Tony Castilleja: ...and let's talk about what the Space Launch System will be launching on our journey to the Moon.Ben Donahue: We're going to be launching an integrated ascent stage and descent stage called The Lander [editor's note: I really hope that's a placeholder name] that will land by the end of 2024 that will take three crew to the South Pole of the Moon. [...] We're actively writing the proposal for NASA as we speak.
Our sights are set on the Moon. We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320QuoteOur sights are set on the Moon. We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019
Is that really their design? That render's fairly old, and I would've expected something a bit larger with the lander being SLS-launched.Granted, if they're launching on a Block 1 the Delta IV fairing imposes some pretty strict limits on sized, but still. Seems kinda on the small side.
Looks like the lander is methalox.Intuitive Machines selected to build engines for Boeing’s Human Lander System Technology Development
Quote from: jadebenn on 10/24/2019 06:53 pmLooks like the lander is methalox.Intuitive Machines selected to build engines for Boeing’s Human Lander System Technology DevelopmentA 30-second hot fire of the engine is on youtube:("Hot Fire #13 does not refer to there being 13 HLS engine hot fires, just that this is Intuitive's 13th hot fire campaign)
I wonder if it is based off the Morpheus engine, it looks like they are using Armadillo levels of film cooling.
Quote from: Gliderflyer on 10/24/2019 11:03 pmI wonder if it is based off the Morpheus engine, it looks like they are using Armadillo levels of film cooling.It is absolutely based off of the Morpheus engine. Intuitive Machines was started by former Morpheus engineers.
Quote from: Navier–Stokes on 10/24/2019 04:57 pmhttps://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320QuoteOur sights are set on the Moon. We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019That ascent stage looks a bit like some of the Dragon based landers we came up with...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/25/2019 12:58 amQuote from: Navier–Stokes on 10/24/2019 04:57 pmhttps://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320QuoteOur sights are set on the Moon. We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019That ascent stage looks a bit like some of the Dragon based landers we came up with... Pressure vessel is likely to be based on Starliner along with life support.
So if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking. Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing. Not counting the LOP-G station. This is way expensive to use the SLS.
No, they are looking for cost+ bidding. I was an engineer for a natural gas company. We got rid of cost+ bidding because it was far more expensive than per foot installed bidding. I have seen it first hand.
It may need more than two SLS, since they'll be using SLS Block 1 Cargo which can only throw 26t to TLI, this is not enough for a full lunar lander, at least not in NASA's estimate. In NASA's IP 03 scenario, a 3rd commercial launch is needed, so using a SLS doesn't buy you much.
If you're that confident the bid will be financially uncompetitive, then you should have nothing to worry about.
In all seriousness, do you think Boeing is stupid? If they didn't think an SLS-launched bid was competitive they wouldn't propose it.
Pressure vessel is likely to be based on Starliner along with life support.
I eagerly await to see how this turns out, competition and multiple solutions are a good thing. In a perfect world we'd see improvements to SLS tied to this proposal (EUS for example).
A 2nd SLS shouldn't have anywhere near the cost of 2x a single SLS. ...
Quote from: GWH on 10/26/2019 06:34 amA 2nd SLS shouldn't have anywhere near the cost of 2x a single SLS. ...If they can build 2 in the same time as 1, maybe. But Boeing can only make 1 per year, and were already planning to do that. To up the flight rate Boeing needs to invest in SLS production.
Quote from: spacenut on 10/25/2019 06:42 pmSo if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking. Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing. Not counting the LOP-G station. This is way expensive to use the SLS. It may need more than two SLS, since they'll be using SLS Block 1 Cargo which can only throw 26t to TLI, this is not enough for a full lunar lander, at least not in NASA's estimate. In NASA's IP 03 scenario, a 3rd commercial launch is needed, so using a SLS doesn't buy you much.
It is a shame SLS isn't as good as the old Saturn V in LEO performance. After 13 billion dollars and it will take two SLS launches to equal one Saturn V. They should have used either liquid boosters or a single stick two stage rocket.
