Predicting the SLS

[Cinder]

I'm a general public layman, albeit space and rocket enthusiast (but not e.g. a trekkie at all), and I don't think that robonaut is anything exciting or interesting or impressive.  It's exciting only when small orgs do it, e.g. for the lunar X-Prize.  Robonaut would only be exciting if it were building an outpost, or ISRU machines, or confirming those large water volumes.

Bigelow, Armadillo/Masten/etc, Virgin, and the rest; those making headway towards increasing common people presence in space, even if only suborbital and v. short term orbital, that's exciting.   
I do think a Moon outpost would be exciting.  Even more "boots" sorties would be exciting if their activities counted towards future more permanent missions and the media coverage was plentiful and in max HD. "BTDT" is rubbish buzzword. 

What's really going on, IMHO, is that the public's disinterest is its own negative feedback loop.  The selling-reason for HSF is permanent human presence in space.  Only it can't sell at current price; that doesn't mean people don't long for it.

.. Dang, this is off topic.  A little.  HLV certainly seems worthwhile once there's enough orbital traffic, for e.g. very large Bigelow modules.

[edkyle99]

I've set up a thread for speculation on what will be the final design of the SLS-HLV.

NASA should settle for "4/3" (4 seg SRBs/3 SSME), which meets the minimum Congressional Act requirements, but it wants "5/5".  So, the "final design" will probably be "5/5", but I'm not sure there will be enough money to build and fly it.

Personally, I would rather see an "0/6/1" or an "0/5/1"

 - Ed Kyle

[gospacex]

Did I forget anyone? Oh, and can you guess to which group I belong?

- Those who don't wish for SLS to fail and don't expect it to fail because NASA can achieve great things if given a clear, practical plan and resources to execute it.

Can it?

$18bn per year, every year, is *a lot* of resources. Ask SpaceX, Orbital, or ULA what they'd do if they magically had those monies.

[gospacex]

It won't be as politically-resilient as Constellation without the promise of moon landings.  Congress is likely to ask itself: "go big or go home" -- and choose the latter.  They won't waste political capital on a space program that doesn't capture the popular imagination.

Shuttle's main political problem was that not many people were excited about how we were using it.  The design of the vehicle definitely captured the popular imagination in a way that SLS probably won't, but that wasn't enough to save it from a lackluster mission.

That's why I thought that the proper reaction to the Ares fiasco would have been to keep the moon but ditch the Shuttle architecture.  I think that the opposite response is a critical mistake.

Going to the moon won't excite the population either. It certainly didn't last time (after Apollo 11), when there was a lot more novelty in it. Today, the moon is BTDT. Building a base on the moon is ISS Mk II, and just look how excited the public is about ISS.

Incidentally, the most exciting thing on the upcoming Shuttle mission is Robonaut. If NASA puts a robonaut on the moon in a few years, then THAT's a novelty which will excite the public (see Mars rovers). And it's a whole lot cheaper than manned landings. Oh, and you don't need HLVs for it, btw.

Much as we hate to admit it, we always come back to the same stumbling-block: There just is no good selling-reason for human spaceflight anymore.

An idea which might work: start building a Moon base. Promise a possibility to fly there for private customers, but not as tourists, but as workers.

Yes, they will have to *pay* for the privilege to become a construction workers of the Base.

This would be stupid for almost any construction project, but not this one. This is the Very First Ever Permanent Moon Base! Yes, you will work hard digging underground tunnels, shovelling lunar dirt, and such. You will use first-generation equipment - not comfortable, and probably dangerous. You may die in an accident. And you will need to pay millions to even be allowed to do it.

But: you will be in the news and on TV. And your name, among others, will be engraved on that Base wall, probably visible for hundreds of years.

[KSC Sage]

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.

[HappyMartian]

The J-130 will be used with the Orion to provide robust backup support for commercial missions to the ISS National Laboratory. The ISS represents an enormous investment of human energy and money that needs to be protected by the powerful capabilities of the Orion/J-130 Space Truck.

J-130/Orion LEO artificial gravity, or AG, missions will be seen as essential basic research needed to determine future AG needs of humans for all long-term space exploration missions. A possible LEO or L1 AG mission: A 100 meter beam/tunnel structure is used to join two Orions. Two Orions provide robust options for safe return to Earth's surface and can effectively test the long-term reliability of all the systems in the Orion.

The J-130 will be seen as the essential initial element for the later Jupiter versions that will eventually launch a wide variety of missions to the Moon, NEOs, L1, Phobos, and Mars.

NASA's annual budgets will be tight but the basic J-130 configuration is both affordable and doable. Ross is right, other Jupiter versions are fiscally risky and should be avoided. Extra costs for the higher performance versions of the Jupiter would take away money needed for actual payloads and research missions.

Mantra: J-130 and Orion ASAP.

Cheers!

Edited.

 

[Pollagee]

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.

[Ben the Space Brit]

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.

This is certainly very plausible and not a terrible outcome.  Certainly, if one drops the insistance of supporting ATK and the existing shuttle infrastructure (i.e., the ET workforce at MAF), the 5.4m-diameter kerolox core design offers lots of advantages, including potential crew and cargo commonality across the EELV/EELV-HLV fleet via a common upper stage family.

Three obvious questions though:

1) Will they use RD-180 or develop RS-84?
2) Will the politicians tolerate the abandonment of shuttle heritage?
3) Can the vehicle be ready by the House's 12/31/15 deadline?

[psloss]

3) Can the vehicle be ready by the House's 12/31/15 deadline?

The House's language never came to a floor vote in either chamber.  If they're going to modify the Senate authorization bill that was enacted, it will be in future legislation.

[TrueBlueWitt]

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.

Substantially cheaper than a minimalist J-130?  Or substantially cheaper than NASA's J-140SH or costed against J-241SH or even J-251SH?

Exactly which SDLV HLLV are they comparing it too? One with the same ~70mT lift capability? Or some pie in the sky "Max" lift variant?

If EELV Phase 2.. will congress EVER bite on using a russian engines?

[STS-200]

How about something more left-field:

Scrap one of the existing EELVs, and regard the SLS as the "other EELV" for reliability/redundancy purposes. OK - It would be far too big for most missions, but would only be used as a backup.

From an economics standpoint, that would seem to have some merit as it means supporting 2 boosters not 3, and it might help the flight rate a bit.

I have little insight into the politics of it though. If the SLS were still a "NASA rocket", could it save DoD money (as they would only have 1 EELV to support) and buy NASA some DoD friends (as they would want SLS to succeed)?

[CitabriaFlyer]

I suspect DoD is quite happy to be free of costly, troublesome launch vehicles specifically shuttle and Titan IV.  I doubt DoD would wish to be associated with even a J-130.  The USAF can't even buy a tanker based on decades old designs, much less a heavy lift development with nightmarish acquisition problems. There is a looming fighter gap, soaring personnel costs, and an ancient global strike infrastructure.  Oh yes, there is also the matter of the wars we have been fighting  for the past decade.  Much as I wish it were so, DoD will NOT be desiring or able to subsidize a heavy lift vehicle of any persuasion.

[Ben the Space Brit]

@ CitabriaFlier,

That's okay, I don't think anyone realistically thinks that DoD should subsidise the SLS, only pay their fair share if NRO or Space Command have something they want flown on it.

[kraisee]

will congress EVER bite on using a russian engines?

They're quite happy to use them on anything that isn't a "National Prestige / US Flagship" Program.

But for the really high-profile programs that are intended to showcase to the world what America can accomplish, "Powered by Russia" is just not the message they want to be advertising.

Ross.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Let's look at this from the perspective of what the Senate has said they want (and the House hated less enough to wave through whilst grumbling).  If I get anything wrong or miss anything out, please let me know.

The headlines are:

1) Payload capacity of 70t to 130t;
2) Reuse shuttle- and Constellation-heritage developments whereever possible and/or practical;
3) Associated CV is to be an Orion-derived vehicle, 'MPCV';
4) IOC by 2016.

What do we really have from that? The DIRECT Jupiter is certainly one outcome.  There is also a reasonable debate about J-2X vs. SSME-AS as an upper stage engine given that NASA seems to be sliding towards choosing a vacuum-only EDS (the CPS).

I would suggest that the intent of this legislation is a 8.4m-diameter, SSME-powered core with segmented solids (probably 5-segs).  However, one does have to question whether that is practical because of budget issues.

One possible area where change could reduce costs is in the boosters.  We know that Aerojet has got permission to build the NK-33 and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne the RD-180.  The question of whether they can (due to metalurgical eccentricities) should be shelved right now.  We already have the 5.4m Delta-IV core tooling and the core can be used as a booster, in the Delta-IVH.  So... Why not an 8.4m, SSME-powered core with two or four NK-33 or RD-180 clone-powered LRBs? Would the Atlas-V P2 core be more or less expensive to develop than the side-mount 5-seg?

Another possible area is to re-engine the core itself, building an shortened 8.4m core powered by six or eight AJ-26 (NK-33 clone; dust off the Saturn-IB blueprints to see how to arrange the engines properly) and have an 8.4m upper stage with 4 x SSME-AS.  You can then use RL-10C as the in-space propulsion engine, as NASA seems to be leaning towards, if I undersand HEFT correctly.

