From Space Station to Moon Base – Bigelow expands on inflatable ambitions

[Chris Bergin]

Will cross link in several active threads, but this deserves a standalone.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/space-station-moon-base-bigelows-expands-inflatable-ambitions/

Article by Chris Gebhart and Yves-A. Grondin, who put a lot of hard work in this during various stages of the copy.

[JSC Phil]

Very interesting read with a lot of depth. Appreciate the effort!

[Hodapp]

Good article and promising for the future!
Like all the private/gov't partnership stuff!
Onto the moon!

[AndyX]

That's really exciting news. I hope they can get the support and make it all happen!

[kcrick]

I agree. Very exciting news!

Good article !

[mrmandias]

NSF.com, best free space content around (and best subscription content too).  Loved the article.

[yg1968]

Onto the moon!

Although Gerst said that he welcomes the private sector's enthusiasm for lunar surface missions, he stopped well short of committing any NASA funds towards it. Bigelow also emphasized that the moon base was part of their long term plans but that it wasn't really the focus of this study. The Obama Administration's focus is on Mars and Asteroids. The Moon is essentially off the table. Bigelow's more immediate concern is his LEO Alpha Station. He said that he had extensive conversations with JAXA (Japan), the UAE (United Arab Emirates) government and a couple of other countries in the Middle East as potential customers for the Alpha station. But he also needs NASA as a customer. The good news is that NASA seems to be open to the idea of using Bigelow's Alpha Station as either a complement or successor to the ISS.

Incidentally, you can listen to the press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkVEGGLYNN4&feature=youtu.be

[montyrmanley]

Maybe things are finally coming together to push HSF forward in a major way. I hope so.

HSF has been little more than a long series of disappointments since Apollo ended. Remember how sanguinely the scientists and engineers talked of moon-bases and cities in space by 1985, and colonies on Mars by 2000? And yet forty years later we can't even get our own astronauts back into space, much less back to the moon.

I understand the reasons for it. Space Is Hard(tm). It's expensive. It's risky, both in terms of dollars and in human lives. The United States is a far, far more risk-averse nation now than it was back in the mid-1960's. I understand the reasons...but it's no less maddening.

So to SpaceX, Orbital, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic, and the other "New Space" companies...please hurry. I'm not getting any younger.

[docmordrid]

Great report Chris and Yves, as usual.

Wow....if this were to come together things could get real exciting around here - and the bandwidth will go geometric. There goes the L2 prices

[rcoppola]

Excellent article guys. Really excellent. Thanks.

The fact they will actually be building and testing to scale in the lake beds is quite exciting. Imagine 2 Olympus modules based on the moon.

Someone better get started on that lander...

I wonder how you could get a few of those down to the surface of mars.
Could we scale up the sky-crane method?

[ChefPat]

Wow. Top notch article Chris and Yves. Thank you.

[docmordrid]

>
The fact they will actually be building and testing to scale in the lake beds is quite exciting. Imagine 2 Olympus modules based on the moon.
>
I wonder how you could get a few of those down to the surface of mars.
Could we scale up the sky-crane method?

Read the patent -

Google Patents....

[CriX]

Great article and exciting times.  It's still a little confusing what NASA has to do with this all, since its almost like Bigelow is acting as a proxy information gatherer for missions that ultimately will not be funded by NASA(?).   

In any case, it's fantastic that all the thoughts and proposals from these various companies is being put together to find out what "makes the most sense" for moving forward collectively.

[rcoppola]

The fact they will actually be building and testing to scale in the lake beds is quite exciting. Imagine 2 Olympus modules based on the moon.

Bigelow said his moon base are more likely to be BA-330s. The Guide is going to be the size of a car. So it won't be up to scale.

Sigh...Yes, I know he stated BA330 for the moon. I was simply imagining what could be done with the 2100.

And as for the lake bed tests, he said they will be using a "Scale" version testing. Which obviously means not full size but all components to "scale" so tests can be extrapolated out to the full size version.

