On the contrary: The Orion LAS is oversized for a pure liquid launch vehicle. Easier to escape a Super Heavy failure than SLS which has motors which cannot turn off.
Which talks about commercial alternatives to SLS. Since Orion is the only payload, it’s kind of important.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/14/2023 11:50 amWhich talks about commercial alternatives to SLS. Since Orion is the only payload, it’s kind of important.And as the report points out (albeit a bit nuanced), Orion is not the only solution if SLS is removed from the equation. Which begs the question: Why would other solutions have to cater to Orion? Simple answer: they don't. SLS and Orion are tied at the hip; they live and die together.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/13/2023 05:32 amhttps://twitter.com/jeffvader10/status/1712504224200736894QuoteThe one good thing to come out of this is NASA concurring with the recommendation to evaluate commercial alternativesIt’s a good report for calling bs on the suppossed savings from contract consolidation years before NASA starts down that road. And the report puts a little sunshine on some cost data.But in terms of effecting change, the report’s recommendations are pretty toothless — so much so that I didn’t bother quoting them. Admittedly, there’s only so much an IG can do to force an agency to give up a current program and pursue a different one. But the report doesn’t even directly address termination costs, which were the major stumbling block to terminating Constellation contracts during the Obama Administration, nevertheless force the agency to produce independent cost analyses, an independent analysis of alternatives, etc. There’s little to nothing in this report that would prevent a repeat of the agency’s past mistakes, bureaucratic drift, and programmatic hijackings. I’m exaggerating, but an ESD intern could read a Wikipedia article on competing heavy launch systems while Free and the rest of his organization continue to roll over on contract negotiations and overruns, and NASA would still meet the letter of the vague, loosey goosey recommendations in this IG report.In terms of a path forward, the IG also totally misses the fact that SLS has been reduced from an aspirational, multi-payload HLV to a single-use crew launcher, despite the report noting the payloads that SLS has lost and been unable to secure. Getting off SLS means getting off Orion and that means NASA must pursue a different lunar crew transport capability. Exploring or even purchasing commercial heavy launch won’t change anything. NASA has already migrated some Artemis payloads to Falcon Heavy. NASA has to let go of the lunar crew transport function. If not, it will continue to saddle Artemis with Orion/SLS cost, flight rate, flight safety, and related issues.
https://twitter.com/jeffvader10/status/1712504224200736894QuoteThe one good thing to come out of this is NASA concurring with the recommendation to evaluate commercial alternatives
The one good thing to come out of this is NASA concurring with the recommendation to evaluate commercial alternatives
The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.
Quote from: joek on 10/14/2023 12:08 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/14/2023 11:50 amWhich talks about commercial alternatives to SLS. Since Orion is the only payload, it’s kind of important.And as the report points out (albeit a bit nuanced), Orion is not the only solution if SLS is removed from the equation. Which begs the question: Why would other solutions have to cater to Orion? Simple answer: they don't. SLS and Orion are tied at the hip; they live and die together.Can you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark. As for another solution catering to Orion, that's more political than technical. Getting Congress to kill off the SLS turkey will be hard enough. Expecting them to kill Orion too seems to assume higher level of collective congressional rationality than I've come to expect.🤣IF they ditch SLS and the run a few Artemus missions with the overpriced Orion spam can without ditching the whole program, then MAYBE there will be enough pressure to use one of the less expensive alternatives that will hopefully be fully developed by then. Or maybe they'll ditch the whole thing and learn Chinese so they can vacation at a lunar resort.
What you have to keep in mind is that the SLS not only launches the Orion but also an additional payload.(I do not consider it realistic or possible to commercially replace the SLS of Artemis III, which is already very advanced in its construction).So the commercial proposals would have to take charge of launching the Orion to the Moon and also in another launch the Gateway modules or whatever. Including the design and construction of a tugboat.
