SLS General Discussion Thread 7

[yg1968]

SLS can only send Orion and some small payloads to NRHO.  SLS will never be able to send a manned lander to the moon.

Boeing wanted to use SLS for its lander. So obviously, SLS could send a lander to the Moon. But with so few SLS missions, why would you?

SLS and Orion are also sending some Gateway modules to NRHO (I-Hab, etc.).

[yg1968]

SLS has unlimited operational flexibility.

SLS only launches once every year or two. That’s the opposite of operational flexibility.  NASA has had to move every independent payload except Orion off SLS in part because of its lack of operational flexibility.

As mentioned above, all of the Gateway modules (other than PPE and Halo) are sent to NRHO by SLS and Orion.

[AC in NC]

I wanted to clarify that the SLS contractors could recruit a fuel company and a desalination company in Florida to fill a glass tank with enough water off the shore of Cape Canaveral to desalinate and use for the noise suppression systems for SLS launches, potentially saving Cape Canaveral from the threat of rising sea levels.

Just stop.  None of this makes any sense, either what you said originally or what you are now changing what you meant to.  Making expensive fuel to replace the current cheap fuel doesn't make sense.  Producing desal sound suppression water which will run into the ocean to prevent sea-level rise doesn't make any sense.

[Jim]

SLS has unlimited operational flexibility.

SLS only launches once every year or two. That’s the opposite of operational flexibility.  NASA has had to move every independent payload except Orion off SLS in part because of its lack of operational flexibility.

As mentioned above, all of the Gateway modules (other than PPE and Halo) are sent to NRHO by SLS and Orion.

Nope.  LSP has been pulled in for some missions.

[yg1968]

SLS has unlimited operational flexibility.

SLS only launches once every year or two. That’s the opposite of operational flexibility.  NASA has had to move every independent payload except Orion off SLS in part because of its lack of operational flexibility.

As mentioned above, all of the Gateway modules (other than PPE and Halo) are sent to NRHO by SLS and Orion.

Nope.  LSP has been pulled in for some missions.

Which ones?

The FY23 Budget request indicated that I-Hab, Esprit and the Airlock would be delivered by SLS and Orion (see the link below). I hope that some of these get off loaded to commercial launches, especially if it means Artemis IV going to the Moon (instead of being a Gateway only mission). Given the frequency of SLS launches, if possible, NASA should avoid having any Gateway only missions in my opinion.

See page 7:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_summary.pdf

[FishInferno]

SLS has unlimited operational flexibility.

SLS only launches once every year or two. That’s the opposite of operational flexibility.  NASA has had to move every independent payload except Orion off SLS in part because of its lack of operational flexibility.

As mentioned above, all of the Gateway modules (other than PPE and Halo) are sent to NRHO by SLS and Orion.

"All the modules are launched by SLS, except for the ones that aren't."

[VSECOTSPE]

As mentioned above, all of the Gateway modules (other than PPE and Halo) are sent to NRHO by SLS and Orion.

Like I wrote, beacuse SLS has such a ridiculously low launch rate, every _independent_ payload that would bump an Orion launch has been removed from its manifest.  The only remaining payloads are those that can co-manifest with an Orion capsule and/or that need an Orion to be towed into place.

None of this is a good thing.  SLS will not have the launch cadence necessary to drive the kind of workforce and process learning curve that leads to safe, reliable operation.  In fact, workforce skill retention will haunt the program throughout its operational life.  It has cost the taxpayer enormously to develop SLS only to find that this HLV does not have the launch cadence necessary to support a deep space human exploration campaign outside of crew transport.  And despite the enormous development cost of SLS, it has cost the taxpayer additionally to purchase launches on commercial vehicles for payloads that SLS cannot accommodate at a launch rate of one every year or two. 

