Predicting the SLS

[FinalFrontier]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

Yes - That's my prediction

Thats AJAX. Politically not well aligned but this prediction is interesting.

[butters]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

Yes - That's my prediction

Thats AJAX. Politically not well aligned but this prediction is interesting.

AJAX uses an 8.4m ET-derived core with 4x 3.8m Atlas CCBs.  As I read it, the above prediction is a modular 5.4m Atlas Phase 2 core/booster arrangement with an 8.4m upper.

[butters]

I wonder if the SLS designers at MSFC are exploring modifications to the troublesome GUCP interface design as they evolve the ET into the core stage of SLS?...

[Jim]

I wonder if the SLS designers at MSFC are exploring modifications to the troublesome GUCP interface design as they evolve the ET into the core stage of SLS?...

There isn't an SLS to be designing yet.  There hasn't been an appropriations bill to fund it. 

GUCP is a KSC interface

SLS will probably have WDR's which will find things like this.

[Lampyridae]

Third that.  SLS, and specifically a SDHLV/DIRECT will never see the light of launch. 

It's unsustainable. Finishing Orion and seeding the rest to commercial and EELV upgrades would be a better use of money.

There is a lot of truth in that.  Bolden in a meeting yesterday at KSC said "everything is still on the table".  No SLS architecture has been chosen yet.  It'll depend on the NASA budget.  Both SDLV and RP-1 based vehicles are being looked at.  An EELV (Atlas Phase 2) is substantially cheaper than the SDLV HLLV.  He stated that a SLS architecture would be chosen and work will begin soon - "within months".

I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.

What exactly are you all predicting?  That NASA will propose to Congress an EELV based architecture?  Or that Congress will appropriate funds for one?

And please be clear:  by "Atlas Phase 2" do you mean a vehicle that uses no motors from ATK and no engines from UT/PWR?  You feel NPO Energomash and Aerojet have an equally good shot at getting vehicles that use their products funded by Congress?  Are you thus predicting Congress will make its decisions solely based on the technical merits of the case?

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

When Bolden mentioned that "everything is still on the table" I thought that something like this might be in the mix. It does seem to have much more upgrade potential than SRBs (as you have just outlined).

[Jim]

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23237.new#new

GUCP and other vehicles

[Patchouli]

My big worry is they are spending too much time debating what to build vs actually getting to work on flying something.

SLS needs to fill a niche that is empty and needs to have options for Mars missions.
The EELVs and F9 have under 30T covered and can easily handle 40T with minor upgrades so there is no need for any configuration that has that payload.

It also needs to be something that can fly near term not ten or more years from now.
If you're going to be working on something that won't fly for ten years you might as well forget about SDLVs, put Orion on the EELVs or go full commercial, and work on a next generation RLV like Skylon.
This is why I think SLS should be Jupiter,Shuttle-C, or some variant of AJAX or Starlifter in that order.
It also needs to be able to perform BEO missions with existing upper stages vs depending on some new upper stage before it can do anything interesting.
IE able to send Orion or a DTAL lander into TLI using just a stretched Delta IV US or some variant of it.

I consider Jupiter probably about as good as a configuration we can hope for it's pretty much perfectly sized.

[marsavian]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

Yes - That's my prediction

That will work too . A 70+mT rocket is fundamentally the same as any other 70+mT rocket in the final analysis. Just need something big enough to do Mars eventually like ULA's George Sowers said, with propellant depot augmentation if necessary, but whatever it is let it just be decided and start getting it done !

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/21/four-goals-and-three-suggestions-for-nasas-human-spaceflight-program/

On-orbit refueling and propellant depots also allow for a smaller HLV said George Sowers, Vice President for business development at United Launch Alliance, reducing overall costs. “A smaller, lower-cost heavy lift vehicle in a budget-constrained environment allows earlier and more frequent missions, which keeps the program sold,” he said. How small? He said an HLV that can place 70 to 80 metric tons in LEO is in the “sweet spot” since, combined with propellant depots, it can support exploration missions beyond LEO all the way to Mars.

