Other than riding on SLS Block II with other hardware, these are the possibilities that I can see (all man rated with emergency detection):
1) Atlas V Heavy
2) Delta IV Heavy
3) If LRB wins advanced competition, make it vectorable, use as first stage, add US.
4) If SRB wins advanced competition, build Ares I-Super as described above.
5) Atlas V Phase II
6) Do not phase out Block I or IA; keep it for this purpose after Block II comes on line and use Block II only for cargo, especially if Block IA goes with LRB.
Firstly, how would you rank these six LVs (and the Orion atop Block II stack) against each other as far as risk to vehicle and crew?
Secondly, what other issues do you see for each one in design, R/D, operational cost, politics, etc.?
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.
As would a 1.5 launch architecture.
Dual SLS might not necessarily need two pads, but it would definitely need two launch platforms which also would require more money.
Given the money situation, and the ICPS thing, Delta 4 Heavy seems the likeliest alternative, but I'm doubting any such plans will come to fruition. SLS is a big bad rocket - why not simply use it to launch everything at once together? It has the same number of separation events as Delta 4 Heavy, etc.
- Ed Kyle
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.
Delta IV Heavy --- Zero. I would ride the very next one.
Atlas V Heavy \
+--- Two. They're each variants of a well qualified base vehicle.
Atlas V Ph. 2 /
LRB-derived \
+--- Ten. I would be trusting the abort system even then.
Falcon Heavy /
SRB-derived --- Twenty, plus two successful ascent aborts tests.
I think one way to look at human rating is by asking, "How many more non-crewed flights would you require to succeed before you would ride the rocket yourself?" {snip}
Well, D4H seems like the likely choice. My concerns with it, is it has no plans (going forward) to man rate it, where AV does. Seems overly expensive to have two man rated LV's (3 including Falcon). If D4 was the better LV to man-rate, why didn't they go that route with CST-100 and Dreamchaser? Heck, CST-100 and D4 are both Boeing even. Seems like it would have been better if D4 was the better LV for HSF, then you'd have D4H already flying.
AVH has never flown as a tri-core, but obviously AV has a stellar flight record. AV is already getting the things done to man rate. So AVH by extension, would be man-rated too.
I hadn't thought about man-rating the upper stage. That is a good point about the 5m DCSS being man-rated for the first two SLS flights.
But obviously Centaur will be man rated for commercial crew for CST-100 and DReamchaser.
So I supposed the question is, will it be cheaper to develop and fly AVH once AV is man-rated? Or will it be cheaper to develop man-rated D4/D4H?
I guess I assumed it would be cheaper to develop and fly AVH after AV was man rated. But that might not be the case....
Damn you, Mike Griffin. Why didn't you chose this option? Oh, I know, too sensible...
Damn you, Mike Griffin. Why didn't you chose this option? Oh, I know, too sensible...
Mr. Griffin was tasked with landing astronauts on the surface of the Moon, and keeping them there, while creating a future Mars landing capability.
The current program will spend billions, though fewer than Constellations billions, so that astronauts can see the Moon slide by their windows before they loop back home.
Different missions entirely.
- Ed Kyle
Cheaper and faster to develop and fly AVH even before AV is man-rated. Note, ULA is already doing the work to allow DCSS to be used on the Atlas V per their development roadmap, opening up more options there.
Well, D4H seems like the likely choice. My concerns with it, is it has no plans (going forward) to man rate it, where AV does. Seems overly expensive to have two man rated LV's (3 including Falcon). If D4 was the better LV to man-rate, why didn't they go that route with CST-100 and Dreamchaser? Heck, CST-100 and D4 are both Boeing even. Seems like it would have been better if D4 was the better LV for HSF, then you'd have D4H already flying.
AVH has never flown as a tri-core, but obviously AV has a stellar flight record. AV is already getting the things done to man rate. So AVH by extension, would be man-rated too.
I hadn't thought about man-rating the upper stage. That is a good point about the 5m DCSS being man-rated for the first two SLS flights.
But obviously Centaur will be man rated for commercial crew for CST-100 and DReamchaser.
So I supposed the question is, will it be cheaper to develop and fly AVH once AV is man-rated? Or will it be cheaper to develop man-rated D4/D4H?
I guess I assumed it would be cheaper to develop and fly AVH after AV was man rated. But that might not be the case....
In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn. As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.
That depends on what role you are using Orion for. Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law. The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn. As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.
Downix, though I love your AJAX, the AV552 doesn't do this job unless the SV gets refueled. Orion is not intended to stay in LEO. As the OP, the question I posited is about getting Orion not just to LEO, but to EOR prior to deep space departure. The whole concept is to use a differing LV to get Orion by itself safely to rendezvous, after which the entire assembly can depart for deep space. The SM needs to be fully fueled prior to departure. If you want to refuel @ EOR, that's a possibility. If not, AV552 doesn't meet the mass to orbit requirements.
Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.That depends on what role you are using Orion for. Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law. The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn. As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.
Downix, though I love your AJAX, the AV552 doesn't do this job unless the SV gets refueled. Orion is not intended to stay in LEO. As the OP, the question I posited is about getting Orion not just to LEO, but to EOR prior to deep space departure. The whole concept is to use a differing LV to get Orion by itself safely to rendezvous, after which the entire assembly can depart for deep space. The SM needs to be fully fueled prior to departure. If you want to refuel @ EOR, that's a possibility. If not, AV552 doesn't meet the mass to orbit requirements.
