Author Topic: What should NASA actually do with SLS?  (Read 155753 times)

Offline tyrred

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 934
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 21791
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #300 on: 09/23/2023 07:37 am »
Don't feed the necro-troll.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10563
  • Liked: 812
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #301 on: 09/24/2023 09:17 pm »
I don't tend to post much these days, but I just felt the need with this topic...

For me, I don't see much sense in continuing to fund the SLS Program any further - once Starship and New Glenn are both flying at a fraction of the price.

If 'twere me running NASA today, now is the time I would start to assemble the political will in Congress, together with support from the Corporate leadership, and start arranging what is to come next.

I would also make a strong effort to re-structure the agency's development approach at the same time too, to follow a more SpaceX-like 'fast paced' development style instead of the traditional slow approach. The current approach is clearly a very out-of-date process that is still very-much based on the best we could achieve in the 1960's.   This needs a massive change, and now is the perfect time for the whole agency to be dragged, kicking-and-screaming, into the 21st Century.

The Contractors and Congress both want large amounts of funds distributed to the various space districts, on a Program that won't get targeted for cancellation.   That's just the way Congress and the Contractors work and they remain the ones with their hands on this particular tiller, so I doubt it will change any time soon.   But a healthy Program could still be established within this framework.

Old-time thinking has been that for a NASA Program to survive is has to be based around as few monolothic project (vehicles) as possible - one massive rocket (SLS) and one capsule (Orion) being the prime example.   But it doesn't HAVE to be that way.

A moon or Mars outpost, with the long term goal of building a sustainable colony requires a *V*A*S*T* amount of infrastructure be developed, all inter-related.   Everything including habs, rad-protection, life support systems, rovers, digging systems, ISRU, robotic exploration drones, experiments, you name it - a healthy Exploration Program needs it all and I believe that would all require a lot of budget and a lot of people - exactly same as the Politico's and Contractors want.

My point is that there is sufficient money in the budget - and sufficient REASON not to cancel individual projects because they all rely upon each other - to justify NASA's budget for the next few decades.

A dozen inter-related projects that form a vibrant Exploration Program would easily employ just as many people, spend just as much of the agency's budget in the required districts and would create contracts and the associated profits that the companies all want.   The same money and the same people can buy you a dozen different things instead as just one or two giant monolithic projects do.

Most importantly, a vibrant Exploration Program would achieve a lot more for the bucks, would look a lot healthier to the public than the current Program does.   And that makes it far easier to justify to the public, the press, Congress and the workforce.

SLS has sadly become a bad joke.   Wouldn't it be nice for everyone, to have a US space program that isn't?

Just my 2¢ worth.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 09/24/2023 09:25 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1038
  • Likes Given: 3876
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #302 on: 09/25/2023 12:55 am »
For me, I don't see much sense in continuing to fund the SLS Program any further - once Starship and New Glenn are both flying at a fraction of the price.

I would go farther and say we should never have funded SLS ever. It was clear back in 2011 that a human spaceflight program based on SLS/Orion had a near-0% chance of producing a space program worthy of a great nation (unless you assume a magical budget boost) and a commercial-launcher-based program had a substantially greater chance (though not 100%) of producing great results. Things have only gotten clearer as Falcon Heavy reached orbit and as Starship and New Glenn have gotten closer to orbit.

However Starship and New Glenn reaching orbit would eliminate the best excuses for SLS so maybe it's a good strategic move to wait until then before trying to cancel SLS.

Quote
The Contractors and Congress both want large amounts of funds distributed to the various space districts, on a Program that won't get targeted for cancellation.   That's just the way Congress and the Contractors work and they remain the ones with their hands on this particular tiller, so I doubt it will change any time soon.   But a healthy Program could still be established within this framework.

It's not possible to make NASA's human spaceflight programs truly healthy without holding the contractors accountable for results. One cannot hold contractors accountable without some lost contracts and lost jobs, both of which are likely to result in annoyed Congresspeople. Your proposed changes could reduce the level of sickness a bit but contractors who consistently consistently fail to deliver results for a reasonable price are unlikely to magically become excellent just because you switched them from working on capsules and launch vehicles to working on surface hardware. We'd switch from a program handicapped by overpriced SLS and Orion to a program handicapped by overpriced surface hardware.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2023 01:09 am by deltaV »

Online Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2999
  • Liked: 1156
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #303 on: 09/25/2023 03:55 am »
Even in the unlikely event of Artemis being kneecapped, would NASA even attempt to pull off a Skylab-like situation though? They would have to be pretty far along in the manufacturing of an SLS to even contemplate it, right? Otherwise they'd just give up, given recent behavior...