Folks should not apologize for the enormous shortcomings of this launcher.  Other than watching a really big rocket go off, there is no silver lining here.  A couple co-manifested Orion payloads don’t make up for the low flight safety projection, low launch cadence, poor government role, cost in technical workforce, cost in taxpayer dollars, and tortoise-slow schedule that SLS is inflicting on Artemis and the agency.

[yg1968]

Folks should not apologize for the enormous shortcomings of this launcher.  Other than watching a really big rocket go off, there is no silver lining here.  A couple co-manifested Orion payloads don’t make up for the low flight safety projection, low launch cadence, poor government role, cost in technical workforce, cost in taxpayer dollars, and tortoise-slow schedule that SLS is inflicting on Artemis and the agency.

The silver lining is that humanity is going back to the Moon with Artemis III. Artemis I is an uncrewed demo orbiting the Moon that will help us get there.

If someone can convince Congress to add a commercial HLV to the mix in order to have more missions to the Moon, just about everyone (including me) on this forum would support that. Most (including me) would also support replacing SLS and Orion with commercial programs but, from a political point of view, I don't think that is realistic at this time.

Incidentally, if you were going to cancel SLS and Orion, there would be some logic in canceling it after the Gateway assembly is done (after Artemis VI). However, I see no signs of that happening, at least not with this administration. The most realistic option would be for a future administration to say that the launch cadence isn't high enough, so NASA needs to add one commercial crewed lunar mission per year. I am hoping that the Polaris 3 mission will help in that respect. I know that you think that this mission will have no impact but I would like to think that the executive is somewhat responsive to public opinion.

[VSECOTSPE]

The silver lining is that humanity is going back to the Moon with Artemis III.

In the absence of the Cold War rationale that drove Apollo, I don’t think repeating that stunt today is worth the taxpayer dollars or technical workforce.  If the program showed signs of going somewhere in terms of major advances in capability, scientific research, economic frontiers, and/or feed forward to Mars, then it could be worth the cost.  But those aren’t much in evidence, what was there is slipping over the horizon, and the nation has much higher S&T priorities.  Of course, on a discussion board full of space cadets (myself included), I get that most folks will not question a human lunar return critically.  That’s okay.  Just recognize that most decision makers in an administration and elsewhere will not share that uncritical view.

I don't think that is realistic at this time.

Not under Shelby and probably not under Nelson.  If Nelson exits soon enough, there will be a near-term window for change.  Whether this administration or whoever occupies the White House in 2024 is paying attention and cares enough to take action is TBD.  But without change by then, the Artemis program is unlikely to have a long or productive life.

I know that you think that this mission will have no impact but I would like to think that the executive is somewhat responsive to public opinion.

For better or worse, most White Houses govern from emergency to emergency and problem to problem.  Even if most of the public was paying attention (and they’re not), a successful Polaris 3 mission would not pose such an emergency, problem or forcing function.  Even a 60 Minutes expose comparing stunning Starship performance to Orion/SLS won’t be enough in the absence of a budget crunch, higher S&T priority, program review at the outset of a new administration, accident, OMB disgust, or change in NASA leadership direction (e.g. a Bridenstine Mk II minus Shelby).

[yg1968]

The silver lining is that humanity is going back to the Moon with Artemis III.

In the absence of the Cold War rationale that drove Apollo, I don’t think repeating that stunt today is worth the taxpayer dollars or technical workforce.  If the program showed signs of going somewhere in terms of major advances in capability, scientific research, economic frontiers, and/or feed forward to Mars, then it could be worth the cost.  But those aren’t much in evidence, what was there is slipping over the horizon, and the nation has much higher S&T priorities.  Of course, on a discussion board full of space cadets (myself included), I get that most folks will not question a human lunar return critically.  That’s okay.  Just recognize that most decision makers in an administration and elsewhere will not share that uncritical view.

We have had this discussion before but even if it was just a repeat of Apollo, I still think that it would be worth it. Apollo was 50 years ago, it's been a while since humanity has been on the Moon. The main difference is that Artemis is expected to fit within NASA's current budget and is not suppose to end.   