[yg1968]

Great article and exciting times.  It's still a little confusing what NASA has to do with this all, since its almost like Bigelow is acting as a proxy information gatherer for missions that ultimately will not be funded by NASA(?).   

In any case, it's fantastic that all the thoughts and proposals from these various companies is being put together to find out what "makes the most sense" for moving forward collectively.

NASA is trying to find private sector missions that will complement SLS and Orion. The private sector missions would be funded by NASA though private-public partnerships. Unfortunately, very little was said about the Lagrange points and cislunar missions. But I suspect that there are some commercial missions that could complement the SLS missions in that region. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bigelow suggest a Bigelow station at L2 supplied by a Falcon Heavy. 

[ChileVerde]

Unfortunately, very little was said about the Lagrange points and cislunar missions. But I suspect that there is some commercial missions that could complement the SLS missions in that region. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bigelow suggest a Bigelow station at L2 supplied by a Falcon Heavy. 

You have an interesting thought there: Could, for example, a Bigelow EML2 station serve usefully as a gateway to and from a heisted asteroid in low lunar orbit? (For values of "usefully" commensurate with the heist.)

[Robert Thompson]

Chris Gebhart and Yves-A. Grondin
 

There will be sufficient excitement for one day if a BA-330 is proved out in LEO and starts to take on international / commercial astronauts through commercial transportation. It'll be dizzying. Bonus points for national/commercial science experiments. Cliffs of insanity for commercially launched tourism to an inflatable. Gone to plaid if any of that commercial transport is upgraded orbital reusable incarnations of VG or XCOR. Plus, the albedo and surface area of a Bigelow inflatable passing overhead will provide prime teaching moments on access, progress, peaceful conquest, possibility.

[Lar]

>
The fact they will actually be building and testing to scale in the lake beds is quite exciting. Imagine 2 Olympus modules based on the moon.
>
I wonder how you could get a few of those down to the surface of mars.
Could we scale up the sky-crane method?

Read the patent -

Google Patents....

Anyone able to translate that from patent-ese into english? I tried and failed.

[MarkWhittington]

I think Gerst is playing a long game with this Bigelow gambit. He must know, as the NRC report indicated, that there is zero support for the asteroid thing outside the White House and upper NASA management. But a simple return to a Constellation style return to the moon may be a hard sale as well. This will develop a plan for the next administration to focus back on the moon, but do it in a new, innovative way.

[Rocket Science]

Great article! I like to see alternative methodologies for getting things done. Let’s see if this gains any traction....

[john smith 19]

I saw in another thread people were talking about landing a cluster of BA300 modules on the Moon and people wondered how you could do that as a BA300 weighs about 20 000lbs.

Is that 20 000 on Earth or the Moon?

If it's 20 000 on Earth a 6 module cluster would be about 20 000 Lunar lbs.

So 1 RL10 with propellant tankage could bring it in to land on close to full thrust just as long as the whole dry weight came below 24 000 lb (to match its thrust) when it came time to cut the engines.

[yg1968]

Great report Chris and Yves, as usual.

Wow....if this were to come together things could get real exciting around here - and the bandwidth will go geometric. There goes the L2 prices

Thanks for the compliments on the article. It was good team work. Chris G. improved the article a lot. He deserves a lot of the credit on this article. 

[notsorandom]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

[yg1968]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

It's my personal opinion. But I think that is Bigelow is expecting the Moon to be back on the table in a couple of years once there is a new President. Until that time, I doubt that commercial companies will go to the Moon without any NASA funding.

[notsorandom]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

It's my personal opinion. But I think that is Bigelow is expecting the Moon to be back on the table in a couple of years once there is a new President. Until that time, I doubt that commercial companies will go to the Moon without any NASA funding.

There are a few companies which do have their sights on the Moon. There would likely be more if NASA expressed interest (and money) in using a privately developed lander. The main question I am wondering about is the discrepancy between NASA's cost estimates and these private ventures. They can't both be right. Bigelow would not be talking about landing a whole base if they thought a simpler lander would be that expensive. If the estimate that Bolden recently gave is much higher than what the rest of the industry thinks then NASA really needs to be talking to these companies and maybe rethinking their lunar ambitions.

[yg1968]

Bolden said $8-10 billion for a lunar lander but that was based on what Altair would have cost. A simpler lander would cost less. Golden Spike says that their cost is about $8B for their entire lunar architecture. But I don't know how much their lander would cost.

[Chris Bergin]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

Incidentally, I was told Bolden/NASA failed to supply the requested overview as to where he got $8-10 billion figure from.

Anyway, that conversation can go on the relevant thread...

[yg1968]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

Incidentally, I was told Bolden/NASA failed to supply the requested overview as to where he got $8-10 billion figure from.

Anyway, that conversation can go on the relevant thread...

A price taf of $8B to 10B sounds about right based on the Sally Ride Charts from the Augustine Committee:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt

[ChefPat]

I saw in another thread people were talking about landing a cluster of BA300 modules on the Moon and people wondered how you could do that as a BA300 weighs about 20 000lbs.

Is that 20 000 on Earth or the Moon?

If it's 20 000 on Earth a 6 module cluster would be about 20 000 Lunar lbs.

So 1 RL10 with propellant tankage could bring it in to land on close to full thrust just as long as the whole dry weight came below 24 000 lb (to match its thrust) when it came time to cut the engines.

A BA-330 is 23 metric tons.
The Lunar Base they're suggesting would be 3 BA-330's assembled at EML-1 & landed on the Lunar Surface in one piece as illustrated below.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

Very exciting times! Can't wait to here about the lunar lander demonstrations in the future!

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
But he also needs NASA as a customer. The good news is that NASA seems to be open to the idea of using Bigelow's Alpha Station as either a complement or successor to the ISS.

If you want a simple spacestation to support exploration and transporting people to EML-1/2 and the lunar surface then this two BA-330 design in the diagram could work.

The capsule from Earth would dock on the lower port and the lander dock on the upper port.  People and cargo can wait at the spacestation for a few days until the other vehicle arrives.

A propellant module will also probably be needed to store fuel for the lander.

[Lobo]

I wonder where Bigelow will be getting the $8-10 billion to develop a lunar lander. Someone's accounting is not adding up. Perhaps NASA and the White House should have asked for this type of information from the industry and vetted it before deciding to avoid the Moon. Still it is better late then never.

Incidentally, I was told Bolden/NASA failed to supply the requested overview as to where he got $8-10 billion figure from.

Anyway, that conversation can go on the relevant thread...

That's the number you throw out when you want people to stop asking you about it...

[ChefPat]

A propellant module will also probably be needed to store fuel for the lander.

I've long wondered if a BA-330 can be re tasked into a propellant storage module.

[docmordrid]

Something task specific, possibly smaller?

[Lar]

I think Gerst is playing a long game with this Bigelow gambit. He must know, as the NRC report indicated, that there is zero support for the asteroid thing outside the White House and upper NASA management. But a simple return to a Constellation style return to the moon may be a hard sale as well. This will develop a plan for the next administration to focus back on the moon, but do it in a new, innovative way.

A new innovative way... like cheaper! That would be neat. I wish him luck with his stealth plan. Dubious that the rest of the 'cracy won't deride the costing.

 I have a hard time understanding how leg rockets actually can land the thing though.

[Robert Thompson]

A propellant module will also probably be needed to store fuel for the lander.

I've long wondered if a BA-330 can be re tasked into a propellant storage module.

Interesting reflection of habitable Centaurs. What would you do about the common wall in a Centaur? Or just go with hypergolic? Would you need linings and reinforcements, etc.

[D_Dom]

I have a hard time understanding how leg rockets actually can land the thing though.

I also struggle to understand this configuration. Neat powerpoint slide, I keep reminding myself that just because I never imagined landing a structure that complex doesn't mean it can't happen. I will have to review the internal structure of his inflatables.

