Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1
    Deleted

    NASA's Orion Spacecraft tested in anticipation of maiden flight

    http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-orion-spa...testing/31838/

    I got to admit. A small part of me, keeps hoping that secretly they are building the Orion from 2001 A space Odyssey.

    Here is a Animated video about, how it is expected to look like launching.


    Here is a picture of how it currently looks.
    https://i.imgur.com/zwuyJxI.jpg

    What are your toughts on this new Spacecraft?
    Last edited by Pendulous; 2014-05-03 at 10:34 AM.

  2. #2
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    11,562
    So what's this craft about then?

  3. #3
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    So what's this craft about then?
    It's being designed for NASA and the European Space Agency as the new standard craft for manned missions to space and the moon, possibly Mars also.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  4. #4
    Deleted
    To you rocked experts, what is the different between Ares V and SLS? Different paintjob to make it more aesthetic pleasing or it is something else?
    Last edited by mmoc957ac7b970; 2014-05-03 at 10:32 AM.

  5. #5
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by a77 View Post
    To you rocked experts, what is the different between Ares V and SLS? Different paintjob to make it more aesthetic pleasing or it is something else?
    Before NASA's budget got slashed, the Ares V was designed solely as a CLS; that is, a cargo launch system, which would be paired with the Ares I as a crew launch system.

    SLS is designed to combine the functions of Ares I and V given the budget cuts, basically a replacement for the Apollo rockets.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  6. #6
    Deleted
    sorry to say it:

    WHY ON EARTH DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE PIC SO BIG!?!?!

    its annoying that we have to scroll to the side etc..

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    So what's this craft about then?
    After the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident (2003), NASA and President Bush initiated Project Constellation. The aim of the program was to retire the space shuttle by 2015 and replace them with two vehicles, Ares I and Ares V, for the purpose of building an American base on the moon. Ares I and Ares V would utilize Space Shuttle Hardware in a new (expanded) configuration to provide what was termed, at the time "an American Soyuz" and a Super Heavy Lift vehicle, one far beyond the Space Shuttle, or even Saturn V. The hope was that Ares I and Ares V would be what took us to the moon. Under the concept, Ares I would carry the new Orion Capsule space vehicle (about twice as large as the Apollo Capsule) and Ares V would carry cargo. Every trip to the moon would require an Ares I and Ares V launch, whereby the Ares V carried the lunar lander, and the Ares I mated to it and the Earth Departure Stage, before heading out. Ares I was scheduled to fly in March 2014, Ares V in 2018. Ares V was expected to have a 10m tank and be able to loft between 150-180 tons (a single C-5 galaxy can carry 120 tons of cargo there abouts.


    Project Constellation was very troubled. The Orion capsule was too heavy to fly on the Ares I without substantial modification. The Ares I was far behind schedule and over budget. Work on Ares V had barely begun. A single test flight flew, Ares I-X, which "looks" the bart, but was pretty much a dummy rocket from the Solid Rocket Booster up. Overall Constellation was extremely troubled and horrifically poorly managed. Going back to the moon also has questionable value, as it really prepares astronauts for nothing.


    In 2011 Barack Obama canceled the Constellation Program. He and his Science Advisor John Holdren, attempted to essentially end manned American spaceflight. Obama saw NASA mostly as a technology development center and wanted to direct it to buy flights from the (then much more primitive) private sector, but not fly any new manned space vehicles of its own, and instead spend more money on Climate Change and aeronautics. He did however, direct that NASA keep working on the Orion capsule program with the goal of it being an ISS escape pod.

    Why an escape pod? Because if NASA canceled development of the Ares I, then NASA had no way of sending astronauts up to the space station in a man-rated rocket (which has higher standards). Instead, the thought was, NASA would send Orion, unmanned, on top of Delta IVs (not manrated) to provide escape ability from the iSS. The problem is, the Orion is super overdeveloped for this purpose. That would be like, using a supercomputer to perform algebra. It was designed for deep space missions, not Low Earth Orbit.

    Fortunately, sanity intervened, Congress first, excoriated John Holdren and NASA's lousy administrator Charlie Bolden in hearings, and then designed a new space program independent of the Obama Administration and NASA's wishes. That problem is called the Space Launch System.


