhausting. It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.
Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?
The Augustine Committee considered propellant depots but for various reasons recommended the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle anyway. See section 5.2.1 of the report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.
Quote from: deltaV on 09/29/2013 07:59 pmThe Augustine Committee considered propellant depots but for various reasons recommended the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle anyway. See section 5.2.1 of the report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.As far as I can tell, Augustine insists that a launch vehicle of at least 50 tonnes' capability is needed, but I don't see where it recommends a super-heavy.
Quote from: Proponent on 10/11/2013 11:53 amQuote from: deltaV on 09/29/2013 07:59 pmThe Augustine Committee considered propellant depots but for various reasons recommended the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle anyway. See section 5.2.1 of the report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.As far as I can tell, Augustine insists that a launch vehicle of at least 50 tonnes' capability is needed, but I don't see where it recommends a super-heavy.The Augustine report discusses lower limits on launch vehicle size in detail in section 5.2.1 (including the 50 mt minimum you mention) and summarizes the size question in section 6.5.3 with "[ULA Phase 2 is] larger than the Committee’s estimated smallest possible launcher to support exploration, which is in the range of 40 to 60 mt.". There does not appear to be a standard definition of super-heavy so you can choose whether or not Augustine endorses SHLV by defining "SHLV" appropriately.
Quote from: Jim on 09/11/2013 10:13 pmQuote from: 93143 on 09/11/2013 09:56 pmYou know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument. It gets exhausting. It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.And be replaced with what? What do you think SLS will be replaced with, Jim if it gets 'replaced' at all? What do you think and/or hope will happen?
Interesting questions, but could we please keep it on topic: trade studies recommending HLV over alternatives. Could I suggest posting the question elsewhere.
Have you noticed tha 1.7mlbf is what the supposed Merlin 2 had of SL thrust? F-1A had 1.8, I think. And 33' was the Falcon XX proposal. Also had SIX of said engines. The more I look at it, the cloae it looks to the Falcon XX. Surprising,or not?
Like I said:http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.369
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.362