Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/21/2020 03:01 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmQuote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? 1776? 1492? 2001? Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.Really? What role does Congress play in all this? You're saying that the President cannot propose a date?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmQuote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? 1776? 1492? 2001? Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.
Quote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? 1776? 1492? 2001? Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.
If you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...
I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, and (in a well structured way) bet that it will be ready for a crewed lunar mission before SLS will be... I never get any takers on my offers to bet, no idea why....
I'm seeing a whole lot of "should" and "believe". Now, I am by no means the sole authority on the subject, but I know some things that may be of use for grounding this conversation. Some of my observations, in no particular order:The reference design I am most familiar with had a descent element over the 15 t limit, and the transfer element was right at the edge. Both designs were working with some relatively low TRL inclusions. The amount of hydrogen boiled off over the 100+ day mission is low enough to justify using a passive system and accepting some boiloff, rather than using an active system (cryocoolers) to try and get ZBO.The 15 t limit is the "updated" number. The internal estimate was higher.Even before accounting for the 15 t launch vehicle restriction, the performance of this HLS design was not particularly reassuring, with landed payload mass far less than some of the AE sizing I saw in Appendix H solicitation. I would have to go back and look more carefully to see why that is. I also don't know enough about AE design closure to say how much of a problem that would be. I am not aware of any analysis on stack height and how that relates to the crew. That could pose a risk if the lander needs to be squatter and fatter. Switching to storables would require accelerating development of a pump-fed engine. Most of the research dollars have gone to cryogenic systems. Methane and Liquid Hydrogen have very different implications for thermal design. A hydrogen design may end up with design closure issues that the methane design does not have. It is not as bianry as cryogenic vs storable. Regardless of how many pieces there are and how they fit together, the elements are going to have a reasonably large structural component that is not tanks and feed systems. Making comparisons to launch vehicle stages is likely going to end in disappointment. Things that produce power also produce heat. That heat has to go somewhere and generally the propellant is not where you want to put it. Exceptions exist. Total mass is, IMHO, not as relevant as the mass of the DE element, which is really what is going to drive most of the architecture decisions. If you want my opinion, designs are going have severe difficulty closing under the 15 t limit without an extra "something" even with some of the low TRL bells and whistles baked in. The Appendix H reference documentations have several examples of what that extra something can be. It is my intuition that the larger launch vehicle is probably going to be substantially easier than some of the other "somethings". Note that larger launch vehicle doesn't necessarily mean SLS, but SLS is one option.
Prediction: Technical Political realities will result in selection of SLS-launched HLSFixed that for you. The technically "right" lander is a one stage lander. It's being built in Boca Chica as we speak.
Do we know New Glenn's payload to TLI, actually? I'd imagine, considering the rocket's size and its use of an LH2 upper stage, that it would be able to throw more mass to lunar orbit than non-expendable FH. That might be enough for the National Team to stick with the 3-element design with little difficulty. Of course I already believed they were the least likely to switch out of all the bidders, considering the specifics of their partnership.
Quote from: Lar on 02/20/2020 06:30 pmI'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, and (in a well structured way) bet that it will be ready for a crewed lunar mission before SLS will be... I never get any takers on my offers to bet, no idea why....Well, you've got one now.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 04:47 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 02/21/2020 03:01 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmQuote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? 1776? 1492? 2001? Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.Really? What role does Congress play in all this? You're saying that the President cannot propose a date?Without congressional support, the president proposing a date has considerbly less weight than Elon Musk proposing a date. It's federal Separation of Powers at work.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 04:47 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 02/21/2020 03:01 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmQuote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? ... 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.... You're saying that the President cannot propose a date?... So sure, a President can propose any date they want ....
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/21/2020 03:01 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmQuote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? ... 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.... You're saying that the President cannot propose a date?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmQuote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? ... 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.
Quote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? ... 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.
If you want my opinion, designs are going have severe difficulty closing under the 15 t limit without an extra "something" even with some of the low TRL bells and whistles baked in. The Appendix H reference documentations have several examples of what that extra something can be. It is my intuition that the larger launch vehicle is probably going to be substantially easier than some of the other "somethings". Note that larger launch vehicle doesn't necessarily mean SLS, but SLS is one option.
Quote from: rakaydos on 02/22/2020 03:11 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 04:47 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 02/21/2020 03:01 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmQuote from: meberbs on 02/19/2020 07:22 pmIf you didn't want this to be political, you shouldn't have based your argument on a political 2024 date...Is there some magical date that is NOT political? 1776? 1492? 2001? Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.Really? What role does Congress play in all this? You're saying that the President cannot propose a date?Without congressional support, the president proposing a date has considerbly less weight than Elon Musk proposing a date. It's federal Separation of Powers at work.It's not a matter of weight. It's a matter of date. 2024, first woman on the Moon. All the pieces are well underway, but they lack integration and coordination, and most importantly, the will to achieve the proposed landing date, 2024.Look at this thread. Who is arguing to return humanity to the Moon in 2024? A tiny mainority. It appears that most of NASA's rank and file, like NASA's leadership, simply do not want there to be a lunar landing by 2024. Prove me wrong.
Quote from: FiniteBurn on 02/21/2020 03:58 pmIf you want my opinion, designs are going have severe difficulty closing under the 15 t limit without an extra "something" even with some of the low TRL bells and whistles baked in. The Appendix H reference documentations have several examples of what that extra something can be. It is my intuition that the larger launch vehicle is probably going to be substantially easier than some of the other "somethings". Note that larger launch vehicle doesn't necessarily mean SLS, but SLS is one option.As much as I love trying to unravel a good mystery, there look to be a few dozen attachments in the Appendix H bid solicitation. Any hints as to which ones to look at?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/23/2020 01:39 pmQuote from: rakaydos on 02/22/2020 03:11 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 02/21/2020 03:01 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmIs there some magical date that is NOT political? ... Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.Without congressional support, the president proposing a date has considerbly less weight than Elon Musk proposing a date. ...It's not a matter of weight. It's a matter of date. ... All the pieces are well underway, but they lack ... the will to achieve the proposed landing date, 2024.... Who is arguing to return humanity to the Moon in 2024? Let me introduce you to the Golden Rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Quote from: rakaydos on 02/22/2020 03:11 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 02/21/2020 03:01 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmIs there some magical date that is NOT political? ... Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.Without congressional support, the president proposing a date has considerbly less weight than Elon Musk proposing a date. ...It's not a matter of weight. It's a matter of date. ... All the pieces are well underway, but they lack ... the will to achieve the proposed landing date, 2024.... Who is arguing to return humanity to the Moon in 2024?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/21/2020 03:01 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmIs there some magical date that is NOT political? ... Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.Without congressional support, the president proposing a date has considerbly less weight than Elon Musk proposing a date. ...
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2020 02:12 pmIs there some magical date that is NOT political? ... Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.Not if Congress doesn't fund it.
Is there some magical date that is NOT political? ... Short answer: No. But 2024 is the date we have to work with at the moment.
We are in a capitalist society. If noone's getting paid to do something, it wont happen.
No. Capitalism does not explain, in a short, non-exhaustive list, the failure of Constellation, the gratuitous change of the OML for Orion, the slow process of SLS, the continuing delays of JWST, yada yada. People are getting paid plenty; they end up wasting the money they are given.
In my view, Congress would be more generous with the purse strings if they thought NASA would accomplish the goal that the President has stated. As it stands, NASA's budget is rising, but on this site and elsewhere, that budgetary increase is mocked.
The Appendix H solicitation included a number of reference documents under Attachment A. One of them is the Analyses of Alternatives. I believe it has been posted and discussed on this forum before.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/24/2020 01:20 pmNo. Capitalism does not explain, in a short, non-exhaustive list, ... yada yada. People are getting paid plenty; they end up wasting the money they are given. Nothing to do with the 2020 date, and the president's lack of ability to back it up with money.
No. Capitalism does not explain, in a short, non-exhaustive list, ... yada yada. People are getting paid plenty; they end up wasting the money they are given.
In my view, Congress would be more generous with the purse strings if they thought NASA would accomplish the goal that the President has stated. ...
Why would you believe that? Congress has no problem throwing NASA money, but not for 2020 [2024?] moon missions. They throw NASA money because it's welfare that they can pretend isn't welfare, and those "good paying jobs" might vanish if we ever actually accomplished anything.
Quote from: rakaydosWhy would you believe that? Congress has no problem throwing NASA money, but not for 2020 [2024?] moon missions. They throw NASA money because it's welfare that they can pretend isn't welfare, and those "good paying jobs" might vanish if we ever actually accomplished anything.Well, yeah. I have this old fashioned idea that success is rewarded, failure not.
Well, yeah. I have this old fashioned idea that success is rewarded, failure not.