    What is the SLS? It's similar to Ares V but smaller. Instead of a 6-segment Solid Rocket booster, it uses a 5. Instead of a 10m tank, it uses an 8m tank (like the space shuttle). Instead of 6 RS-36 engines, it uses 4 Space Shuttle Main Engines (RS-25D/E). Instead of lifting 150-180 tons, it will lift first 70 tons, then 105 tons, then eventually 130-150 tons. Crucially, unlike the Constellation program which really was making two entirely different space vehicles, , the SLS is desinging one space vehicle used two different ways: for crewed flights, the Orion capsul here will be on top. For cargo flights, it will have a payload shroud. Like Constellation, it is extremely overpowered to fly to the ISS or LEO. SLS will be used for Lunar, L2, Asteroid and Mars missions starting in 2022.

    But what is this specifically? This is the first finished Orion Capsule (it just needs the external covering, but that's bolted on. It's effectively done. Think of this as it with it's hood up). In December of this year, NASA will fly this capsule on top for a Delta IV heavy in a flight called Orion EFT-1. It will orbit the earth twice, and then splash down in the pacific. The purpose of it is to test it's control and heat shields to simulate a high-speed reentry, identical to what lunar or deep space missions will have (which is to say, much higher velocity than a Soyuz capsule landing when it hits the atmosphere). This will be effectively, the first flight of the new era of the US Space Program. With respect to Apollo, EFT-1 is identical to Apollo 3/4. It will be the only time orion flies on Delta IV.



    It will be followed in mid 2017 by SLS Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1). This UNMANNED mission will be up to full man-rating specification. It will send an Orion capsule, with a ESA provided ATV service module, around the Moon and back, in a mission that is basically an unmanned version of Apollo 8. The reason it is unmanned is because in order to send it to the moon, it will use an upperstage called the Delta Cryogenic Upper Stage for just this mission. The stage has been used before, on Delta IV Heavy, and is not manrated (and underpowered compared to the eventual upper stage). This allows EM-1 to fly sooner, as development of the final upperstage will be in progress then. This is what it will look like.



    EM-1 will be followed by at least one, more likely two cargo missions... one in 2019 and one in 2020. One is likely to be the WFIRST space science mission, and the other likely a super large spy sattelite for the NRO. A third possible launch (but also possibly on Delta IV Heavy) is the "Asteroid Capture probe" that will seek out and find a 20-40 meter asteroid and drag it into Lunar orbit or Earth-Moon L-2.



    The first manned mission of Orion will be in early 2022 on top of EM-2. This will have the final upperstage and will be the first flight of SLS Block IA. It will go beyond lunar orbit then return to earth after a week long mission.

    The second manned flight of Orion will be at the latest, in 2024 on top of EM-3. The schedule here is still in worst case scenario mode, so it is likely to be earlier, but under this scenario, Orion will dock with the Asteroid Capture Probe at L-2 or in Lunar orbit, on a 20 day manned mission to the captured asteroid.

    The mission after that EM-4, is scheduled to be a multi-month deep space exploration mission, where an Orion will travel to a different asteroid, and be the first manned spacecraft to leave Earth-Moon orbit.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by a77 View Post
    To you rocked experts, what is the different between Ares V and SLS? Different paintjob to make it more aesthetic pleasing or it is something else?
    This is an answer that is hard to get an answer for a lot of reasons, but it's a very critical one and I'm happy to answer.

    So first things first, they look similar in concept art and general layout, but they are very different vehicles. The SLS is much closer to an competitor idea from insurgent NASA engineers called DIRECT v 3.0 / Jupiter Rocket, than it is the Ares V. The general idea of them as shuttle-derived launch vehicles is the only thing they have in common really.

    First, the Ares V in its final configuration prior to cancellation had a 10 meter core stage (which meant at least 10m diameter cargo). The Space shuttle external fuel tank, on which the core stage is based, had a diameter of 8m. The SLS has an 8m core stage like Jupiter. it is worth noting, that the Ares V started with a 8m stage, but that was adjusted. Furthermore the SLS core stage is about 10m shorter than the Ares V. The biggest difference in launch capability comes from this difference. The SLS simply carries less of the same fuel than the Ares V, which means it lofts less mass.

    The Ares V was originally designed to have 5.5 segment Solid Rocket Boosters that would not be recovered. The final configuration had this scaled up to 6 segment. The Space Shuttle had 4 segment SRBs that were reused. The SLS uses a 5 segment SRB. This is significant because the Ares I was designed to have a 5 segment SRB, so work on that for Ares I was folded into the SLS program. Furthermore the Ares I using 5 segment while the Ares V used 6 contributed to the economic problems of the program.

