NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLShttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577
It all adds to the knowledge base though. If a propellant depot is eventually put up to multiply SLS's throw to say Mars this shows how commercial could use it too for other objectives.
Quote from: marsavian on 10/13/2011 12:04 amIt all adds to the knowledge base though. If a propellant depot is eventually put up to multiply SLS's throw to say Mars this shows how commercial could use it too for other objectives.The sad and frustrating thing though is that we're picking a slower and more expensive route to exploration that simultaneously puts off meaningful commercial involvement (propellant deliveries) for a decade or more. It wouldn't be so galling if SLS was actually cheaper or faster, but really we're getting the worst of all worlds, just because Congress and most space fans can't get over their status quo bias, and would prefer to do a 60s remix on steroids (again).Sorry, just frustrated that critical pieces of contradictory info like this still get suppressed and only see the light of day if someone risks their necks to leak it to places like NASAWatch.~Jon
I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time.
I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time. We worked very hard and very dilligently to get that ISS up there, and now look where we are with that....in question.
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/13/2011 01:50 am I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time. We worked very hard and very dilligently to get that ISS up there, and now look where we are with that....in question. Typical shuttle centric. The other vehicles had larger impacts on the US and society.Delta II launched GPS which is in use in cars and in our phones and has helped the troops since Desert StormAltas launch UHF comsats so that the troops could talk to each other. Not to mention the comsats for beepers and satellite TV.Titan IV launched missile detection spacecraft that saw the Scud launches. It launched radar and imaging spacecraft, which have been helping the troops since Desert Storm.Shuttle goes away and what impact does it have on society? Take away Delta, Atlas and Ariane and it is a different world.
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/13/2011 01:50 am I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time. We worked very hard and very dilligently to get that ISS up there, and now look where we are with that....in question. Typical shuttle centric. The other vehicles had larger impacts on the US and society.Delta II launched GPS which is in use in cars and in our phones and has helped the troops since Desert StormAltas launch UHF comsats so that the troops could talk to each other. Not to mention the comsats for beepers and satellite TV.Titan IV launched missile detection spacecraft that saw the Scud launches. It launched radar and imaging spacecraft, which have been helping the troops since Desert Storm.Shuttle goes away and what impact does it have on society? Take away Delta, Atlas and Ariane and it is a different world.Shuttle workers were fed propaganda just like Soviet workers. Look around, what tangible results are there from all of the flights.
I would like to see how a small lunar base could be operated with the Falcon Heavy. Maybe do six month long missions (longer if the body responds well to partial gravity and if radiation shielding is good enough). Maybe a lego like lunar lander, a large version could be used for modules and cargo (on a low thrust trajectory?), smaller version for crew.Not entirely sure how you could get cargo to the base effectively. Maybe have an unmanned vehicle that retrieves cargo vehicles from their landing site, transports and then connects them to the base.
Quote from: manboy on 10/13/2011 04:55 amI would like to see how a small lunar base could be operated with the Falcon Heavy. Maybe do six month long missions (longer if the body responds well to partial gravity and if radiation shielding is good enough). Maybe a lego like lunar lander, a large version could be used for modules and cargo (on a low thrust trajectory?), smaller version for crew.Not entirely sure how you could get cargo to the base effectively. Maybe have an unmanned vehicle that retrieves cargo vehicles from their landing site, transports and then connects them to the base.The issuse with a lunar base isn't lifting it, it is landing it. Given that progress carries aboutr 2.3MT and can supply a crew of 3 for about 3 months or so, all you might need to land for resupply could be like 4-6MT worth of suppply for a six moth stay for 3 people. FH probably could handle resupply of a base...construction is going to take a prop depot. or multiple launches.
It might be worthwhile to create a separate thread for analyzing the assumptions/charts/estimates/timelines/etc of NASA's (really interesting) depot-based exploration study, while leaving this thread for the more general EELV vs SLS debate
Quote from: neilh on 10/13/2011 07:38 amIt might be worthwhile to create a separate thread for analyzing the assumptions/charts/estimates/timelines/etc of NASA's (really interesting) depot-based exploration study, while leaving this thread for the more general EELV vs SLS debateI was considering moving my comments over to the "Spacex and the Moon?" thread.
1. However, while we are at it, none of those launched people in 30 years and none of those ever launched as many people. Nothing else contributed as much to the construction of the ISS, which is now 2. supposed to be the cornerstone destination so that maybe companies will use those rockets that you hold so sacred to reach what shuttle created.
Typical shuttle centric. The other vehicles had larger impacts on the US and society.Delta II launched GPS which is in use in cars and in our phones and has helped the troops since Desert StormAltas launch UHF comsats so that the troops could talk to each other. Not to mention the comsats for beepers and satellite TV.Titan IV launched missile detection spacecraft that saw the Scud launches. It launched radar and imaging spacecraft, which have been helping the troops since Desert Storm.Shuttle goes away and what impact does it have on society? Take away Delta, Atlas and Ariane and it is a different world.Shuttle workers were fed propaganda just like Soviet workers. Look around, what tangible results are there from all of the flights.
... This approach requires ~20 launches to get to that first mission. Who pays for that? Who pays for commercial?
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/13/2011 01:50 am... This approach requires ~20 launches to get to that first mission. Who pays for that? Who pays for commercial? NASA pays, of course! The study also shows lunar missions using only seven Falcon 9 Heavy, or ten Delta 4 Heavy, launches. The Falcon 9 Heavy approach would need a maximum of four launches per year. Delta 4 Heavy would need eight per year max. (Eight per year is a stretch, but not impossible, but if anything, this study really argues for bigger-than-EELV rockets.)I see depots as viable for low-rate missions to the Moon, but not to Mars. I've also long thought that storable propellants make more sense than cryos for depot architectures. - Ed Kyle
In case you hadn't seen it, Spaceref has an internal NASA report that says that depots are better (both cheaper and allow for earlier exploration) than HLV based systems. Among the advantages listed in the report*Tens of billions of dollars of cost savings and lower up-front costs to fit within budget profile*Allows first NEA/Lunar mission by 2024 using conservative budgets*Launch every few months rather than once every 12-18 months -Provides experienced and focused workforce to improve safety -Operational learning for reduced costs and higher launch reliability.* Allows multiple competitors for propellant delivery -Competition drives down costs -Alternatives available if critical launch failure occurs -Low-risk, hands-off way for international partners to contribute* Reduced critical path mission complexity (AR&Ds, events, number of unique elements)* Provides additional mission flexibility by variable propellant load* Commonality with COTS/commercial/DoD vehicles will allow sharing of fixed costs between programs and "right-sized" vehicle for ISS* Stimulate US commercial launch industry* Reduces multi-payload manifesting integration issuesAlso very interesting is the issue of launch rate & capacity issues, (and how that related to the heft studies)