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 464
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #304 on: 09/25/2023 02:52 pm »
For me, I don't see much sense in continuing to fund the SLS Program any further - once Starship and New Glenn are both flying at a fraction of the price.

I would go farther and say we should never have funded SLS ever. It was clear back in 2011 that a human spaceflight program based on SLS/Orion had a near-0% chance of producing a space program worthy of a great nation (unless you assume a magical budget boost) and a commercial-launcher-based program had a substantially greater chance (though not 100%) of producing great results. Things have only gotten clearer as Falcon Heavy reached orbit and as Starship and New Glenn have gotten closer to orbit.

However Starship and New Glenn reaching orbit would eliminate the best excuses for SLS so maybe it's a good strategic move to wait until then before trying to cancel SLS.
I might agree that if current congressional funding levels for NASA activities are somewhat insufficient to keep Artemis missions beyond Artemis 3 fully funded, then NASA could put temporarily put Artemis 3 and 4 on the back burner, but keep the option of reprioritizing the Artemis program in the 2025-2026 timeframe if the first few launches of the New Glenn rocket are successful and the Starship reaches full operational status after completion of the IFT-2 flight and a few other launches, because the Starship HLS variant and the Blue Moon spacecraft designed to be carried aboard the New Glenn are still a long way off from completion.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6724
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5476
  • Likes Given: 2279
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #305 on: 09/25/2023 03:25 pm »
For me, I don't see much sense in continuing to fund the SLS Program any further - once Starship and New Glenn are both flying at a fraction of the price.

I would go farther and say we should never have funded SLS ever. It was clear back in 2011 that a human spaceflight program based on SLS/Orion had a near-0% chance of producing a space program worthy of a great nation (unless you assume a magical budget boost) and a commercial-launcher-based program had a substantially greater chance (though not 100%) of producing great results. Things have only gotten clearer as Falcon Heavy reached orbit and as Starship and New Glenn have gotten closer to orbit.

However Starship and New Glenn reaching orbit would eliminate the best excuses for SLS so maybe it's a good strategic move to wait until then before trying to cancel SLS.
I might agree that if current congressional funding levels for NASA activities are somewhat insufficient to keep Artemis missions beyond Artemis 3 fully funded, then NASA could put temporarily put Artemis 3 and 4 on the back burner, but keep the option of reprioritizing the Artemis program in the 2025-2026 timeframe if the first few launches of the New Glenn rocket are successful and the Starship reaches full operational status after completion of the IFT-2 flight and a few other launches, because the Starship HLS variant and the Blue Moon spacecraft designed to be carried aboard the New Glenn are still a long way off from completion.
Sorry, no. The only use for SLS/Orion is to take 4 astronauts to NRHO and bring them back. That is the only function that a replacement must perform. As an interim measure, a custom expendable system (e.g., expendable custom Starship) that can get Orion to NRHO might be used to replace SLS, possibly even in the Artemis IV timeframe, but a long-term replacement will require a crew-rated launch and EDL system.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2137
  • Likes Given: 1255
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #306 on: 09/25/2023 08:31 pm »
I think NASA should fly out SLS through Artemis 8 and then retire it.  They should put out a proposal to industry for a commercial replacement of its functions to the Moon.  They should stop all development of any capability for advanced solids beyond these flights.  Industry put forth some interesting proposals for HLS.  I think they could do the same for commercial crew services to the Moon.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1038
  • Likes Given: 3876
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #307 on: 09/26/2023 04:43 pm »
I think NASA should fly out SLS through Artemis 8 and then retire it.  They should put out a proposal to industry for a commercial replacement of its functions to the Moon.  They should stop all development of any capability for advanced solids beyond these flights.  Industry put forth some interesting proposals for HLS.  I think they could do the same for commercial crew services to the Moon.
I definitely agree it makes sense to do some Artemis missions before retiring SLS but I probably wouldn't wait until after Artemis 8. There are a variety of natural stopping points: after Artemis 3 to get a lunar landing under our belt and avoid the need for EUS, after Artemis 4 to eliminate the need for RS-25E, after Artemis 6 so both SpaceX and Blue get 2 landings each to put them on a more level playing field for the next competition, or after Artemis 8 to avoid the need for new solid boosters. It's also worth considering if one can reduce the cost of Artemis 4-6 by eliminating EUS and the Gateway. Congress or the President should ask NASA to study good stopping points.