    The SLS is designed to have new upperstages replacing the 5 segment SRBs starting around 2024. The competition for this will be launched in the fall. There will be three competitors:
    - A new 6 segment SRB with a more powerful motor
    - A liquid fueled booster with TWO F-1 engines (a modernized version of the main engine as Saturn V). If this is adopted, it will change the look of the SLS system considerably (it will look fucking massive), but it will allow it to loft 150+ tons.
    - A new liquid fueled booster on an as yet undefined Kerosene-running engine. Previously the Russian NK-33 was considered, but that will have to be refined now.

    The Ares V upper-stage is another source of significant difference from the SLS. The Ares V upperstage was going to have one, then two, then one J-2X engines. It was called the "Earth Departure Stage". It is was a very big fucking thing. It was so big, it would have needed solar panels to power itself while it waited for an Ares I to dock with it in orbit. The SLS upperstage is significantly different. The Block 0 and Block I will have simplier "interim" ones, mostly already developed, for use in the missions. The final Upper stage for the Block II will use either a single J-2X, or more likely four RL-10 engines (more efficient, cheaper). It may also use different fuel than the Ares V upper stage, but that's not sorted yet. They are debating the degree to which they want to use cryogenic fuel or not. If they use RL-10, they will have to. As of 2014, it looks like RL-10 will win out over J-2X on cost reasons.

    Another major difference is in the core stage engines. The Ares V used first 5, then 6 RS-68 engines. RS-68s are presently flown on Delta IVs. They are very good engines derived from the Space SHuttle Mange Engine (RS-25D) as an less alternative. The SLS uses RS-25s. The first 6 flights will use the RS-25Ds left over from the shuttle program. Flights starting in 2025 will use the RS-25E/F which is meant to be much simplified RS-25Ds that will be disposable and cheaper to build. Furthermore the SLS program has been all over the map (depending on Block number) with the number of engines, but late last year they settled with 4 RS-25s on every variant of SLS. RS-25s produce a lot less thrust than RS-68, also accounting for the difference in Ares V and SLS lifting power.

    It's wrong to think of the SLS as a Ares V on the cheap though. They're very different. The SLS is much more shuttle-derived than Ares V and the changes -like using RS-25s that are proven to work with the core tank instead of RS-68Es, using a 8m tank, and the manner in which booster and upperstages are being procured and designed - all make the SLS far more affordable than the Ares V.

    That was honestly the central argument AGAINST the Ares V in the end. It was a one-foot-in / one-foot-out solution. It was different enough from the Shuttle Stack as to require substantial redevelopment of nearly every major system, but similar enough to be limited to a rather narrow set of components. If such work was going to be required, the thought went, why not design an all new, prefferibly all liquid, launch system from a clean sheet with no heritage shuttle hardware? DIRECT / Jupiter came about specifically to answer this problem. SLS, as it is, sharply curves the program towards a more shuttle derived direction, to surpress costs, especially in early years of the program when it has to share it's budget with the ISS.

    The thing to remember about the Ares V was that it was being codeveloped with the Ares I, which it had almost no commonality with, and a massive lunar lander, twice the size of the Apollo one. In Constellation, NASA was trying to do too much at once.

    The SLS, with it's phased and evolutionary approach to development, makes it affordable over the long term. And the final price shows that. WITH R&D, the SLS will cost about $1.2 billion per flight (unit cost of $500 million). By contrast the Space SHuttle was about $1.9 billion per flight (unit cost $600 million) and the Ares V was going to be $2.5-3 billion per flight (Unit cost $800 million). The Ares V simply was not going to be a vehicle that could fly a lot at that cost.

    Now you may look at the SLS and Ares V and think "we lost launch capability, it's a weaker rocket". Well, no not really. it's easy to make that mistake. First, because SLS is more affordable, we can launch more of them. The trip to Mars, for example, will likely require 6-8 SLS launches and a vehicle the mass of 2/3rds the Space Station. Ares V could have done it in 4-5, but at much higher cost. Secondly, the Ares V was never going to have liquid boosters. If the SLS uses the F-1 derived liquid boosters - and because of the situation in Ukraine and concern about Russian engines, that is a lot more likely than it was last year - it will be able to launch near what the Ares V could in mass, if not diameter. Furthermore it is thought we could see a 10m diameter SLS tank in the mid 2030s, if needed.

