A fairly significant mission for SLS/Orion that couldn't be done with other available launch vehicles. Right now SLS just seems like a slow and expensive path to nowhere.Agree.
I think most of the posters here did not read the OP very carefully. He said "if you think the Orion/SLS is a good idea." Most of the posters seem to believe Orion/SLS is a bad idea, and are describing what it would take to change their minds.
If you think the Orion/SLS is a good idea, what new information would make you change your mind?
Same question for those opposed to Orion/SLS.
I have a hard time supporting SLS due to my taxpaying cost.
One of the SLS critics whom I most highly regard, and who is deeply plugged into Washington space policy and favors commercial space, has rationalized the rocket and Orion like this. While NASA will spend in excess of $3 billion a year for the foreseeable future on “pork” like the rocket and spacecraft, it now also spends $2 billion to $3 billion a year on commercial crew and cargo. That money goes to SpaceX and other companies that push forward more economical means of space transportation. My source views the agency’s payments on SLS and Orion as a “stupidity tax” that allows “good money” to be spent on commercial space.
This is probably OT, but...
At the same time, we're all free to share our knowledge and express our opinions, whatever they may be, in these forums. By and large, we even behave. I like to believe that's because there's a lot of respect here for the folks who get things done in space (some of whom are frequent commenters).
I don't see anything that will change my mind about this program for years to come.
One think that might change my mind is if they replace the solids with reusable kerolox boosters. Have them land back at the cape to refuel and fly again. Also, if they use a shorter reusable kerolox core, and add a second stage. I believe costs would come down with a mostly reusable boosters and core. Payloads would go up at the same time. Existing rocket is an expensive kludge with todays technology.
One think that might change my mind is if they replace the solids with reusable kerolox boosters. Have them land back at the cape to refuel and fly again. Also, if they use a shorter reusable kerolox core, and add a second stage. I believe costs would come down with a mostly reusable boosters and core. Payloads would go up at the same time. Existing rocket is an expensive kludge with todays technology.
So would be the vehicle you describe
One think that might change my mind is if they replace the solids with reusable kerolox boosters. Have them land back at the cape to refuel and fly again. Also, if they use a shorter reusable kerolox core, and add a second stage. I believe costs would come down with a mostly reusable boosters and core. Payloads would go up at the same time. Existing rocket is an expensive kludge with todays technology.
So would be the vehicle you describe
Theoretically, reusable rockets are cheaper if they fly often, but SLS will only fly once or twice a year. A reusable version of SLS would be more expensive to develop than the current design and would never fly enough to justify the cost.
This big issue for me is the achievable flight rate. Right now, even with infinite money, SLS can't be flown more than twice a year, 4 times total before 2027, and with a ~3 year gap between EM-1 and 2. You simply can't do a worthwhile program at that flightrate without major support from other LVs, and at that point why bother with SLS?I don't understand this desire for lots of launches. SLS will be a super-heavy-hauler, each launch flinging a serious load beyond LEO (seven Falcon Heavies-worth). A good program could be designed around this low flight rate which, as I understand things, will likely settle at 1-2 per year. Saturn V only flew once or twice per year, with the exception of 1969. There are active launch vehicle families even today that fly only once or twice per year.
I don't understand this desire for lots of launches. SLS will be a super-heavy-hauler, each launch flinging a serious load beyond LEO (seven Falcon Heavies-worth). A good program could be designed around this low flight rate which, as I understand things, will likely settle at 1-2 per year. Saturn V only flew once or twice per year, with the exception of 1969. There are active launch vehicle families even today that fly only once or twice per year.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43073.msg1690830#msg1690830I don't understand this desire for lots of launches. SLS will be a super-heavy-hauler, each launch flinging a serious load beyond LEO (seven Falcon Heavies-worth). A good program could be designed around this low flight rate which, as I understand things, will likely settle at 1-2 per year. Saturn V only flew once or twice per year, with the exception of 1969. There are active launch vehicle families even today that fly only once or twice per year.
No idea where you got 7 FHs worth.
I don't understand this desire for lots of launches.
This reminds me of a Facebook argument a college buddy and I had over the Ares I and Ares V cancellations. He convinced me that it doesn't matter what vehicle is used, I (like most here) care about the destination.
Going beyond LEO interests me. SLS making that possible interests me. So, no change of mind.
LEO is not the destination. You are projecting an expendable Falcon Heavy here, which means expending 30 core stages.I don't understand this desire for lots of launches.