Mr. Griffin was tasked with landing astronauts on the surface of the Moon, and keeping them there, while creating a future Mars landing capability.
That depends on what role you are using Orion for. Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law. The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.
Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher. From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system. The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already. The human-rating is already happening to Atlas. It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless, while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).That depends on what role you are using Orion for. Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law. The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.
Understand and agree with both. OTOH, how practical would it be to set in place a man rated LV that can get the lighter version S/M Orion to LEO, but not the standard version? Would it not be more pragmatic to have an LV that could accomplish both?
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher. From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.....The human-rating is already happening to Atlas. It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless,...
The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already....while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).
You got it, although the 552 can carry the full Orion, but with reduced capability due to the use of the SM engine for final orbital burn. (good way to do a full test however) You can also carry the full Orion, without a crew (hence no LAS) without use of the SM for orbital burn. Handy for a reboost/crew rescue mission to the ISS.The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher. From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.....The human-rating is already happening to Atlas. It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless,...
Already knew this part.The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already....while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).
Being a teacher (Bio., Chem., Physics, and now elem.) who's passionate about space, but not a rocket scientist, I understand a good deal of the info. in these threads, but not the highly specialized engineering. If I am following you correctly, once the single core Atlas V is man rated, it is not that much more difficult to rate the CCB Heavy. With AV already being man rated for commercial crew, the 552 could carry the lighter Orion to LEO/EOR, and then it would not be too much more difficult to man rate the Heavy for the heavier Orion. It would be necessary to qualify a configuration of AV that has never been built. I am guessing that the pad situation may be more of an issue than qualifying the Heavy for manned flight. Am I following correctly and drawing the right conclusions?
Assuming Orion always went to EOR on something else, how much would be saved if SLS were cargo only and never had to be man rated?About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.
The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch. Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.
Imagine the sunshine and rainbows* if commercial crew was on the critical path for deep space exploration.The smaller commercial crew capsules (i.e. CST-100 and Dragon) would actually be a better fit in some architectures merely because they're smaller/less-massive than Orion.
* and moonbeams too I guess..
We are better off leaving SLS as is. Once it is flying then we could possible us another launcher available at that time to launch Orion for EOR.About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.
And I assume developing and certifying AV552 and AVH would be a lot less.The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch. Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.
I still wish AJAX could be built. Absent that, how do you feel about a new crusade to make the current program into (or similar to) a 1.5 architecture? (SLS cargo only; Orion different LV)
Correct. The less we change, the less delays will happen. I keep my AJAX stuff close now so as to not rock the boat. I may not like SLS as is, but I don't find it a critical failure waiting to happen either. And if there is an issue, AJAX is still waiting.We are better off leaving SLS as is. Once it is flying then we could possible us another launcher available at that time to launch Orion for EOR.About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.
And I assume developing and certifying AV552 and AVH would be a lot less.The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch. Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.
I still wish AJAX could be built. Absent that, how do you feel about a new crusade to make the current program into (or similar to) a 1.5 architecture? (SLS cargo only; Orion different LV)
I understand the rationale. Still, $2-3B for EDS/human rating is an astounding amount to spend when there is a way not only to save the money, but to do things better. :'(
You got it, although the 552 can carry the full Orion, but with reduced capability due to the use of the SM engine for final orbital burn. (good way to do a full test however) You can also carry the full Orion, without a crew (hence no LAS) without use of the SM for orbital burn. Handy for a reboost/crew rescue mission to the ISS.The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher. From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.....The human-rating is already happening to Atlas. It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless,...
Already knew this part.The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already....while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).
Being a teacher (Bio., Chem., Physics, and now elem.) who's passionate about space, but not a rocket scientist, I understand a good deal of the info. in these threads, but not the highly specialized engineering. If I am following you correctly, once the single core Atlas V is man rated, it is not that much more difficult to rate the CCB Heavy. With AV already being man rated for commercial crew, the 552 could carry the lighter Orion to LEO/EOR, and then it would not be too much more difficult to man rate the Heavy for the heavier Orion. It would be necessary to qualify a configuration of AV that has never been built. I am guessing that the pad situation may be more of an issue than qualifying the Heavy for manned flight. Am I following correctly and drawing the right conclusions?
That is looking back. As for now we could launch the Orion unmanned and use commercial crew to send to Orion in space. Orion is designed to stay in space for a long time ( more than most talked about lunar missions ). So how much does an Orion escape tower cost?
Looking backYou just described the Constellation Program under Administrator Sean O'Keefe, before Mike Griffin took over. He had the crew vehicle narrowed down to pretty much the Atlas from what I was reading, and the capsule was down to two choices (one of which is Boeing's CST-100).
We could have human rated the Atlas V similar to what we are for ISS crew and supply. ( Concentrate on shuttle LEO replacement first then equipment needed for BEO ).
Made a new VAB and launch pad that would work for both the new human rated Atlas V and future Atlas phase II ( single core Orion ISS, triple core BEO ).
That is looking back. As for now we could launch the Orion unmanned and use commercial crew to send to Orion in space. Orion is designed to stay in space for a long time ( more than most talked about lunar missions ). So how much does an Orion escape tower cost?
Is there on open link to O'Keefe plan? Already tried to find one.It was not finalized, and was not a comprehensive complete plan. Instead of NASA-control, it was piecemail. NASA would set down "we need xyz" and take proposals from various firms, and picked the pieces for each segment of the mission profile from them. They were doing fly-offs, as it were, USAF style. You can read all of the proposals to fit the plan here: