Author Topic: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?  (Read 33972 times)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #20 on: 03/20/2013 08:28 pm »
The question remains whether this 8.4 m US is going to be placed in near LEO by the core or whether a significant burn by this stage is required to reach parking orbit.

Note that the LEO payload of the Block 1B is quoted as 118 tonnes, more than 20 tonnes higher than Block 1.  So evidently the upper stage is at least capable of burning to orbit if the payload on top is heavy enough to warrant it.

DIRECT's JUS was far too heavy for the core to put it in orbit even with nothing on top.  The result was a larger payload through TLI (in DIRECT's two-launch architecture) than could have been achieved with an in-space stage launched on a J-130.

Yea, ultimately, I think I liked that better.  Three RS-25's on the J-130 core means the core could burn all the way to orbit, maximizing the benefit of the sustainer core with higher performance sustainer engines platform.
By putting four RS-25's on it, the core emptied long before it got to orbit, requiring the JUS to need a good deal of thrust.

I think even a better way to go than Direct 3.0, would have been J-130 only, then a CPS/EDS.  Or rather, use an encapsulated 5m common Centaur (ACES/WBC/etc, perhaps stretched to maximize J-130's lift capacity with the shorter version used for the EELV fleet) from ULA for each J-130 launch and go with a two launch LOR architecture.  Probably not quite as efficient as a larger CPS on one launch and the CSM and lander on the other launch for EOR.  But it would save the need for development of a new 8.4m upper stage and create synergy with EELV's.  And I think that's an advantage.
Also, (if I understand comments by the Direct guys correctly) J-130 didn't need any core strengthing from the ET.  Basically it was just an ET with a new LOX dome and MPS.  The rest was the same.  But the J-246 need core strengthening for the greater mass on top than the ET design could support.
Which means the J-130 could have been developed cheaper and faster, with no need for the thicker J-246 core, or the JUS. 
« Last Edit: 03/20/2013 08:31 pm by Lobo »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #21 on: 03/21/2013 12:50 am »
.
{snip}
Which is why I never understood Ares V/LV27.3, the official SLS Block II PoR, or anything that doesn’t allow the core to put everything above it into LEO in a sustainer stage type LV using RS-25’s.
Interesting.

Core with (3) RS-25's with 130mt payload on top ( no US ).
Boosters to do the extra needed work at launch so the core can take the payload all the way to orbit.

Now if the could have gone that way with LRB's then with throttle engines it could have launched less mass to with low enough g's. Possible the boosters could have launched with less engine on them when the stack was launched with less payload mass.

So with an 8.4m core could they have been able to make boosters that could have done the job and still fit the MLP and VAB?

So for the thread title only.
Block I.
Block IB ( add RL-10 US )
Block IB later with new boosters.

Now that is with the thread title, only if we find that we need the 130mt capacity or greater should we go with the new advanced boosters. The best path to 130mt is only if we needed the capacity.

Edit:
https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/SE/HSV_AIAA/Downloadable%20Items/AIAA-Chilton_18Oct2012_Final2.pdf

page 19.
Quote:
Advanced boosters require significant funding and ~7 years for development (including 30 month study phase)
« Last Edit: 03/21/2013 01:08 am by RocketmanUS »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #22 on: 03/21/2013 05:12 am »
.
{snip}
Which is why I never understood Ares V/LV27.3, the official SLS Block II PoR, or anything that doesn’t allow the core to put everything above it into LEO in a sustainer stage type LV using RS-25’s.
Interesting.

Core with (3) RS-25's with 130mt payload on top ( no US ).
Boosters to do the extra needed work at launch so the core can take the payload all the way to orbit.

Now if the could have gone that way with LRB's then with throttle engines it could have launched less mass to with low enough g's. Possible the boosters could have launched with less engine on them when the stack was launched with less payload mass.

So with an 8.4m core could they have been able to make boosters that could have done the job and still fit the MLP and VAB?

So for the thread title only.
Block I.
Block IB ( add RL-10 US )
Block IB later with new boosters.

Now that is with the thread title, only if we find that we need the 130mt capacity or greater should we go with the new advanced boosters. The best path to 130mt is only if we needed the capacity.

Edit:
https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/SE/HSV_AIAA/Downloadable%20Items/AIAA-Chilton_18Oct2012_Final2.pdf

page 19.
Quote:
Advanced boosters require significant funding and ~7 years for development (including 30 month study phase)

yea, an ET/Jupiter sized core with three RS-25's can put a payload in orbit, or rather, in disposal orbit.

The SLS core is stretched so that it can feed four RS-25's to the same disposale orbit.

If an ET/Jupiter sized core were strengthend to support 130mt on top, and have powerful enough boosters, and had three RS-25's, then it should be able to put 130mt into LEO.  Liquid boosters help in this as they burn for longer and have better ISP than solids. 

Three RS-25's produce as much or more thrust and ISP as the five J2's on the S-II stage, and the S-II stage was pushing towards 130mt to LEO. So after booster separation, they should have enough power to push that much payload further up, and then enough ISP later to get to disposal orbit.

The boosters might need to be throttled as well as the RS-25's if there's any g-loading issues.  But most kerolox boosters no can throttle down to at least 70%.

But yea, that configuration could have worked.  AJAX was something like that.  I can't remember if Downix had 3 or 4 RS-25's on the core, but with 8 Atlas V boosters, I believe he said the core could get 130mt into LEO without needing an upper stage.

Two 5.4m wide kerolox boosters with four RD-180's on them each could probably do about the same or a bit better because of the larger single boosters.  Although thrust would be about the same as the Dynetics boosters, they have better ISP.  So they should be able to do about the same even with the non-stretched core.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #23 on: 03/21/2013 12:23 pm »
There's no question at all that a 130 ton launch vehicle would be more capable than a 70 ton vehicle.

The country, as a family, plans on buying a car and an RV, theoretically to go on a long east coast to west coast vacation.  Dad sez that they're not going to drive down the east coast from DC to Florida, because they went to Disney World forty years ago.   Some of the family members are intent upon getting the biggest RV on the lot; it would require purchasing an F-450 in order to tow it.  There's no money for the RV at all, and they'd have to wait for a decade or morre before the F-450 is actually manufactured and ready to sell.

Some of the younger members of the family think that the family should just purchase an F-150, which will tow a pretty good sized RV itself, and allow a fair amount of money to be left over to spend when they get to the west coast.  The F-150 will be ready to purchase in just a few years, and cost a good bit less.  So would the smaller RV.

The younger members of the family remember how much fun it was going to Disney World the first time, even tho all they had was Chevy station wagon and a pop up camper.  Not only that, but with a new F-150 and a new RV, they could stay in Florida for a while, maybe get jobs picking oranges, and save up the money to pay for the gas to go to the west coast.  They could get two vacations that way.

The older members of the family insist that the younger members just shut up.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #24 on: 03/21/2013 02:50 pm »
There's no question at all that a 130 ton launch vehicle would be more capable than a 70 ton vehicle.

The country, as a family, plans on buying a car and an RV, theoretically to go on a long east coast to west coast vacation.  Dad sez that they're not going to drive down the east coast from DC to Florida, because they went to Disney World forty years ago.   Some of the family members are intent upon getting the biggest RV on the lot; it would require purchasing an F-450 in order to tow it.  There's no money for the RV at all, and they'd have to wait for a decade or morre before the F-450 is actually manufactured and ready to sell.

Some of the younger members of the family think that the family should just purchase an F-150, which will tow a pretty good sized RV itself, and allow a fair amount of money to be left over to spend when they get to the west coast.  The F-150 will be ready to purchase in just a few years, and cost a good bit less.  So would the smaller RV.

The younger members of the family remember how much fun it was going to Disney World the first time, even tho all they had was Chevy station wagon and a pop up camper.  Not only that, but with a new F-150 and a new RV, they could stay in Florida for a while, maybe get jobs picking oranges, and save up the money to pay for the gas to go to the west coast.  They could get two vacations that way.

The older members of the family insist that the younger members just shut up.

What???

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #25 on: 03/21/2013 03:03 pm »
What???

It's an allegory about NASA's previous manned deep space program and our current discussion regarding the same. Every aspect of his allegorical tale has an analogue in the discussions of the path forward re. Manned exploration of deep space.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2013 06:22 pm by TomH »

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #26 on: 03/21/2013 03:20 pm »
I think the Saturn V was somewhat better than the analogous old Chevy and pop-up camper.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #27 on: 03/21/2013 04:20 pm »
What???

It's an allegory about NASA's previous manned deep space program and our current discussion regarding the same. Every aspect of his allegorical tale has an analogue in the discussions of the path forward re. Manned exploration of deep space.
[/quote]

I know, he just went so far with it, that I think it lost it's point and sounded like he was actually trying to figure out how to take his family camping...

heheheh

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #28 on: 03/21/2013 04:29 pm »
fix quotes
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #29 on: 03/21/2013 04:34 pm »
There's no question at all that a 130 ton launch vehicle would be more capable than a 70 ton vehicle.


The story about you taking your family camping aside...  ;-)

I never said they should or needed to make the more capable 130mt vehicle.  Just that you could with an ET sized core I think.  Which was a reply to Rocketman's post. 

REad back farther, and you'll see where I advocate going with just two J-130's, and skipping the JUS development entirely, and going with a common EELV upper stage (stretched) for them for synergy and cost sharing. 
In a perfect world, I'd go one better.  Replace the SRB's entirely with a pair of Atlas V's on each side.  Similar if not better performance, and more cost sharing and synergy with EELV's.  NASA is only responsible for maintaining the J-130 core itself.  Everything else they just buy as needed.

Or, go with one upgraded core, that could mount 4-8 Atlas V boosters, and still have the three RS-25's on the core.  That could put 70-130mt to LEO depending on what was needed. (AJAX) The core would need to be strengthend for the heavier configurations, but really if that was done up front, it wouldn't cost any more to develop and make than a J-130 core. 

Either option would have been much more flexible and cheaper in the long run than CxP or SLS. 

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #30 on: 03/21/2013 04:47 pm »
I think the Saturn V was somewhat better than the analogous old Chevy and pop-up camper.

I would think the Saturn V should have been analogous with a Corvette at the very least, though I think a Ferrari California is the best analogy.  Expensive, beautiful, rare and very high performance, and like the Apollo missions, it even has two modes of transport, top down and top up. 

---

So with an 8.4m core could they have been able to make boosters that could have done the job and still fit the MLP and VAB?

A pair of F-1B boosters some with maximum length & width in dimensions (I believe the figures were 70 meters & 5.5 meters in width) should fit and pretty much have no problem getting the SLS up to 130 mt to LEO.  You'd probably have to do a few modifications to the MLP, but nothing too extraordinary.  I'd be curious if the Air Force might consider those Dynetic boosters for replacing the Delta IV Heavy.  Of course that'd be yet another rocket chasing after the same number of payloads, so that might not pay off.  Anyone know what an F-1B is likely to cost?  I've heard the Russians are selling PWR RD-180 engines at a price of $10,000,000 per, so how would a US-built F-1B compare in price & price per kN? 

So for the thread title only.
Block I.
Block IB ( add RL-10 US )
Block IB later with new boosters.

Now that is with the thread title, only if we find that we need the 130mt capacity or greater should we go with the new advanced boosters. The best path to 130mt is only if we needed the capacity.


