Context is everything. EDS also means Earth Departure Stage.
My apologies for not having the exactly correct terminology.
Quote from: TomH on 04/08/2012 08:37 pmQuote from: clongton on 04/08/2012 12:10 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2012 10:49 pmQuote from: TomH on 04/07/2012 09:23 pm....Ares did have the 1.5 launch architecture. Ares V was cargo only while SLS will have an EDS to make it human rated. Some tweaks I have suggested to SLS are making it scalable with more than two (liquid advanced) boosters and giving it a 1.5 architecture with SLS non human rated and Orion going to LEO/EOR atop DIVH, AVH, or AVP2 prior to deep space departure. ....I particularly think that is a good idea. SLS needs all the help it can get in being cheaper.I also liked the concept of the 1.5 architecture but the Ares-I was the worst possible vehicle for a CLV. Note the huge amount of work done on the AJAX threads. That was the equivolant of the early SLS using the Atlas as both LRB and CLV. If it were not for the early requirement to use the SRB on SLS Block-I NASA would have been well advised to go that route. The larger versions would have been every bit the equal of the SLS Block II.It is my guess that when EFT-1 happens, a whole lot of people on the outside will suddenly start asking, "Why can't NASA just go ahead and launch the crew on this rocket?" Likely some congressman will summon the NASA administrator before congress for an inquiry. I imagine we will hear questions like this:"Can ULA adapt the Atlas V CC EDS to the DIVH and launch a crewed Orion?""Can ULA extend its AV EDS to an AVH?""Is SLS too far along in man rating to make it cargo only and use Atlas or Delta in a 1.5 launch architecture? If not, how much would be saved by doing this and how would time lines be affected?" And likely the answer will be, "Well, it could have been done and would have saved time and money if we had done that in the beginning, but that was not the mandate you gave us; we did what you ordered us to do."Granted, SLS parameters were likely set before three CCDev participants selected AV as the LV and the memorandum was signed to develop an EDS to human rate AV, however it sometimes makes sense to say, "Hey, how could we leverage this to our advantage in other ways?"Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/08/2012 08:33 pm...It might be. The SLS Block 1A booster type is yet to be determined. It could turn out to be an advanced solid... Let's hope not. RP-1 booster is better on so many levels.That's my personal preference and hope.Solids are very powerful but oh so very limited!Liquids are MUCH better than solids for manned applications in my opinion.
Quote from: clongton on 04/08/2012 12:10 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2012 10:49 pmQuote from: TomH on 04/07/2012 09:23 pm....Ares did have the 1.5 launch architecture. Ares V was cargo only while SLS will have an EDS to make it human rated. Some tweaks I have suggested to SLS are making it scalable with more than two (liquid advanced) boosters and giving it a 1.5 architecture with SLS non human rated and Orion going to LEO/EOR atop DIVH, AVH, or AVP2 prior to deep space departure. ....I particularly think that is a good idea. SLS needs all the help it can get in being cheaper.I also liked the concept of the 1.5 architecture but the Ares-I was the worst possible vehicle for a CLV. Note the huge amount of work done on the AJAX threads. That was the equivolant of the early SLS using the Atlas as both LRB and CLV. If it were not for the early requirement to use the SRB on SLS Block-I NASA would have been well advised to go that route. The larger versions would have been every bit the equal of the SLS Block II.It is my guess that when EFT-1 happens, a whole lot of people on the outside will suddenly start asking, "Why can't NASA just go ahead and launch the crew on this rocket?" Likely some congressman will summon the NASA administrator before congress for an inquiry. I imagine we will hear questions like this:"Can ULA adapt the Atlas V CC EDS to the DIVH and launch a crewed Orion?""Can ULA extend its AV EDS to an AVH?""Is SLS too far along in man rating to make it cargo only and use Atlas or Delta in a 1.5 launch architecture? If not, how much would be saved by doing this and how would time lines be affected?" And likely the answer will be, "Well, it could have been done and would have saved time and money if we had done that in the beginning, but that was not the mandate you gave us; we did what you ordered us to do."Granted, SLS parameters were likely set before three CCDev participants selected AV as the LV and the memorandum was signed to develop an EDS to human rate AV, however it sometimes makes sense to say, "Hey, how could we leverage this to our advantage in other ways?"Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/08/2012 08:33 pm...It might be. The SLS Block 1A booster type is yet to be determined. It could turn out to be an advanced solid... Let's hope not. RP-1 booster is better on so many levels.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2012 10:49 pmQuote from: TomH on 04/07/2012 09:23 pm....Ares did have the 1.5 launch architecture. Ares V was cargo only while SLS will have an EDS to make it human rated. Some tweaks I have suggested to SLS are making it scalable with more than two (liquid advanced) boosters and giving it a 1.5 architecture with SLS non human rated and Orion going to LEO/EOR atop DIVH, AVH, or AVP2 prior to deep space departure. ....I particularly think that is a good idea. SLS needs all the help it can get in being cheaper.I also liked the concept of the 1.5 architecture but the Ares-I was the worst possible vehicle for a CLV. Note the huge amount of work done on the AJAX threads. That was the equivolant of the early SLS using the Atlas as both LRB and CLV. If it were not for the early requirement to use the SRB on SLS Block-I NASA would have been well advised to go that route. The larger versions would have been every bit the equal of the SLS Block II.
Quote from: TomH on 04/07/2012 09:23 pm....Ares did have the 1.5 launch architecture. Ares V was cargo only while SLS will have an EDS to make it human rated. Some tweaks I have suggested to SLS are making it scalable with more than two (liquid advanced) boosters and giving it a 1.5 architecture with SLS non human rated and Orion going to LEO/EOR atop DIVH, AVH, or AVP2 prior to deep space departure. ....I particularly think that is a good idea. SLS needs all the help it can get in being cheaper.
....Ares did have the 1.5 launch architecture. Ares V was cargo only while SLS will have an EDS to make it human rated. Some tweaks I have suggested to SLS are making it scalable with more than two (liquid advanced) boosters and giving it a 1.5 architecture with SLS non human rated and Orion going to LEO/EOR atop DIVH, AVH, or AVP2 prior to deep space departure. ....
...It might be. The SLS Block 1A booster type is yet to be determined. It could turn out to be an advanced solid...
Quote from: clongton on 04/08/2012 10:02 pmQuote from: TomH on 04/08/2012 08:37 pmQuote from: clongton on 04/08/2012 12:10 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2012 10:49 pmQuote from: TomH on 04/07/2012 09:23 pm....Ares did have the 1.5 launch architecture. Ares V was cargo only while SLS will have an EDS to make it human rated. Some tweaks I have suggested to SLS are making it scalable with more than two (liquid advanced) boosters and giving it a 1.5 architecture with SLS non human rated and Orion going to LEO/EOR atop DIVH, AVH, or AVP2 prior to deep space departure. ....I particularly think that is a good idea. SLS needs all the help it can get in being cheaper.I also liked the concept of the 1.5 architecture but the Ares-I was the worst possible vehicle for a CLV. Note the huge amount of work done on the AJAX threads. That was the equivolant of the early SLS using the Atlas as both LRB and CLV. If it were not for the early requirement to use the SRB on SLS Block-I NASA would have been well advised to go that route. The larger versions would have been every bit the equal of the SLS Block II.It is my guess that when EFT-1 happens, a whole lot of people on the outside will suddenly start asking, "Why can't NASA just go ahead and launch the crew on this rocket?" Likely some congressman will summon the NASA administrator before congress for an inquiry. I imagine we will hear questions like this:"Can ULA adapt the Atlas V CC EDS to the DIVH and launch a crewed Orion?""Can ULA extend its AV EDS to an AVH?""Is SLS too far along in man rating to make it cargo only and use Atlas or Delta in a 1.5 launch architecture? If not, how much would be saved by doing this and how would time lines be affected?" And likely the answer will be, "Well, it could have been done and would have saved time and money if we had done that in the beginning, but that was not the mandate you gave us; we did what you ordered us to do."Granted, SLS parameters were likely set before three CCDev participants selected AV as the LV and the memorandum was signed to develop an EDS to human rate AV, however it sometimes makes sense to say, "Hey, how could we leverage this to our advantage in other ways?"Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/08/2012 08:33 pm...It might be. The SLS Block 1A booster type is yet to be determined. It could turn out to be an advanced solid... Let's hope not. RP-1 booster is better on so many levels.That's my personal preference and hope.Solids are very powerful but oh so very limited!Liquids are MUCH better than solids for manned applications in my opinion.AJAX.