[Patchouli]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

Yes - That's my prediction

That will work too . A 70+mT rocket is fundamentally the same as any other 70+mT rocket in the final analysis. Just need something big enough to do Mars eventually like ULA's George Sowers said, with propellant depot augmentation if necessary, but whatever it is let it just be decided and start getting it done !

The LV does need to be able to lift 70T or close to it right away vs five ten years after the first flight .
That way it won't risk getting castrated which would mean failure of the SLS project.

One reason I like Jupiter is that even if the JUS is canceled you still have a vehicle that can support exploration.

[Robotbeat]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

Yes - That's my prediction

That will work too . A 70+mT rocket is fundamentally the same as any other 70+mT rocket in the final analysis. Just need something big enough to do Mars eventually like ULA's George Sowers said, with propellant depot augmentation if necessary, but whatever it is let it just be decided and start getting it done !

The LV does need to be able to lift 70T or close to it right away vs five ten years after the first flight .
That way it won't risk getting castrated which would mean failure of the SLS project.

One reason I like Jupiter is that even if the JUS is canceled you still have a vehicle that can support exploration.

If you're going to support exploration without a proper upper stage, why do you even need an HLV? In my opinion, a proper upper stage is even more important than an HLV for exploration because of the possibility of prop depots.

[Patchouli]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

Yes - That's my prediction

That will work too . A 70+mT rocket is fundamentally the same as any other 70+mT rocket in the final analysis. Just need something big enough to do Mars eventually like ULA's George Sowers said, with propellant depot augmentation if necessary, but whatever it is let it just be decided and start getting it done !

The LV does need to be able to lift 70T or close to it right away vs five ten years after the first flight .
That way it won't risk getting castrated which would mean failure of the SLS project.

One reason I like Jupiter is that even if the JUS is canceled you still have a vehicle that can support exploration.

If you're going to support exploration without a proper upper stage, why do you even need an HLV? In my opinion, a proper upper stage is even more important than an HLV for exploration because of the possibility of prop depots.

A large upper stage is not absolutely necessary the 5M Delta IV-US could support exploration esp if stretched about 50%.

This architecture used an upper stage that was only 50% larger then the standard Delta IV-H US.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html

With depots an EDS as large as Ares's becomes even less necessary as the upper stage can be refueled after reaching it's parking orbit.

Cargo flights it might be preferable to use a SEP tug esp if the lander has storable propellants or if zero boil off ends up working as advertised.

[luke strawwalker]

I predict the need for job creation will save the HLV/SLS program. Loss of jobs at various NASA subs will not be tolerated by Washington and in the end, a J-130 ish launcher will fly.

I agree with this assessment... When shuttle finally retires, and when the public (IE lamestream media) FINALLY notices that our astronauts now have to thumb rides from the Russians for millions a seat, some uncomfortable questions will start being asked.  This will create political pressure for a solution that creates an "indigenous capability"

The big question is, will it ever have funding for any real payloads capable of performing interesting missions, or will it only be "shuttle part deux" with a capsule instead of orbiter, flying twice a year as a 'makework program'.... 

I'm afraid that may well be what it turns out to be in the end... just enough makework to meet the political needs with no funding or vision ever materializing to actually DO anything with the capability. 

Later! OL JR

[luke strawwalker]

I predict that NASA will come back to Congress with a report that endorses the HEFT 5/5 - J252SH - Ares-V Classic launcher, using the logic that it will save money "in the long run". Which of course will actually cost more and require a substantial budget increase to meet the deadlines enacted by the NASA Auth. Act of 2010.

Congress will come back with a firm "no" answer and a scathing rebuke. NASA will pout and mutter under their breath that "we're the rocket scientists, not Congress". Congress will simply state that NASA can find a way to do what they were asked to do with the budget they were given, or they can do without.

