Author Topic: SLS General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 601462 times)

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1160 on: 12/08/2017 03:27 pm »
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated.  Says something about SLS perhaps?

Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. 

Do it.

If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?

EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2017 03:30 pm by tea monster »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1161 on: 12/08/2017 04:12 pm »
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated.  Says something about SLS perhaps?

Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. 

Do it.

If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?

EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.

What that means is that Muillenburg's underlings have been telling the boss that all's well in SLS-land and Mars is right around the corner... any day now... trust me.  And he buy's it.

It is sad that we have had the ability to go to Mars for 50 years and not the stomach to achieve that goal.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1162 on: 12/08/2017 04:25 pm »
There's a thread for the SpaceX/Boeing challenge now.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44385.0

Let's take any generic (non SLS related, such as mods, schedule changes, new equipment for SLS, etc  that might be needed) to that thread. Neither Boeing aircraft nor BFS nor in space assembly of aldrin cyclers or other transport are on topic.

( posted my initial post here because it was clear to me that the CEO meant SLS as the "Boeing rocket")

Thanks!
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline whitelancer64

Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1163 on: 12/08/2017 04:57 pm »
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated.  Says something about SLS perhaps?

Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. 

Do it.

If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?

EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.

Correction: Nobody thought it was important enough to spend some $200 billion (over the course of a decade and a half or more) to go to Mars.

As far as I can tell, nobody thinks that today, either.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline BeamRider

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1164 on: 12/08/2017 06:04 pm »
Less of a gentleman than Elon Musk might have retorted to the Boeing CEO claimed by they would beat him to Mars: “Who are you going to outsource that to, while you’re managing the share price?”

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1165 on: 12/08/2017 07:55 pm »
It is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing,  could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)

But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.

(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)

Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition:
  1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination
  2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF)
  3. First to do so wins in each category named.

Isn't that what Roadster in space is doing?  Next month?
Yes.

Trying to make something as much as "apples to apples" as possible.

Quote
If you say can't use this example because SpaceX got USG $$ -- though clearly not for FH -- then how will Boeing ever qualify? 
Note the launch campaign callout bounds the cost to out of pocket for the launch itself, not vehicle development/other.

That way we wouldn't have to descend into that swamp of selective accounting, name calling, and dubious claims.

A launch campaign is a launch campaign - very much a definable thing.

(Now, if you use a reusable or a expendable in the process, in either case it's an asset use charge in the same. Isn't that clever?)

Quote
Problem with Boeing boss claim is the arrogance of calling SLS a Boeing rocket.  They didn't fund it, they aren't covering its overruns, they didn't win it based on anything but political chumming.  It's the closest thing to their rocket only because there isn't anything they've designed or developed out there that can compete.
Red herring.

This thing will go no where. Boeing will claim likely the upcoming Mars mission as the success, and Musk will claim success with his peculiar payload. Then they will have a combined hissy fit over how the other's doesn't apply, so it is nonsense to take this further.

We're in a non-factual age, including on this board, and it disappoints, as all on the internet lets the nonsense "fake" opinion stuff dominate. Very disappointing that you can't have fair back and forth as an eventual expectation.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1166 on: 12/08/2017 08:36 pm »
...

In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.

Only if SLS still exists in 2030...

Don't forget that OATK is going to be merged into Northrop Grumman next year.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1167 on: 12/08/2017 09:19 pm »
There's a thread for the SpaceX/Boeing challenge now.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44385.0

Let's take any generic (non SLS related, such as mods, schedule changes, new equipment for SLS, etc  that might be needed) to that thread. Neither Boeing aircraft nor BFS nor in space assembly of aldrin cyclers or other transport are on topic.

( posted my initial post here because it was clear to me that the CEO meant SLS as the "Boeing rocket")

Thanks!
This thread seems to be gone... ???
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1168 on: 12/09/2017 03:36 am »
From this tweet here.

Quote
Gerst shows slide of the huge test stands etc that will be used for testing SLS components. "This is the role for govt." Make the "massive investment" in facilities and make available to everyone. SpaceX's BFR and Blue Origin's New Glenn can "leverage off of this."