Quote from: pochimax on 10/15/2023 09:57 pmWhat you have to keep in mind is that the SLS not only launches the Orion but also an additional payload.(I do not consider it realistic or possible to commercially replace the SLS of Artemis III, which is already very advanced in its construction).So the commercial proposals would have to take charge of launching the Orion to the Moon and also in another launch the Gateway modules or whatever. Including the design and construction of a tugboat.The only planned SLS cargo I know of is the I-HAB module for Gateway. It is intended to launch together with an Orion on a Block 1B SLS during Artemis IV. It cannot launch until the Block 1B is built and its ML-2 launch platform is built.IMHO, Gateway is worthless except as a nanny for Orion, which cannot survive on its own during a long Lunar mission. However, if you really, really want to add a big habitat to the tiny initial gateway, then just keep the first HLS or the second HLS or both after they return to NRHO from the lunar surface, instead of throwing them away. Each HLS has larger pressurized volume than I-HAB. This would require some mods to HLS. A better alternative is a custom Gateway based on Starship, probably derived from HLS.As to Artemis III being "advanced in its construction": sunk costs are sunk. If a viable alternative can be delivered in the same timeframe as the longest-lead Artemis III deliverable, then the existence of this hardware is irrelevant.
Can you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark.
Quote from: OTV Booster on 10/15/2023 08:28 pmCan you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark. Only launch manifest for SLS in the foreseeable future is Orion as part of Artemis. Only LV manifested to launch on SLS is Orion. That is very unlikely to change. SLS is simply too expensive for other missions (one reason why Europa Clipper moved to FH). Orion is tied to Artemis, which is tied to SLS. Could Orion be untied from SLS? Maybe--a number of other threads discuss options. But the cost for an Orion mission is still very steep--regardless of LV--so once you take one out of the equation, think the other will follow.edit: p.s. OIG report hints at that with the statement "NASA’s SLS single-use rocket". Single use = Orion/Artemis.
Quote from: joek on 10/15/2023 11:24 pmQuote from: OTV Booster on 10/15/2023 08:28 pmCan you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark. Only launch manifest for SLS in the foreseeable future is Orion as part of Artemis. Only LV manifested to launch on SLS is Orion. That is very unlikely to change. SLS is simply too expensive for other missions (one reason why Europa Clipper moved to FH). Orion is tied to Artemis, which is tied to SLS. Could Orion be untied from SLS? Maybe--a number of other threads discuss options. But the cost for an Orion mission is still very steep--regardless of LV--so once you take one out of the equation, think the other will follow.edit: p.s. OIG report hints at that with the statement "NASA’s SLS single-use rocket". Single use = Orion/Artemis.SLS will also be used for Gateway modules: IHab and Esprit (and perhaps the Airlock). However, Orion will also be part of these missions.
Only if NASA have the SLS Block 1B available. More likely the Falcon Heavy will launch the iHab, Esplit and airlock modules to NRHO due to cost and scheduling. Since the SLS Block 1B be on schedule is extremely unlikely, IMO.Kinda of silly waiting for a $4.5B+ SLS Block 1B/Orion stack (according to NASA IG) when you can booked several Falcon Heavies for less than $200M each immediately. So @joek is likely correct that the Orion will be the only payload for the SLS. Which NASA is unlikely to get the Block 1B version operational any time soon.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 10/16/2023 07:55 amOnly if NASA have the SLS Block 1B available. More likely the Falcon Heavy will launch the iHab, Esplit and airlock modules to NRHO due to cost and scheduling. Since the SLS Block 1B be on schedule is extremely unlikely, IMO.Kinda of silly waiting for a $4.5B+ SLS Block 1B/Orion stack (according to NASA IG) when you can booked several Falcon Heavies for less than $200M each immediately. So @joek is likely correct that the Orion will be the only payload for the SLS. Which NASA is unlikely to get the Block 1B version operational any time soon.The problem is not to throw those modules on a trans-lunar injection (TLI) trajectory, but to bring them from that trajectory and over to the NRHO orbit, meet up with the Lunar Gateway and dock with it. Falcon Heavy can't do that on its own. Nor can SLS, of course; Orion is planned to do that. But Falcon Heavy can't throw Orion+IHab on a TLI.A space tug could certainly be developed to perform that task, and it would almost certainly be significantly smaller and cheaper than Orion. But that development needs to be done.
Only launch manifest for SLS in the foreseeable future is Orion as part of Artemis. Only LV manifested to launch on SLS is Orion. That is very unlikely to change.
My preferred solution as a Starship enthusiast is to replace Gateway entirely, using a custom Starship. It's likely to be cheaper than an individual Gateway module and its LV, and this is certainly true if the module launches on SLS/Orion.