Quote from: spacenut on 10/29/2019 12:44 amIt is a shame SLS isn't as good as the old Saturn V in LEO performance. After 13 billion dollars and it will take two SLS launches to equal one Saturn V. They should have used either liquid boosters or a single stick two stage rocket. How relevant is SLS LEO performance as a performance metric when all currently-planned payloads are BEO? If SLS had been designed to maximize payload to LEO and not payload BEO, it would have a very different upper stage.Speaking of upper stages, your comparison neglects Block 1B. That's the SLS that's in the Saturn V's neck of the woods when it comes to overall performance, not the Block 1 with its "placeholder" upper-stage.
Quote from: su27k on 10/26/2019 02:35 amQuote from: spacenut on 10/25/2019 06:42 pmSo if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking. Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing. Not counting the LOP-G station. This is way expensive to use the SLS. It may need more than two SLS, since they'll be using SLS Block 1 Cargo which can only throw 26t to TLI, this is not enough for a full lunar lander, at least not in NASA's estimate. In NASA's IP 03 scenario, a 3rd commercial launch is needed, so using a SLS doesn't buy you much.Trying to evaluate these claims, I used a model of the Apollo hardware. It seems that the lunar module with an additional transfer stage based off the descent module but scaled 11%(both fuel and mass) with the landing gear removed has a total stack delta v of ~5.3 km/s (with the HLS required 525 kg up and 865 kg down). This seems to be the stack delta v requirements of a NRHO based trajectory to a polar region of the moon as long as you reduce the delta v for the trip to NRHO by a few hundred m/s[1]. Total stack (minus the payload that is offloaded to Orion/gateway logistics services) would be 26.3 t which is within the capability of SLS Block 1 to a NRHO ballistic trajectory that reduces the NRHO transfer to <200 m/s[2].[1]https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160003079.pdf[2] https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/advspace.publicshare/Parrish+et+al+-+Survey+of+BLTs+to+NRHO.pdfOf course, what Boeing described was a two stage lander, but as far as the feasibility of putting an integrated lander on a Block 1 that meets the HLS requirements, I think it definitely can be done. The system that NASA was assuming did have higher masses for a lander, but I'm pretty sure that had to carry more crew and cargo than the requirements for the 2024 landing system. They also had to function independently as they would be shipped up separately which may increase mass. You would then evolve the lander and use the Block 1B to carry the additional weight of the beefier lander to meet the "sustainable" phase requirements (more crew, global access, etc.).edit: NASA was estimating the minimum mass for a 3 stage system that met their "desired requirements" was 9 + 12 +12 t or 33 t. Fitting it to 27 t would be a reduction of 20% which sounds achievable given their numbers would have engineering margins built in regardless.
No money has been voted for to build Block 1B. So, that is 3-5 years away and more money.
It's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.
Quote from: Proponent on 10/29/2019 04:54 pmIt's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.The Constellation Orion have the Altair lander for the TLI burn. The Altair is more or less the current EUS stage equivalent with legs.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 11/01/2019 05:54 amQuote from: Proponent on 10/29/2019 04:54 pmIt's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.The Constellation Orion have the Altair lander for the TLI burn. The Altair is more or less the current EUS stage equivalent with legs.I think you mean L.O.I. - lunar orbit insertion burn.
Quote from: spacenut on 10/29/2019 08:59 pmNo money has been voted for to build Block 1B. So, that is 3-5 years away and more money. Huh? EUS has been in all the NASA appropriations since 2016. They even showed-off some of the hardware in a presentation today:
The EUS (Exploration Upper Stage) has been delayed. Spacenut is correct, Block IB is not flying soon. Block I with the ICPS upper stage is on slate, and only 1 per year is to be built. SLS is underpowered for the task at hand due to too few main engines, underpowered solid boosters, and a ridiculously small upper stage. It is also absurdly overpriced.
Other than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)? If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes.
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for SLS, not less than $85,000,000 shall be for enhanced upper stage development
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration Upper Stage development
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for SLS, not less than $150,000,000 shall be for Exploration Upper Stage development
It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.