I think that the HLS program and CLPS are worth the expense and are major advances in capability. Lunar Surface Fission Power should also be great. The Artemis Accords are also a move forward in terms of extracting resources and using the Moon. The LTV (delivered by CLPS) and the foundation surface habitat (delivered by HLS) should also be good programs. The pressurized rover (delivered by HLS) is likely to be provided by JAXA. Although, for the surface habitats, I would prefer modules instead of a single habitat integrated in the lander. NASA has said that modules could be part of a phase 2. For this phase 2, I would imagine that a commercial lunar HLV and spacecraft would probably be necessary in order to bring more people to the Moon.

[woods170]

SLS can only send Orion and some small payloads to NRHO.  SLS will never be able to send a manned lander to the moon.

Boeing wanted to use SLS for its lander. So obviously, SLS could send a lander to the Moon. But with so few SLS missions, why would you?

SLS and Orion are also sending some Gateway modules to NRHO (I-Hab, etc.).

Stating that SLS could send a lander to the Moon, simply because Boeing proposed doing so, is rather far-fetched IMO. Said lander did not meet NASA requirements and was thrown out of the HLS competition.

[woods170]

SLS has unlimited operational flexibility.

SLS only launches once every year or two. That’s the opposite of operational flexibility.  NASA has had to move every independent payload except Orion off SLS in part because of its lack of operational flexibility.

As mentioned above, all of the Gateway modules (other than PPE and Halo) are sent to NRHO by SLS and Orion.

Nope.  LSP has been pulled in for some missions.

Which ones?

The FY23 Budget request indicated that I-Hab, Esprit and the Airlock would be delivered by SLS and Orion...

Emphasis mine.

That only tells you what the plan is today.
There was a time that the budget request indicated that Europa Clipper would launch on SLS. We all know how that eventually worked out.

What Jim stated is correct. NASA has begun looking at alternatives for launching (at least) I-Hab and the airlock. LSP has indeed been pulled in to support those efforts. I don't even need to tell you what the prime driver behind this is.

[VSECOTSPE]

I think that the HLS program and CLPS are worth the expense and are major advances in capability.

Both good things, but the vast bulk of Artemis spending is not necessary to give Starship a shot in the arm (if SX even needs that) or for the science side of house to create a new procurement model for unmanned planetary missions to nearby targets.

Similar arguments were made to support Orion/Ares I when I was PE for COTS, i.e. Constellation was worth it for COTS.  But we didn’t need to waste money and time on Orion/Ares I to do COTS.  We just needed to do COTS.

Lunar Surface Fission Power should also be great.

Exists only as three, $5M industry studies.  Not on the manifest (which goes thru 2034).  We’ve been doing nuclear power studies ever since NERVA’a termination.  Saw Griffin kill O’Keefe’s nuke power/propulsion initiatives in the crib to feed Orion/Ares I myself.  Served as PE for Kilopower for about a year when no one else at HQ would step up to such a low priority.  Not to sound snarky, but wake me when someone actually installs fuel in a reactor.

The Artemis Accords are also a move forward in terms of extracting resources and using the Moon.

Don’t need the vast bulk of Artemis spending for this, either.  Nice but theoretical.  NASA won’t be extracting and using any significant lunar resources with the constraints Orion/SLS place on the program.

The LTV (delivered by CLPS) and the foundation surface habitat (delivered by HLS) should also be good programs.

Cadence/content both push this out to 2034, the last year in the manifest.  It’s almost slipped over the planning horizon.

For this phase 2,

Program planning, such as it exists, falls off a cliff after Artemis IV.  Absent major change, I doubt the program survives the decade, nevertheless gets a second phase.  Time is running out given how long it takes to budget, procure, and develop/qualify new capabilities.

