DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 5 - Transition from STS to the new Space Launch System

[yg1968]

Personally, I find this question very much on point. I am still wondering what the HLV will be used for prior to starting BEO exploration. 

[JohnFornaro]

EOR needs a bigger EDS than LOR, and ISTM there are safety issues with using post-injection rendezvous for a NEO mission.

Spare me the milli-Jims, if you would:  What is the context of EOR that you are using?  Where the EDS, CEV and Lander all rendezvous in LEO?  I understand that it would be bigger to perform TLI on CEV + Lander.  It still seems that would be less mass than two smaller EDS's + their respective lander or CEV to perform the same TLI?

What is the current thinking of this mission profile?  I continue to frown upon the idea of sending the mass of two EDS's, when one will do, it would seem, no matter what configuration they travel to the Moon.

About JWST.  It's a done deal, right?  Designed and built for the LV available.  It's not "obsolete" because theoretically we could now design a bigger, better one.

...a common core could be designed, with common avionics and mounting fixtures for the various instruments that'd be best for that particular mission, common RCS system, common propellant tanks and systems, common computers and data storage, common communications suites, etc.

Absolutely.  The way we'll get space travel to be, well, "common", is to move away from the one off designs.  The computer analogy might be sorta applicable.  The common core that you mention is the MoBo, which has slots for the attachment of specialty cards.  The common core may not be the most efficient in volume or mass, but in these marginal areas, these efficiencies are less paramount.

...Missions vary so much in initial and late delta-v and instruments and energy and thermal needs that the end results are not obvious, but it appears unclear that SMD would see attractive cost or performance benefits from an inefficient common probe design flying on a heavy lifter.

I hear all that, but in discussing this sort of comparison, it's important not to compare a crab apple with a naval orange.  I'm starting to think that it is necessary to compare apple LV's and orange LV's of similar capabilities.  If one can assume a $300M cost, what then are the characteristics and abilities of the LV's available at that price point?  Is one 320, but the other only 270, for example.

The larger vehicle, combined with multiple probes on similar platforms, might be able to send, say, four probes to Saturn.  Each sub-mission profile would look more carefully at a subset of the moons, the rings, and the surface weather patterns, say.  The bandwidth would be four times higher, since probes could time their various orbital insertions and data transmission times.  It would open up quite a different way of going about robotic surveying missions.

One problem is then you're putting all your eggs in one HLV basket...

I don't think this argument works as you apparently intended.  If you have one HMLV basket, whatever eggs you put in it are at risk.  The alternative, multiple launches on "n" vehicles can certainly be partially successful with "n-1" launch failures.  I don't think that particular risk calculus is that simple.

As to launching to multiple targets, I can think of three mission types which could benefit from this approach.  Jupiter, Saturn, and the Asteroid tour.  On the latter tour, if the giant asteroid worm from Star Wars eats one of the probes, then the others could photograph it from a safe distance.  I think even Mars would benefit from having a costellation of coordinated orbiting sats probing the surface and surveying for exo-biology and landing sites, for example.  They could later double as a comsat network.

Started a new thread on multiple probes:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22626.new#new

BTW, everyone but me got that original Pluto mission memo regarding its lander...Oh here it is, buried under the phone bill.  Oooo. That's late!  No wonder they cut off service...

And flying to the Moon in a microwave?  That's just FUD to suggest that it's unfeasible.  In fact, we could get there faster by not worrying so much about shielding; the astros could fly up there, and get the microwaves for free!  No retooling necessary.

[clongton]

Personally, I find this question very much on point. I am still wondering what the HLV will be used for prior to starting BEO. 

Like I said, discussing the things that the HLV could be used for, as you have correctly indicated, is very much on point. But diverging from that "high level" discussion into the history and capabilities of the individual probes is not on point, it is in fact off topic. In any case, this particular tact is really about what might have been so it shouldn't go any further on *this* thread. More to the point is your wondering what the HLV brings to the table pre-BEO. That is a valid question and very much on topic.