10 FH launches in a year lift about 540 tons to LEO for at most $1.5bn in price (at the outside) for what I believe Musk said was $1bn in R&D cost.
LEO is not the destination. You are projecting an expendable Falcon Heavy here, which means expending 30 core stages.I don't understand this desire for lots of launches.
10 FH launches in a year lift about 540 tons to LEO for at most $1.5bn in price (at the outside) for what I believe Musk said was $1bn in R&D cost.
It cost $1 billion just to develop Falcon 9 first stage recovery, according to Mr. Musk. I can only image what Falcon Heavy is costing, with its many-year delays and completely re-engineered core stage, etc.
- Ed Kyle
Do you have any source on those numbers? Because SpaceX sure doesn't claim FH's capability to be 70+ tons. http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavyLEO is not the destination. You are projecting an expendable Falcon Heavy here, which means expending 30 core stages.I don't understand this desire for lots of launches.
10 FH launches in a year lift about 540 tons to LEO for at most $1.5bn in price (at the outside) for what I believe Musk said was $1bn in R&D cost.
It cost $1 billion just to develop Falcon 9 first stage recovery, according to Mr. Musk. I can only image what Falcon Heavy is costing, with its many-year delays and completely re-engineered core stage, etc.
- Ed Kyle
No. 10 launches in one year will expend the lifecycle as currently anticipated in none year, but the FH expendable capacity is 70+ tons to LEO. 50 tons or so is a recoverable launch profile.
There is no reason to think the development cost is higher than the 1 billion Musk spoke of, yu can imagine whatever BS you like.
LEO is the destination from which any other system can continue from with no notable penalty.
Do you have any source on those numbers? Because SpaceX sure doesn't claim FH's capability to be 70+ tons. http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavyLEO is not the destination. You are projecting an expendable Falcon Heavy here, which means expending 30 core stages.I don't understand this desire for lots of launches.
10 FH launches in a year lift about 540 tons to LEO for at most $1.5bn in price (at the outside) for what I believe Musk said was $1bn in R&D cost.
It cost $1 billion just to develop Falcon 9 first stage recovery, according to Mr. Musk. I can only image what Falcon Heavy is costing, with its many-year delays and completely re-engineered core stage, etc.
- Ed Kyle
No. 10 launches in one year will expend the lifecycle as currently anticipated in none year, but the FH expendable capacity is 70+ tons to LEO. 50 tons or so is a recoverable launch profile.
There is no reason to think the development cost is higher than the 1 billion Musk spoke of, yu can imagine whatever BS you like.
LEO is the destination from which any other system can continue from with no notable penalty.
SpaceX says the FH capacity to LEO expendable is 140660 pounds. I'm quoting them. That is 70+ tons.http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/weight/pound-to-ton.htm
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
I do not believe this includes all Block5 payload enhancements, so I believe that figure will grow at least a little.
SpaceX says the FH capacity to LEO expendable is 140660 pounds. I'm quoting them. That is 70+ tons.
I do not believe this includes all Block5 payload enhancements, so I believe that figure will grow at least a little.
Agreed on the metric tons standard. Also, I would like to suggest that when talking about SLS we compare the real payload numbers, which are NOT to LEO, as we discussed here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43073.msg1690830#msg1690830SpaceX says the FH capacity to LEO expendable is 140660 pounds. I'm quoting them. That is 70+ tons.This is seriously OT, but I wanted to try to suggest some consistency when talking about capabilities.
==============================================================
Vehicle 1st Flt TransLunar TransMars GTO
==============================================================
Falcon 9 Blk 5 2017? ~3,000 kg? ~2,500 kg? 5,500 kg
Falcon 9 Blk 5-X 2017? ~5,500 kg 4,020 kg 8,300 kg
Falcon Heavy 2018? ~5,500 kg ~4,900 kg 8,000 kg
Falcon Heavy-X 2018? ~20,500 kg 16,800 kg 26,700 kg
SLS Blk 1 2019? 24,500 kg 19,500 kg N/A
Vulcan Centaur 56x 2019? ~8,300 kg ~6,200 kg 10,200 kg
New Glenn 2 Stg 2020? ~7,500 kg? ~3,000 kg? 13,000 kg
NGL-5xx 2021? ~6,000 kg ~4,700 kg 8,500 kg
SLS Blk 1B 2021? 39,000 kg 32,000 kg N/A
Vulcan ACES 56x 2023? 14,000 kg 10,500 kg 17,200 kg
NGL-5xx-XL 2023? ~10,300 kg ~8,200 kg? 14,700 kg
New Glenn 3 Stg 2025? ~25,000 kg? ~20,000 kg? ~30,000 kg?