Private companies have already made significant use of Stennis to test engines among other faciltiies. Perhaps companies who want  to develop large reusuable rockets and spacecraft could benefit from the investment in gigantic testing and production faciltiies made for SLS. First time I've heard anyone from NASA mention anything about making SLS facilities available to everyone.

Boeing developing a large booster using experience gained from SLS and elsewhere is a long shot but I wouldn't completely rule it out. They have dipped their toes in the waters of commercial spaceflight with CST100-Starliner already and plan to sell seats to private astronauts on ISS flights. Future commercial demand or a government program similar to COTS to stimulate this development would be necessary. The first astronauts who step foot on Mars could go on a Boeing rocket, but not necessarily SLS.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2017 03:36 am by Darkseraph »
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1169 on: 12/09/2017 03:32 pm »
First time I've heard anyone from NASA mention anything about making SLS facilities available to everyone.

NASA has been shopping a lot of the facilities for a while: VAB, 39B, test stands, etc. Just about any space company, newspace included, have made use of Stennis, Plum Brook, or other test sites. Unless you mean facilities unique to SLS, which really are only the new dynamic test stands at Marshall that aren't online yet.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1170 on: 12/12/2017 04:29 am »
I believe that the heavy rocket should lift heavy payloads that cheaper launch vehicles cannot. Especially at one launch a year.

President Trump has just signed a Policy Directive ordering NASA to return humans to the Moon. Astronauts are going to need habitats to live in and rovers to drive around. These are big heavy items.

Apollo went to the Moon and back each time on a single launch. I suspect lunar payload masses will be increased by staging at one or more spacestations.

Reusable lunar landers, such as an enhanced Xeus, can be kept at a lunar spacestation in low lunar orbit (LLO). The spacestation's arm could transfer the cargo from the visiting vehicle to the lander. The connected depot can repair and refuel the lander. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a spacestation in low lunar orbit?

Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) space tugs can used to transfer cargo between a low Earth Orbit (LEO) spacestation and a LLO spacestation. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a LEO spacestation in say a 28° orbit?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1171 on: 12/12/2017 12:41 pm »
I believe that the heavy rocket should lift heavy payloads that cheaper launch vehicles cannot. Especially at one launch a year.

President Trump has just signed a Policy Directive ordering NASA to return humans to the Moon. Astronauts are going to need habitats to live in and rovers to drive around. These are big heavy items.

Apollo went to the Moon and back each time on a single launch. I suspect lunar payload masses will be increased by staging at one or more spacestations.

Reusable lunar landers, such as an enhanced Xeus, can be kept at a lunar spacestation in low lunar orbit (LLO). The spacestation's arm could transfer the cargo from the visiting vehicle to the lander. The connected depot can repair and refuel the lander. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a spacestation in low lunar orbit?

Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) space tugs can used to transfer cargo between a low Earth Orbit (LEO) spacestation and a LLO spacestation. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a LEO spacestation in say a 28° orbit?

SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1172 on: 12/12/2017 08:05 pm »
SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.
Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.

 - Ed Kyle

The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.

In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.

The race is on.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1173 on: 12/12/2017 10:24 pm »
SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.
Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.

 - Ed Kyle

The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.

In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.

The race is on.
2022 is just 4 years away and the PPE development and manufacture is not yet on contract. But then again most estimates as to when EM-2 would occur show NET mid 2023 at best and that is without a previous flight of EC to prove out the EUS. So PPE is unlikely to delay the EM-2 flight. Most likely it would be slowed to free up funds to speed up other delayed items needed to get EM-2 launched.

As to B330 and Vulcan/ACES distributed launch in 2022 is an aspirational date as well. A full functional ACES on top of a just became operational Vulcan at best 2 years earlier is not a highly likely event.

So you are correct let the race begin.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1174 on: 12/29/2017 10:10 am »
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1175 on: 12/29/2017 02:23 pm »
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?

Personally I think it is a philosophy difference. The Jupiter (whose time has come and gone btw so let's not go there) was designed to return Americans to space after Shuttle in the quickest way possible, at the least expense, and still obey the Congressional mandate to be Shuttle-derived. SLS was under no such restraints and NASA wanted the biggest heavy lift they could envision and was willing to spend whatever that cost and take as much time as that may take. Beginning with the vehicle we designed that the Congress had signed off on, NASA immediately began the process of morphing, going thru several painful iterations. NASA wanted the Ares-V, finally admitted that it couldn't have it but could get close. The design effort went sideways from there. There is nothing wrong with the SLS. It's a good HLV. But it is, IMO, just too damn big; good for lofting one-of payloads here and there, once every couple of years at enormous costs, but too big and too expensive to be a truly useful launch vehicle. All that is, of course, just my opinion. YMMV.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1176 on: 12/29/2017 02:39 pm »
Yes, the smaller version of Direct would have used the existing 4 seg boosters from the Shuttle fleet.  It would use 3 RS-25's instead of the current 4, and could grow and stretch (later) to 4 or 5 engines, with a J2X upper stage.  The smaller version could have been fielded several years ago, and delivered 70 tons to orbit.  70 tons, with in space assembly could have done a lot, and be launched with current budget about 6 times a year.  Also, without the long delay that we had. 

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1177 on: 12/29/2017 03:46 pm »
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?

To directly answer your question about large core:  there was a push to employ 5 seg SRBs (and 5 seg SRBs require a longer core stage than was used for STS).  One can assume that it was ATK pushing for the 5 seg, but I don't know for sure the drivers and decision-makers that insisted on 5 seg.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1178 on: 12/29/2017 04:30 pm »
SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.
Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.

 - Ed Kyle

The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.

In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.

The race is on.
2022 is just 4 years away and the PPE development and manufacture is not yet on contract. But then again most estimates as to when EM-2 would occur show NET mid 2023 at best and that is without a previous flight of EC to prove out the EUS. So PPE is unlikely to delay the EM-2 flight. Most likely it would be slowed to free up funds to speed up other delayed items needed to get EM-2 launched.

As to B330 and Vulcan/ACES distributed launch in 2022 is an aspirational date as well. A full functional ACES on top of a just became operational Vulcan at best 2 years earlier is not a highly likely event.

So you are correct let the race begin.

Personally, I don't think EM-2 will deploy the PPE. The human rating changes for the ICPS don't have to take place for the current EM-2 because it can seperate right after elliptical earth orbit insertiion. I doesn't have to stick around for the on orbit validation phase of the EM-2 Orion because Orion does the final TLI, limiting possible exposure to micro-meteroid debris from days to hours.

Multiple high ups at NASA are on record supporting a second ML, which means the SLS Block 1 will be able to be used after EM-1 while the second ML is being built. What Bill Hill said recently is telling:

Quote
It would also allow for additional SLS launches between EM-1 and EM-2, provided they use the ICPS, since the first mobile launcher would remain available. “That’s in my mind, the biggest benefit,” Hill said. “We’re not stuck on the ground until we get finished with the modifications. That’s one of the things we’re taking a look at.”
http://spacenews.com/nasa-weighs-new-mobile-launcher-for-sls/

What would SLS launch on Block 1 after EM-1 but before the Block 1B? The obvious answer is EM-2. And we all know that the administration was open to manning EM-1 on the ICPS.


Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1179 on: 12/30/2017 12:53 am »
Personally I think it is a philosophy difference. The Jupiter (whose time has come and gone btw so let's not go there) was designed to return Americans to space after Shuttle in the quickest way possible, at the least expense, and still obey the Congressional mandate to be Shuttle-derived. SLS was under no such restraints and NASA wanted the biggest heavy lift they could envision and was willing to spend whatever that cost and take as much time as that may take. Beginning with the vehicle we designed that the Congress had signed off on, NASA immediately began the process of morphing, going thru several painful iterations. NASA wanted the Ares-V, finally admitted that it couldn't have it but could get close. The design effort went sideways from there. There is nothing wrong with the SLS. It's a good HLV. But it is, IMO, just too damn big; good for lofting one-of payloads here and there, once every couple of years at enormous costs, but too big and too expensive to be a truly useful launch vehicle. All that is, of course, just my opinion. YMMV.

This certainly put a dent in the narrative that SLS was forced on NASA by congress. If what you said is true, then certain elements inside NASA is just as responsible for the current mass as congress, if not more so. I guess this is NASA HSF's biggest problem, they're eternally optimistic about the budget.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0