Author Topic: SLS General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 189717 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1020 on: 07/16/2017 09:10 AM »
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1021 on: 07/16/2017 10:42 PM »
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:

1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2017 10:42 PM by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31142
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9394
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1022 on: 07/16/2017 10:46 PM »
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 971
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5026
  • Likes Given: 1209
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1023 on: 07/16/2017 11:38 PM »
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:

1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.

But NASA already talked about using Commercial Cargo of some sort for supply in their DSG mission diagrams as a way of reducing costs, which kind of implies that 2 is not a given.  3 goes back to that in that why would that have that effect?  If a commercial company wants to dock an autonomous lander at the gateway, how does that obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion?  The whole point of this is to have a platform that has advantages for a variety of interests international and commercial and is doable within the flat budgets projected for the next decade.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1024 on: 07/17/2017 12:33 AM »
I can't see NASA paying for development of commercial crew or cargo vehicle to service DSG. If one is availiable they would most likely use it.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1025 on: 07/17/2017 06:16 AM »
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1026 on: 07/17/2017 06:22 AM »
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:

1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.

Cargo can be transported from a LEO spacestation to the DSG using a SEP tug. Viable for non-perishable goods but too slow for people.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4547
  • Liked: 2675
  • Likes Given: 3769
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1027 on: 07/17/2017 01:11 PM »
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst

Catchy acronym does not equal leadership.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1028 on: 07/17/2017 01:31 PM »
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:

1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.

But NASA already talked about using Commercial Cargo of some sort for supply in their DSG mission diagrams as a way of reducing costs, which kind of implies that 2 is not a given.  3 goes back to that in that why would that have that effect?  If a commercial company wants to dock an autonomous lander at the gateway, how does that obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion?  The whole point of this is to have a platform that has advantages for a variety of interests international and commercial and is doable within the flat budgets projected for the next decade.
For a commercial service based at the DSG they would need cheaper and often crew and cargo services than just using the expensive and limited mission rate of SLS/Orion. SLS may still have some payloads of 40mt BLEO but current commercial developments may overrun that as well. Remember regular missions by SLS using new RS25 engines will not start until NET 2026. Prior to that the max number of missions no matter what is limited to 4. 2 of those are the EC flights and the other 2 are EM-1 and EM-2. DSG deployment is something that will not happen until second half of 2020s. Meaning any commercial usage of the DSG would be ~3 years after it is deployed or almost 2030. A lot can happen in 13 years.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31142
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9394
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1029 on: 07/17/2017 01:34 PM »
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst

Not the same thing.  This is only about development and IP sharing and not operations.

Also, the reason for it not being updated is that lunar landing is not priority (as stated many times before).   Just because NASA has a website or it is a little project doesn't mean NASA is going ahead with a concept.  See SEV.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 971
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5026
  • Likes Given: 1209
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1030 on: 07/17/2017 07:51 PM »

For a commercial service based at the DSG they would need cheaper and often crew and cargo services than just using the expensive and limited mission rate of SLS/Orion. SLS may still have some payloads of 40mt BLEO but current commercial developments may overrun that as well. Remember regular missions by SLS using new RS25 engines will not start until NET 2026. Prior to that the max number of missions no matter what is limited to 4. 2 of those are the EC flights and the other 2 are EM-1 and EM-2. DSG deployment is something that will not happen until second half of 2020s. Meaning any commercial usage of the DSG would be ~3 years after it is deployed or almost 2030. A lot can happen in 13 years.

Cargo is pretty much already planned as per the presentation.  I'm not really considering this as a "humans to lunar surface" situation, at least not at first.  I imagine most of the activity would be things that are done and can be done without crew or during a normal rotation.  If the money or cooperating were to be available to do more, then you'd probably look at what more could be done then.  The mere existence of other ways to send things to DSG doesn't mean that the whole thing is doomed or certain-for-cancellation.   ::)

While we're adding random amounts of numbers to the dates, why not assume it starts in 2040?  Deployment is supposed to start on EM-2.  Wether that happens or not is up to others, but there are an awful lot of assumptions there, like any commercial usage needing an SLS flight.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1262
  • Likes Given: 1460
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1031 on: 07/17/2017 11:50 PM »
Lastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.

My $0.02


I do feel the need to address this.  Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one.  There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.  And a desire to expand our footprint in space automatically expands our problems there.  So far, all of our problems are in LEO because that's where we are.  But that has nothing to do with where we want to be.  If we want to move into deeper space, then the lack of a deep space habitat is certainly a problem that needs to be solved.
If you don't have a problem there, it simply means you don't want to be there -- which is fine, but declaring the absence of a "need" is no more valid than to claim Columbus had no "need" to sail west.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5062
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 511
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1032 on: 07/18/2017 09:31 AM »
Lastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.

My $0.02


I do feel the need to address this.  Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one.  There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.

So far, I agree, at least in a philosophical way.