SLS Blk 2 2028? >45,000 kg >37,600 kg N/A
==============================================================
"X" Denotes Expendable Version
Updated 06-16-17
I don't understand this desire for lots of launches.
10 FH launches in a year lift about 540 tons to LEO for at most $1.5bn in price (at the outside) for what I believe Musk said was $1bn in R&D cost.
SLS has far higher R&D cost and for $1.5bn in a year lifts only 120 tons when available in block 2, which it isn't yet. The R&D and per year and per vehicle cost of SLS is so high there is very little left over for hardware for it to lift.
The "lots of launches" means there can be money for hardware.
I don't understand this desire for lots of launches.
10 FH launches in a year lift about 540 tons to LEO for at most $1.5bn in price (at the outside) for what I believe Musk said was $1bn in R&D cost.
SLS has far higher R&D cost and for $1.5bn in a year lifts only 120 tons when available in block 2, which it isn't yet. The R&D and per year and per vehicle cost of SLS is so high there is very little left over for hardware for it to lift.
The "lots of launches" means there can be money for hardware.
I note you append "not yet" to the description of the SLS but do not do so for the FH, which is also in the category of "not yet" although it is closer to flight. Even Musk semi-expects it to blow up, hopefully far enough away form 39 so as not to damage it. If it does, then "not yet" will be "a while longer".
And yes, payload to LEO is the proper comparison, because most payloads go there, and all can be designed to depart from there to any destination with no relevant* loss in mission capabilities.SLS Block 1B is being designed to boost 32 metric tons (tonnes) trans-Mars. Falcon Heavy Expendable is expected to lift 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. Falcon Heavy "recoverable" (first stage and boosters) would only lift about 4.9 tonnes trans-Mars. These - or similar numbers to points beyond LEO - are the valid comparisons. NASA has talked about starting with a Deep Space Gateway - not a LEO Gateway.
And yes, payload to LEO is the proper comparison, because most payloads go there, and all can be designed to depart from there to any destination with no relevant* loss in mission capabilities.SLS Block 1B is being designed to boost 32 metric tons (tonnes) trans-Mars. Falcon Heavy Expendable is expected to lift 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. These - or similar numbers to points beyond LEO - are the valid comparisons.
The LEO-rendezvous Falcon Heavy alternative that you propose would require a new deep-space stage, a propellant depot setup, lots of LEO parking capability that doesn't exist, etc. - all of which would cost lots of cash. Much of the LEO mass capability of a Falcon Heavy would be lost to "tare weight", propellant boiloff, parking orbit RCS propellant, etc. Only about 60% of the liftoff weight of an HTV, for example, is actual cargo.
- Ed Kyle
" The LEO-rendezvous Falcon ... is actual cargo. " <-- Nothing you have said here is true and relevant, as you presume the use of non-optimal architectures which are easily avoided.What is the "optimal" alternative architecture? How much does the currently non-existing hardware needed to make it work cost to develop, build, and fly?
" The LEO-rendezvous Falcon ... is actual cargo. " <-- Nothing you have said here is true and relevant, as you presume the use of non-optimal architectures which are easily avoided.What is the "optimal" alternative architecture?
How much does the currently non-existing hardware needed to make it work cost to develop, build, and fly?
SpaceX quotes the FH at than $90m up to 8000kg to GTO (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities), suggesting that that is the cutoff point for triple core landings. Given that that is roughly the same as expendable F9, a similar TMI capacity as expendable F9 should be expected - F9 can do 4,020kg to TMI. So why do you think it can do 11.7 long tons?
Dunno, but if the 130+ tons one SLS will lift are instead lifted with FH's, you get up to $750mn saved from the Atlantic to work with.
And the TMI for an FH reusable is about 11.7 long tons to go by past history (I don't know where you are getting 4,900kg from), so you get to keep the rockets. I'm generously (to ULA) calling the per launch FH cost to be $250mn per, where the quoted cost is $90mn.
A deep space tug/stage is required anyway.
SpaceX quotes the FH at than $90m up to 8000kg to GTO (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities), suggesting that that is the cutoff point for triple core landings. Given that that is roughly the same as expendable F9, a similar TMI capacity as expendable F9 should be expected - F9 can do 4,020kg to TMI. So why do you think it can do 11.7 long tons?