It would be cheaper to ask Blue Origin to build a New Glenn upper stage for the SLS. It would have two 100,000 lb. thrust BE-3U's for some real kick and a real payload. The existing upper stage will only have one RL-10 at what 30,000 lbs thrust. The EUS will have what 4 RL-10's for 120 ,000 lbs. Still seems anemic to me. RL-10's are very expensive compared to newer engines developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX.
Jadebenn, do you work for Boeing or NASA? Just wondering why you haven't seen the handwritting on the wall concerning NASA and "New Space".
Quote from: spacenut on 11/02/2019 12:53 amIt would be cheaper to ask Blue Origin to build a New Glenn upper stage for the SLS. It would have two 100,000 lb. thrust BE-3U's for some real kick and a real payload. The existing upper stage will only have one RL-10 at what 30,000 lbs thrust. The EUS will have what 4 RL-10's for 120 ,000 lbs. Still seems anemic to me. RL-10's are very expensive compared to newer engines developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. Thrust is pretty much irrelevant for Block 1 and ICPS. By the time it comes into play, the core's already put the rocket on a highly elliptical orbit. A small burn at apoapsis to bring the Orion+ICPS stack's periapsis out of the atmosphere is all that's needed.Thrust is more relevant for Block 1B and EUS, because the added mass causes the core to stage at a lower velocity, meaning that EUS has to perform the last portion of the orbital burn. However, all that info I've seen suggests that while the gravity losses of EUS hurts the SLS's theoretical payload to LEO capacity, it still beats out higher-thrust lower-Isp alternatives for payload to TLI.
Quote from: meberbs on 11/02/2019 02:23 amIt seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.EUS has not passed CDR, so I would not expect to see flight hardware. The design is still being finalized. It's definitely funded though.
Between June 2014 and August 2018, Boeing spent over $600 million more than planned on developing the two Core Stages.24 To cover these additional costs, Boeing has been using funds intended for EUS development, while NASA has been relying on SLS Program reserves.
NASA does not require Boeing to report detailed information on development costs for the two Core Stages and EUS, making it difficult for the Agency to determine if the contractor is meeting cost and schedule commitments for each deliverable. In accordance with current FAR guidance and consistent with leading management practices for a contract of this scope and cost, each contract deliverable should have its own CLIN in order to track costs and evaluate a contractor’s performance. However, when NASA definitized the Boeing Stages contract in 2014, individual CLINs were recommended but not required by the FAR.35 As such, NASA procurement officials combined these activities under a single CLIN to achieve a simplified approach that it hoped would reduce administrative reporting. As a result, under the Boeing Stages contract, all costs related to the two Core Stages and EUS are reported through one funding line—CLIN 9—which makes tracking current expenditures difficult. Moreover, given this cost-reporting structure, the Agency is unable to determine the cost of a single Core Stage.
Quote from: envy887 on 11/02/2019 02:29 amQuote from: meberbs on 11/02/2019 02:23 amIt seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.EUS has not passed CDR, so I would not expect to see flight hardware. The design is still being finalized. It's definitely funded though.It's more complicated than that, while EUS is funded from Congress point of view, NASA IG has found out that Boeing is using EUS funding to cover the cost overrun for core stage, and because NASA allows Boeing to put core stage funding and EUS funding into one line item, there's no way for NASA to know how much money is spent on EUS in reality.
It's more complicated than that, while EUS is funded from Congress point of view, NASA IG has found out that Boeing is using EUS funding to cover the cost overrun for core stage, and because NASA allows Boeing to put core stage funding and EUS funding into one line item, there's no way for NASA to know how much money is spent on EUS in reality.
Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it? While they can't track it by CLIN number, they seem to have a way to break it out. Anyways, substantial money was obviously spent on EUS (in the hundreds of millions). From Jadebenn's slide, they have tooling for USA's composite structure, a flight set of engines and a flight spare, payload adapters and have been working on welding the tanks beyond just the design work well past PDR.
Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it?
Quote from: ncb1397 on 11/02/2019 03:31 amThen how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it?I assume Boeing told NASA about it? It's not like they can keep such things as a secret, core stage cost overrun is a fact, the additional money has to come from somewhere. But only Boeing knows the exact amount.
Quote from: spacenut on 11/02/2019 12:53 amJadebenn, do you work for Boeing or NASA? Just wondering why you haven't seen the handwritting on the wall concerning NASA and "New Space".I do not. In fact, my entry to the space fandom at-large came through the KSP and SpaceX communities a couple of years after the Shuttle stopped flying. How I went from that to holding the opinions I do now is a long and complicated story that no-one really wants to hear, but suffice to say that I wasn't always so pro-SLS.
I assure you that you are completely wrong. I for one am very interested, no matter how boring you might think it is. For anyone who is still pro-SLS, I am interested in how they formed that opinion and why they still hold it. This is probably not the best thread for you to tell that story, but I would listen with great interest.
Quote from: meberbs on 11/02/2019 05:08 amI assure you that you are completely wrong. I for one am very interested, no matter how boring you might think it is. For anyone who is still pro-SLS, I am interested in how they formed that opinion and why they still hold it. This is probably not the best thread for you to tell that story, but I would listen with great interest.I mean, I've basically summarized it in a few other posts. You can look there if you're curious. But I really don't think it'd be on-topic to discuss in this thread.
Maybe they want to air start an RS25? Wonder if anyone had ever thought of that
No, different angle. The other engines should be visible.
Seems like there’s atleast one more engine to me...
Quote from: spacenut on 11/02/2019 12:53 amOther than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)? If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes. 2016:QuoteProvided further, That of the amounts provided for SLS, not less than $85,000,000 shall be for enhanced upper stage developmenthttps://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text2017:QuoteProvided further, That of the amounts provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration Upper Stage developmenthttps://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/244/text2018:QuoteProvided further, That of the amounts provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration Upper Stage developmenthttps://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/text2019:QuoteProvided further, That of the amounts provided for SLS, not less than $150,000,000 shall be for Exploration Upper Stage developmenthttps://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/31/text
How does lander handle boiloff at gateway while waiting months for crew mission
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 10/26/2019 03:59 amHow does lander handle boiloff at gateway while waiting months for crew missionFor hydrogen it would be a big deal, but lox and methane are sometimes referred to as "space-storeable."
Quote from: spacenut on 10/25/2019 06:42 pmSo if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking. Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing. Not counting the LOP-G station. This is way expensive to use the SLS. If you're that confident the bid will be financially uncompetitive, then you should have nothing to worry about. It's not like there are other costs beside launch costs that factor into bidding a lunar lander. Development of new technology is free as we all know, and there is no possibility that a two-stage SLS-launched design might be easier and cheaper to develop than a three-stage commercially-launched design, or that those cost-savings might be enough to offset the higher launch costs, especially since we're only considering SLS marginal costs.
There is nothing stupid about Boeing proposing this. It stands a good chance of becoming another of the company's cash cows, which is exactly what its shareholders Richard Shelby wants.
Quote from: Proponent on 11/06/2019 12:44 pmThere is nothing stupid about Boeing proposing this. It stands a good chance of becoming another of the company's cash cows, which is exactly what its shareholders Richard Shelby wants.There. Fixed that for ya.
U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, on Thursday ripped top Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for their handling of the Air Force tanker competition, accusing them of tilting the selection criteria in favor of Boeing Co."One would think that our Air Force's top priority would be to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best, most capable equipment. Clearly that is not the case," Shelby said in a speech on the Senate floor.
There is nothing stupid about Boeing proposing this. It stands a good chance of becoming another of the company's cash cows, which is exactly what its shareholders want.
I promise you, nothing coming out of the space exploration domain is a cash cow.Don't believe me? Look up the shareholder reports. Revenue from space exploration is in the noise.
You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 11/06/2019 06:43 pmYou can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.But the minimum interval between SLS launches is 120 days. Am I missing something?