Well if the goal is a manned flight to Martian orbit some day, I'd say yes, absolutely we need the new advanced boosters.  If however the goal is flinging people over to an EML-2 space station or down to the lunar surface, I'd say the SLS Bloc IB is up to the task.  If anyone's ever seen the various imagined Mars Transfer Vehicles thought up by NASA, they all have one thing in common: they're enormous.  I believe the last time NASA showed how such a mission might look, it took three Ares V flights just to put the thing into orbit.  But at least an MTV would be reusable, which is more than anyone could say for our Apollo hardware.  The landers for crew and equipment also have to be quite big, given the mission length, Mars having more gravity than the moon, and the need for both propulsion and aero-braking/heat shield elements.  This is why Elon Musk is talking about rockets with a minimum 7 meter core and a capability ranging from 150-200 mt to LEO as being necessary for colonizing Mars. 

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #31 on: 03/21/2013 04:51 pm »
I think the Saturn V was somewhat better than the analogous old Chevy and pop-up camper.

I didn't say it was old.  Was thinking of the 1969 Chevy Impala wagon, which had an "available" 425 hp V-8.  Top o' the line in its class.

I stand by the analogue of the pop up camper and the Apollo lander, even tho the camper did have thicker aluminum...
« Last Edit: 03/21/2013 04:56 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #32 on: 03/21/2013 04:53 pm »
There's no question at all that a 130 ton launch vehicle would be more capable than a 70 ton vehicle.


The story about you taking your family camping aside...  ;-)

I never said they should or needed to make the more capable 130mt vehicle.  Just that you could with an ET sized core I think.  Which was a reply to Rocketman's post.  ...

Never said you said anything.  I did read your reply up there, and generally agree.

« Last Edit: 03/21/2013 04:53 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #33 on: 03/21/2013 06:20 pm »
.
{snip}
Which is why I never understood Ares V/LV27.3, the official SLS Block II PoR, or anything that doesn’t allow the core to put everything above it into LEO in a sustainer stage type LV using RS-25’s.
Interesting.

Core with (3) RS-25's with 130mt payload on top ( no US ).
Boosters to do the extra needed work at launch so the core can take the payload all the way to orbit.

Now if the could have gone that way with LRB's then with throttle engines it could have launched less mass to with low enough g's. Possible the boosters could have launched with less engine on them when the stack was launched with less payload mass.

So with an 8.4m core could they have been able to make boosters that could have done the job and still fit the MLP and VAB?

So for the thread title only.
Block I.
Block IB ( add RL-10 US )
Block IB later with new boosters.

Now that is with the thread title, only if we find that we need the 130mt capacity or greater should we go with the new advanced boosters. The best path to 130mt is only if we needed the capacity.

Edit:
https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/SE/HSV_AIAA/Downloadable%20Items/AIAA-Chilton_18Oct2012_Final2.pdf

page 19.
Quote:
Advanced boosters require significant funding and ~7 years for development (including 30 month study phase)

yea, an ET/Jupiter sized core with three RS-25's can put a payload in orbit, or rather, in disposal orbit.

The SLS core is stretched so that it can feed four RS-25's to the same disposale orbit.

If an ET/Jupiter sized core were strengthend to support 130mt on top, and have powerful enough boosters, and had three RS-25's, then it should be able to put 130mt into LEO.  Liquid boosters help in this as they burn for longer and have better ISP than solids. 

Three RS-25's produce as much or more thrust and ISP as the five J2's on the S-II stage, and the S-II stage was pushing towards 130mt to LEO. So after booster separation, they should have enough power to push that much payload further up, and then enough ISP later to get to disposal orbit.

The boosters might need to be throttled as well as the RS-25's if there's any g-loading issues.  But most kerolox boosters no can throttle down to at least 70%.

But yea, that configuration could have worked.  AJAX was something like that.  I can't remember if Downix had 3 or 4 RS-25's on the core, but with 8 Atlas V boosters, I believe he said the core could get 130mt into LEO without needing an upper stage.

Two 5.4m wide kerolox boosters with four RD-180's on them each could probably do about the same or a bit better because of the larger single boosters.  Although thrust would be about the same as the Dynetics boosters, they have better ISP.  So they should be able to do about the same even with the non-stretched core.
If they did go with core to LEO with LRB's at 130mt+-
Use the RD-180's for the LRB's.
The LRB's could be a 1st stage with the avionics in the 2nd stage.
1st stage tanks and engine mount made with specs that America, ESA, and Russia all have the ability to make. Make it a universal 1st stage that could be made in America, ESA, and or Russia. The RD-180's could be made in Russia as is or could expand to America if there is a larger demand for them.

America, Russia , and ESA could make their own US for the single stick version. Could possible lower cost for all three partners.

If it could be sized right then the core could lift 130mt+ to a given LEO orbit.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #34 on: 03/21/2013 09:42 pm »
If they did go with core to LEO with LRB's at 130mt+-
Use the RD-180's for the LRB's.
The LRB's could be a 1st stage with the avionics in the 2nd stage.
1st stage tanks and engine mount made with specs that America, ESA, and Russia all have the ability to make. Make it a universal 1st stage that could be made in America, ESA, and or Russia. The RD-180's could be made in Russia as is or could expand to America if there is a larger demand for them.

America, Russia , and ESA could make their own US for the single stick version. Could possible lower cost for all three partners.

If it could be sized right then the core could lift 130mt+ to a given LEO orbit.

Well, there’s a pretty good chance that the SLS core will keep just four RS-25’s on it, which means it can always make disposal orbit. 

An LRB for SLS using RD-180 engines would need at least 3 of them, and probably four.  Four is close to the Dynetics booster in terms of thrust, but the higher ISP would probably mean more performance than the Dynetics booster.  I don’t know if boosters with three RD-180’s could get 130mt to LEO without a 2nd stage burn.  Maybe…someone with more knowledge than me could probably answer that.  But I’m assuming four RD-180’s per booster to be safe.  That’s basically the equivalent of AJAX will all 8 boosters (but a better mass fraction with two big boosters rather than 8 smaller ones)  That should be a booster with about the same liftoff thrust and same size as the Dynetics booster. 

You could take that booster and short-fill it, and put just two engines on it, and have essentially an Atlas Phase 2 for smaller payloads.  (I’m assuming you can short fill a kerolox booster?)
(You could strap three of them together, put the Block 1B upper stage on top, and basically retire the SLS core and RS-25 engines.  :-)  )

I doubt the Russians or ESA would use it as a “universal boosters” though.  A Nationalistic thing.  Countries don’t want to depend on other countries or orginizations for their national security needs. 
And it’s probably too big of a booster for most international commercial customers who only need something like Atlas V, Falcon 9, Soyuz, Proton, or Araine 5 (dual payloads, not many need the full Araine 5 by themselves).

I think better than all of that…put a modified FH on each booster mount for SLS.  Other than a modified central FH core allowing it to interface with the SLS booster mounts, and probably to handle some lateral loads of that, the FH booster will be a –production- booster of the power range that should get the core to LEO with around 130mt load on top.  It will have about 3.8M lbs of thrust, similar to that of the Dynetics booster.  Actually a little better even than the Dynetics 3.6M lbs thrust.  The entire 3-core booster will behave as a single booster, with the outboard boosters only being attached to the central core, as with a normal FH.  And the entire 3-core booster will be jettisoned as one.  No crossfeed obviously as it would serve no purpose.  Now the SLS booster is based on existing cores and engines that are in production.  Only a new modified central FH core needs to be developed.  It’s all US made, and when used as boosters, the higher performance staged combustion RD-180’s aren’t really much of an advantage over the GG M1d’s or F-1B’s. 
That seems like a far easier development than either a new Dynetics booster, or even a composite ATK SRB, with synergy and cost sharing that the Dynetics booster and ATK SRB won’t have. 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #35 on: 03/21/2013 09:53 pm »