Dunno, but if the 130+ tons one SLS will lift are instead lifted with FH's, you get up to $750mn saved from the Atlantic to work with.
And the TMI for an FH reusable is about 11.7 long tons to go by past history (I don't know where you are getting 4,900kg from), so you get to keep the rockets. I'm generously (to ULA) calling the per launch FH cost to be $250mn per, where the quoted cost is $90mn.
A deep space tug/stage is required anyway.
(16,800kg to Mars expendable X 0.7 for reusability X 2.2 for kg to lbs conversion) / 2204 for pounds to long tons =~ 11.7
(16,800kg to Mars expendable X 0.7 for reusability X 2.2 for kg to lbs conversion) / 2204 for pounds to long tons =~ 11.7
From (ugh) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton
British [long] ton is 2240 lbs
US [short] ton is 2000 lbs
Metric (seems to be the primary measure used for rocket capabilities) ton [tonne, MT] is 2204.6 lbs
To convert from kg to mT, just divide by 1k ;)
-e
SpaceX quotes the FH at than $90m up to 8000kg to GTO (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities), suggesting that that is the cutoff point for triple core landings. Given that that is roughly the same as expendable F9, a similar TMI capacity as expendable F9 should be expected - F9 can do 4,020kg to TMI. So why do you think it can do 11.7 long tons?
Dunno, but if the 130+ tons one SLS will lift are instead lifted with FH's, you get up to $750mn saved from the Atlantic to work with.
And the TMI for an FH reusable is about 11.7 long tons to go by past history (I don't know where you are getting 4,900kg from), so you get to keep the rockets. I'm generously (to ULA) calling the per launch FH cost to be $250mn per, where the quoted cost is $90mn.
A deep space tug/stage is required anyway.
That could very well be SLS/Orion. NASA's goal is $1.5 billion per year for one to two SLS/Orion launches. The fully-recoverable Falcon Heavy/Dragon cost for the ten flights we've been discussing would exceed $1.8 billion." The LEO-rendezvous Falcon ... is actual cargo. " <-- Nothing you have said here is true and relevant, as you presume the use of non-optimal architectures which are easily avoided.What is the "optimal" alternative architecture?
The one that gets the job done for the least $.
That could very well be SLS/Orion. NASA's goal is $1.5 billion per year for one to two SLS/Orion launches. The fully-recoverable Falcon Heavy/Dragon cost for the ten flights we've been discussing would exceed $1.8 billion.
- Ed Kyle
Metric (seems to be the primary measure used for rocket capabilities) ton [tonne, t (SI), MT (sic)] is 2204.6 lbs
I am comparing cost of launch vehicle and payload.That could very well be SLS/Orion. NASA's goal is $1.5 billion per year for one to two SLS/Orion launches. The fully-recoverable Falcon Heavy/Dragon cost for the ten flights we've been discussing would exceed $1.8 billion.
- Ed Kyle
How do you get to $180 million per 3 core reusable FH flight? No way that would be more than $100 million with a healthy profit.
Edit: added 3 core reusable
That could very well be SLS/Orion. NASA's goal is $1.5 billion per year for one to two SLS/Orion launches. The fully-recoverable Falcon Heavy/Dragon cost for the ten flights we've been discussing would exceed $1.8 billion." The LEO-rendezvous Falcon ... is actual cargo. " <-- Nothing you have said here is true and relevant, as you presume the use of non-optimal architectures which are easily avoided.What is the "optimal" alternative architecture?
The one that gets the job done for the least $.
- Ed Kyle
I am comparing cost of launch vehicle and payload.That could very well be SLS/Orion. NASA's goal is $1.5 billion per year for one to two SLS/Orion launches. The fully-recoverable Falcon Heavy/Dragon cost for the ten flights we've been discussing would exceed $1.8 billion.
- Ed Kyle
How do you get to $180 million per 3 core reusable FH flight? No way that would be more than $100 million with a healthy profit.
Edit: added 3 core reusable
- Ed Kyle
Yes, as a placeholder. There has to be some type of smart payload on top of each rocket. Something to maneuver the cargo in orbit, etc. Each payload and its integration has a cost.I am comparing cost of launch vehicle and payload.That could very well be SLS/Orion. NASA's goal is $1.5 billion per year for one to two SLS/Orion launches. The fully-recoverable Falcon Heavy/Dragon cost for the ten flights we've been discussing would exceed $1.8 billion.