Check out this new view of our Human Lander System docked with Gateway. The integrated lander’s flexible, reliable design will safely take astronauts down to the Moon’s surface. The Lander and Gateway combination is essential to sustained lunar exploration and to go to Mars.
I would think that being able to stay for a full Lunar day would be the gold standard for future human Lunar missions. Staying a whole lunar night as well after that would be very interesting. Could the Lander cope with that by being upgraded; or would future expeditions require a separate, 'hardened' surface Habitat? Doing EVA's during Lunar midday would be thermally challenging - but so would lunar midnight! It can get pretty darn cold there. The light levels from even a half-lit Earth should be sufficient to light a Lunar landscape though.
I found what appears to be a presentation going over the precursor to the current lander design:https://imgur.com/a/N6jgfBoAn ECLSS capacity for a two-week surface stay is going to be a big selling point, IMO. Doubt the national team will be able to match that. They'll probably be constrained to a one week surface stay.
Is there any indication that any part of Boeing's lander would be reusable?
Boeing’s lander would be capable of carrying a two-person crew to the lunar surface in 2024, meeting the requirements set in NASA’s solicitation for a Human Landing System. Future landers could include reusable ascent modules and cryogenic engines, McGrath said.
Quote from: Proponent on 11/15/2019 01:20 pmIs there any indication that any part of Boeing's lander would be reusable?Possibly the ascent module:QuoteBoeing’s lander would be capable of carrying a two-person crew to the lunar surface in 2024, meeting the requirements set in NASA’s solicitation for a Human Landing System. Future landers could include reusable ascent modules and cryogenic engines, McGrath said.https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/09/boeing-proposes-sls-launched-lunar-lander/You would presumably just launch tanks mounted on top of the descent module while some infrastructure like the arm aids the transfer of propellant. The fact that it appears there is a habitat inside the descent module would suggest possible re-use of the descent module for longer term pressurized volume(once you deploy power infrastructure that maintains power during lunar night). Beyond that, if you could refuel the descent module from local resources, it would be able to ferry back up to gateway (or you just use the ascent module both ways once you get to that point).
One of the major reasons for the Gateway's existence will be to make up for the Orion's relatively miserable delta-v and basically, lack of a decent propellant load
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 11/15/2019 09:11 pmOne of the major reasons for the Gateway's existence will be to make up for the Orion's relatively miserable delta-v and basically, lack of a decent propellant load And nobody is asking what it would take to stretch the service module a meter or so to where it could carry enough propellant. I understand it would need about a 56% increase in fuel load to handle injection into LLO and return to Earth. With the EUS, SLS should have no problem launching the heavier load into TLI.
You're quite right. In principle, 'stretching' the Orion Service Module to increase it's propellant load would be 'simple' to do. Widening would be a lot more complex and would basically be a complete redesign. Stretching the SM by 1 or 1.5 meters (I'm not sure) should give between 3 to 4 metric tons more propellants. A real engineer would have to crunch those numbers. As Eric said; the EUS should be able to handle the weight no problem.But a stretched SM would mean that the whole Orion spacecraft would have to be rebalanced, tested etc, which would take money and time an already late program can't afford, so...But could a 'two stage' solution be worked out? By that - I mean what if Orion used 2x 'stacked' Service Modules? The second SM could be simplified with no crew consumables and no solar arrays: it could just have the 9 ton propellant load and batteries to last a few days to get the CM & SM 'Stack' to low lunar orbit where that first SM could be jettisoned after L.O.I?Actually; it occurs to me that the two Service Modules would not have to be stacked - the second SM could be carried by the EUS as a co-manifested payload. After TLI, the Orion could do a transposition and docking maneuver and dock with a docking system-equipped SM, making it a propulsion Tug. When arriving at the Moon and doing L.O.I, the Orion then jettisons the Tug and goes to meet a waiting Lunar Lander. No Gateway required. Or substitute a propellant depot if we want to have an eventual reusable Crew Lander.
Both vehicles can be opreated independent of a gateway station...which if there is a Boeing plan, cannot be built..
The moment you launch a separate Block 1B SLS to handle the lander, you limit yourself to storables, because the second SLS will still be under construction when you launch the first one.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 11/16/2019 10:14 pmThe moment you launch a separate Block 1B SLS to handle the lander, you limit yourself to storables, because the second SLS will still be under construction when you launch the first one. This is a bad assumption. There are two mobile launchers. If NASA wants, they are fully capable of outfitting high bay 1 and stacking a second SLS at the same time as the first.
The current Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) can only handle the Block 1 configuration, and the new MLP is being built to handle Block 1B and Block 2, so if there was a need to launch more than one SLS per year then it's likely they would only use the new MLP (it can handle multiple launches per year). The only opportunity to use both MLP would be at the transition from Block 1 to Block 1B/2, and I think that is too soon to allow a plan to do that.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/16/2019 11:22 pmThe current Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) can only handle the Block 1 configuration, and the new MLP is being built to handle Block 1B and Block 2, so if there was a need to launch more than one SLS per year then it's likely they would only use the new MLP (it can handle multiple launches per year). The only opportunity to use both MLP would be at the transition from Block 1 to Block 1B/2, and I think that is too soon to allow a plan to do that.Even with the current ML configuration it would be entirely possible to launch a Block 1 crewed SLS in conjunction with a Block 1B cargo SLS with very little turnaround if high bay 1 is set up for it.
When I was researching this topic it was implied that only the new MLP could handle the Orion configuration. But it wasn't stated.
However there is only one point in the future where flying a Block 1 and a Block 1B significantly less than 12 months apart can happen, and that is right around 2024. And we know that Boeing doesn't have ability, currently, to build more than one SLS per year - it would take an act of Congress to fund the ability to build more than one per year.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/17/2019 12:24 amWhen I was researching this topic it was implied that only the new MLP could handle the Orion configuration. But it wasn't stated.Can you clarify what you mean by this?Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/17/2019 12:24 amHowever there is only one point in the future where flying a Block 1 and a Block 1B significantly less than 12 months apart can happen, and that is right around 2024. And we know that Boeing doesn't have ability, currently, to build more than one SLS per year - it would take an act of Congress to fund the ability to build more than one per year.I'm quite certain that Boeing's lander proposal isn't going to gimp non-lander SLS production. That would go against the terms laid down for using SLS in the HLS solicitation.In other words, the only way they can make a proposal that complies with the HLS requirements is to push the production rate above 1 per year.
HLS program will pay for the additional cost of the launch vehicle.
You know, according to this press release from 2014, it only cost about $100M to outfit VAB High Bay 3 for SLS. I see no reason that shouldn't hold with High Bay 1.So if it only costs ~$100M to enable dual launch of Block 1 and Block 1B, there's really nothing stopping NASA from doing so if such a capability is ever needed.
Stacking isn't the long pole in the tent. Based on behavior so far, manufacturing is.
And how much more money would you be planning on throwing at EGS to get two stacks running at the same time, with two sets of SRBs? Good thing that there won't be any stray LOX domes lounging about.
I guess you could store a core in the VAB, then finish stacking just as the second one came out of Stennis. But it's still likely to take a month or two to stack the second SLS--especially one with an Orion on it--after the first one has rolled out. That's still too long for cryogenics without a bunch of low-TRL stuff being required by Artemis.
Just to be clear, if you're going to launch two SLSes nearly simultaneously for Artemis 3, you're not talking about some dim, distant eventuality. You'd pretty much have to have the contracts in place by now. Oh, yeah: Don't forget that you won't be doing any High Bay expansion work that'll interfere with Artemis 1.
I think it's much more likely that they simply build an AE/DE that use storables.
Let's see. Artemis 3 is 2024. HB-3 modifications were contracted in 2014, and finished in 2017. 3 years. Assuming that there's no speed improvements and that they want to finish VAB modifications before the end of 2023, that gives them until the end of next year to start working on it. So yeah, they'd have to act soon, but it's not yet been ruled out as an option.Also, I don't see where there'd be much possibility for interference. High Bay 1 and High Bay 3 don't share any equipment insofar as stacking rockets goes. There'd be more possibility of conflicts with High Bay 2 (which will eventually start being equipped for OmegA) than conflicts with High Bay 3.
