Author Topic: SLS interest in DoD launch market and Secondary Payloads potential  (Read 26352 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32379
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329

Well, yes. Right at the moment, DoD/NRO aren't building even bigger payloads because they don't have the rockets to launch them.

Not true.  NRO has always followed the paradigm that payload requirements drive launch vehicle design.  If they have a need for a larger payload, they will get a launch vehicle to fly it.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0

Well, yes. Right at the moment, DoD/NRO aren't building even bigger payloads because they don't have the rockets to launch them.

Not true.  NRO has always followed the paradigm that payload requirements drive launch vehicle design.  If they have a need for a larger payload, they will get a launch vehicle to fly it.

OK, Titan IV B and the RS-68A upgrade for DIVH support your point.  In those cases, the NRO seemed to have a need for more oomph and paid money to acquire it.

Can we then conclude that they have no payload requirements that would motivate procurement of an SLS-class vehicle?  And if offered an SLS, would politely express lack of interest?
"I canít tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Can we then conclude that they have no payload requirements that would motivate procurement of an SLS-class vehicle?  And if offered an SLS, would politely express lack of interest?

You can personally conclude that if you would like.  I truly doubt there is any one person that can say that with such authority or certainty anyway.  And I also highly doubt that an internet forum carries that much weight as to the supposed collective opinion anyway. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32379
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329


OK, Titan IV B and the RS-68A upgrade for DIVH support your point.  In those cases, the NRO seemed to have a need for more oomph and paid money to acquire it.

Can we then conclude that they have no payload requirements that would motivate procurement of an SLS-class vehicle?  And if offered an SLS, would politely express lack of interest?

It is even more and I grouped them by "mission"

Thor Agena A, B, D, TAT Agena, LTTAT Agena, Titan IIID, Titan 34D
Atlas LV-3 Agena B,  SLV-3 Agena D, Titan IIIB, Titan 34B
Atlas SLV-3A Agena D, Titan IIIC , Titan 34D

In the middle of Ares I & V development, the USAF/DOD/NRO stated at AIAA Mission Integration Symposiums that they have no need for new launch vehicles.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2012 08:53 PM by Jim »

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0


OK, Titan IV B and the RS-68A upgrade for DIVH support your point.  In those cases, the NRO seemed to have a need for more oomph and paid money to acquire it.

Can we then conclude that they have no payload requirements that would motivate procurement of an SLS-class vehicle?  And if offered an SLS, would politely express lack of interest?

It is even more and I grouped them by "mission"

Thor Agena A, B, D, TAT Agena, LTTAT Agena, Titan IIID, Titan 34D
Atlas LV-3 Agena B,  SLV-3 Agena D, Titan IIIB, Titan 34B
Atlas SLV-3A Agena D, Titan IIIC , Titan 34D

[snip]


This looks like it could make an interesting paper for TSR or the like, linking the development/upgrades of launch vehicles to new payloads.
"I canít tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32379
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
This looks like it could make an interesting paper for TSR or the like, linking the development/upgrades of launch vehicles to new payloads.

JCM could do it.

One problem is that the linkage is not always strong. There were upgrades in Thor capabilities that did not correspond with KH-4 upgrades, for example. Another problem is that the only formerly classified payloads that we have data for are the recon satellites. We don't have good data on other payloads such as sigint, because they remain classified.

By eliminating IDSCP, DSCS, DSP and Vela, the remaining ones must be sigint, as least for this line:  Atlas SLV-3A Agena D, Titan IIIC , Titan 34D

As for Thor, I am taking Gunter's (Skyrocket on this site) work as gospel, every first launch of new configuration carried a Corona.

space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/thor_agena.htm

T
« Last Edit: 02/08/2012 02:25 AM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32379
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Thor and CORONA, the problem is that sometimes they upgraded the rocket before they upgraded the CORONA. I'd have to go look--and I'm not going to do that now because I'm lazy, I'm tired, it's late, and there are wolves outside--but I believe that they upgraded the Thor BEFORE they introduced the KH-4B version of CORONA.

I agree

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32379
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Thor and CORONA, the problem is that sometimes they upgraded the rocket before they upgraded the CORONA. I'd have to go look--and I'm not going to do that now because I'm lazy, I'm tired, it's late, and there are wolves outside--but I believe that they upgraded the Thor BEFORE they introduced the KH-4B version of CORONA.

I agree

Were you agreeing that I'm lazy, tired, it is late, and there are wolves outside?

Or that they upgraded the Thor before introducing the KH-4B?

#2

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7548
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1155
  • Likes Given: 7717
Yay for socialism.

Careful now that could be viewed as just a tad disrespectful to NASA.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28387
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8255
  • Likes Given: 5447
Yay for socialism.

Careful now that could be viewed as just a tad disrespectful to NASA.
I just don't see how it should be NASA's job to be a launch provider when there are other private launch providers who have more experience at it (developing new expendable launch vehicles through to flight and operations) and can do at least as good of a job. Especially when there are plenty of those private launch providers already (and, if anything, not enough payloads).

It also doesn't seem terribly legal according to the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 and similar laws and policies and directives which seek "to encourage the private sector's role in assuring access to space by providing favorable government policies toward commercial launch ventures - short of direct government subsidies - and by requiring federal agencies to procure launch services from the private sector to the fullest extent feasible."
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol3/fought.html
« Last Edit: 02/10/2012 04:03 PM by Robotbeat »
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 Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Of course the premise here is that SLS is to be an HLV used for exploration that is a larger-class vehicle than those that currently exist.

It is also something the current launch providers cannot provide because they do not see a market for it and hence have not invested in it themselves.

In the absense of being able to procure it on the "open market", the government becomes responsible for funding it.  If they fund it, they have the right to oversee it and drive the requirements.  This would be the case with whatever HLV configuration is used.   

Because an SLS-class vehicle may exist one day does not preclude the use of other rockets for mission scenarios where it makes sense to use a different launcher.

One does not have to like this reality but it simply is what it is.  Constantly running around with cries of "this or that", while ignoring the above, serves zero purpose. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline ANTIcarrot

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 27
It's also possible that once the Falcon-Heavy demonstrates the benifits of cross feed, it may be developed as a paper option for the three core Delta and Atlas rockets. The DoD would have potentially three 40ton+ (50ton+?) EELVs options it could investigate before it needed the SLS.

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 480
It's also possible that once the Falcon-Heavy demonstrates the benifits of cross feed, it may be developed as a paper option for the three core Delta and Atlas rockets. The DoD would have potentially three 40ton+ (50ton+?) EELVs options it could investigate before it needed the SLS.
ULA has already proposed cross-feed as one possible upgrade step for their vehicles e.g. as part of the EELV Phase 1.
« Last Edit: 02/10/2012 08:38 PM by deltaV »

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
thanks for the posts.

You're welcome.

I agree with the suggestion that this 'origami' has a lot of risk. This might be an ideal candidate to be 'serviceable' in space (taking into account cost/benefit ratios).

Keep in mind that this was a contractor, fresh off their initial design work on JWST, trying to show that they could apply similar techniques to much much bigger telescopes. They were pitching this stuff in public quite a bit, however. I saw it at some public forum where I was surprised they were on the agenda.

It's good to have these forward-looking ideas, but you don't have to be a systems engineer to look at that thing and cringe at all the stuff that has to go right. Imagine that just one of those mirrors does not fit properly. Or imagine that the arm jams. The result is that the entire telescope could be ruined.

True... but imagine if it WORKED! 

Anybody want to see what forests look like on an exoplanet light years away???  LOL:) 

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Tags: