Author Topic: NASA Advisory Council: Select a Human Exploration Destination ASAP  (Read 11160 times)

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
NASA is trying to figure out exactly what they can do with just the Block 1A SLS.

At this point it doesn't seem like much.

I'm assuming a Lunar Lander can't be done without Block 2 because of stuff I've seen on L2.

The destination is most likely going to be NEA around 2025 using 2x Block 1A vehicles.

Spectre9, I've seen you make this assertion twice now on this site. Can you explain why a dual-launch scenario using two Block-1A vehicles, which could put a combined 210+ metric tons of payload into orbit, could not perform a lunar landing mission? (Besides needing a lander of course.) A single launch of the Saturn-V was able to put men on the moon, and that was with much less capacity than dual SLS Block-1As. Also the DIRECT team was able to get a dual-launch J-241 profile to close for the full CxP mission, including the ginormous Altair lander.

I believe that a dual-Block-1A launch profile could easily support CxP-style lunar missions, and with a more reasonable lander, could support extended lunar stays.

Mark S.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Warren: When did I ever mention VSE? You are imagining that I compared Newt's plan with VSE, which I did not. (It was CxP, just an implementation, which was canceled, by the way, not VSE itself... Sweet Sagan, if only one of the O'Keefe architectures--a far better implementation of VSE--had been picked instead!!! The core of VSE, which is basically to get out of LEO and go beyond, remains essentially intact.)

You have joined the crowd in mocking Newt's plan (or rather, the effigy of his plan that folks like Mitt and every comedian on TV have constructed). You apparently didn't even know what it was!

That is the problem with such a grand plan. I can guarantee that your plan would be skewered as well. The very opposite of "inspiring" the public, right now such a plan would draw the public's ire. Before Newt announced his plan and the resulting ending of his chance to become President, I may have agreed that such a plan would inspire the public. I have been forced to face reality.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
*snip*


(All that to say that I'd like such a grand plan ala Newt's, if I thought it had any chance of not having a negative public reaction like Newt's did.)

I liked Newt’s grand plan too.  But I think you misread why it was criticized from so many angles.  It wasn’t because it was grand, it was because it’s an election year.

The media largely panned it because the media is larger liberally-bias, and carries the water for Obama.  Newt criticized Obama for his lack of having a plan when he touted his own.  So the media will attack Newt to defend their guy.

Newt’s republican rivals criticized it because it’s a nomination that was up for grabs at that time (not so much now, but at that time) and so they would criticize anything each other say.  If Newt had had a plan similar to Obama’s, they would have criticized him for being too meek with NASA.  That’s politics in an election year. 

If Newt had actually won the nomination and then won the election, and proposed such a plan as President, it’d likely have good Republican support at that time.  The Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media would not like it of course.  But that’s politics and the modern media.  Of Obama had proposed Newt’s plan, likely the media would have cheered him for being the next JFK, the Democrats would have supported (except the FAR Left), and Republicans and much smaller conservative media would have likely been critical. 

That’s politics today…unfortunately…

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
*snip*


(All that to say that I'd like such a grand plan ala Newt's, if I thought it had any chance of not having a negative public reaction like Newt's did.)

I liked Newt’s grand plan too.  But I think you misread why it was criticized from so many angles.  It wasn’t because it was grand, it was because it’s an election year.
....
EXACTLY MY POINT!

Because it's an election year, everyone is using everything possible as a wedge issue against someone else. A big, grand announcement by Obama would be absolutely CREAMED by everyone on the right (and probably a lot in the middle as well) as "evidence of government profligacy at a time when we should be tightening our belts." You and I both know this.

And really, it doesn't matter WHO was in office, because it's an election year and the idea of austerity has been sold so effectively to the public, there'd be the same reaction. The public would be very critical of the whole idea, especially as social programs are being cut.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2012 05:52 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Remember this is a 4 man sortie.

This is a big lander.

I'm not saying it can't be done with less than 130mt, it's in the document.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Remember this is a 4 man sortie.

This is a big lander.

I'm not saying it can't be done with less than 130mt, it's in the document.

You are saying that lunar missions can't be done with Block-1A, but clearly they can. It would just take multiple launches, just as you were saying that the NEA mission would probably use two Block-1A launches. We wouldn't have to wait for Block-2 for lunar missions any more than we would have to wait for Block-2 for NEA missions.

Block-1A will give us amazing capabilities, in fact Block-1 with the pre-existing 5-segment boosters will also. I believe that NASA management has been downplaying Block-1 capabilities in order to justify their immediate move to the advanced booster implementation. NASA wanted an RP1 BFE out of the original FY11 proposal, and they're determined to get it, by whatever means necessary.

Mark S.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
This is why the exploration gateway is such a good idea. You decouple the lander from the crew launch (to some degree, at least), reuse the most expensive part of the in-space hardware. If using a fuel depot for the lander (with fuel launched separately from crew on whatever launch vehicle(s) made the most sense), a Block 1A (or even Block 1!) with the iCPS should work just dandy to get the crew to the EML1/2 gateway. May need a methane or even hypergolic lander for this to work with minimal tech development (i.e. low-boiloff).

But if you go the Altair route, you'd still need a Block 2 SLS (at least) to do a single or '1.5' launch mission (i.e. Orion on Delta IV Heavy). Unless you develop very-low-boil-off technology or increase the launch frequency (which adds costs, as well).
« Last Edit: 03/27/2012 07:08 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Remember this is a 4 man sortie.

This is a big lander.

I'm not saying it can't be done with less than 130mt, it's in the document.

You are saying that lunar missions can't be done with Block-1A, but clearly they can. It would just take multiple launches, just as you were saying that the NEA mission would probably use two Block-1A launches. We wouldn't have to wait for Block-2 for lunar missions any more than we would have to wait for Block-2 for NEA missions.

Block-1A will give us amazing capabilities, in fact Block-1 with the pre-existing 5-segment boosters will also. I believe that NASA management has been downplaying Block-1 capabilities in order to justify their immediate move to the advanced booster implementation. NASA wanted an RP1 BFE out of the original FY11 proposal, and they're determined to get it, by whatever means necessary.

Mark S.


I agree.

Even though Block 1A doesn’t throw quite as much to LEO as Saturn V, I wouldn’t be surprised if it could throw as much or a little more through TLI when it’s all said and done.  CPS should be much more efficient and light than S-IVB (assuming they don’t use J2X on it…hopefully they don’t).  It should have high ISP engines designed for use in space, rather than designed for use as a 2nd stage, like S-IVB’s J2 was. It’ll be made of lighter materials as well. 
My guess is at –minimum- Block 1A will be able to do a single launch lunar mission as capable as Saturn V J-class mission.  Likely even more capable than that as a new lander of similar capability to LEM could make made lighter and with more efficient propellants and engines.  If there’s no Gateway station, then they could do a 4-man crew, with one astronaut staying with Orion during the mission similar to Apollo.  Just to make sure there’s not a minor malfunction in Orion and it gets out of position or something during the surface stay.  The lander could do 3 astronauts then.  And like be able to stay for around 2-weeks at a time (lunar day), with a small unpressurized rover.  I would imagine using today’s materials and tech, that would be doable.

If there’s a gateway station with reusable lander and depot refueling by EELV’s, similar ot Boeing’s plan (although I would rather the lander be hyrolox, and everything incorporate something similar to IVF planned for ACES.)  Boeing plan has the lander fuel being brought up by SLS Block 1A, which could be done with hydrolox instead of methane obviously.  If fuel is brought up by EELV’s, then Orion and Block 1A could bring up something like cargo modules which could be attached to the reusable lander at the Gateway station.  In this way there’s really no limit to the size and capability of the lander and mission.  Just depends on how much you want to supplement each mission with EELV tanker missions to the Gateway.   A horizontal lander would be better for something like this as it’d be easier to drop cargo modules on the surface from the lander by the crew.  But a vertical lander could do it if designed right.  Picture the Boeing lander with cargo module interfaces on the lower sides of it, around the bottom of the tanks.  Then they could be lowered to the surface sort of like how the Lunar Rover was. 
And this architecture could be supported by just one SLS Block 1A per mission, with as much EELV support prior to the mission as NASA wants. 

The CPS could be used as a crasher stage as Boeing proposed.

Or, the CPS could push an expendable lander descent module along with Orion to the Gateway station, similar to ACES, where it could be fueled up and mated with the reusable Ascent Module.  The descent module could be left on the surface, while the ascent module is reused. 

Or the lander could just be a larger, fully reusable lander, that can take a crew and cargo from the Gateway to the surface and back again.

Or some combination of the above.  Heck, could have a horizontal lander that looked sort of like the Eagle from Space 1999, with a CEV derived cockpit (kinda looks like the Eagle’s cockpit anyway), a hab and airlock just behind the cockpit, and a cargo berth for cargo modules that Orion would bring for each mission behind that, with tanks and engines behind that.   And like Boeing’s proposal, only carries enough fuel for landing, and ascent.  And then it rides the CPS as a crasher stage most of the descent.

With a Gateway, and EELV (or EELV-class LV’s like Falcon or internation) tankers, and a reusable lander, you can quite a lot with each single SLS Block 1A launch. 

But even with no Gateway, Block 1A should be able to do something similar to Apollo, if not even a little more capable.  A crew of 3 on the surface for 1-2 weeks in an expendable lander should be doable with SLS Block 1A I would imagine.

As always, I could be wrong.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
A methane lander would be better than LH2 anyway, as even the best LH2 designs still need to deal with the massive tanks. Plus, over long-term use hydrogen is going to infiltrate all the metals it can, causing weakness and failures. CH4 is high-density, metal-friendly, high-Isp, and non-toxic. And, unlike higher hydrocarbons, it doesn't leave nasty residue after lots of use. It's just the way to go.

But yeah, a basic L2 station is way to go. And, give it enough of a capitalist spin (from commercial cargo services) and I can see either of the Republicans getting behind it (_after_ the election).

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
This is why the exploration gateway is such a good idea. You decouple the lander from the crew launch (to some degree, at least), reuse the most expensive part of the in-space hardware. If using a fuel depot for the lander (with fuel launched separately from crew on whatever launch vehicle(s) made the most sense), a Block 1A (or even Block 1!) with the iCPS should work just dandy to get the crew to the EML1/2 gateway. May need a methane or even hypergolic lander for this to work with minimal tech development (i.e. low-boiloff).

But if you go the Altair route, you'd still need a Block 2 SLS (at least) to do a single or '1.5' launch mission (i.e. Orion on Delta IV Heavy). Unless you develop very-low-boil-off technology or increase the launch frequency (which adds costs, as well).

This kind of depends on how they go.

I believe that a certain amount of low boiloff tech will be developed for the CPS contract.  That could be rolled into a storage tank on the Gateway for hydolox storage ahead of a mission.  Heck, you could just send a CPS up there and permanently dock it on the Gateway, and use that as the tank.  That Gateway will need station keeping anyway, so if you are using the GH2 as proposed by ULA for ACES, then you only need to suppress boil off to the point of your station keeping requirements.  Which shouldn’t be that difficult.  Whatever is developed for CPS will probably be sufficient. 

EELV (or EELV class) propellant launches can be launched shortly ahead of a crewed SLS Block 1A launch, from EELV launch pads (LC-40, LC-41, LC-37), so SLS still only needs just the one pad at LC-39 per mission.  Contracts can be spread around the EELV/EELV-class providers for refueling, as long as they have some sort of upper stage tanker they can use.  (SpaceX would have to figure out some type of hydrolox tanker if they wanted to try to get in on that). 

Anyway, yea, with a Gateway and EELV supplements, lots of options for a robust lunar architecture for single SLS Block 1A mission launches.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
This is why the exploration gateway is such a good idea. You decouple the lander from the crew launch (to some degree, at least), reuse the most expensive part of the in-space hardware. If using a fuel depot for the lander (with fuel launched separately from crew on whatever launch vehicle(s) made the most sense), a Block 1A (or even Block 1!) with the iCPS should work just dandy to get the crew to the EML1/2 gateway. May need a methane or even hypergolic lander for this to work with minimal tech development (i.e. low-boiloff).

But if you go the Altair route, you'd still need a Block 2 SLS (at least) to do a single or '1.5' launch mission (i.e. Orion on Delta IV Heavy). Unless you develop very-low-boil-off technology or increase the launch frequency (which adds costs, as well).

This kind of depends on how they go.

I believe that a certain amount of low boiloff tech will be developed for the CPS contract.  That could be rolled into a storage tank on the Gateway for hydolox storage ahead of a mission.  Heck, you could just send a CPS up there and permanently dock it on the Gateway, and use that as the tank.  That Gateway will need station keeping anyway, so if you are using the GH2 as proposed by ULA for ACES, then you only need to suppress boil off to the point of your station keeping requirements.  Which shouldn’t be that difficult.  Whatever is developed for CPS will probably be sufficient. 

EELV (or EELV class) propellant launches can be launched shortly ahead of a crewed SLS Block 1A launch, from EELV launch pads (LC-40, LC-41, LC-37), so SLS still only needs just the one pad at LC-39 per mission.  Contracts can be spread around the EELV/EELV-class providers for refueling, as long as they have some sort of upper stage tanker they can use.  (SpaceX would have to figure out some type of hydrolox tanker if they wanted to try to get in on that). 

Anyway, yea, with a Gateway and EELV supplements, lots of options for a robust lunar architecture for single SLS Block 1A mission launches.

Agreed.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
This is why the exploration gateway is such a good idea. You decouple the lander from the crew launch (to some degree, at least), reuse the most expensive part of the in-space hardware. If using a fuel depot for the lander (with fuel launched separately from crew on whatever launch vehicle(s) made the most sense), a Block 1A (or even Block 1!) with the iCPS should work just dandy to get the crew to the EML1/2 gateway. May need a methane or even hypergolic lander for this to work with minimal tech development (i.e. low-boiloff).

But if you go the Altair route, you'd still need a Block 2 SLS (at least) to do a single or '1.5' launch mission (i.e. Orion on Delta IV Heavy). Unless you develop very-low-boil-off technology or increase the launch frequency (which adds costs, as well).

EML1/2 gateway is definitely the best way out for the predicted liftoff mass shortfall in that scenario. It may not be the easier way (like sending a crew of 2 or 3 instead the first time around), but it certainly helps with what will certainly be mass creep in the lander. Nailing down the mass of the lander is paramount (as is the rest of the Block 1A configuration).

I want to see a Block 1 flight with a crewed Orion & a 1st succesful launch of a Block 1A vehicle so we can refine the missions better.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
A methane lander would be better than LH2 anyway, as even the best LH2 designs still need to deal with the massive tanks. Plus, over long-term use hydrogen is going to infiltrate all the metals it can, causing weakness and failures. CH4 is high-density, metal-friendly, high-Isp, and non-toxic. And, unlike higher hydrocarbons, it doesn't leave nasty residue after lots of use. It's just the way to go.

But yeah, a basic L2 station is way to go. And, give it enough of a capitalist spin (from commercial cargo services) and I can see either of the Republicans getting behind it (_after_ the election).

I admittedly don’t know a heck of a lot about methane.  I understand it doesn’t have the ISP of LH2.  And that it’s not as handy for using residuals on the surface for potable water, fuel cells, etc.  And I don’t know if you can use GCH4 as an RCS monopropellant they way IVF could.  So would a CH4/LOX lander need a separate hypergolic system for RCS?  Does it still need hydrazine, helium, and batteries the way traditional systems do?  IVF eliminates all of that, which is what makes it so attractive.  The lander needs to be refueled by two propellants only, LOX and LH2, all systems run off of that. 
If you have a reusable lander that not only needs it’s CH4 and LOX refilled, but helium, hydrazine, MMH, N2O4, etc, is a much more complex system than simply transferring LOX and LH2.
Also, if there are tankers sent to a Gateway station for storage ahead of an SLS mission, and those are launched on EELV’s, the EELV upper stage (Centaur, DCSS, ACES) could itself be the tank, and transfer it’s own residuals to the Gateway.   If CH4, then the stage would have to carry a payload of a tank of CH4 in addition.  Not a deal breaker, but more involved than just using the upper stage itself as the EDS and tanker.

Those would be the reasons I’d like to see a hydrolox IVF system for a reusable lander.  The smaller CH4 tanks on a lander would be a pro for CH4.  And it’s easier to store, that would be another.  If you can do IVF with CH4/LOX, then I could see the advantages of it, but if the IVF concept only works with hydrolox, then I still lean that direction.

Long term LH2 storage on the surface would be something to consider.  But I don’t know if that would be a big deal.  Depends on how long you are looking for the AM/Lander to sit on the surface?  Two weeks?  That shouldn’t be too bad, even during the lunar day, just allow a two week boiloff allowance.  Solar shades can be set up by the astronauts as well.  There could be solar powered active cooling too.  If it’s a reusable lander, it would make it worth while to put such a system in the lander, as it’ll be reused. 
IF the mission is several months, it might be more of a consideration, and let itself to something less prone to boiloff.

Also, although the tanks need to be bigger for LH2, if you had a horizontal lander with a large, single tank, similar to the ACES/DTAL concept, then the large tanks aren’t much of a pentalty.  In fact, they can be utilized on the service as habitats.  It’s when you have a mult-tank vertical lander concept like Altair that it gets problematic, because of the height.  However, if CPS was used as a crasher stage, even that is less of an issue, because the lander propellant is significantly less.  Those big Altair tanks were designed for Altair to do the LOI burn, as well as the full descent.  So yea, they are big.  With a reusable lander at a Gateway, and a crasher stage, your tanks become MUCH smaller, even with LH2.  With a horizontal lander like ACES/DTAL, you don’t even need the crasher stage, and can take the descent stage all the way to the surface and land it safely for reuse of it as well as it’s residuals.
I think with a vertical lander, you go a CPS crasher stage like Boeing proposed.  With a horizontal lander, the tank size is less of a concern, so you don’t need a crasher stage.
However, if CPS is only pushing Orion, plus some cargo to L2, and it’d have extra propellent so it could be a crasher stage, and it will have it’s own RCS system anyway (I believe CPS is supposed to have that)  Perhaps the CPS could be modified to essentially be an ACES/DTAL style expendable descent module.  It’s pre-packed with cargo on Earth prior to launch.  At the Gateway is a reusable ACES/DTAL style ascent module/hab/airlock.  CPS pushes Orion to Gateway, and then is docked at the rear of the ascent module.  The ascent module is fueled, and then it does the full descent burn and lands on the suface intact, so it’s cargo can be accessed and it’s residuals can be used.  A “non-crasher” stage.  It’d be wider than ACES (around 7.5m?) but that shouldn’t be much of a problem.  You can make your ascender the same diameter, and it could have two or three decks, with it’s airlock on the bottom for easy surface access.  Like a fat ACES/DTAL.  Don’t see why you couldn’t do that.
The tanks at the Gateway could be used to give the “CPS/DTAL” enough additional propellant to be sure it has enough to get wherever it needs to on the surface with it’s cargo loadout, and back again.  That could be put there ahead of time by EELV tankers.

This system would be very much like Boeing’s, but you get to land the non-crasher stage, and utilize it.  Cargo can be loaded into cargo areas on the CPS, and and dropped on the surface when landed.  Residual hydrolox could be used by the crew. 
And, you could even do this with a CH4 ascender.  If your CPS has a CH4 storage tank on it like the Boeing proposal, and then once the CPS is mated to the reusable ascender, and CH4 and LOX transferred to the ascender’s tanks, and it would be stored there until either abort during landing, or ascent.  The hydrolox doesn’t need to be stored on the surface per se.  (although, this could still run into the complications if the ascender needs to be refilled of helium and hypergolics if there is no IVF system.  That I don’t know).

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1