Originally the Jupiter HLV was being designed to replace the Ares-I/V LV's in the CxP lunar program. Orion was supposed to come online in that same time frame and the HLV was going to be used to take astronauts to the moon in the 2017 timeframe. But CxP is stone-cold dead and it is anybody's guess at this time what the new mission schedule will be. But Congress has, with a great deal of industry, academic and SME input, determined that the future exploration of the solar system, regardless of schedule, is going to require the services of a HLV. The least expensive path to that LV is SDHLV. If we were to delay deployment of the HLV until years after the last Shuttle flew all the Shuttle Derived hardware, infrastructure and industrial capacity would be gone, forcing a brand new clean sheet design from the ground up at several times the cost that a SDHLV would cost. So Congress has, wisely imho, decided to force the issue and build the HLV now, while we still have that capability. Orion is also to be built, but it is on a slower track to deployment so initially the SLSHLV will be unmanned.

So if I read your thoughts correctly, you are asking what are we going to do with the HLV between the time it is initially deployed and the beginning of the *HUMAN* BEO missions. Is that correct? If so then it is very much on topic; which is "Transition from STS to the new Space Launch System".

I'm actually open to some suggestions, so put your thinking caps on folks. What would you like to see the HLV used for besides *human* BEO missions in the interim between its initial deployment and the first human BEO mission? Remember to keep it high level, not too detailed or it will start to go off topic again.

[kirghizstan]

How about lunar missions using larger surface rovers that have R2's on them for more "human-like" interaction on the surface.  could also be used to prepare the lunar surface for the arrival of humans.  the less construction we need to do with boots on the ground the better.  The use of R2's would allow for more complicated construction over longer periods of time. 

[yg1968]

So if I read your thoughts correctly, you are asking what are we going to do with the HLV between the time it is initially deployed and the beginning of the *HUMAN* BEO missions. Is that correct? If so then it is very much on topic; which is "Transition from STS to the new Space Launch System".

I'm actually open to some suggestions, so put your thinking caps on folks. What would you like to see the HLV used for besides *human* BEO missions in the interim between its initial deployment and the first human BEO mission? Remember to keep it high level, not too detailed or it will start to go off topic again.

Yes that is what I meant. However, not being an engineer, I get confused as to what is possible and what is not possible with an HLV without an upper stage (e.g. the J-130).

I thought your idea about using an HLV with a Mars sample return was an interesting one. But wouldn't you need an upper stage for that mission? How about the robotic precursor missions, do they need an upper stage?

[robertross]

So if I read your thoughts correctly, you are asking what are we going to do with the HLV between the time it is initially deployed and the beginning of the *HUMAN* BEO missions. Is that correct? If so then it is very much on topic; which is "Transition from STS to the new Space Launch System".

I'm actually open to some suggestions, so put your thinking caps on folks. What would you like to see the HLV used for besides *human* BEO missions in the interim between its initial deployment and the first human BEO mission? Remember to keep it high level, not too detailed or it will start to go off topic again.

Well I thought we went there many times before, but I guess we can re-hash it again. Keep everyone on the same page 

1. Propellant depot. We're sending up the vehicle, might as well load with a piece of hardware to simulate all the necessary functions. Much Like the Saturn V days with the Agena. (They might be able to throw somthing together fast)
   a. Test out fluid boiloff rates for cryos
   b. Docking procedures
   c. Multiple conection points for redundancy
   d. Parallel depots (for redundancy, if required)

2. SSPDM for ISS servicing. (best bet)

3. Hubble 2, or very large telescope(s)

4. Robotic service vehicle for satellite & telescope servicing.

5. Solar Sails & sun shields (massive ones) to test out performance and deployment methods.

6. Solar arrays. Sure we can't justify the cost, but that doesn't mean it isn't politically lucrative.

7. Orion boilerplate testing, including heat shield & parachute designs. Best bet.

8. Mars-type landing craft to descend in the Arctic/Antartica.

9. DoD payloads of interest (as previously discussed & argued)

10. Mass/volume limited robotic missions. like MSR, though that's far inthe future, much like many above.

[Capt. Nemo]

The HLV could be used to send containers of air, water, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. to the L's or possibly the Lunar surface. With H2, N2, and O2 you have the problem and increased complexity of cryogenic storage. Send water and you have problems with Ice (unless you keep it heated.) So I would think that tanks filled with air would be ideal.