For the replacement I think NASA should buy end-to-end services that transport astronauts from Earth to the moon and back using a "commercial" style procurement with two providers and fixed-price contracts. The alternative to end-to-end is splitting it up into separate tasks such as travel from Earth surface to the Gateway and back and travel from Gateway to the surface of the moon and back; this alternative seems bad because it reduces the ability of the bidders to choose the intermediate points that work best for them. Analogy: if you want to get from New York to Los Angeles it would be foolish to look at a map to find a city midway between the two, Kansas City, and then buy separate tickets from NY to Kansas City and Kansas City to LA.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6724
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5476
  • Likes Given: 2279
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #308 on: 09/26/2023 05:25 pm »
I think NASA should fly out SLS through Artemis 8 and then retire it.  They should put out a proposal to industry for a commercial replacement of its functions to the Moon.  They should stop all development of any capability for advanced solids beyond these flights.  Industry put forth some interesting proposals for HLS.  I think they could do the same for commercial crew services to the Moon.
I definitely agree it makes sense to do some Artemis missions before retiring SLS but I probably wouldn't wait until after Artemis 8. There are a variety of natural stopping points: after Artemis 3 to get a lunar landing under our belt and avoid the need for EUS, after Artemis 4 to eliminate the need for RS-25E, after Artemis 6 so both SpaceX and Blue get 2 landings each to put them on a more level playing field for the next competition, or after Artemis 8 to avoid the need for new solid boosters. It's also worth considering if one can reduce the cost of Artemis 4-6 by eliminating EUS and the Gateway. Congress or the President should ask NASA to study good stopping points.

For the replacement I think NASA should buy end-to-end services that transport astronauts from Earth to the moon and back using a "commercial" style procurement with two providers and fixed-price contracts. The alternative to end-to-end is splitting it up into separate tasks such as travel from Earth surface to the Gateway and back and travel from Gateway to the surface of the moon and back; this alternative seems bad because it reduces the ability of the bidders to choose the intermediate points that work best for them. Analogy: if you want to get from New York to Los Angeles it would be foolish to look at a map to find a city midway between the two, Kansas City, and then buy separate tickets from NY to Kansas City and Kansas City to LA.
I think an incremental approach may be better and may allow for a quicker replacement. Basically, start by replacing SLS but keeping Orion and keeping the rest of the Artemis architecture. Do this by launching Orion atop an expendable custom SS atop an ordinary SH. This could in theory be done as early as Artemis III. The advantage is that Artemis III thru V stay mostly the same as they are currently planned. Next, replace Orion with a crewed SS, but keep the rest of the Artemis architecture by having it just take four crew to NRHO and back, like Orion. At this point you have retired both SLS and Orion and can begin designing effective lunar missions. By killing SLS without killing Orion, you divide the OldSpace lobby. You also begin saving money sooner. By keeping Orion for awhile, you avoid the dependency on Starship EDL crew certification, which may otherwise end up being critical path.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 464
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #309 on: 09/26/2023 07:33 pm »
I think NASA should fly out SLS through Artemis 8 and then retire it.  They should put out a proposal to industry for a commercial replacement of its functions to the Moon.  They should stop all development of any capability for advanced solids beyond these flights.  Industry put forth some interesting proposals for HLS.  I think they could do the same for commercial crew services to the Moon.
I definitely agree it makes sense to do some Artemis missions before retiring SLS but I probably wouldn't wait until after Artemis 8. There are a variety of natural stopping points: after Artemis 3 to get a lunar landing under our belt and avoid the need for EUS, after Artemis 4 to eliminate the need for RS-25E, after Artemis 6 so both SpaceX and Blue get 2 landings each to put them on a more level playing field for the next competition, or after Artemis 8 to avoid the need for new solid boosters. It's also worth considering if one can reduce the cost of Artemis 4-6 by eliminating EUS and the Gateway. Congress or the President should ask NASA to study good stopping points.

