Author Topic: Applications for the SLS Block 0  (Read 69538 times)

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #40 on: 03/25/2011 01:23 pm »
Unfortunately, if we allow this fictional market to determine where we go, we won't be going.  There's still exists no compelling reason for private industry to go to space.  Only to build rockets for agencies of governments who so.

NASA is good at technology but sufferers from ADHD when it comes to actually finishing something.  Without a concrete goal and fixed timetable for getting there, many developement programs merely orbit the goal so the funding continues.

Governments (meaning leaders of countries) are supposed to be leaders.  If they fail to lead, direction is lost.  We have no direction now.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #41 on: 03/25/2011 01:24 pm »
One application for Block 0 could be to lift MPCV and a fully fueled existing upperstage to orbit, which would then be able to do a TLI burn.  So using that formula, you could start to send 20-30 ton payloads BEO, which sounds like the current payload mass.  So rather than going all out, we can stretch out the s/c and optimal upperstage development.  I dont think the core will get much larger than Block 0, and would rather all the development money spent on core upgrades being moved to payloads.

Edit: Also want to diversify s/c procurement.  Try to get the Russians/ESA/JAXA involved like they were for ISS.  Maybe do seed/commercial contract for things like landers.
« Last Edit: 03/25/2011 01:26 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #42 on: 03/25/2011 01:28 pm »
Block 0 could easily lift new PVM's to the station, new crew modules, the satellite repair hangar the SS Freedom had (whether practical or not) among other things.  We could rebuild or replace most all of the ISS over time with that capability.  If you don't want crew riding with the cargo, build a tug.

Yes all of this takes money but mostly it takes the commitment to go to space and spend some money.

70t would lift a safe haven module.


Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #43 on: 03/25/2011 01:33 pm »
Here's an interesting 'take' (thinking out loud off the cuff, and may not be grounded in realism):

SO WHAT if there are no payloads? If NASA builds ANY launch vehicle, it seems the costs would be so high that any one of them could get cancelled. So it's up to congress to put forth the funding to go BEO, plain and simple.

Gen Bolden has already told congress NASA couldn't fit a launch vehicle under their terms for the funding they are proposing. It's on record. For congress to later question the validity of their own proposal (not that has ever stopped them), puts us right back to where we started: debating what ANY of these vehicles could do.

So one of my ideas for an application for the SLS BLock 0 configuration is an ISS cargo carrier (for large ORUs) with Orion (+ specialized SM) as the tug.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #44 on: 03/25/2011 01:46 pm »
I don't know the answer to this exactly....but if commercial shuttle were in the mix, certain costs and re-starts absorbed by that, much of the "overhead" being put to real use instead of just paying for it in "sustaining" costs, and Block 0 could just focus on the DDT&E aspects, could a moderate upper stage be evaluated that much sooner?

Food for thought.....
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #45 on: 03/25/2011 02:07 pm »
One application for Block 0 could be to lift MPCV and a fully fueled existing upperstage to orbit, which would then be able to do a TLI burn.  So using that formula, you could start to send 20-30 ton payloads BEO, which sounds like the current payload mass.  So rather than going all out, we can stretch out the s/c and optimal upperstage development.  I dont think the core will get much larger than Block 0, and would rather all the development money spent on core upgrades being moved to payloads.

Edit: Also want to diversify s/c procurement.  Try to get the Russians/ESA/JAXA involved like they were for ISS.  Maybe do seed/commercial contract for things like landers.

you lay out the real question... which is a better way to spend your money, upgrades to the LV to lift uber payloads for beo or that money spent on payloads of 70t that can be connected. 

Has there been any analysis of this question?  At what mission frequency does the cost of more launches and in orbit assembly for Block 0 cost less than upgrading and adding a second stage to required to move to block 1 and greater?
« Last Edit: 03/25/2011 02:15 pm by kirghizstan »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #46 on: 03/25/2011 02:23 pm »
I don't know the answer to this exactly....but if commercial shuttle were in the mix, certain costs and re-starts absorbed by that, much of the "overhead" being put to real use instead of just paying for it in "sustaining" costs, and Block 0 could just focus on the DDT&E aspects, could a moderate upper stage be evaluated that much sooner?
Food for thought.....

       Why would Commercial Shuttle + Block-0 be /cheaper/ than Block-0?

           -Alex

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #47 on: 03/25/2011 02:47 pm »
Because you've got to supply the ISS somehow (the current CRS plan isn't anywhere near "full utilization", as I understand it), and commercial Shuttle is the second cheapest resupply option after Dragon, even without taking crew surge and rotation into account.

Commonality with SLS could easily make it the cheapest resupply option going.

According to my calculations, of course, but no one has ever proposed a correction...
« Last Edit: 03/25/2011 02:57 pm by 93143 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #48 on: 03/25/2011 02:59 pm »
I don't know the answer to this exactly....but if commercial shuttle were in the mix, certain costs and re-starts absorbed by that, much of the "overhead" being put to real use instead of just paying for it in "sustaining" costs, and Block 0 could just focus on the DDT&E aspects, could a moderate upper stage be evaluated that much sooner?
Food for thought.....

