Author Topic: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?  (Read 16912 times)

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #20 on: 03/20/2013 09:35 pm »
Quote
"We simply cannot afford to allow our global competitive advantage in human space flight to erode any further." 
*cough* Funny how SpaceX is bringing that competitive advantage back to the USA. *cough*

But, off topic. So nothing more on that.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2013 09:35 pm by mlindner »
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #21 on: 03/20/2013 10:24 pm »
If the goal is Mars, why do they care so much if it's 100mT or 130mT to LEO? They're still in roughly the same performance class.
Sure if you count the Minotaur IV and the Delta IV heavy in the same class. 30mt is a significant difference. I know that you have read the same studies as I have on Mars missions. We have debated that in the past. My point is not if those are valid conclusions but that they informed Congress when the legislation was drafted.

Which studies are you referring to? NASA's DRM 3.0 requires a launcher capable of 80mt to LEO, with a total IMLEO of 201mt.

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/MarsRef/addendum/TOC.htm#Contents
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #22 on: 03/21/2013 01:00 am »
If the goal is Mars, why do they care so much if it's 100mT or 130mT to LEO? They're still in roughly the same performance class.
Sure if you count the Minotaur IV and the Delta IV heavy in the same class. 30mt is a significant difference. I know that you have read the same studies as I have on Mars missions. We have debated that in the past. My point is not if those are valid conclusions but that they informed Congress when the legislation was drafted.

Which studies are you referring to? NASA's DRM 3.0 requires a launcher capable of 80mt to LEO, with a total IMLEO of 201mt.

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/MarsRef/addendum/TOC.htm#Contents
DRM 4 required a 110-120 tone launcher. By DRM 5 they were using the Ares V, which at the time was 130 tones. Ares V of course grew substantially after that. There is the work done by Human Space Flight Architecture Team in Nov. 2011 which indicates a requirement for Block II to support a Mars mission. There were several articles covering that by NSF.com. The Boeing studies reported on by NSF.com (they are in full on L2) also zero in on Block II needed for Mars. Additionally there have several documents on L2 (I think by now some are out in the open) which reference missions on the strategic time frame to NEO's and Mars which need the Block II SLS. I am not arguing that the full 130mt will be needed. I don't think SLS will ever get that big. However there has been recent studies that are pointing to needed that payload capability for Mars.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #23 on: 03/21/2013 01:21 am »
A /requirement/?
There are no dry elements more than ~50mT for a Mars mission, according to Augustine (and even then, could be redesigned for a 25mT dry mass). In fact, there are no Mars architecture elements, since no money is available for payloads.
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 neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #24 on: 03/21/2013 07:41 am »
If the goal is Mars, why do they care so much if it's 100mT or 130mT to LEO? They're still in roughly the same performance class.
Sure if you count the Minotaur IV and the Delta IV heavy in the same class. 30mt is a significant difference. I know that you have read the same studies as I have on Mars missions. We have debated that in the past. My point is not if those are valid conclusions but that they informed Congress when the legislation was drafted.

Which studies are you referring to? NASA's DRM 3.0 requires a launcher capable of 80mt to LEO, with a total IMLEO of 201mt.

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/MarsRef/addendum/TOC.htm#Contents
DRM 4 required a 110-120 tone launcher. By DRM 5 they were using the Ares V, which at the time was 130 tones. Ares V of course grew substantially after that. There is the work done by Human Space Flight Architecture Team in Nov. 2011 which indicates a requirement for Block II to support a Mars mission. There were several articles covering that by NSF.com. The Boeing studies reported on by NSF.com (they are in full on L2) also zero in on Block II needed for Mars. Additionally there have several documents on L2 (I think by now some are out in the open) which reference missions on the strategic time frame to NEO's and Mars which need the Block II SLS. I am not arguing that the full 130mt will be needed. I don't think SLS will ever get that big. However there has been recent studies that are pointing to needed that payload capability for Mars.

Why did the requirement increase from 80mt?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #25 on: 03/21/2013 08:46 am »
So if Senator Shelby is now calling the shots, then that's the way it is.

100% correct.

If he can kill ATKs booster contract I wish him the best of luck. They've had this contract for longer than I've been alive and there are 2 sets of boosters to go.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #26 on: 03/21/2013 12:07 pm »
If the goal is Mars, why do they care so much if it's 100mT or 130mT to LEO? They're still in roughly the same performance class.
Sure if you count the Minotaur IV and the Delta IV heavy in the same class. 30mt is a significant difference. I know that you have read the same studies as I have on Mars missions. We have debated that in the past. My point is not if those are valid conclusions but that they informed Congress when the legislation was drafted.

Which studies are you referring to? NASA's DRM 3.0 requires a launcher capable of 80mt to LEO, with a total IMLEO of 201mt.

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/MarsRef/addendum/TOC.htm#Contents
DRM 4 required a 110-120 tone launcher. By DRM 5 they were using the Ares V, which at the time was 130 tones. Ares V of course grew substantially after that. There is the work done by Human Space Flight Architecture Team in Nov. 2011 which indicates a requirement for Block II to support a Mars mission. There were several articles covering that by NSF.com. The Boeing studies reported on by NSF.com (they are in full on L2) also zero in on Block II needed for Mars. Additionally there have several documents on L2 (I think by now some are out in the open) which reference missions on the strategic time frame to NEO's and Mars which need the Block II SLS. I am not arguing that the full 130mt will be needed. I don't think SLS will ever get that big. However there have been recent studies that are pointing to needed that payload capability for Mars.

Why did the requirement increase from 80mt?
The history and evolution of Mars DRMs and studies sounds like an excellent topic for another thread.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #27 on: 03/22/2013 11:31 am »
So that's official now? 130 ton SLS with upper stage development simultaneous.

What does this mean for ICPS?

Since NASA is now mandated to a 130 ton vehicle I doubt they'll be allowed to use the 70(90) ton past EM-2.

I guess the flight rate gets even worse now NASA has to spend money on the upper stage?

As long as Mars missions remain vaporware there's no point to any of it.

I see little interest in human lunar return. It's doable with SLS but it's serious overkill to use a rocket of this size.

I find it quite insulting that EM-1/EM-2 go to the moon when the president has said no to Lunar return.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #28 on: 03/22/2013 01:27 pm »
Since NASA is now mandated to a 130 ton vehicle I doubt they'll be allowed to use the 70(90) ton past EM-2.

As far as I can tell, NASA itself doesn't intend to use the 70(whatever) ton version past EM-2. Mr. Gerstenmaier has said that EM-3 and EM-4 will probably use the 105(ish) version.  That's consistent with the SLS Top Level Milestone Schedule(s) of July and November 2012 showing EM-3 & EM-4 using the New/Advanced Boosters.

Edit: Add

Quote
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29911.0

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC
NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL
Human Exploration and Operations Committee
July 23-24, 2012

[Mr. William Hill, Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development (ESD)] noted that the program is currently only contracting for EM-1 and EM-2, which will use the 70 metric ton (MT) launch vehicle.

<snip>

[Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for HEOMD]  stated that the EM-3 and -4 will probably be 105 mT. The booster contracts will begin in FY2013. To go to 105 mT, a better propellant or an upper stage is needed...
« Last Edit: 03/22/2013 01:43 pm by ChileVerde »
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Online Kasponaut

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 83
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #29 on: 03/22/2013 01:49 pm »
So that's official now? 130 ton SLS with upper stage development simultaneous.

What does this mean for ICPS?

Since NASA is now mandated to a 130 ton vehicle I doubt they'll be allowed to use the 70(90) ton past EM-2.

I guess the flight rate gets even worse now NASA has to spend money on the upper stage?

As long as Mars missions remain vaporware there's no point to any of it.

I see little interest in human lunar return. It's doable with SLS but it's serious overkill to use a rocket of this size.

I find it quite insulting that EM-1/EM-2 go to the moon when the president has said no to Lunar return.

Are they now more mandated than earlier?
What implications will that have?
He can't decide that by himself I guess.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #30 on: 03/22/2013 05:20 pm »
So if I was reading that correctly. Does that mean they plan to launch humans on a rocket with brand new untested boosters?...
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #31 on: 03/22/2013 06:41 pm »
So if I was reading that correctly. Does that mean they plan to launch humans on a rocket with brand new untested boosters?...

Looks like it, though I'm sure they'll do static firing of the boosters separately.
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #32 on: 03/22/2013 07:31 pm »
So if I was reading that correctly. Does that mean they plan to launch humans on a rocket with brand new untested boosters?...

Looks like it, though I'm sure they'll do static firing of the boosters separately.

Whoa. People would be up in arms and going nuts all over this forum if SpaceX suggested doing that.  :P
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #33 on: 03/22/2013 08:36 pm »
So if I was reading that correctly. Does that mean they plan to launch humans on a rocket with brand new untested boosters?...

Looks like it, though I'm sure they'll do static firing of the boosters separately.

That's not flight conditions though. Will be interesting how this discussion goes in the future. Although by that schedule time frame the launch will be in Q2 of 2023... {Redacted my comment on status of SpaceX at this point and unlikely future of SLS.}
« Last Edit: 03/22/2013 08:36 pm by mlindner »
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #34 on: 03/22/2013 10:13 pm »
Are they now more mandated than earlier?
What implications will that have?
He can't decide that by himself I guess.

NASA needs to figure out what their upgrade path will be.

Advanced boosters are in the risk reduction phase. Upper stages are all fantasy at this point.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #35 on: 03/22/2013 10:42 pm »
If the upper stage is designed as maybe just a tweaked version of the in-space stage, then it's a good idea. The advanced boosters seem pointless before your have a good upper stage/in-space stage.
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 ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #36 on: 03/22/2013 11:37 pm »
If the upper stage is designed as maybe just a tweaked version of the in-space stage, then it's a good idea. The advanced boosters seem pointless before your have a good upper stage/in-space stage.

Trying to keep this somewhat on the thread topic, is the upper stage what is needed to connect the proclaimed NASA intent (advanced boosters on EM-3 and presumably forward) with the Senate's urging of the 130 tonne vehicle?  I.E., if you add a CPS to the 70(ish) tonne + advanced boosters (105 tonne), do you get to 130 tonnes?  If so, we should be looking for signs of that CPS. If not -- what?
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #37 on: 03/23/2013 03:09 am »
"Urging" is a bit of a strange way to put it.

The language of the law now says nothing about a 70mt vehicle. The CJS statement says they're allowed to launch that config in 2017 as a test flight but that's it.

A large upper stage is needed. Most likely B1B with whatever modifications for CPS duties that it needs. That means funding but they're not going to get it until they ask.

It's all a matter of when they put their hand out, not if.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #38 on: 03/23/2013 01:03 pm »
"Urging" is a bit of a strange way to put it.

I was wondering about that.  Just how strong, in the context, is "urge?" Is it "Gee, we'd like it if you could do it, but don't worry if you can't", "You'll absolutely do it or else", or something else?
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?
« Reply #39 on: 03/24/2013 08:55 am »
So should ATK solids be dumped?

To me it looks like NASA has no plan to use more than the 2 sets they need to.

Redesigning for LRBs after that is a bit of a joke.

Utah simply doesn't have the political pull it once did. Shelby is in control now and that's fair enough, he got the votes he was appointed, he will send whatever amount of work/money to Alabama he can.

ATK can keep their boosters and the money for all I care.

Seems reasonable given there's no mandate for a 70mt launch vehicle any longer and that was one of the main reasons 5-seg solids were suitable.

Tags:
 

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