What should NASA actually do with SLS?

[Bill White]

Yesterday, Lori Garver and Robert Lightfoot answered some questions but raised others.

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Lori Garver reportedly said that reconciliation of the House bill and the Senate bill was not an Administration responsibility. Are we worried about this?

Also, while Robert Lightfoot notably said "We don't need to study it anymore" he also said that it hasn't been decided what this new heavy lift rocket would actually do, once built.

Okay, what do we think NASA should do with this heavy lift capability, once deployed?

[Warren Platts]

Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

Must answer "What should NASA do?" first.

[space nut]

 OK
I can get it started


1. Development and deployment of Propellant depots.
2. Space telescopes in various orbits or locations.
3. Moon orbital manned station.
4. Moon surface manned program.
5. Robotic mining , Propellant, and other manufacturing Moon.
6. Large robotic Mars, Venus, Europa, and Titan class sample return missions
7. Large fuel/oxygen  manufacturing plant on Mars.
8. NEO manned missions.
9. Mars orbital stations.
10. Mars surface missions.
11. Mars moon missions.
12. Neptune multi year orbital mission.
13. Uranus multi year orbital mission.
14. Earth orbital manned station 2.

Why ?

Because man must explore his new home.








 

[aquanaut99]

OK
I can get it started


1. Development and deployment of Propellant depots.
2. Space telescopes in various orbits or locations.
3. Moon orbital manned station.
4. Moon surface manned program.
5. Robotic mining , Propellant, and other manufacturing Moon.
6. Large robotic Mars, Venus, Europa, and Titan class sample return missions
7. Large fuel/oxygen  manufacturing plant on Mars.
8. NEO manned missions.
9. Mars orbital stations.
10. Mars surface missions.
11. Mars moon missions.
12. Neptune multi year orbital mission.
13. Uranus multi year orbital mission.
14. Earth orbital manned station 2.

Why ?

Because man must explore his new home.

Lots of stuff on that list I'd love to see, also.

Unfortunately, I don't know where the money is supposed to come from for all that and the SLS...

[SpacexULA]

[quote author=aquanaut99 link=topic=22545.msg630456#msg630456 date=1282422569Lots of stuff on that list I'd love to see, also.

Unfortunately, I don't know where the money is supposed to come from for all that and the SLS...[/quote]

A bite at a time, of course we are not going to do ANY tech dev for a Saturn mission for decades.

After a few EELV tech dev missions launched on EELV, a HLV launched Depot some time around the beginning of the next decade would be a good start.

[jml]

...Unfortunately, I don't know where the money is supposed to come from for all that and the SLS...

Now there's a good place to get some international partners involved...JAXA, ESA, CSA, Roscosmos, and maybe even emerging economic powers like China, India, Brazil. The national prestige of having an astronaut from "insert_nation_here" on a NEO or lunar mission in exchange for providing the hab, or the propellant, or some other key component.

[sdsds]

Now there's a good place to get some international partners involved...JAXA, ESA, CSA, Roscosmos, and maybe even emerging economic powers like China, India, Brazil. The national prestige of having an astronaut from "insert_nation_here" on a NEO or lunar mission in exchange for providing the hab, or the propellant, or some other key component.

Yes, and this works even for robotic precursor missions, like a mission where a single lunar hopper delivers separate rovers to scout several different surface locations.  Even if the lander could only hop once after the first descent, that approach might work for a joint NASA/ESA mission.  One NASA rover; one ESA rover.  NASA J-130 first stage; ESA Ariane-derived lander stage.  Commercial Delta IV middle stage.

[Lars_J]

And the Koreans and Russians have shown us how easy it is to LEGO together two stages from different countries.

[sdsds]

And the Koreans and Russians have shown us how easy it is to LEGO together two stages from different countries.

Ha, ha!  Yes, there can be "coordination" difficulties between the space agencies of different countries.  I'm sure there might be another example of that somewhere... but where?     Still, those kinds of difficulties can be overcome with time and patience, and it is probably worthwhile to do so.

Specifically, the Russo-Korean collaboration is an attempt to fly an unproven second stage atop an unproven first stage.  (Talk about a recipe for disaster!  Still, I wish them eventual success.) 

On the other hand Ariane EPS-V is flight proven, with extensive heritage from the prior EPS.  SLS-130 would fly at least once to LEO as a stand-alone vehicle to make it flight proven, and of course it will build on heritage from STS.

I don't assert any specific lego-built vehicle would be suitable for any particular mission.  A good way to start with the analysis of that, though, would be to estimate what an SLS-130 could deliver to a medium energy transfer orbit.

[RocketEconomist327]

Unfortunately, I don't know where the money is supposed to come from for all that and the SLS...

We have the money... You could EASILY accomplish all of this on 20 Billion a year over a seven to 12 year cycle.  Only problem is there are too many people working at NASA.  NASA is not a space agency right now, it is a jobs program.

Another problem is politics.  Actually, that is the biggest problem, maybe.  Cannot cut the fat because the "distinguished gentleman" from Alabama will throw a conniption fit; even if his center is not performing.

Think about it, for the cost of about two months of the shuttle program (~200 Million A MONTH) SpaceX has built two distinct launch vehicles.  They do not have the "standing army"... although they are starting to raise one.

