What should NASA actually do with SLS?

[aquanaut99]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but here is another possible use that would require a HLV (at least SLS-type, note the original paper was talking about Ares V):

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/03/215924/nasa-plans-armageddon-spacecraft-to-blast-asteroid.html

For info: each B83 (the most powerful still active US nuclear warhead, 1.2 megatons) weighs about 1100 kg. The more powerful the launcher, the more fuel  and ammunition the "missile" can carry and the faster interception can take place.

[HappyMartian]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but here is another possible use that would require a HLV (at least SLS-type, note the original paper was talking about Ares V):

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/03/215924/nasa-plans-armageddon-spacecraft-to-blast-asteroid.html

For info: each B83 (the most powerful still active US nuclear warhead, 1.2 megatons) weighs about 1100 kg. The more powerful the launcher, the more fuel  and ammunition the "missile" can carry and the faster interception can take place.

Yes, the article by Rob Coppinger that you referenced, "NASA plans 'Armageddon' spacecraft to blast asteroid" would be an interesting and possibly important use of the SLS. The article is related to the presentation, "Near Earth Object (NEO) Mitigation Options Using Exploration Technologies" by Robert B. Adams at the Asteroid Deflection Research Workshop, Arlington, VA on Oct 23-24, 2008, and may be found at: 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090008675_2009007047.pdf

If possible, it would preferable to do an onsite human examination of the NEO prior to attempting to redirect its flight path with nuclear weapons or kinetic impactors. However, 'You do what you need to do, and you do it when you need to do it.' Exploration of an incoming NEO might not be a viable option...

ASAP exploration of a wide variety of NEO's by both robots and humans is an excellent use of the SLS. In the process of doing NEO exploration and developing our planetary defense system, we will also gain the capabilities we need to go to Mars, Ceres, small main belt asteroids, and everywhere on the Moon. Lunar ice resources may prove to be the primary source of propellant for planetary defence efforts. 

A serious NEO exploration effort would also help us gain more confidence in our ability to predict the characteristics of many NEOs soley on the basis of information gained from various types of telescopes. That would give at least some measure of predictability as to the likely consequences of any attempt to deflect a NEO that had only been observed by telescopes. For small NEOs we may not have much warning time, so a very quick and partially informed decision making process on the deflection attempt might be the only option. Gaining an in-depth understanding of NEOs would helpful.

Cheers!

[aquanaut99]

Yes, the article by Rob Coppinger that you referenced, "NASA plans 'Armageddon' spacecraft to blast asteroid" would be an interesting and possibly important use of the SLS. The article is related to the presentation, "Near Earth Object (NEO) Mitigation Options Using Exploration Technologies" by Robert B. Adams at the Asteroid Deflection Research Workshop, Arlington, VA on Oct 23-24, 2008, and may be found at: 

Thanks! My point is that having an SLS ready would put us in a better position if we had to intercept a threatening rock on short notice than if we only have EELV-class launchers available. Depending on the situation, we might not have the time for a complicated multiple-launch/orbital-refueling approach...

[HappyMartian]

Yes, the article by Rob Coppinger that you referenced, "NASA plans 'Armageddon' spacecraft to blast asteroid" would be an interesting and possibly important use of the SLS. The article is related to the presentation, "Near Earth Object (NEO) Mitigation Options Using Exploration Technologies" by Robert B. Adams at the Asteroid Deflection Research Workshop, Arlington, VA on Oct 23-24, 2008, and may be found at: 

Thanks! My point is that having an SLS ready would put us in a better position if we had to intercept a threatening rock on short notice than if we only have EELV-class launchers available. Depending on the situation, we might not have the time for a complicated multiple-launch/orbital-refueling approach...

Good gracious! Please! No disparaging comments about the limitations of the EELV-class launchers. Jim and half of the posters on this website will criticize you severely! The Atlas V and Delta IV really are pretty amazing and wonderful and expensive. The Falcon 9 just might turn out to be a great deal for a lot of folks. If we really want to defend the planet, we should use every possible launcher on the planet to intercept and deflect a threatening rock. When something is a life or death situation, you give it all you've got.

But you are right. EELV-class launchers have their limits. And a limited effective interception time might be the essence of the situation. And now the Internet sky will come crashing down on both of us. Duck! Incoming!

Cheers! 

[FinalFrontier]

Yesterday, Lori Garver and Robert Lightfoot answered some questions but raised others.

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Lori Garver reportedly said that reconciliation of the House bill and the Senate bill was not an Administration responsibility. Are we worried about this?

Also, while Robert Lightfoot notably said "We don't need to study it anymore" he also said that it hasn't been decided what this new heavy lift rocket would actually do, once built.

Okay, what do we think NASA should do with this heavy lift capability, once deployed?

Both of the people you mentioned are Obama's people. They will tow the line until the very end. They are always going to say "we don't know what it will do" or "its not decided yet" or "its not administration responsibility" ect. to try and discredit it.