There is a YouTube video that gives the top 40 things to indicate that you are a baby boomer.  One of the indicators is if you watch 24 hour news (or 60 minutes).  Holy carp, you need to dump your 60 minutes stuff and fast! It’s so 30 years ago.

I’m not a boomer, and I don’t watch 60 Minutes.  It was just an example of investigative journalism.  Yeesh...

[yg1968]

SLS has unlimited operational flexibility.

SLS only launches once every year or two. That’s the opposite of operational flexibility.  NASA has had to move every independent payload except Orion off SLS in part because of its lack of operational flexibility.

As mentioned above, all of the Gateway modules (other than PPE and Halo) are sent to NRHO by SLS and Orion.

Nope.  LSP has been pulled in for some missions.

Which ones?

The FY23 Budget request indicated that I-Hab, Esprit and the Airlock would be delivered by SLS and Orion...

Emphasis mine.

That only tells you what the plan is today.
There was a time that the budget request indicated that Europa Clipper would launch on SLS. We all know how that eventually worked out.

What Jim stated is correct. NASA has begun looking at alternatives for launching (at least) I-Hab and the airlock. LSP has indeed been pulled in to support those efforts. I don't even need to tell you what the prime driver behind this is.

That is good news. I hope that frees up Artemis IV, so that it can be a surface mission again. Any chances that is part of what is driving this?

[raketa]

This is launch I am not going watch, just because SLS is not direction to future where we are multiplanetary species. But just relict of old times showing, if government  spent tons of money we have technology level to reach orbit.

[yg1968]

SLS can only send Orion and some small payloads to NRHO.  SLS will never be able to send a manned lander to the moon.

Boeing wanted to use SLS for its lander. So obviously, SLS could send a lander to the Moon. But with so few SLS missions, why would you?

SLS and Orion are also sending some Gateway modules to NRHO (I-Hab, etc.).

Stating that SLS could send a lander to the Moon, simply because Boeing proposed doing so, is rather far-fetched IMO. Said lander did not meet NASA requirements and was thrown out of the HLS competition.

Boeing's lander wasn't thrown out because of SLS. But in the end, I doubt that Boeing actually proposed SLS as a LV for its lander because a commercial SLS would have been too expensive. My point was that you could use SLS for a lander if you really wanted to but given the low cadence of SLS and how expensive it would have been to do so, why would you? In other words, the issue wasn't the capability of SLS.

[yg1968]

Lunar Surface Fission Power should also be great.

Exists only as three, $5M industry studies.  Not on the manifest (which goes thru 2034).  We’ve been doing nuclear power studies ever since NERVA’a termination.  Saw Griffin kill O’Keefe’s nuke power/propulsion initiatives in the crib to feed Orion/Ares I myself.  Served as PE for Kilopower for about a year when no one else at HQ would step up to such a low priority.  Not to sound snarky, but wake me when someone actually installs fuel in a reactor.

In the FY23 Budget request, the nuclear surface power unit would be launched by a commercial launcher at the end of 2028. But I understand your skepticism.

See at the bottom of page 7:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_summary.pdf

[woods170]

SLS can only send Orion and some small payloads to NRHO.  SLS will never be able to send a manned lander to the moon.

Boeing wanted to use SLS for its lander. So obviously, SLS could send a lander to the Moon. But with so few SLS missions, why would you?

SLS and Orion are also sending some Gateway modules to NRHO (I-Hab, etc.).

Stating that SLS could send a lander to the Moon, simply because Boeing proposed doing so, is rather far-fetched IMO. Said lander did not meet NASA requirements and was thrown out of the HLS competition.

Boeing's lander wasn't thrown out because of SLS. But in the end, I doubt that Boeing proposed SLS as a LV for its lander because a commercial SLS would have been too expensive. My point was that you could use SLS if you wanted to but given the low cadence of SLS and how expensive it would have been, why would you? In other words, the issue wasn't the capability of SLS.

Emphasis mine.

I did not say that. What I said was that Boeing's HLS proposal was thrown out because it did not meet NASA's HLS requirements.

Technically speaking SLS could send a lander to the Moon, but given the cost of doing so that will never actually happen. Which is exactly the point of Jim's original remark. SLS is simply too expensive to ever enable it flying landers to the Moon, now that the "lander" part of Artemis has become a services contract.
NASA doesn't own the lander, and getting the lander to the Moon is the responsibility of the service provider. Even if a second one is selected next to SpaceX, it is guaranteed that the second provider will not be using SLS either. For the exact same reasons: too expensive, as well as co-manifesting severely limiting the dimensions and mass-budget for the lander.

Why "co-manifesting" you ask?
Simple: the horrible flight rate of one SLS launch every 18 months pretty much precludes a separate launch to pre-stage the lander in NRHO, and it than having to wait 18 months before Orion shows up on the next launch. Not gonna happen for landers that use deep-cryogenic propellants (such as Dynetics' lander, as well as Blue Moon). Having to prevent significant boil-off for a few weeks is one thing (just add margin), having to prevent boil-off for 18 months, is quite another (the margin required will outweigh the entire lander).

In every respect, having the lunar lander launch on SLS is a non-starter.

[yg1968]

This is launch I am not going watch, just because SLS is not direction to future where we are multiplanetary species. But just relict of old times showing, if government spent tons of money we have technology level to reach orbit.

It's hard to be a multiplanetary species, if your species is not even going to the Moon and Mars. I understand people preferring commercial options (and I do also) but Artemis I is still an exciting mission.

[yg1968]

SLS can only send Orion and some small payloads to NRHO.  SLS will never be able to send a manned lander to the moon.

Boeing wanted to use SLS for its lander. So obviously, SLS could send a lander to the Moon. But with so few SLS missions, why would you?

SLS and Orion are also sending some Gateway modules to NRHO (I-Hab, etc.).

Stating that SLS could send a lander to the Moon, simply because Boeing proposed doing so, is rather far-fetched IMO. Said lander did not meet NASA requirements and was thrown out of the HLS competition.

Boeing's lander wasn't thrown out because of SLS. But in the end, I doubt that Boeing proposed SLS as a LV for its lander because a commercial SLS would have been too expensive. My point was that you could use SLS if you wanted to but given the low cadence of SLS and how expensive it would have been, why would you? In other words, the issue wasn't the capability of SLS.

Emphasis mine.

I did not say that. What I said was that Boeing's HLS proposal was thrown out because it did not meet NASA's HLS requirements.

Technically speaking SLS could send a lander to the Moon, but given the cost of doing so that will never actually happen. Which is exactly the point of Jim's original remark. SLS is simply too expensive to ever enable it flying landers to the Moon, now that the "lander" part of Artemis has become a services contract.
NASA doesn't own the lander, and getting the lander to the Moon is the responsibility of the service provider. Even if a second one is selected next to SpaceX, it is guaranteed that the second provider will not be using SLS either. For the exact same reasons: too expensive, as well as co-manifesting severely limiting the dimensions and mass-budget for the lander.

Why "co-manifesting" you ask?
Simple: the horrible flight rate of one SLS launch every 18 months pretty much precludes a separate launch to pre-stage the lander in NRHO, and it than having to wait 18 months before Orion shows up on the next launch. Not gonna happen for landers that use deep-cryogenic propellants (such as Dynetics' lander, as well as Blue Moon). Having to prevent significant boil-off for a few weeks is one thing (just add margin), having to prevent boil-off for 18 months, is quite another (the margin required will outweigh the entire lander).

In every respect, having the lunar lander launch on SLS is a non-starter.

I understood Jim's post as saying that SLS wasn't capable of doing so. If he meant that it just wasn't feasible from a cost and cadence perspective, I fully agree with him. Incidentally, I agree with everything that you said in your post above.