Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2011 05:00 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 10/05/2011 03:59 pmQuote from: Mr. Justice on 10/05/2011 03:53 pmThis is just a great disappointment. There are no missions of any substance in the planning: flying by and waving at the Moon is not a real mission. It is 51 years after the Apollo 8 mission proving that we cannot match that mission's abilities. It's been noted more times than I can remember that the mission planning is in work, via Mr Shannon It shows where the real priorities are when the actual mission planning (and hardware, etc) is practically an afterthought compared to the launch vehicle.Where were your mission plans (and hardware, etc) for anything without SLS? They had years.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 10/05/2011 03:59 pmQuote from: Mr. Justice on 10/05/2011 03:53 pmThis is just a great disappointment. There are no missions of any substance in the planning: flying by and waving at the Moon is not a real mission. It is 51 years after the Apollo 8 mission proving that we cannot match that mission's abilities. It's been noted more times than I can remember that the mission planning is in work, via Mr Shannon It shows where the real priorities are when the actual mission planning (and hardware, etc) is practically an afterthought compared to the launch vehicle.
Quote from: Mr. Justice on 10/05/2011 03:53 pmThis is just a great disappointment. There are no missions of any substance in the planning: flying by and waving at the Moon is not a real mission. It is 51 years after the Apollo 8 mission proving that we cannot match that mission's abilities. It's been noted more times than I can remember that the mission planning is in work, via Mr Shannon
This is just a great disappointment. There are no missions of any substance in the planning: flying by and waving at the Moon is not a real mission. It is 51 years after the Apollo 8 mission proving that we cannot match that mission's abilities.
Good question, Chile. We did ask Mr Shannon for an interview (main angle reflecting on Shuttle), but he refused........well PAO said he did, which is probably more to do with them than anything.
Quote from: Mr. Justice on 10/05/2011 04:29 pmIt is an eternal wait.It hasn't even been a month. Give him some time.
It is an eternal wait.
Quote from: Jason1701 on 10/05/2011 04:43 amQuotethe automatic need for the core to be “stretched” – based on the five segment boosters on the configurationDidn't DIRECT have some configurations that were Heavy (meaning 5-seg) but not Stretched? Yes, and the SRB would have attached at the second-segment from the top rather than the first, IIRC, as Shuttle had proposed had it gone to 5-segs. Chris, by use of the word "need" above, do your sources suggest that this config by DIRECT & SSP was judged technically infeasible?
Quotethe automatic need for the core to be “stretched” – based on the five segment boosters on the configurationDidn't DIRECT have some configurations that were Heavy (meaning 5-seg) but not Stretched?
the automatic need for the core to be “stretched” – based on the five segment boosters on the configuration
Quote from: alexw on 10/05/2011 05:14 amQuote from: Jason1701 on 10/05/2011 04:43 amQuotethe automatic need for the core to be “stretched” – based on the five segment boosters on the configurationDidn't DIRECT have some configurations that were Heavy (meaning 5-seg) but not Stretched? Yes, and the SRB would have attached at the second-segment from the top rather than the first, IIRC, as Shuttle had proposed had it gone to 5-segs. Chris, by use of the word "need" above, do your sources suggest that this config by DIRECT & SSP was judged technically infeasible? Can any DIRECT people clarify this?
Quote from: Jason1701 on 10/05/2011 11:24 pmQuote from: alexw on 10/05/2011 05:14 amQuote from: Jason1701 on 10/05/2011 04:43 amQuotethe automatic need for the core to be “stretched” – based on the five segment boosters on the configurationDidn't DIRECT have some configurations that were Heavy (meaning 5-seg) but not Stretched? Yes, and the SRB would have attached at the second-segment from the top rather than the first, IIRC, as Shuttle had proposed had it gone to 5-segs. Chris, by use of the word "need" above, do your sources suggest that this config by DIRECT & SSP was judged technically infeasible? Can any DIRECT people clarify this?I don't believe it has anything to do with technical feasibility. Ultimately what we are seeing is the influence of ATK having a cascading affect. DIRECT ultimately arrived at a 4 engine max config meaning standard ET volumes were adequate, meaning a stretch was not necessary and neither was 5 seg. DIRECT was always optimized for cost, starting from the 5/5 baseline you have already canceled out this optimization. The tail is wagging the dog and that is never a good position to be trading from IMHO.