Quote
And a desire to expand our footprint in space automatically expands our problems there.  So far, all of our problems are in LEO because that's where we are.  But that has nothing to do with where we want to be.  If we want to move into deeper space, then the lack of a deep space habitat is certainly a problem that needs to be solved.
If you don't have a problem there, it simply means you don't want to be there -- which is fine, but declaring the absence of a "need" is no more valid than to claim Columbus had no "need" to sail west.

But who is "we"?  Space cadets like you and I made up our minds a long time ago that there are plenty of "problems" in space need solutions, and we definitely want to be there.  But the US Congress...?  And it's Congress that matters when it comes deciding whether there are problems in space needing solutions.
In a philosophical sense, I agree with you.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2017 07:57 PM by Proponent »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4547
  • Liked: 2675
  • Likes Given: 3769
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1033 on: 07/18/2017 01:36 PM »
Scott Pace made a most concise argument for US leadership in space:

Quote
If we want to enhance stability by broadening international support for productive and stable norms of behavior in space, then we need to establish and lead space initiatives in which other nations can participate.

If we want to shape the values and norms of the new frontier, then we must ourselves be on that frontier. New societies are shaped by those who are there, not by those who stay home.
bold mine

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43259.msg1703064#msg1703064

The US has a significant National interest in the continued peaceful use of space, and IMO, the expansion beyond LEO.  Leadership there will help establish 'productive and stable norms of behavior' -- already a work in progress.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2017 01:37 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3225
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2054
  • Likes Given: 2446
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1034 on: 07/18/2017 03:18 PM »
Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one.

It's a political one. Everything with NASA is political, even when the end result is a science mission.

Quote
There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.

The problems to be addressed are here on Earth, even if the solutions are to do things in space. Apollo was a great example of that, where it was part of the Cold War here on Earth.

For every penny of taxpayer money that is spent by Congress the first question to be answered by our elected officials is always "how does this benefit me & our country?" And since the United States as a legal entity exists solely on Earth, the benefits for what we do in space have to be directed to Earth.

- Apollo was part of winning the Cold War (i.e. national security)
- The Shuttle program addressed what to do with the Apollo workforce (i.e. jobs)
- The ISS was only approved because it was to also address the end of the Cold War (i.e. jobs & national security)

Our nation does have a history of just funding "science", but so far HSF has needed more than "science" as it's justification.

Ignoring how the SLS was created, it's job is to be a transportation system, so it is dependent on what needs to be moved to & thru space. So a lack of "need" for doing things in space is going to result in a lack of "need" for the SLS - even more so since not everything NASA needs moved to space requires an HLV.

So when I talk about a lack of "need", it is a perceived lack of political "need" for Congress to spend money on payloads and programs that require a government-owned HLV.

I think how the SLS was created has lulled people into a false set of expectations, because the SLS was created so easily. But that was because it usurped the funding stream of a dying program, and did not have to go through the normal funding processes that normal proposals go through.

But the payloads and missions that require the SLS have to go through those processes, and I think the Europa Clipper mission is a good example of how long it takes to finally get funding for something that requires the SLS - and it's not even fully funded yet.

Then throw on top of that how long it takes to actually design, build and test HSF hardware (18 years for Orion) and you can see how the SLS is being threatened by not only a lack of things to launch, but also how infrequently it would launch.

So the problems to be solved are here on Earth. How they are solved is by doing things in space. Identifying the problems that need to be solved here on Earth are the first step (i.e. jobs, national security, "freedom", "science", etc.), then you have to find the sponsors in Congress that will ensure the funding is available. And again, except for the Europa Clipper, no one in Congress seems to be pushing for funding anything else for the SLS to do.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1035 on: 07/18/2017 04:01 PM »
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst

Catchy acronym does not equal leadership.

If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31142
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9394
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1036 on: 07/18/2017 04:39 PM »

If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.

Study money and not enough to produce hardware. And anyways, even if there was hardware, it is too late.  A launch vehicle would have to been procured already.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1037 on: 07/18/2017 09:28 PM »

If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.

Study money and not enough to produce hardware. And anyways, even if there was hardware, it is too late.  A launch vehicle would have to been procured already.

The launch vehicle has been procured. The Moon Express MX-1E lander is due to be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/07/12/moon-express-unveils-model-moon-ship/#more-62028

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2053
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1038 on: 07/18/2017 10:42 PM »
No one has caught up with us, even though we haven't been to the moon in 50 years.  And no one does else does what we have done with Robotic exploration of the solar system.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1039 on: 07/19/2017 12:34 AM »
No one has caught up with us, even though we haven't been to the moon in 50 years.  And no one does else does what we have done with Robotic exploration of the solar system.

Robotic exploration of the solar system rarely makes the headlines in the tabloids.

The USA is the only country to land a man on the Moon. However following the crash of the Shuttle the general public think NASA is a busted flush. It needs to return to the fray.

Congress probably expects the Orion and SLS to be involved in NASA's return to greatness.

The Japanese have caught up with the USA on lunar landers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

Tags: