Quote"We simply cannot afford to allow our global competitive advantage in human space flight to erode any further."
"We simply cannot afford to allow our global competitive advantage in human space flight to erode any further."
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 03:19 pmIf 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.
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.
Quote from: notsorandom on 03/18/2013 04:15 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 03:19 pmIf 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
Quote from: neilh on 03/20/2013 10:24 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 03/18/2013 04:15 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 03:19 pmIf 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#ContentsDRM 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.
So if Senator Shelby is now calling the shots, then that's the way it is.
Quote from: notsorandom on 03/21/2013 01:00 amQuote from: neilh on 03/20/2013 10:24 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 03/18/2013 04:15 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 03:19 pmIf 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#ContentsDRM 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?
Quote from: neilh on 03/20/2013 10:24 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 03/18/2013 04:15 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 03:19 pmIf 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#ContentsDRM 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.
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.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29911.0National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, DCNASA ADVISORY COUNCILHuman Exploration and Operations CommitteeJuly 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...
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.
So if I was reading that correctly. Does that mean they plan to launch humans on a rocket with brand new untested boosters?...
Quote from: mlindner on 03/22/2013 05:20 pmSo 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.
Are they now more mandated than earlier?What implications will that have?He can't decide that by himself I guess.
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.
"Urging" is a bit of a strange way to put it.