[A_M_Swallow]

A propellant module will also probably be needed to store fuel for the lander.

I've long wondered if a BA-330 can be re tasked into a propellant storage module.

Anything is possible but a BA-330 is over kill.  The propellant module just needs a large tank, insulation, a docking port come connector and a solar powered pump.

A luxurious version would have a homing beacon, station keeping engine and an arm to permit berthing.

[A_M_Swallow]

I have a hard time understanding how leg rockets actually can land the thing though.

I also struggle to understand this configuration. Neat powerpoint slide, I keep reminding myself that just because I never imagined landing a structure that complex doesn't mean it can't happen. I will have to review the internal structure of his inflatables.

Alternatively land each of the 3 modules vertically and winch them down to the horizontal.  How heavy an 'A frame' is needed to prevent the module crashing down?

[Orbital Debris]

I have a hard time understanding how leg rockets actually can land the thing though.

I also struggle to understand this configuration. Neat powerpoint slide, I keep reminding myself that just because I never imagined landing a structure that complex doesn't mean it can't happen. I will have to review the internal structure of his inflatables.

There is a simple reason that you and most people struggle to understand the configuration is that you are applying engineering principles to a configuration that was drawn up with any consideration of engineering principles. 
There is apparent when you look at any of the configurations and consider the axis of thrust.  Almost all of them have a configuration that puts the c.g. off the main axis of thrust, which does not make sense.  These artist's representations were created to match RTB's aesthetic, and nothing further. 
You'll notice in the patent application that it only refers to a module of substantial stiffness.  The BA330 is designed with launch loads along the central axis, not cantilevered bending loads, so I don't think it has enough stiffness.  I don't think anywhere in that patent does it reference the connection mechanisms between the modules, which is literally the linch pin when trying to land the complex even in a lunar gravity field.  That is because they don't have mechanism that would stand up to those loads.  Another example is the picture with the Soyuz's attached - that is a very old picture with early concepts due to the fact that was the only capsule at the time, not because there was any agreement to fly Soyuz.

I hope the full report resulting from the SAA is made public, because it will be informative.  However the skeptic in me knows what it will say, here is my prediction (horrible grammar intentional):

Inflatables good.  Lots of history of inflatables.  Bigelow build many inflatables, test much, know much.  Bigelow 2 to 3 years from having on orbit station.  SpaceX, Boeing can get us there if government gives them money.  SLS good, SLS need money.  America need big rocket for commercial space.  Commercial space good, create lots of jobs, Bigelow hire lots of people soon.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

[A_M_Swallow]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

Yes. From the standpoint of logistics to get one BA330 and its associated propulsion module to EML1 it will take: Launch of BA330 by FH into high LEO orbit, launch of propulsion module by FH that then docks with BA330, and launch of 2 more each on a seperate FH of heavier prop load propulsion modules to boost to EML1. Cost of launch to get one BA330+prop module on Lunar surface ~$80M *4 = $320M. For a complete outpost that would be *3 again or ~$1B in just launch costs.

[ChefPat]

Yes. From the standpoint of logistics to get one BA330 and its associated propulsion module to EML1 it will take: Launch of BA330 by FH into high LEO orbit

Just how high an LEO can an FH get a BA-330 to?
Wiki (I know, I know) puts a BA-330 at 20,000 kilo's or 43,000 lb's.

[newpylong]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

Yes. From the standpoint of logistics to get one BA330 and its associated propulsion module to EML1 it will take: Launch of BA330 by FH into high LEO orbit, launch of propulsion module by FH that then docks with BA330, and launch of 2 more each on a seperate FH of heavier prop load propulsion modules to boost to EML1. Cost of launch to get one BA330+prop module on Lunar surface ~$80M *4 = $320M. For a complete outpost that would be *3 again or ~$1B in just launch costs.

Or use SLS and cut down on the number of launches and complexity of orbital rendezvous, but with increased cost.