They're not going to let somebody even breathe on the VAB configuration with an SLS in there. And you've got Artemis 2 in there somewhere. How long does stacking take? Four months? So you're going to do all the work between (optimistically) mid 2021 and mid-2022? Or (more realistically) late 2023?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/17/2019 12:24 amWhen I was researching this topic it was implied that only the new MLP could handle the Orion configuration. But it wasn't stated.Can you clarify what you mean by this?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/17/2019 12:24 amHowever there is only one point in the future where flying a Block 1 and a Block 1B significantly less than 12 months apart can happen, and that is right around 2024. And we know that Boeing doesn't have ability, currently, to build more than one SLS per year - it would take an act of Congress to fund the ability to build more than one per year.I'm quite certain that Boeing's lander proposal isn't going to gimp non-lander SLS production. That would go against the terms laid down for using SLS in the HLS solicitation.
In other words, the only way they can make a proposal that complies with the HLS requirements is to push the production rate above 1 per year.
From what I read it seemed that the Orion would only be able to launch from either a modified version of the current MLP, or the new MLP that will be needed for the Block 1B and Block 2. That needs to be verified though.
Just because Boeing bid it doesn't mean they are likely to do it. I think they would need quite a bit of money to do a non-NASA launch of the SLS.
QuoteIn other words, the only way they can make a proposal that complies with the HLS requirements is to push the production rate above 1 per year.That seems to be the case. Which is possible, but only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the SLS facility.
Their partnership with Intuitive Machines (which makes methalox engines) wouldn't make much sense if an all-storable lander was their game-plan.
“Our typical propulsion partner tends to be Aerojet Rocketdyne,” he said. “We are looking at alternate sources, too, depending on their maturity, but there are some off-the shelf engines that we’re looking at from Aerojet Rocketdyne, that are flying on commercial crew, so existing engines.”Boeing is looking at storable hypergolic propellant systems for the engines on the 2024 lunar landing mission, McGrath said.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 11/15/2019 05:52 pmBoth vehicles can be opreated independent of a gateway station...which if there is a Boeing plan, cannot be built..Baseless speculation.
So the 2021 NASA budget request throws some wrenches into Boeing's plan:1. It defers SLS Block 1B indefinitely2. It assigns Europa Clipper to commercial LV because otherwise it would reduce the SLS assigned to Artemis, which basically says NASA doesn't expect more than 3 SLS by 2024Congress may restore SLS Block 1B, but NASA will be the one who pick the winner of HLS, it's pretty clear NASA has no confidence that Boeing can work on Block 1B in parallel or increase the production rate of SLS cores, it would be interesting to see how this non-confidence translates into their evaluation of Boeing's HLS proposal.
Boeing probably expected NASA to pay for the lander. But NASAs since said they expect a lot more commercial investment (and that an SLS-launched lander would require additional investment from Boeing to get that high production capability, so double hit). The other bidders seem to already be spending their own money and/or have a lot more heritage in their designs than the Boeing option, so this expectation probably won't go well.
How does NASA stop money going to general running of Boeing given they are bleeding cash.
SLS and Starliner will be in same boat.
Unfortunately can't ring fence project team as lots of other Boeing resources are used on part time basis to support these projects.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/19/2020 04:47 pmHow does NASA stop money going to general running of Boeing given they are bleeding cash.That is NOT the job of NASA. Political decisions like that are made by the politicians (i.e. President & Congress), not the departments and agencies.QuoteSLS and Starliner will be in same boat.The SLS program is pure profit for Boeing, since they are building it under a Cost Plus contract. The Starliner, while a financially questionable program, is a drop in the bucket compared to what the Boeing Commercial division is going through.QuoteUnfortunately can't ring fence project team as lots of other Boeing resources are used on part time basis to support these projects.The SLS and Starliner programs are in the Boeing Space division, and unlikely to share anything with any other divisions like Defense and Commercial.