As to what it should do?: Put our tax dollars to use exploring things other than LEO for the first time in too many years.

[Jim]

Thanks! My point is that having an SLS ready would put us in a better position if we had to intercept a threatening rock on short notice than if we only have EELV-class launchers available. Depending on the situation, we might not have the time for a complicated multiple-launch/orbital-refueling approach...

Who says refueling has to be used.  There are many other concepts.  EELV could fly directly to the object.

[Namechange User]

EELV could fly directly to the object.

So we don't even know where the object is, what it's mass is, what the threat level is, what we would do about it, etc but you are prepared to declare that EELV can fly directly to it?

[HappyMartian]

EELV could fly directly to the object.

So we don't even know where the object is, what it's mass is, what the threat level is, what we would do about it, etc but you are prepared to declare that EELV can fly directly to it?

The Atlas V and Delta IV and Falcon 9 are great at what they can do.

However aquanaut was referencing a pretty heavy payload to intercept a NEO:

I don't know if this has been posted before, but here is another possible use that would require a HLV (at least SLS-type, note the original paper was talking about Ares V):

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/03/215924/nasa-plans-armageddon-spacecraft-to-blast-asteroid.html

For info: each B83 (the most powerful still active US nuclear warhead, 1.2 megatons) weighs about 1100 kg. The more powerful the launcher, the more fuel  and ammunition the "missile" can carry and the faster interception can take place.

The spacecraft in the article he made reference to, "NASA plans 'Armageddon' spacecraft to blast asteroid" would need the heavy lift capability of the SLS.

Eventually space based interceptors might not require the SLS lift capability, but for the next ten to forty years, the Earth based SLS lofted interceptor will most likely be a needed option.

That is not to say that a lightweight interceptor spacecraft on a Delta IV wouldn't work for a small NEO if getting to it doesn't require too much delta-v or a series of large chemical or nuclear explosive devices to deflect it. However a high delta-v mission and/or a NEO that requires a series of explosions would most likely require the capabilities of an SLS or similar launcher.

Even with the SLS, future growth options for both the Atlas and the Delta would allow for some healthy redundancy in launchers for a heavy type of interceptor on a high delta-v NEO mission. A back-up plan and also a back-up plan for your back-up plan would be smart if you are trying to develop the capability to save folks, and perhaps even our modern civilization, from a NEO.

Planetary defense is a serious business. We need to develop workable options and various kinds of reliable interceptor spacecraft.


See: NASA Hosts Workshop To Discuss Exploring Near Earth Objects
At:   http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22413.0


"Near Earth Object (NEO) Mitigation Options Using Exploration Technologies" by Robert B. Adams at the Asteroid Deflection Research Workshop, Arlington, VA on Oct 23-24, 2008
At:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090008675_2009007047.pdf


Cheers!

Edited.

[Jim]

So we don't even know where the object is, what it's mass is, what the threat level is, what we would do about it, etc but you are prepared to declare that EELV can fly directly to it?

Yes and more of them

[Jim]

However aquanaut was referencing a pretty heavy payload to intercept a NEO:

Who says it has to be heavy

[Namechange User]

So we don't even know where the object is, what it's mass is, what the threat level is, what we would do about it, etc but you are prepared to declare that EELV can fly directly to it?

Yes and more of them

Not sure what that statement even means. 

If it means an EELV can launch an unknown payload of unknown requirements directly to an asteroid of unknown constituents to some unknown desitnation in a single launch, well I'm going to call you on that.

Maybe it could but given all the unknowns you cannot make such a declarative statement. 

[mmeijeri]

My point is that having an SLS ready would put us in a better position if we had to intercept a threatening rock on short notice than if we only have EELV-class launchers available. Depending on the situation, we might not have the time for a complicated multiple-launch/orbital-refueling approach...

Quite the contrary. With refueling you could have the spacecraft loitering at a Lagrange point, capable of departing for its destination at short notice, fully fueled if necessary. Much easier than arranging for a launch at short notice.

[aquanaut99]

However aquanaut was referencing a pretty heavy payload to intercept a NEO:

Who says it has to be heavy

The referenced article. 6 bombs plus the platform, coming in at over 11 mT. All launched on a direct-interception, which probably means launching directly into a high-energy solar escape trajectory (only hope if we don't have much time). That requires a lot of power, or multiple launches and several on orbit refueling before launch, all under serious time constraints. We're talking a bad scenario here where we have little time.

Please, at least read the referenced article before you launch your attacks. If you don't agree with it, fine, but just stating "who says so" when you have the answer just above makes you look silly, I'm sorry to say.

[Namechange User]

My point is that having an SLS ready would put us in a better position if we had to intercept a threatening rock on short notice than if we only have EELV-class launchers available. Depending on the situation, we might not have the time for a complicated multiple-launch/orbital-refueling approach...

Quite the contrary. With refueling you could have the spacecraft loitering at a Lagrange point, capable of departing for its destination at short notice, fully fueled if necessary. Much easier than arranging for a launch at short notice.

Well, not exactly.  You are forgetting or ignoring some very key points.  I mentioned some of those above but they all center around requirements (how is the mission going to make the asteroid no longer a danger), which in turn directly play into time to effect (the doomsday clock), asteroid constituents, etc. 

[aquanaut99]

My point is that having an SLS ready would put us in a better position if we had to intercept a threatening rock on short notice than if we only have EELV-class launchers available. Depending on the situation, we might not have the time for a complicated multiple-launch/orbital-refueling approach...

Quite the contrary. With refueling you could have the spacecraft loitering at a Lagrange point, capable of departing for its destination at short notice, fully fueled if necessary. Much easier than arranging for a launch at short notice.

One major problem with this... The Outer Space Treaty, which prohibts the stationing of nuclear weapons in space. That makes your proposal a political no-go.

Unless we want to repeal the OST (with all the potential bad ramifications that would have), an anti-asteroid nuke such as described would have to be launched directly from Earth.

I know there are alternate proposals not requiring nukes, but my point was about the NASA plan using B83 bombs.

[Namechange User]

a nuclear weapon may not even work. 

[mmeijeri]

Well, not exactly.  You are forgetting or ignoring some very key points.  I mentioned some of those above but they all center around requirements (how is the mission going to make the asteroid no longer a danger), which in turn directly play into time to effect (the doomsday clock), asteroid constituents, etc. 

Roughly speaking anything an SDLV can throw at a NEO without refueling/docking/assembly an EELV can throw at a NEO with it. The remaining issues center around the spacecraft and apply equally to SDLV or EELV.

[JohnFornaro]

Tell me more about your idea here. Is it for artificial gravity and beyond lunar use?

First you could start with:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16543.msg388330#msg388330

Then, in no particular order:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17652.msg431126#msg431126

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17823.msg446485#msg446485

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22574.msg632870#msg632870

Which DIRECT starts building:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22618.msg632876#msg632876

The best part?  Jim is 100% in favor of an approach along these lines!  Believe that?

...SpaceX, which appears to have become shorthand for Commercial Space for some reason...

They appear to me to be somewhat ahead of the newer players in this field.  The older players, ULA and Boeing, are commonly seen as "non-commercial", I guess, because they have been so imtimately connected with NASA for so long.

Other than this clarification of my view on that, I generally agree with the idea of an L1 spacelab, to which I would add:  slash hotel.  The tourist is the game changing technology that everyone is looking for.

This is a really tired arguement....

It is only tired if it is taken out of context, expanded and projected beyond what it should be, and used as a derogatory means of establishing priorities.  Personally, I'm very angry at that gentleman and his cohorts, because, even tho they may not have ordered us to stay in LEO for forty years, what we have done, from a functional viewpoint, is, well, stay in LEO for forty years.  For a pleasant change, it would be nice for accomplishment to trump profit.

In another thread, I am suggesting that we have a workforce who could build four probes at a time.  But this would require retraining, relocation, reallocation of funds, rethinking mission possiblities, and Lord knows what other non status quo obscenities which the various "gentlepeople" just seem to object to the very idea of talking about such things.

I don't know which is worse, NASA's culture of "Not Invented Here", or "We've Never Done That Before";  but this culture is supported by the political status quo.

I believe that we do have the money:  $20B a year.  What we don't have is sufficient accountability;  I noticed that the Senate language was getting pretty precise with what that body wanted to see accomplished and that there was some discomfort expressed by status quo seekers.

Besides accountability, there's another thing that we don't have, and that is proper prioritization.

[mmeijeri]

One major problem with this... The Outer Space Treaty, which prohibts the stationing of nuclear weapons in space. That makes your proposal a political no-go.

If necessary you could launch the nuke only when needed. The nuke will fit on an EELV. This negates many of the advantages of prepositioning, but is no harder with an EELV than with an SDLV. Note that all of this is moot since there aren't going to be asteroid deflectors for the foreseeable future.

[Namechange User]

Well, not exactly.  You are forgetting or ignoring some very key points.  I mentioned some of those above but they all center around requirements (how is the mission going to make the asteroid no longer a danger), which in turn directly play into time to effect (the doomsday clock), asteroid constituents, etc. 

Roughly speaking anything an SDLV can throw at a NEO without refueling/docking/assembly an EELV can throw at a NEO with it. The remaining issues center around the spacecraft and apply equally to SDLV or EELV.

I didn't mention refueling one way or the other or even say that such a hypothetical mission could be only launched on a SDLV or even EELV.  I simply stated the obvious about "knowing your enemy" and specifying requirements and other basic steps before leaping to build something that may not even work.

You are the one who is artifically stating a mission can be pre-staged, and surprise, saying how depots can support that.