VR
RE327

[Proponent]

[T]here are too many people working at NASA.

I was trying to track down just how many people actually have been employed by NASA over its history.  Would you have a good source for that?  Figures from the 60s probably aren't directly comparable to today's numbers, because a lot more work is probably done by consultants and contract workers now, but it would be interesting to see nonetheless.

[Proponent]

Yes, and this works even for robotic precursor missions, like a mission where a single lunar hopper delivers separate rovers to scout several different surface locations.  Even if the lander could only hop once after the first descent, that approach might work for a joint NASA/ESA mission.  One NASA rover; one ESA rover.  NASA J-130 first stage; ESA Ariane-derived lander stage.  Commercial Delta IV middle stage.

Why would you want to fly two rovers to the same locations?  Surely two rovers to two different locations on different hoppers makes more sense.  Or probably just more rovers and no hoppers at all.

[sdsds]

Why would you want to fly two rovers to the same locations?  Surely two rovers to two different locations [...] makes more sense.

Yes!  I was envisioning a (single) lander would deliver the first rover to the first location, then hop using whatever "hover" propellant remained available and deliver the second rover to a second location.

[Proponent]

I was envisioning a (single) lander would deliver the first rover to the first location, then hop using whatever "hover" propellant remained available and deliver the second rover to a second location.

Ah hah.  Now I understand.  But then the question is, why not just launch two separate rover missions?

[KelvinZero]

SLS= Senate Launch System? Sort of self explanatory isnt it?

Hi, sorry, moving this across from the EELV/SDHLV thread where it wasnt really on topic.

A high mass, low cost (and development time) unmanned lunar lander.
Essentially just a refueled upper stage with cargo pods around the base.

This would let us get on with the exploration technology.. not that Im biased

[MP99]

Also, while Robert Lightfoot notably said "We don't need to study it anymore" he also said that it hasn't been decided what this new heavy lift rocket would actually do, once built.

Okay, what do we think NASA should do with this heavy lift capability, once deployed?

To an extent, the Senate has broken the logjam from a different direction - instead of "go do this, now what do you need", we have "various studies say this launcher is feasible, let's build that and see where it can take us".

The Senate bill also calls for another commission to decide what programme to build around SLS. AFAICT, there are only three possibilities:-

1) build really big stuff in LEO (not gonna happen)
2) Moon
3) NEO's

I think the Flexible Path / NEO's-instead-of-the-Moon has it's own set of issues, not least a lack of targets for a sustained programme, and probably rapid onset of boredom with visiting yet-another-tiny-rock.

If I got a vote (I don't) I'd say to go back to the Moon.

cheers, Martin

[Jim]

The thread should be what can NASA do, within the current budget

[Capt. Nemo]

I'd like to see them do missions with Orion in Higher earth orbits, to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, various lunar orbits; missions of increasing duration (14,21,28,56 days).... sort of a 'driving the car around the neighborhood' period ..... so that they can not only work out the bugs of the system but also have an astronaut corps that is familiar with 'flying' in cis-lunar space.

This would be the beginning of the 'Flexible Path' scenario and would be probably be affordable even if the NASA budget remained level during the 2014 to 2022 period of initial SLS operation. 

[Bill White]

Document ISS logistical needs through 2020 (or beyond) and then ascertain how SLS can integrate (as a backstop) with commercial cargo & cargo could be the most urgent application of SLS capabilities.

An early lunar orbit mission could be added to retain a beyond LEO focus.

[aquanaut99]

This would be the beginning of the 'Flexible Path' scenario and would be probably be affordable even if the NASA budget remained level during the 2014 to 2022 period of initial SLS operation. 

I tend to agree. Use it to launch an Orion with a mission module BLEO ASAP. Since Obama has set the "sort-of-goal" of a NEO mission in 2025, we should work towards that. That means, IMO, getting experience with BLEO HSF. There is plenty to do here, since the record is only 12 days (Apollo 17). In other words, we have no experience in this area.

In the 1990s, while preparing for ISS, the USA could profit from Russian knowledge and experience in long-term orbital missions. For a NEO-flight, nothing we have done until now (not even Apollo) is comparable and we simply have no experience. So we need to learn by trial and error and proceed by small steps. I propose something along these lines:

- Do an Apollo-8 redux ASAP (Objective: Validate the BLEO Orion and publicity)
- Do a 14-day LLO flight with Orion + mission module (objective: breaking the BLEO HSF record and validating the system). I prefer this to a Lagrange point mission mainly for publicity reasons, although a flight to a Lagrange point can also be done if time and money permit.
- Do long-duration LLO-missions with a small Saylut-style prelaunched lunar orbital lab. Several missions to this "Moonlab" (like Skylab) of progressively increasing duration. The main objective is studying the effects of prolonged deep-space-flight on the human body. From the moon, we have the possibility of quickly returning to Earth in case of emergency. Again, I prefer lunar orbit to another point in space for publicity reasons and because the astronauts need to do something other than just staring into space and acting as guniea pigs (which is thre real reason but not very good press). In lunar orbit, other work of (scientific) interest can be accomplished.

NOTE: I don't exclude prop depots or anything else. In fact, I support all of that, too. My proposal is simply based on the "NEO-by-2025" goal and the steps we need to take before we can launch a manned NEO-mission.