Then NASA will go back to the drawing board and amazingly enough come up with the HEFT 4/3 - J-130 configuration that they should have had the sense to propose in the first place.

Time will tell. Eventually. Some time after the heat death of the universe, at this rate.

Mark S.

Spot on on all counts...  (especially the heat death of the universe... LOL:))

BUT, remember that NASA's SEI proposals were ALSO asked to be scaled back, and every time they came back more elaborate and expensive than the last time.  Until finally the "Battlestar Galactica" plans with their $450 billion dollar price tag were laughed out of Congress and the whole thing died a slow death of a thousand cuts...

The main difference between then and now is, the shuttle was still going to be around then and there were viable (and significantly cheaper, or so it appeared) alternatives to SEI, IE continuing work in LEO with shuttle and what eventually became ISS.  That alternative no longer exists, but methinks that if NASA goes "whole hog" on this thing and won't take no for an answer, betting the farm that the funding will come through rather than axing the whole thing, they may well end up getting nothing... Just like SEI...

WIll history repeat itself now??  As you said, time will SLOWLY tell... OL JR

[A_M_Swallow]

If you're going to support exploration without a proper upper stage, why do you even need an HLV? In my opinion, a proper upper stage is even more important than an HLV for exploration because of the possibility of prop depots.

The HLV can be the machine that gets you to LEO, this can be a Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) LV.  A stretched Service Module can then be filled at the LEO propellant depot and used to fly you to EML1 or the Moon.

[manboy]

If we went with the Jupiter-130/Jupiter-246 how many launches could we do a year? What would be the yearly base cost and how much would each flight after that cost?

Third that.  SLS, and specifically a SDHLV/DIRECT will never see the light of launch. 

It's unsustainable. Finishing Orion and seeding the rest to commercial and EELV upgrades would be a better use of money.

There is a lot of truth in that.  Bolden in a meeting yesterday at KSC said "everything is still on the table".  No SLS architecture has been chosen yet.  It'll depend on the NASA budget.  Both SDLV and RP-1 based vehicles are being looked at.  An EELV (Atlas Phase 2) is substantially cheaper than the SDLV HLLV.  He stated that a SLS architecture would be chosen and work will begin soon - "within months".

I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.

An Atlas V Heavy would take way too many launches for a Mars trip.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.

An Atlas V Heavy would take way too many launches for a Mars trip.

It wouldn't be an Atlas-VH.  It would be an Atlas-V Phase 2.  That tops out at 105t to LEO with RD-180 and RL-10B-2.  What benefits you might get from replacing RD-180 with RS-84 and using the new advanced upper stage engine is anyone's guess. 

[Jim]

I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.

An Atlas V Heavy would take way too many launches for a Mars trip.
[/quote]

He didn't say Atlas V Heavy, he said EELV based.  There is a big difference

[manboy]

I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.

An Atlas V Heavy would take way too many launches for a Mars trip.

It wouldn't be an Atlas-VH.  It would be an Atlas-V Phase 2.  That tops out at 105t to LEO with RD-180 and RL-10B-2.  What benefits you might get from replacing RD-180 with RS-84 and using the new advanced upper stage engine is anyone's guess. 

Can you give me a link because right now when I google "Atlas V Growth Phase 2" I only get something listing a 29,000 kg payload.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.

An Atlas V Heavy would take way too many launches for a Mars trip.

It wouldn't be an Atlas-VH.  It would be an Atlas-V Phase 2.  That tops out at 105t to LEO with RD-180 and RL-10B-2.  What benefits you might get from replacing RD-180 with RS-84 and using the new advanced upper stage engine is anyone's guess. 

Can you give me a link because right now when I google "Atlas V Growth Phase 2" I only get something listing a 29,000 kg payload.

I can do one better.  Official ULA artwork:

[Starlab90]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

Yes - That's my prediction

I have also heard a rumor that something like what KSC Sage describes is one of at least 3 possible candidate configurations under study, but it'll probably be months before a final selection is made.