       Why would Commercial Shuttle + Block-0 be /cheaper/ than Block-0?

           -Alex

I simply suggested it was a possibility Alex that could be evaluated.  Since commerical shuttle has stated it would restart certain production lines, there is that and NASA does not.  Also given commercial shuttle would be free to solicit other customers as to reduce the potential FFP charged to NASA, there is that. 

In other words the SLS budget would potentially not be burdoned with as much as going it alone. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #49 on: 03/25/2011 03:01 pm »

The Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.


NASA has no need for such stepping stones

And that points to the underlying problem.  The United States public does not want to pay to go to the Moon or Mars.  Leaving NASA without a major mission.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #50 on: 03/25/2011 03:04 pm »

The Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.


NASA has no need for such stepping stones

And that points to the underlying problem.  The United States public does not want to pay to go to the Moon or Mars.  Leaving NASA without a major mission.

Ahhh.  So somehow you speak for the entire United States public and can make such declarative and absolute statements.....
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #51 on: 03/25/2011 03:06 pm »
The other big problem is that cargo is being launched via commercial which leaves how much cargo to be carried? Likely none. The last shuttle mission is supposed to stock the ISS for 1-2 years.

This has been covered a few times in other threads and is not correct. ATV plus HTV plus Progress were always intended to supplement Shuttle deliveries. They were never intended to replace Shuttle. It was *always* intended that Shuttle would fly for the life of the ISS and provide the bulk of the logistical requirements. Back in the day the partners were tasked with providing supplemental deliveries on their own dime so that Shuttle would not have to do it all. ESA and JAXA stepped up to the plate and are operational. But Shuttle was never intended to be out of the loop. Even by adding Dragon, without shuttle, or an equivalent cargo capacity spacecraft, the ISS will not be capable of full operation. Once Shuttle is gone, ATV, HTV, Progress and Dragon will not be able to keep up with the on-orbit requirements. If SLS can deliver the equivalent of 3x the Shuttle capacity to ISS only once a year, then the partners will still have their hands full with more business than they can handle.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #52 on: 03/25/2011 03:18 pm »
But in the end, I am a realist.  I see where the country and the world is going.  The visions of the 60's and 70's are not applicable to today.  NASA nor the US gov't is not going to settle space.  Nor is it going to lead manned exploration of the solar system.
It sounds like you've lived your dreams. Why are you so opposed to others having their own?
     Lived his dreams? Do you really think that *this*, what we have now, is all that a young boy dreamed of?

     A large part of the reason those dreams were never realized was that the US space programs got sidetracked by a thing called Shuttle, to the exclusion of a great deal else.

     Is there reason to believe Jim is so mean as to not want other young kids to see the kind of future of humanity in space that didn't happen? He has advanced countless reasons why he believes that a SDHLV carries great risk of history repeating itself.

      We dream of far, far bigger things than a 70 ton (or 100 ton, or 150 ton) rocket heaving itself into space once a year or so, carrying four lucky men in a capsule to the ISS.


Quote
There is a difference between realism and despair. I for one still have hope for the American space program. And no, it's not just the role of unpaid R&D for corporations too cheap and short-sighted to do their own.
      You should put that in your tagline.
                -Alex

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #53 on: 03/25/2011 03:32 pm »
     A large part of the reason those dreams were never realized was that the US space programs got sidetracked by a thing called Shuttle, to the exclusion of a great deal else.
So misguided.  Yawn. 

    If, in 1970, you were dreaming of spending the next forty years developing and flying a vehicle, launching it a mere ~135 times, carrying a few hundred individuals into LEO, a few commercial satellites, a few DOD satellites, a few internal science payloads that amounted to precious little major-journal peer-reviewed publication, a few planetary probes and telescopes, and finishing a 6-man spacestation at the end of those 40 years... then you were dreaming awfully small.

    Shuttle's done useful things. No question. She's been our Flagship. But humans haven't gone beyond LEO in 40 years, and only a handful of robots did from Shuttle. (To be fair to Shuttle, the rest of humanity's record was about as pitiful.)

    To each their own dreams.

   -Alex

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #54 on: 03/25/2011 03:46 pm »
     A large part of the reason those dreams were never realized was that the US space programs got sidetracked by a thing called Shuttle, to the exclusion of a great deal else.
So misguided.  Yawn. 

    If, in 1970, you were dreaming of spending the next forty years developing and flying a vehicle, launching it a mere ~135 times, carrying a few hundred individuals into LEO, a few commercial satellites, a few DOD satellites, a few internal science payloads that amounted to precious little major-journal peer-reviewed publication, a few planetary probes and telescopes, and finishing a 6-man spacestation at the end of those 40 years... then you were dreaming awfully small.

    Shuttle's done useful things. No question. She's been our Flagship. But humans haven't gone beyond LEO in 40 years, and only a handful of robots did from Shuttle. (To be fair to Shuttle, the rest of humanity's record was about as pitiful.)

    To each their own dreams.

   -Alex
Shuttle was a compromise design from the get-go.  It was oversized over it's original demands.  And it's first mission was failed before it ever launched, for we lost where it was aimed to go, Skylab. 