- Ed Kyle
How do you get to $180 million per 3 core reusable FH flight? No way that would be more than $100 million with a healthy profit.
Edit: added 3 core reusable
- Ed Kyle
You're comparing 1 Orion to 10 Dragons?
That could very well be SLS/Orion. NASA's goal is $1.5 billion per year for one to two SLS/Orion launches. The fully-recoverable Falcon Heavy/Dragon cost for the ten flights we've been discussing would exceed $1.8 billion." The LEO-rendezvous Falcon ... is actual cargo. " <-- Nothing you have said here is true and relevant, as you presume the use of non-optimal architectures which are easily avoided.What is the "optimal" alternative architecture?
The one that gets the job done for the least $.
- Ed Kyle
But three FH flights duplicate one SLS for at most half the cost. 1/4 the cost is plausible.The Falcon Heavy upper stage batteries die after several hours at most and there is no means for recharging them. The stage has no ability to rendezvous or dock with other orbiting objects. There is no auto docking system for the stage. There is no propellant transfer system once docked. You pretend that all of these non-existing capabilities have no cost when, in fact, the cost to develop and test and fly such systems would be quite large. Dragon can fly in space, rendezvous, and dock, making it a good surrogate for such costs.
And no, there has to be something smart enough and with enough fuel or refuel-able on orbit at the top of one rocket. Your presuming otherwise is you presuming sub-optimal architectures.
But three FH flights duplicate one SLS for at most half the cost. 1/4 the cost is plausible.The Falcon Heavy upper stage batteries die after several hours at most and there is no means for recharging them. The stage has no ability to rendezvous or dock with other orbiting objects. There is no auto docking system for the stage. There is no propellant transfer system once docked. You pretend that all of these non-existing capabilities have no cost when, in fact, the cost to develop and test and fly such systems would be quite large. Dragon can fly in space, rendezvous, and dock, making it a good surrogate for such costs.
And no, there has to be something smart enough and with enough fuel or refuel-able on orbit at the top of one rocket. Your presuming otherwise is you presuming sub-optimal architectures.
- Ed Kyle
The closet thing for justification of the expense of an SLS (not Orion though) is the Europa Clipper and Europa Lander because of truncated mission time that SLS offers these programs. Such complex missions and a standing army of experts to support the mission causes a several year decrease in mission time does two things. Decrease the after launch mission expenses to almost in half and increases mission success because time in space for a probe is the biggest threat to success. A tremendous shortened mission time means a tremendous boost in probable mission success. At the moment the DV that SLS can offer these probe missions can not be duplicated by other LVs existing or soon to exist that can be provided by SLS within the timeframe for EC
#1 on my list of what it would take for me to support SLS would be for it to actually be designed for a reasonable flight rate. It is currently working on adding more evidence to the pile that a low flight rate will lead to a horrendously expensive rocket.It has now been the couple of years since I made my previous post in this thread, and evidence against SLS is more than I would have thought. I was going to wait to post this for Musk's Starship update to have as much information as possible, but even without that, there has been enough evidence that SLS should be cancelled for a while now, and the last flight of Starhopper is a good enough milestone on that end.
That said, I wouldn't actually advocate for cancelling it for another couple years, when Vulcan/New Glenn/mini-ITS are far enough along to have more confidence in them actually flying. This is not me supporting SLS, but acknowledging that my expectations about these rockets could be wrong so I can understand why some support SLS for now.
I would also like to see them skip to Block 1B for EM-1. Even with what has already been done, this seems like it would still likely be a cheaper and faster method of getting SLS running, though really it should have been done when they first decided not to do EM-2 on Block 1. As a bonus, the delay would mean it wouldn't fly before we get to the point where I expect the commercial capabilities to be far enough along, which would hopefully make cancellation easier.
By and large, we even behave...
I come down on the side against SLS. Not because I think the rocket is flawed ( I admire it technically), or too expensive ( which it is), but because I see SLS as part of an overall problem that prioritizes symbolism vs. actual accomplishment.
One think that might change my mind is if they replace the solids with reusable kerolox boosters. Have them land back at the cape to refuel and fly again. Also, if they use a shorter reusable kerolox core, and add a second stage. I believe costs would come down with a mostly reusable boosters and core. Payloads would go up at the same time. Existing rocket is an expensive kludge with todays technology.