[RanulfC]

Not sure if this was pointed out before but I'm wondering if anyone realizes there is quite a unique opportunity here to be had...

Given the layout of the Bigelow modules it is very apparent that in addition to everything else, a single module would be perfectly suited to a bio-powered, low-cost Lunar Rover as well...

Steering might be an issue but as long as you're going in a pretty straight line...

Randy

[MP99]

Not sure if this was pointed out before but I'm wondering if anyone realizes there is quite a unique opportunity here to be had...

Given the layout of the Bigelow modules it is very apparent that in addition to everything else, a single module would be perfectly suited to a bio-powered, low-cost Lunar Rover as well...

Steering might be an issue but as long as you're going in a pretty straight line...

Randy

Zorb? LOL.

Cheers, Martin

[A_M_Swallow]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

Yes. From the standpoint of logistics to get one BA330 and its associated propulsion module to EML1 it will take: Launch of BA330 by FH into high LEO orbit, launch of propulsion module by FH that then docks with BA330, and launch of 2 more each on a seperate FH of heavier prop load propulsion modules to boost to EML1. Cost of launch to get one BA330+prop module on Lunar surface ~$80M *4 = $320M. For a complete outpost that would be *3 again or ~$1B in just launch costs.

Or use SLS and cut down on the number of launches and complexity of orbital rendezvous, but with increased cost.

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

[JohnFornaro]

I'm afraid to read the article.  Is it really that good?  'Cause this is a subject near and dear to my heart.

[Eric Hedman]

Excellent article guys. Really excellent. Thanks.

The fact they will actually be building and testing to scale in the lake beds is quite exciting. Imagine 2 Olympus modules based on the moon.

Someone better get started on that lander...

I wonder how you could get a few of those down to the surface of mars.
Could we scale up the sky-crane method?

If I understand correctly according to JPL the sky-crane is at its maximum size.  Increasing the landing mass would require significantly larger parachutes which do not scale up in the supersonic environment in which they are used.  From what I have read it would need a parachute the size of the Rose Bowl to slow a manned capsule down.  That is why wind tunnel test have been done on supersonic retropropulsion at Langley.  The youtube video is

I'm no expert, but it looks like from these tests that firing a rocket engine into the direction of flight at supersonic speeds creates some very unstable flows around a space capsule.  Writing the control software for this kind of a descent seems like quite a challenge.

[Archibald]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

With each module weighing 23 metric tons, each module will weight 20+5+23 = 48 tons, now multiply that by three and the whole thing weight 144 tons. Impressive !
If Bigelow manage to land that big thing on the Moon and film the landing, the video will be something to be seen. How amazing that would be - imagine that thing landing, its landing rockets throwing dust everywhere, touchdown, boom.
The 2 km/s to go from LLO to surface are not trivial. The Moon is big, it has a deep gravity well, so there's a price to pay. Unless, of course, a rotovator is used to gently drop the BA-330 on the surface - without rocket engines and propellants.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
The 2 km/s to go from LLO to surface are not trivial. The Moon is big, it has a deep gravity well, so there's a price to pay. Unless, of course, a rotovator is used to gently drop the BA-330 on the surface - without rocket engines and propellants.

Pity we do not have any rotovators, so going that path will add about 50 years to the development time.

[newpylong]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 60 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

SLS is 60 metric tons? That's news to people I think...

[Lobo]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

Despite the NASA official performance, SLS Block 1 will very likely be over 90mt, perhaps close to 100mt. 
The ESAS study looked at this exact LV.  LV 26/27.  LV 27 was cargo only and got almost 97mt to a 28.5 deg. LEO without an upper stage.
LV 26 had Orion on it, and got just over 91mt to LEO of crew and cargo.
Both LV's had over 100mt of "lift capability", but 97 and 91 were their net payloads. 

So I just don't see how SLS Block 1 gets only 70mt to LEO, unless they build it out of concrete or something.