Quote from: TomH on 04/08/2012 10:37 pmMy apologies for not having the exactly correct terminology.Don't fret too much Tom - stick around and you'll be fine.You are referring to the Atlas CCB (Common Core Booster). It is the first stage of the Atlas-V and if utilized as an SLS booster, would be the SLS LRB (Liquid Rocket Booster) as well as the Orion crew launcher in the Heavy configuration. There is the synergy with Commercial Crew: the Atlas-V's CCB can serve in four (4) ways:1. DoD defense launcher2. NASA science launcher3. Commercial Crew launcher4. SLS LRB booster.
Thanks, you must have been typing at the same time as Jim and I. The issue was which "EDS" I meant. Since Atlas V is already being human rated, it seems to make some degree of sense to at least do a study of whether extending that Emergency Detection System to either Delta IV or Atlas V Heavy, sending Orion to LEO/EOR on that LV, and eliminating the Emergency Detection System on SLS would have financial and time line advantages.
With luck, SLS Block-II will go the AJAX path with LRB's. That way they would have the Block-II capability without waiting for the CPS. Need more umph for a mission? Add another pair of LRB's. Need even more? One more pair. Ok, now we're pushing 140 tonnes. Still not enough? Ok, now add an upper stage. This path really is lego block rocketry. Energia had it right but the collapsing Russian economy killed it before it could come into its own.
EDS means both Earth Departure Stage (Constellation & SLS) and Emergency Detection System (Apollo).For SLS you are referring to the detection portion of the Flight Termination System, but I'm not sure it has an official acronym.
Context is everything.
...the memorandum was signed to develop an EDS to human rate AV...
Quote from: USFdon on 04/08/2012 04:00 am Still think that a combined USAF/NASA large hydrolox engine should be a goal for the future. Need to get those production numbers up. No A hydrocarbon booster engine should be the goal
Still think that a combined USAF/NASA large hydrolox engine should be a goal for the future. Need to get those production numbers up.
Quote from: Jim on 04/08/2012 12:12 pmQuote from: USFdon on 04/08/2012 04:00 am Still think that a combined USAF/NASA large hydrolox engine should be a goal for the future. Need to get those production numbers up. No A hydrocarbon booster engine should be the goalBoth should be a goal. If we as a nation will continue to use government-led designed/owned rocket launchers, it would make sense to go down the path of commonality. SLS's new strap on boosters, whether kerolox (which they should be) or advanced solids, should be a launcher on their own right to keep production numbers up (maybe serve as the next generation Atlas (or AVP2)...). I don't see Delta IV going anywhere, considering the sunk investment in its tooling and launch pads.
Quote from: USFdon on 04/09/2012 12:51 amQuote from: Jim on 04/08/2012 12:12 pmQuote from: USFdon on 04/08/2012 04:00 am Still think that a combined USAF/NASA large hydrolox engine should be a goal for the future. Need to get those production numbers up. No A hydrocarbon booster engine should be the goalBoth should be a goal. If we as a nation will continue to use government-led designed/owned rocket launchers, it would make sense to go down the path of commonality. SLS's new strap on boosters, whether kerolox (which they should be) or advanced solids, should be a launcher on their own right to keep production numbers up (maybe serve as the next generation Atlas (or AVP2)...). I don't see Delta IV going anywhere, considering the sunk investment in its tooling and launch pads. No, the govt should not building launch vehicles, especially in EELV/commercial classes...