Well if the goal is a manned flight to Martian orbit some day, I'd say yes, absolutely we need the new advanced boosters.  If however the goal is flinging people over to an EML-2 space station or down to the lunar surface, I'd say the SLS Bloc IB is up to the task.  If anyone's ever seen the various imagined Mars Transfer Vehicles thought up by NASA, they all have one thing in common: they're enormous.  I believe the last time NASA showed how such a mission might look, it took three Ares V flights just to put the thing into orbit.  But at least an MTV would be reusable, which is more than anyone could say for our Apollo hardware.  The landers for crew and equipment also have to be quite big, given the mission length, Mars having more gravity than the moon, and the need for both propulsion and aero-braking/heat shield elements.  This is why Elon Musk is talking about rockets with a minimum 7 meter core and a capability ranging from 150-200 mt to LEO as being necessary for colonizing Mars. 


Boeing’s SEP MTV concept looks like it could launch from a single Block 1B SLS.  So I don’t know that advanced boosters are needed.  I’m really warming up to the concept of that SEP MTV.  Although, something along the lines of Mars Direct, or Mars Semi-Direct could work pretty good too I think, and could all be done with a Block 1B SLS (3 launches ever other year for a sustained plan for Mars Semi-Direct)

Either of those concepts I’d prefer to NASA big DRM 5.0 concepts with NTR’s and lots of LH2.  Mars Direct/Semi-Direct launch directly for Mars, with no in-orbit construction.  Boeing’s SEP concept uses a reusable MTV which needs much less and much easier to handle argon fuel.  There’s a Gateway station to aid in refurb and reuse of the MTV. 

As far as “colonizing” Mars…if you are trying to do that, then you might be launching a larger rocket at a high enough rate to justify bigger rockets.

That said, after 10 flights of 5-seg boosters, -something- needs done.  Going to ATK composite boosters might be cheaper than restarting 5-seg production of casings.  ATK seems to be trying to imply that they will have cost savings vs. the 5-seg boosters.   They should have enough extra capacity to get 130mt to LEO as well. 

Offline su_liam

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #36 on: 03/21/2013 10:02 pm »
There's no question at all that a 130 ton launch vehicle would be more capable than a 70 ton vehicle.

The country, as a family, plans on buying a car and an RV, theoretically to go on a long east coast to west coast vacation.  Dad sez that they're not going to drive down the east coast from DC to Florida, because they went to Disney World forty years ago.   Some of the family members are intent upon getting the biggest RV on the lot; it would require purchasing an F-450 in order to tow it.  There's no money for the RV at all, and they'd have to wait for a decade or morre before the F-450 is actually manufactured and ready to sell.

Some of the younger members of the family think that the family should just purchase an F-150, which will tow a pretty good sized RV itself, and allow a fair amount of money to be left over to spend when they get to the west coast.  The F-150 will be ready to purchase in just a few years, and cost a good bit less.  So would the smaller RV.

The younger members of the family remember how much fun it was going to Disney World the first time, even tho all they had was Chevy station wagon and a pop up camper.  Not only that, but with a new F-150 and a new RV, they could stay in Florida for a while, maybe get jobs picking oranges, and save up the money to pay for the gas to go to the west coast.  They could get two vacations that way.

The older members of the family insist that the younger members just shut up.

Nice.

Let's go to the Moon, get a job picking oranges, then buy enough gas to drive over to Mars. Sounds like a good plan!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #37 on: 03/22/2013 01:46 pm »
Nice.

Let's go to the Moon, get a job picking oranges, then buy enough gas to drive over to Mars. Sounds like a good plan!

They've discovered oranges on the Moon?  I had not heard that.  Link please?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #38 on: 03/22/2013 05:20 pm »
Does that MTV give anyone else a stiffy?

no? hmmmmm

Honestly, humans assembling a massive vehicle in earth orbit to go to Mars and land is amazing to think about.

I'm 31... I hope I get to see it.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2013 05:21 pm by newpylong »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What is the best path to a 130 ton (Block II) SLS?
« Reply #39 on: 03/22/2013 06:22 pm »
Does that MTV give anyone else ...

Careful there, pardner.

Mars needs women.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1