70mt is the "official" performance because that's what NAA2010 requires the first Block of SLS to be.  So that's what they are saying.

It's quite in excess of what a single FH can do.

[Patchouli]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

Despite the NASA official performance, SLS Block 1 will very likely be over 90mt, perhaps close to 100mt. 
The ESAS study looked at this exact LV.  LV 26/27.  LV 27 was cargo only and got almost 97mt to a 28.5 deg. LEO without an upper stage.
LV 26 had Orion on it, and got just over 91mt to LEO of crew and cargo.
Both LV's had over 100mt of "lift capability", but 97 and 91 were their net payloads. 

So I just don't see how SLS Block 1 gets only 70mt to LEO, unless they build it out of concrete or something.

70mt is the "official" performance because that's what NAA2010 requires the first Block of SLS to be.  So that's what they are saying.

It's quite in excess of what a single FH can do.

The 70mt number might be for a 51 degree orbit which is harder to reach then a 28 degree orbit.

[newpylong]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

Despite the NASA official performance, SLS Block 1 will very likely be over 90mt, perhaps close to 100mt. 
The ESAS study looked at this exact LV.  LV 26/27.  LV 27 was cargo only and got almost 97mt to a 28.5 deg. LEO without an upper stage.
LV 26 had Orion on it, and got just over 91mt to LEO of crew and cargo.
Both LV's had over 100mt of "lift capability", but 97 and 91 were their net payloads. 

So I just don't see how SLS Block 1 gets only 70mt to LEO, unless they build it out of concrete or something.

70mt is the "official" performance because that's what NAA2010 requires the first Block of SLS to be.  So that's what they are saying.

It's quite in excess of what a single FH can do.

My thoughts as well. Even the 17 metric ton difference is significant to begin with. That is almost as much as the heaviest booster anyone has right now.

[Lobo]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

Despite the NASA official performance, SLS Block 1 will very likely be over 90mt, perhaps close to 100mt. 
The ESAS study looked at this exact LV.  LV 26/27.  LV 27 was cargo only and got almost 97mt to a 28.5 deg. LEO without an upper stage.
LV 26 had Orion on it, and got just over 91mt to LEO of crew and cargo.
Both LV's had over 100mt of "lift capability", but 97 and 91 were their net payloads. 

So I just don't see how SLS Block 1 gets only 70mt to LEO, unless they build it out of concrete or something.

70mt is the "official" performance because that's what NAA2010 requires the first Block of SLS to be.  So that's what they are saying.

It's quite in excess of what a single FH can do.

The 70mt number might be for a 51 degree orbit which is harder to reach then a 28 degree orbit.

First, that would be the ISS's inclination, and SLS isn't going to the ISS, so why would they be publishing that performance?

Secondly, it's a moot point because those are LV 26/27's performance to 28.5 deg inclination as I said.

They published the performance to the 51 deg. inclination in the ESAS report for LV 26/27 as well, as I suppose back in 2005, they thought there might be need for heavy lift cargo to the ISS.

LV 26 (crew and cargo) is 100.3mt total, and 85.3mt Net payload to 51.6 deg inclination.

LV27 (cargo) is 106.8mt total, and 90.8mt Net payload to 51.6 deg. inclination.

Again, that's without any sort of upper stage.  Just with 5-seg SRB with 4 SSME's on a stretched core.  Just like SLS Block 1 without the ICPS. 

LV 27.3, which was chosen for Ares V, had the 5th SSME on the core, and the upper stage.  It was 148.3mt total and 126mt Net payload to 28.5 deg. inclination.  They did not evaluate it's performance to 51.6 deg inclination.

I can't imagine the calculated performance of LV 26/27, which is now SLS BLock 1, would have changed very much from 2005 until now.
It's on page 420 of the ESAS final report if you want to check it.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Lets first see whether the SLS ever makes it past the paper stage.

[yg1968]

Here is a blog/editorial which directly references this article:
http://spaceksc.blogspot.ca/2013/06/that-was-then-this-is-now.html