how many Atlas V launches would $5 billion buy
My perspective, as someone who is far removed from this industry, yet who has a deep interest in it, is that turf wars between government agencies is petty. The average citizen, no, let me make that the average taxpayer actually believes the FBI and CIA should cooperate in overlapping areas. The average taxpayer believes that the USAF and NASA should cooperate when it comes to rocket design and acquisition. Yes, they have different needs, but in every way that saves taxpayers money, in every way that benefits the nation, cooperation should be an imperative. The one single thing I like that Gingrich has said is that he would make USAF and NASA sit down and do this.We do not need a new HydroLox engine, we have a good variety now. We very much do need a new domestic high thrust, affordable, and efficient RP-1 engine. No, the government shouldn't build it; yes, the government should list the specifications and bid it. We need a KeroLox booster for SLS that could also fill the roll of AVP2 and be the first stage of an Orion launcher in a 1.5 architecture. No, the government should not build it; yes, the government should list the specifications and bid it. And, regardless of ULA/LocMart/Boeing/EELV red tape, it is in the interest of the nation to get over the turf wars and do this.To the general public, all the inter-agency bickering and refusal to work toward a common good is just more evidence of bloated and ineffective government. A robust science based space exploration program is in the interest of national security, and the USAF should appreciate that; the USAF has need of a higher number of launchers than NASA and NASA should make as much use the same hardware as possible; further, they should have access to any and all of that hardware. It is sad when really smart people do not come together and do what is best for the nation. It is part of the reason support for the space program has waned. This may seem naive to some, but many do feel this way.
Quote from: Jason1701 on 04/08/2012 06:34 pmQuote from: Jim on 04/08/2012 12:12 pmQuote from: USFdon on 04/08/2012 04:00 am Still think that a combined USAF/NASA large hydrolox engine should be a goal for the future. Need to get those production numbers up. No A hydrocarbon booster engine should be the goalIt is.It might be. The SLS Block 1A booster type is yet to be determined. It could turn out to be an advanced solid. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Jim on 04/08/2012 12:12 pmQuote from: USFdon on 04/08/2012 04:00 am Still think that a combined USAF/NASA large hydrolox engine should be a goal for the future. Need to get those production numbers up. No A hydrocarbon booster engine should be the goalIt is.
If it were up to me.... (and hey I am an armchair rocket designer), how about an AVP2 strap on booster for SLS (using a domestic AJ26-500) which transitions into a stand alone booster for ULA and a man-rated Delta IV booster that can be used for NASA. Plenty of pork is spread around and NASA gets a cheaper booster to lift orion sooner (whether that is cheaper than Atlas Heavy or AVP2, that is out of my realm). Politically though, a Russian produced RD-180 is probably a no-go for NASA.
Quote from: anonymous1138 on 04/09/2012 03:14 amFor instance (just one example), how many Atlas V launches would $20 billion buy? Rather, how many Atlas V launches would $5 billion buy, and what payloads could you develop with $10 billion? Would that extra $5 billion buy accelerated development and testing of an Atlas V Heavy? I would think so. Further, I'd call B$ on anyone who insists you need heavy lift (as defined by SLS) at all to do worthwhile BEO missions. The point is that SLS is an uncreative, old-school solution that only leverages "certain existing assets" (read into that what you will), when there are much more forward-thinking and *executable* ways to go.It depends on the mission. EELV and other launchers could support crewed lunar exploration, without SLS, but SLS in bunches is needed for crewed Mars flights. Mars, not the Moon, is the goal. - Ed Kyle
For instance (just one example), how many Atlas V launches would $20 billion buy? Rather, how many Atlas V launches would $5 billion buy, and what payloads could you develop with $10 billion? Would that extra $5 billion buy accelerated development and testing of an Atlas V Heavy? I would think so. Further, I'd call B$ on anyone who insists you need heavy lift (as defined by SLS) at all to do worthwhile BEO missions. The point is that SLS is an uncreative, old-school solution that only leverages "certain existing assets" (read into that what you will), when there are much more forward-thinking and *executable* ways to go.