[STS-200]

I suspect DoD is quite happy to be free of costly, troublesome launch vehicles specifically shuttle and Titan IV.  I doubt DoD would wish to be associated with even a J-130.  The USAF can't even buy a tanker based on decades old designs, much less a heavy lift development with nightmarish acquisition problems. There is a looming fighter gap, soaring personnel costs, and an ancient global strike infrastructure.  Oh yes, there is also the matter of the wars we have been fighting  for the past decade.  Much as I wish it were so, DoD will NOT be desiring or able to subsidize a heavy lift vehicle of any persuasion.

I agree that the DoD does not seem to wish to subsidise any NASA rocket, but thats not quite what I am suggesting:

-NASA builds and pays for the SLS.
-DoD downsizes to support only one EELV, buying a ride on an SLS only if the EELV fails.

Net result: DoD spends less, and political support for maintaining the SLS increases?

[muomega0]

How about something more left-field:

Scrap one of the existing EELVs, and regard the SLS as the "other EELV" for reliability/redundancy purposes. OK - It would be far too big for most missions, but would only be used as a backup.

From an economics standpoint, that would seem to have some merit as it means supporting 2 boosters not 3, and it might help the flight rate a bit.

I have little insight into the politics of it though. If the SLS were still a "NASA rocket", could it save DoD money (as they would only have 1 EELV to support) and buy NASA some DoD friends (as they would want SLS to succeed)?

How about something more "right field": 

Examine the dry mass of all the SLS elements and decide on the LV(s) needed.


Expendable Cryogenic Propulsion stage for earth departure
18,000 kg +  60000 kg fuel   (combine for a HLV launch, "n" other LVs)
24,000 kg + 140000 kg fuel  (need two HLV launches, "n" other LVs)

Reusable Cryogenic Propulsion stage for earth departure
??  Just add redundant hardware (e.g engines) ??

Fuel resupply  6000 kg + fuel

Reusable Solar Electric Propulsion for earth departure to a HEO 30,000 kg ?

Crew Return Module 10000 kg

MultiPurpose Crew  20000 kg (?)

Deep Space Habitat:  14,000 kg + 8000 kg supplies


Notice the relatively low dry mass numbers compared to the HLV mandated capability.  YMMV.

[Robotbeat]

J-130 (i.e. without an upper stage) can only do LEO.
The only launch pad(s) for SLS will be at the Cape, which means polar orbits are pretty much out.

The DoD only basically launches to GTO and polar orbit (and to Medium Earth Orbits like for GPS). Why would the DoD want J-130 for anything?

EDIT:I see now that STS-200 said "SLS" and not J-130. SLS with the upper stage could go to non-LEO orbits, but polar orbit is still out.

[CitabriaFlyer]

I suspect DoD is quite happy to be free of costly, troublesome launch vehicles specifically shuttle and Titan IV.  I doubt DoD would wish to be associated with even a J-130.  The USAF can't even buy a tanker based on decades old designs, much less a heavy lift development with nightmarish acquisition problems. There is a looming fighter gap, soaring personnel costs, and an ancient global strike infrastructure.  Oh yes, there is also the matter of the wars we have been fighting  for the past decade.  Much as I wish it were so, DoD will NOT be desiring or able to subsidize a heavy lift vehicle of any persuasion.

I agree that the DoD does not seem to wish to subsidise any NASA rocket, but thats not quite what I am suggesting:

-NASA builds and pays for the SLS.
-DoD downsizes to support only one EELV, buying a ride on an SLS only if the EELV fails.

Net result: DoD spends less, and political support for maintaining the SLS increases?

I totally get what you are saying and I think your loigc is valid; however I still think that the USAF (and even the NASA science directorate) are going to be much happier with two redundant medium lift EELVs rather than an EELV plus an expensive paper rocket with more capability than is required for any payload in the next ten years.

[TrueBlueWitt]

How about something more left-field:

Scrap one of the existing EELVs, and regard the SLS as the "other EELV" for reliability/redundancy purposes. OK - It would be far too big for most missions, but would only be used as a backup.

From an economics standpoint, that would seem to have some merit as it means supporting 2 boosters not 3, and it might help the flight rate a bit.

I have little insight into the politics of it though. If the SLS were still a "NASA rocket", could it save DoD money (as they would only have 1 EELV to support) and buy NASA some DoD friends (as they would want SLS to succeed)?

...
Reusable Solar Electric Propulsion for earth departure to a HEO 30,000 kg ?
...

That requires a true HLV.. Not sure if even J-130 + D-IV US will push that much mass to HEO?  Remind me why it needs to be placed in HEO?  Or did I misread this?