My first nutty thought was actually 'rubber' balls filled with air and water dropped onto the moon for later. :-D

What are the pros and cons of this amateur idea, or is it just nuts?

[cbspace]

Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html

[yg1968]

Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html

This group of scientists seems to be lobbying the House to adopt a bill that is closer to the Senate bill.  I don't think that it says anything about the HLV.

[cbspace]

It appears to be closer to the White House's original proposal which delayed HLV.

Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html

This group of scientists seems to be lobbying the House to adopt a bill that is closer to the Senate bill.  I don't think that it says anything about the HLV.

[clongton]

It doesn't mention the HLV but the only source for the kind of funding they want is the SLS HLV that the Senate Bill specifies. It appears to me that the letter is pressure to revert to the President's original FY2011 budget proposal. And take a look at the signatories. The majority of them, in my opinion, are people who's projects, organizations or universities would benefit greatly if the original FY2011 proposal were passed. The remaining have not unsubstantial interest in some form in Commercial crew. Even John Logsdon, who along with Lori Garver was a principle architect of the FY 2011 budget proposal, is a signatory to this letter. There's no doubt why he is a signatory.

These people are lobbying in no uncertain terms for a full retreat to the original FY2011 budget proposal - the 5-year mission to nowhere.

[cbspace]

That was the way it looked to me.  Do they have a chance or is it just a hail mary?

[M_Puckett]

I see their effort as a counter-weight to try and get the House to adopt the Senate proposal.

[clongton]

That was the way it looked to me.  Do they have a chance or is it just a hail mary?

Just a hail mary. The WH has already accepted the Senate approach and the indications are that the House will also. It will come down to the conference committee to flesh out the details but what's in the Senate bill is what will guide the discussions.

[nooneofconsequence]

Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html

This group of scientists seems to be lobbying the House to adopt a bill that is closer to the Senate bill.  I don't think that it says anything about the HLV.

Incorrect - they wish to contain the damage of government launch development as it injures the science community. They understand that need to suckle at the teat, just want to contain the damage.

I lately have heard of existing probe instruments in danger of losing funding. Of people doing entire research projects using starvation funded student interns to replace fired scientists "because they have families and thus cost more". And I end up getting such interns asking my help to learn esoterics of specialized fields to support such need. There aren't enough of them.

All to fund gold plated launchers - the worry is worse than Ares I capital utilization.

Thank god for Obama's STEM emphasis - at least it supports (barely) the students doing the work. It's a shame that in America with so much talent, we are killing off one group to keep from killing of another - zero sum mentality.

So please stop these awful disingenuous posts - you injure NASA more than you know (apparently) in the very real neglect implied.

It would seem we will have to, like Iraq, learn certain past lessons yet again. Sigh.

[FinalFrontier]

I think Alex you successfully scored on Chuck. Chuck, better look at your batting average - you are in a definite slump. Perhaps the toxic effects of drinking the wrong Kool Aid.

I am not going to hold his or your hand to do your own research for you.

He made a reasonable request, like you have of others (including me).
By your own earlier standards, you didn't support his inquirey well.
Score Alex. Grow up and take it like a man Chuck.

The only slump I'm in is ducking from the mud slinging some unprofessional people seem to take so much delight in.

Isn't this a little "over the top" for you? I don't see any mud - you were the one to develop the unsustainable argument being poked full of obvious holes.

Where's the rigour in defense when you overreach? If you can't support, why don't you just retreat? Or like Griffin - never when under fire for any reason?

I find it funny. All of it. I find it funny that after vacating this thread for about a month I come back to NSF and the first thing I see is the pot calling the kettle black.


Noone: Your acting like a 4 year old. Your the one who needs to grow up. Nobody has "scored" anything on anyone by arguing or fighting let alone by ridiculous unprofessional mudslinging.


I have been gone for awhile and this crap is the first thing I see when I get back? I expected better of you. Both of you.



Back on topic please.

1. letter is clearly a lobbying attempt.
2. Its pointless because the decision is already made.

[yg1968]

Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html

This group of scientists seems to be lobbying the House to adopt a bill that is closer to the Senate bill.  I don't think that it says anything about the HLV.

Incorrect - they wish to contain the damage of government launch development as it injures the science community. They understand that need to suckle at the teat, just want to contain the damage.

I lately have heard of existing probe instruments in danger of losing funding. Of people doing entire research projects using starvation funded student interns to replace fired scientists "because they have families and thus cost more". And I end up getting such interns asking my help to learn esoterics of specialized fields to support such need. There aren't enough of them.

All to fund gold plated launchers - the worry is worse than Ares I capital utilization.

Thank god for Obama's STEM emphasis - at least it supports (barely) the students doing the work. It's a shame that in America with so much talent, we are killing off one group to keep from killing of another - zero sum mentality.

So please stop these awful disingenuous posts - you injure NASA more than you know (apparently) in the very real neglect implied.

It would seem we will have to, like Iraq, learn certain past lessons yet again. Sigh.

Disingenuous post? My posts barely says anything. If you have read some of my other posts, you will see that I am actually in favour of the FY2011 NASA Budget.The letter is only addressed to the House. Possibly because the House barely funds any of these initiatives. So I am assuming that they are somewhat OK with the Senate bill. But I don't mind being proven wrong.

[FinalFrontier]

Get over it and do something useful.

Thank you I have. Booked tickets for Mordor. Spending a lot of time on the Hill with old friends who know my distaste of the place. Already had an effect.

Thank you and this forum and this thread in particular - has made things clear for several communities of interest. Thanks Chris!

Dont forget to visit Mount Ego while your their

What exactly is your problem? Your the one who is not making sense how can you not see that? Your all fired up over nothing, first of all, and second of all your arguing with plattitudes.

[Commander Keen]

That was the way it looked to me.  Do they have a chance or is it just a hail mary?

Just a hail mary. The WH has already accepted the Senate approach and the indications are that the House will also. It will come down to the conference committee to flesh out the details but what's in the Senate bill is what will guide the discussions.

I think you're totally correct.  Congress and the WH are not going to sqabble over this.  As much as I love to see more landers and more money for them, I think we cannot ignore the fact that we need to focus on what to do with human beings BEO.  HLV is the first step to that end.  I would not mind seeing a Martian sample return but I think we need to ensure that human spaceflight remains the top priority IMO.

[Robotbeat]

I think Alex you successfully scored on Chuck. Chuck, better look at your batting average - you are in a definite slump. Perhaps the toxic effects of drinking the wrong Kool Aid.

I am not going to hold his or your hand to do your own research for you.

He made a reasonable request, like you have of others (including me).
By your own earlier standards, you didn't support his inquirey well.
Score Alex. Grow up and take it like a man Chuck.

The only slump I'm in is ducking from the mud slinging some unprofessional people seem to take so much delight in.

Isn't this a little "over the top" for you? I don't see any mud - you were the one to develop the unsustainable argument being poked full of obvious holes.

Where's the rigour in defense when you overreach? If you can't support, why don't you just retreat? Or like Griffin - never when under fire for any reason?

I find it funny. All of it. I find it funny that after vacating this thread for about a month I come back to NSF and the first thing I see is the pot calling the kettle black.


Noone: Your acting like a 4 year old. Your the one who needs to grow up. No one has "scored" anything on anyone by arguing or fighting let alone by ridiculous unprofessional mudslinging.

Not at all. Alex was being reasonable, and Clongton provided a link to a concept (a rather unrealistic one) that someone had, and while he implied before that pretty much the only thing holding back New Horizons from doing that (as an orbiter and two surface probes) was lack of an HLV. That's a pretty outrageous claim. As Chuck's link mentioned, the very concept depended on aerocapture (Unless you claim the SLS will be capable of throwing ~100 tons on a solar escape trajectory!), which is one of those technologies under the broad technology development initiative in FY2011 whose funding was cut in the Senate bill to fund the HLV... not to mention that it is incredibly precarious to depend on aerocapture on a world that we know very, very little about and whose atmosphere could "freeze to the ground" before the spacecraft even arrived.

I have been gone for awhile and this crap is the first thing I see when I get back? I expected better of you. Both of you.



Back on topic please.

1. letter is clearly a lobbying attempt.
2. Its pointless because the decision is already made.

1)So what? So, a whole bunch of people who ought to have an informed opinion think Congress's versions of FY2011 are a step backwards and are lobbying against it?
2)Really? Do you live in the future?