Quote from: TomH on 10/02/2015 03:39 pmQuote from: Mark S on 09/30/2015 08:59 pmI'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.So now that we know that NASA will never build another ML or have more than one launch pad. How long will it take NASA to launch all of the SLS needed for one complete current Mars DRM mission, given one ML, one pad, and one VAB high bay. Have they gotten the number of launches below 10 yet?Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!Thanks.
Quote from: Mark S on 09/30/2015 08:59 pmI'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.
Mars 2039:Build up for the first human Mars mission would commence in 2033 with the launch of an SLS mission to deliver the TEI stage to Cis-lunar space.This would be followed in 2034 by the launch of the first two Mars Surface Landers on two separate SLS missions.The year 2035 would then see two more SLS missions, with the launches of the third and fourth Mars Surface Landers.This would be followed in 2036 with the launch of the fifth and final Mars Surface Lander.With the launch of the fifth lander, all pre-deployment payloads for the first human Mars mission will have been launched.The year 2036 would then see the launch of the EOI stage before the 2037 launches of the MOI and TMI stages on two separate SLS launches.In 2038, a crewed mission of Orion and SLS would bring a check out crew on a restock mission to the Mars Transit Habitat — which would have returned to Cis-lunar space in late 2035 from the human Phobos mission.If those checkouts and restocks are successful, the first crew for Mars would then launch in 2039 to the Mars Transit Habitat before departing Cis-lunar space for Mars.Assuming a nominal mission, a single SLS flight would be needed in 2042 to launch an Orion capsule to retrieve the first Mars crew and their cargo following their return to Cis-lunar space.For the first human mission to Mars, SLS’s launch campaign will see it deliver 630.7t of mass to Cis-lunar space.
Quote from: TomH on 10/02/2015 03:39 pmQuote from: Mark S on 09/30/2015 08:59 pmI'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.
Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!
Quote from: Mark S on 10/02/2015 05:47 pmQuote from: TomH on 10/02/2015 03:39 pmQuote from: Mark S on 09/30/2015 08:59 pmI'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?Quote from: Mark S on 10/02/2015 05:47 pmRemember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!No we're not. We're sending pork to particular states and districts that used to build STS parts. No money at all is allocated to do anything on Mars. And likely never will be.
one thing no one mentions is the $4 Billion ISS budget. [...] Once that program is done, the entire NASA HSF budget of $9 Billion would be enough to support a Phobos/Mars program with international support imo.
two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS. [...] I predict SLS will be cancelled by the mid 2020's
Quote from: spacenut on 10/02/2015 08:54 pmtwo Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS. [...] I predict SLS will be cancelled by the mid 2020's Yes, that might happen. By then we'll know so much more about SpaceX and Bigelow and what they can accomplish! Perhaps they will be able to work with ESA and JAXA on an international LEO station. It might be fun to discuss that on another thread.The question that's relevant here is whether NASA could leverage its ISS experience with ESA and JAXA in a fairly straight-forward way to create an International Skylab, launched on SLS. I think they could!
Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.
Quote from: Jim on 09/28/2015 07:55 pmQuote from: spacenut on 09/28/2015 07:38 pm1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6. 2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms. 1. Not true. Space/volume does not determine capability. The tooling does. Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users2. See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted. Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?~Jon
Quote from: spacenut on 09/28/2015 07:38 pm1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6. 2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms. 1. Not true. Space/volume does not determine capability. The tooling does. Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users2. See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted. Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6. 2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms.
Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?
Quote from: jongoff on 10/01/2015 11:04 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/28/2015 07:55 pmQuote from: spacenut on 09/28/2015 07:38 pm1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6. 2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms. 1. Not true. Space/volume does not determine capability. The tooling does. Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users2. See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted. Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?~JonSomewhere on L2 there was nice overview of the VAB facility and the maximum number of SRB segments allowed in there. I thought it was 10 segments total.
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.
SLS could be used for a cis-lunar station. Perhaps a gateway station at EML-2.
ESA, JAXA, and Russia could work with China on the Chinese space station. Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.
As to possible commercial stations, NASA did a study (referenced in this NSF article) that said a notional Bigelow BA-2100 could fly on a Falcon Heavy.
As I understand it, there is/was some doubt as to whether the mass will end up low enough.
\Which then brings us back to the Mars mission proposals mentioned in the recent article, as Khadgars kindly pointed out. One proposal has two SLS launches of equipment to Mars in 2034, 2035, and 2036. (Five landers and the EOI stage.) I'm no orbital expert, but I thought that Mars missions were normally spaced out every two years due to the relationship between Earth's and Mars' orbits. Is it possible to launch large payloads to Mars in the "off" years?
When FH comes on line, two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS.
I keep hearing that. But one thing no one mentions is the $4 Billion ISS budget.Once that program is done, the entire NASA HSF budget of $9 Billion would be enough to support a Phobos/Mars program with international support imo.
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station. SLS could be used for a cis-lunar station. Perhaps a gateway station at EML-2.ESA, JAXA, and Russia could work with China on the Chinese space station. Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.