The SLS's proposed glacial launch scale leads me to wonder if it's time to rethink manned spaceflight and adapt the underlying concepts of the Discovery program.
In contrast, Gemini had ten flights in 20 months. Apollo landed on the moon 6 times in 3 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_DiscoveryThink you need to rename your thread!cheers, Martin
Frequent manned missions and the development of the SLS are incompatible ....
..... The US government wants a super-heavy lift rocket to retain leadership in space exploration .....
.... it has the funds to define an exploration scenario that requires its BFR. Frequent BEO exploration is demonstrably possible without it but it's not going to happen from NASA.
NASA could do it if it wanted to and started from what and not how. It already did it with Discovery. Start with the principles.
SLS's boosters and core stage use space shuttle hardware, and the shuttle flew several times a year. SLS should be able to fly at least that often.
Quote from: CNYMike on 09/18/2011 02:11 pmNASA could do it if it wanted to and started from what and not how. It already did it with Discovery. Start with the principles. No, it couldn't. Discovery principles were low cost, that and SLS missions are mutually exclusive.
Quote from: CNYMike on 09/18/2011 02:11 pmSLS's boosters and core stage use space shuttle hardware, and the shuttle flew several times a year. SLS should be able to fly at least that often.No, it can't, there are no payloads for that flight rate
The SLS's proposed glacial launch scale leads me to wonder if it's time to rethink manned spaceflight and adapt the underlying concepts of the Discovery program.Discovery was designed to recreate the spirit of the 1960's, when space probes were being launched regularly, as opposed to very expensive multui-billion dollar missions launched every few years. GRAIL is the latest example. So far, it seems to have worked.The SLS shows NASA going to that extreme in manned space, building something big that launches so infrequently it's ridiculous. (Hopefully, that can change.) In contrast, Gemini had ten flights in 20 months. Apollo landed on the moon 6 times in 3 years. We should be able to do just as well today, given the Space Shuttle flew 130 times in 30 years, and that technology is used in SLS.A vigorous launch schedule might start with a relatively simple capsule on the most efficient rocket for the job. It could be Falcon Heavy. It could be SLS. It could be Atlas V Heavy. But the point would be frequent missions Beyond Earth Orbit. Putting something at L1 might be a start. The capsule could be Orion, or a beafed up CST-100, dragon, even a reincarnated Gemin. The point is we've become so wrapped up in HOW to do this we've lost sight of WHAT. The principles underlying Discovery give a road map for a vigorous, high-frequency manned program to replace or compliment what is already in the works.
Quote from: Jim on 09/18/2011 02:32 pmQuote from: CNYMike on 09/18/2011 02:11 pmNASA could do it if it wanted to and started from what and not how. It already did it with Discovery. Start with the principles. No, it couldn't. Discovery principles were low cost, that and SLS missions are mutually exclusive.I said SLS was one of the boosters they could use. The goal is flight rate. And lowER costs compared to recent manned programs would be good.
Yes, there's one payload: Orion. With the basic design validated 40 years ago, we don't need to spend another five years "developing" it.
Someone mentioned a Geosynchronous Satellite repair mission. This strikes me as a great opportunity, not only for a manned effort but to be done in partnership with an unmanned effort where the human team on-site could immediately evaluate the positioning, movement, performance, etc of the automated system. Such a partnership could also test out multiple teleoperation modes in direct comparison with how spacewalkers baseline the same repair/modification. It would demonstrate deep space tracking and rendezvous techniques as well.What other missions might fit this profile?