I could have come up with a dozen ways to meet the demands of the USAF for the shuttle program without the compromises which came out of it.  Also had a way to meet the political demands as well, and to reduce the cost and improve the systems safety.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #55 on: 03/25/2011 03:47 pm »
     A large part of the reason those dreams were never realized was that the US space programs got sidetracked by a thing called Shuttle, to the exclusion of a great deal else.
So misguided.  Yawn. 

    If, in 1970, you were dreaming of spending the next forty years developing and flying a vehicle, launching it a mere ~135 times, carrying a few hundred individuals into LEO, a few commercial satellites, a few DOD satellites, a few internal science payloads that amounted to precious little major-journal peer-reviewed publication, a few planetary probes and telescopes, and finishing a 6-man spacestation at the end of those 40 years... then you were dreaming awfully small.

    Shuttle's done useful things. No question. She's been our Flagship. But humans haven't gone beyond LEO in 40 years, and only a handful of robots did from Shuttle. (To be fair to Shuttle, the rest of humanity's record was about as pitiful.)

    To each their own dreams.

   -Alex

I was not born for another 4 years yet Alex.  Yet, your statement is nothing has happened *because* of shuttle.  That's a bit extreme.

It's easy to blame something or someone for a lot in life and offer no other alternatives.  It's much more difficult to provide a path, a possibility of what could be, the rationale behind it and then fight for it. 

I know I fall into the second category, can you say the same?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #56 on: 03/25/2011 03:53 pm »
I could have come up with a dozen ways to meet the demands of the USAF for the shuttle program without the compromises which came out of it.  Also had a way to meet the political demands as well, and to reduce the cost and improve the systems safety.

Now all you need is a time machine.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #57 on: 03/25/2011 04:06 pm »
the problem with just visiting EML1/2 is that they are just points in space.  to the lay person it would be probably less interesting than visiting ISS because at least that is a location they can understand.  that

The Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.

It is a lot easier to cross the river when there are stepping stones.  Sometimes we are lucky and God builds the stepping stones for us.  Other times we have to build the stepping stones our selves, this is one of those cases.

p.s.  The viability of spacestations at EML-1 and EML-2 was discussed in this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20147.0

I think you missed the point of what i'm saying.  for the lay person not really paying attention it is easier to understand a station flying over head than explaining to the masses what EML1/2 are and why they are important. 

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #58 on: 03/25/2011 04:16 pm »
This is purely my opinion but I think that 'flexible path' will eventually crystalize into an EML research lab of some sort.  It would be seen as a compromise between actual exploration and the more nuts and bolts issue of developing technologies to extend human reach into the inner solar system.  The lab's main mission would be testing materials and more 'bleeding edge' active radiation mitigation, closed-loop LSS and maybe things like large-scale hydro- and aeroponics.

You could easily support such a mission solely using SLS Block 0 with a fairly basic upper stage (modified AIUS with 4 x RL-10B-2 should be sufficient).  It would also be close enough, in delta-v terms, to plausibly develop a CRS-style commercial supply system.

I know that some posters would like to see a polar moonbase and ISRU but that would probably be a risk (and an expenditure) too far; Moderately-modified Transhab/Bigelow modules could be deployed almost as soon as the basic upper stage is available without needing to develop landers, ISRU technologies.  Emergency crew return is also easier; I suspect that an MPCV could execute an Earth return burn using only its RCS in the event of an MPS failure from the EML-1 and -2 point.

Such a facility would neatly square the circle of R&D and operations.  You will be using a space facility to test new technolgies and potentially be easing the way into deep space.  This will be done both by encouraging commercial providers to develop cargo and, ultimately, crew delivery capability to the EML spots (COTS only at EML rather than LEO) but also by developing the technologies that will be critical for building workable habs for deep space flight.  I also suspect that the costs would be lower, if only because there would be no need for a seperate lander program.

Call me cowardly if you like, but I prefer the thought of a crewed test of exo-magnetosphere equipment to occur within a few days of Earth in an emergency rather than on a no-abort transfer orbit to a rock several million miles and months flight away.  That said, there would likely be a commonality between the station's modules and the hab on NEO encounter /planetary orbiter spacecraft, so doing one would not necessarily rule out the other.

It isn't walking on Mars but, in its own way, it could be just as important in real terms to the future of human spaceflight.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Applications for the SLS Block 0
« Reply #59 on: 03/25/2011 04:26 pm »

The Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.


NASA has no need for such stepping stones

And that points to the underlying problem.  The United States public does not want to pay to go to the Moon or Mars.  Leaving NASA without a major mission.

Ahhh.  So somehow you speak for the entire United States public and can make such declarative and absolute statements.....

I tend to think going to mars and back to the moon would be a huge deal.  I mean 40 years ago we spent a total of 12.5 days on the surface of the moon.  A single 2 week mission more than doubles our total time on the surface.  Not only that, but over 60% of the US population is under 45 and don’t remember Apollo.  Yes it won't be the excitement of the Apollo days, but it will probably hold a few news cycles, which in this day and age is a big deal. 
« Last Edit: 03/25/2011 04:28 pm by kirghizstan »

Tags:
 

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