For the replacement I think NASA should buy end-to-end services that transport astronauts from Earth to the moon and back using a "commercial" style procurement with two providers and fixed-price contracts. The alternative to end-to-end is splitting it up into separate tasks such as travel from Earth surface to the Gateway and back and travel from Gateway to the surface of the moon and back; this alternative seems bad because it reduces the ability of the bidders to choose the intermediate points that work best for them. Analogy: if you want to get from New York to Los Angeles it would be foolish to look at a map to find a city midway between the two, Kansas City, and then buy separate tickets from NY to Kansas City and Kansas City to LA.
I think an incremental approach may be better and may allow for a quicker replacement. Basically, start by replacing SLS but keeping Orion and keeping the rest of the Artemis architecture. Do this by launching Orion atop an expendable custom SS atop an ordinary SH. This could in theory be done as early as Artemis III. The advantage is that Artemis III thru V stay mostly the same as they are currently planned. Next, replace Orion with a crewed SS, but keep the rest of the Artemis architecture by having it just take four crew to NRHO and back, like Orion. At this point you have retired both SLS and Orion and can begin designing effective lunar missions. By killing SLS without killing Orion, you divide the OldSpace lobby. You also begin saving money sooner. By keeping Orion for awhile, you avoid the dependency on Starship EDL crew certification, which may otherwise end up being critical path.
It may be prudent for Blue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraft to make up for any delay in the Artemis missions subsequent to Artemis 5 because not only is the New Glenn's design architecture brand-new, its first stage uses less hazardous methane fuel in contrast to its upper stage using a hydrolox engine, not to mention that the proposed Blue Moon spacecraft has been chosen as the lunar landing component for Artemis 5. After all, the Orion spacecraft was spared from cancelation even as the Ares rocket that would have carried and which utilized STS technology like the SLS was canceled in 2010.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9100
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10473
  • Likes Given: 12168
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #310 on: 09/26/2023 08:12 pm »
It may be prudent for Blue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraft...

Two things:

1. Why a new variant? Why not just use New Glenn as-is?

2. Blue Origin is having a hard enough time just getting their basic New Glenn to flight testing, so adding a variant may be too much for them - even with a new (hopefully better) CEO.

Quote
...to make up for any delay in the Artemis missions subsequent to Artemis 5...

If Congress asked soon to define the end of the SLS as "as quickly as possible", then since Artemis V is likely move than 7 years from now anyways, I don't think there would be a delay. Besides, if Congress ends the SLS, they should end the Orion too, since the Orion is also a limiting factor for doing anything in space - it only seats 4 people, yet costs $600M.

Quote
...because not only is the New Glenn's design architecture brand-new, its first stage uses less hazardous methane fuel in contrast to its upper stage using a hydrolox engine...

NASA was comfortable using LH2 for the Shuttle, which is pretty hazardous, so I don't think they care about methane versus hydrogen.

Quote
...not to mention that the proposed Blue Moon spacecraft has been chosen as the lunar landing component for Artemis 5.

That wouldn't matter, because whoever wins the ability to be part of the replacement for the SLS, it will be done by a competition, and requiring the winner to already have a NASA contract is unlikely to be a requirement.

Quote
After all, the Orion spacecraft was spared from cancelation even as the Ares rocket that would have carried and which utilized STS technology like the SLS was canceled in 2010.

Incorrect. The Orion in the Constellation program was to be cancelled, just like the Ares I/V rockets. The Congress of 2010 resurrected the Orion CEV but stripped it down into the Orion MPCV for the SLS to carry.

Look, the only use case for the SLS today is to transport the Orion MPCV, but the Orion MPCV is too expensive and too limiting for NASA's future needs. So if Congress cancels the SLS, they should cancel the Orion MPCV too.

The replacement for both should be either a completely reusable or significantly reusable transportation system from the surface of Earth to LEO and back, and then from LEO to the region of the Moon and back. Segmented transportations are the norm here on Earth, and provide the most flexibility and most competition.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2999
  • Liked: 1156
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #311 on: 09/26/2023 11:58 pm »
Blue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraft


New Glenn has a C3=0 of 7.1t.
Orion + ESM + LAS is 33.4t
One of these is much larger than the other


/s Are you proposing:
1. Cutting Orion into 5 equal slices. 1 New Glenn each and have the astronauts assemble it in deep space. NASA sells it to the public as practice for Mars and beyond.
2. The variant you are alluding to is actually new glenn super duper heavy (5 core). Instead of the Korolev Cross it does a "John Glenn Starburst".
3. Using the LAS as a kick stage.
4. Deleting the LAS and installing ejection seats to save mass. The ejection seat motors are also ducted externally to serve as course correction thrusters.
5. Launching the CSM sans fluids for weight, but then immediately telling the astronauts that they have to hold their breath ... and that they don't have power, heat or water because the ESM got left in canaveral due to the flight being overweight.

#3 is conceptually what Crew Dragon is sorta doing in liquid form right now, but the current Orion LAS probably probably can't be tweaked for that, and it would also be a rough ride to be doing regularly.

Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #312 on: 09/27/2023 04:30 am »
Blue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraft


New Glenn has a C3=0 of 7.1t.
Orion + ESM + LAS is 33.4t
One of these is much larger than the other


/s Are you proposing:
1. Cutting Orion into 5 equal slices. 1 New Glenn each and have the astronauts assemble it in deep space. NASA sells it to the public as practice for Mars and beyond.
2. The variant you are alluding to is actually new glenn super duper heavy (5 core). Instead of the Korolev Cross it does a "John Glenn Starburst".
3. Using the LAS as a kick stage.
4. Deleting the LAS and installing ejection seats to save mass. The ejection seat motors are also ducted externally to serve as course correction thrusters.
5. Launching the CSM sans fluids for weight, but then immediately telling the astronauts that they have to hold their breath ... and that they don't have power, heat or water because the ESM got left in canaveral due to the flight being overweight.

I think probably New Glenn would just launch Orion to LEO (it actually would probably be the best option for that) and then how it gets from LEO to the Moon is another matter entirely.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline Callmeishmael

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Asia
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #313 on: 09/27/2023 05:35 am »
Looking at tons to LEO, perhaps using Falcon Heavy to launch Orion might be a better option than New Glenn. 

Unless, of course, there is a New Glenn Heavy planned!

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4844
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3609
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #314 on: 09/27/2023 07:22 am »
A moon or Mars outpost, with the long term goal of building a sustainable colony requires a *V*A*S*T* amount of infrastructure be developed, all inter-related.   Everything including habs, rad-protection, life support systems, rovers, digging systems, ISRU, robotic exploration drones, experiments, you name it - a healthy Exploration Program needs it all and I believe that would all require a lot of budget and a lot of people - exactly same as the Politico's and Contractors want.

My point is that there is sufficient money in the budget - and sufficient REASON not to cancel individual projects because they all rely upon each other - to justify NASA's budget for the next few decades.

A dozen inter-related projects that form a vibrant Exploration Program would easily employ just as many people, spend just as much of the agency's budget in the required districts and would create contracts and the associated profits that the companies all want.   The same money and the same people can buy you a dozen different things instead as just one or two giant monolithic projects do.

Most importantly, a vibrant Exploration Program would achieve a lot more for the bucks, would look a lot healthier to the public than the current Program does.   And that makes it far easier to justify to the public, the press, Congress and the workforce.

Largely agree, but there are three necessary conditions to pulling this off:

1) Create a credible source of embarrassment.  Congress likes space pork because the campaign support that comes from the incumbents is more valuable than the liabilities from being so nakedly pork-driven.  That will continue until the embarrassment flips the equation.  Fortunately, I expect SpaceX to have a credible source of embarrassment.

2) Provide a graceful exit.  The easiest way to do this is to spin up a second source program for the Earth-NRHO-Earth transit segment, just as the Blue Moon version of HLS provided a second source (and supposed redundancy) to LSS.  Then give every other mission to SLS, until the EPOC orders run out.

3) Ensure that everybody gets roughly the same allocation of pork as before.  It's obviously going to be somewhat less, because SpaceX is getting 10%-20% of it, but that's the cost of getting paid to build a bad product for a long time.  That allocation will be a difficult juggling act, but I believe it's achievable.

Then wait for nature to take its course.

Offline redneck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • swamp in Florida
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #315 on: 09/27/2023 09:03 am »
Orion, SLS, NG and SS all have too many limitations.  Vulcan might eventually succeed, but it too has too many limitations for what everyone needs.

Sure it’s fun to go back to the drawing board every seven years.  But the only option that is truly affordable is doing nothing.  Cancel everything.

Cancel concerns programs that the government controls. NG and SS may or may not respond to the cancellations of government contracts. After that, small and simple contracts for performance. No more micromanaged hail Marys.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2137
  • Likes Given: 1255
Re: What should NASA actually do with SLS?
« Reply #316 on: 11/13/2023 10:17 pm »
Blue Origin propose a New Glenn variant to carry the Orion spacecraft


New Glenn has a C3=0 of 7.1t.
Orion + ESM + LAS is 33.4t
One of these is much larger than the other


/s Are you proposing:
1. Cutting Orion into 5 equal slices. 1 New Glenn each and have the astronauts assemble it in deep space. NASA sells it to the public as practice for Mars and beyond.
2. The variant you are alluding to is actually new glenn super duper heavy (5 core). Instead of the Korolev Cross it does a "John Glenn Starburst".
3. Using the LAS as a kick stage.
4. Deleting the LAS and installing ejection seats to save mass. The ejection seat motors are also ducted externally to serve as course correction thrusters.
5. Launching the CSM sans fluids for weight, but then immediately telling the astronauts that they have to hold their breath ... and that they don't have power, heat or water because the ESM got left in canaveral due to the flight being overweight.

I think probably New Glenn would just launch Orion to LEO (it actually would probably be the best option for that) and then how it gets from LEO to the Moon is another matter entirely.
You refuel the second stage in LEO and go on through TLI.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0