Even with the 5-segment, the core stretch is not necessary. You can either lift from the bottom, or you can make the attachment point above the LOX dome at the top of the core. Either option allows you to have a much lighter core structure.
Quote from: Downix on 10/06/2011 12:23 amEven with the 5-segment, the core stretch is not necessary. You can either lift from the bottom, or you can make the attachment point above the LOX dome at the top of the core. Either option allows you to have a much lighter core structure.You're sure the thrust oscillations from the solids can be transferred down into (and thus dampened by) the mass of the LOX? Is there some obvious structural mechanics proof of this?
You're sure the thrust oscillations from the solids can be transferred down into (and thus dampened by) the mass of the LOX? Is there some obvious structural mechanics proof of this?
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/05/2011 05:06 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2011 05:00 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 10/05/2011 03:59 pmQuote from: Mr. Justice on 10/05/2011 03:53 pmThis is just a great disappointment. There are no missions of any substance in the planning: flying by and waving at the Moon is not a real mission. It is 51 years after the Apollo 8 mission proving that we cannot match that mission's abilities. It's been noted more times than I can remember that the mission planning is in work, via Mr Shannon It shows where the real priorities are when the actual mission planning (and hardware, etc) is practically an afterthought compared to the launch vehicle.Where were your mission plans (and hardware, etc) for anything without SLS? They had years. Your question is off-topic, but one example:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/Another:http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/project/neo/pdf/neo_crewed_mission.pdf
Designating the launch vehicle requirements (for a new launch vehicle) before having the mission scope/policy/plan/blah done is bass-ackwards. That I pointed that out is not off-topic; your asking for mission plans for anything without SLS was off-topic."Hey guys, I'm going to go order curtains from the store, then I'll measure my windows!"EDIT:I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm glad we're finally measuring the windows, even if we ordered the curtains already.
QuoteDesignating the launch vehicle requirements (for a new launch vehicle) before having the mission scope/policy/plan/blah done is bass-ackwards. That I pointed that out is not off-topic; your asking for mission plans for anything without SLS was off-topic."Hey guys, I'm going to go order curtains from the store, then I'll measure my windows!"EDIT:I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm glad we're finally measuring the windows, even if we ordered the curtains already.The SLS had no specific mission really until ISS and it flew for 30 years. Are not all missions designed around the launch vehicles and not the other way around (Apollo era aside)?
You mean STS...
Quote from: Mark S on 10/05/2011 12:56 pmHow does a separate CPS fit in the PL 111-267? It is nowhere to be found, and the SLS therein requires "an integrated upper Earth departure stage", not a dedicated second stage and a dedicated in-space stage. Especially when the funds for CPS are to be taken from the SLS budget, and when CPS is being set up as a completely separate project from SLS. Sounds like illegal diversion of funds to me.I think that this is a case where "Practicable" rears its head. Given that J-2X is ETO-optimised it may not be possible to abide by that clause of the Act. As matters go, I don't think that this is a serious issue and it actually makes SLS more flexible as you optimise the upper stage for IMLEO performance and have an BLEO-optimised propulsion module if needed.Just a thought: Delete the SLS upper stage, attach the CPS directly to the four-engine core and this should be sufficient for orbital missions to LLO or the EML points. This isn't a capability that is currently required but so little of SLS utilisation is set in stone right now that it might emerge eventually.
How does a separate CPS fit in the PL 111-267? It is nowhere to be found, and the SLS therein requires "an integrated upper Earth departure stage", not a dedicated second stage and a dedicated in-space stage. Especially when the funds for CPS are to be taken from the SLS budget, and when CPS is being set up as a completely separate project from SLS. Sounds like illegal diversion of funds to me.
The first escalations occur....soon my pretties, soon we will have ARES V again...
With this approximate timeline and the blocks, is it safe to assume that NASA is planning to use the SLS for around 30 years or longer??