    There is a couple of more things to consider.

    The SLS is much further long as a program today, than Ares I was when it was canceled. It is about a year ahead of where Ares I was... and Ares V never got anywhere close to being more than just a paper project. Tooling for the SLS is being built right now and the first core stage should be ready by late next year (these things have 36-48 month order timeframes). This thing is going to be very, very real before too long.

    Secondly the SLS, being able to launch cargo or crew and being only different from above the upper stage, will benefit from economies of scale as these things are mass produced. NASA plans to make prolific use of them, and the US military is as well, because it will allow the largest amount of cargo to be put in orbit ever.

    Below is a comparison of the Ares V and SLS. This is a very hard to find graphic. There are very few of them that tell the story accurately, and direct comparisons are hard to find, so I'd save if it if you're interested. But this should put the two vehicles in context.


    And here is an image to how the Ares V evolved over it's lifetime.
    Last edited by Skroe; 2014-05-03 at 10:19 PM.

  8. #8
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,283
    Cool but the SLS is far too powerful just to use to it to fly to the ISS and futures stations, nor do I see Orion being the vehicle that takes us to Mars.

    Another moon program would be a waste too. Besides a few dry runs for Mars, there is no reason to go there. We know we can get there, we did it with less, and that program was cut because it wasn't worth going back. The captured asteroid idea seems cool but NASA's project management is so shitty that they'll probably get their budget slashed again for being inefficient before they even get to that point.

    Maybe it really is time for NASA to let private contractors do most of the human exploration why NASA plays administrators/overseers.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by pacox View Post
    Cool but the SLS is far too powerful just to use to it to fly to the ISS and futures stations, nor do I see Orion being the vehicle that takes us to Mars.

    Another moon program would be a waste too. Besides a few dry runs for Mars, there is no reason to go there. We know we can get there, we did it with less, and that program was cut because it wasn't worth going back. The captured asteroid idea seems cool but NASA's project management is so shitty that they'll probably get their budget slashed again for being inefficient before they even get to that point.

    Maybe it really is time for NASA to let private contractors do most of the human exploration why NASA plays administrators/overseers.
    A few misconceptions here that need to be corrected.

    (1) The SLS will never fly to the ISS. In fact, by the time the SLS is flying full swing on a regular basis (at least twice per year), the ISS will likely have been deorbited by then. NASA cannot afford both the SLS and ISS programs at full tilt.

    (2) The SLS would be required to construct any future station. The station in question would be called the Gateway Station. It would be built at Earth-Moon L2 and be used as a waypost to deeper space. It would be significantly smaller than the ISS, but with a different purpose. EELVs could not be used to build this station. Only the SLS will have the launch capacity and diameter to do it. Futhermore with conflate in the real world what a Space Station and Space Ship actually are. In reality, they're not very different at all. The first hip to Mars will be very much like the ISS (at 2/3rds it's mass) and will require the SLS to be assembled in orbit.

    (3) Any ship going to the moon, mars or elsewhere would have to have a module with a main computer that is running the mission. Orion is specifically designed for this. That is why it is what it is, and why it is not comparable to Dragon or the CTS-100 capsule. In fact, about 6 years ago Boeing proposed the so called "Orion lite" capsule that would be JUST an ISS crew-ferry vessel. It would have stripped out all the made-for-deep-space systems and design for the SLS, creating a capsule that could carry twice the number of people.

    (4) A moon mission is in no way shape or form a "dry run" for mars. The vehicles to land on the Moon and Mars are completely different. The Space suits, robots and rovers would be completely different. The habitat would be completely different. There is almost no compatibility between the two destinations. Frankly, Antarctica is a better simulation for Mars than the Moon is. Any money spent on a major moon mission is money not spent going to Mars, period.

    (5) The moon missions was canceled because the Congressman who basically single handedly pushed it through appropriations died, the Saturn V production line had shut down, and Nixon didn't give a rats ass about space. In fact, aside from all of this, NASA was hard at work at their next trick: perfecting the flight-ready NERVA nuclear rocket to send man to Mars by 1982. It's a good thing that didn't happen, because we didn't know about Mars then what we know now, and the crew likely would have cratered trying to land on the Red Planet. In 2014, the human race does not possess the technology to land objects heavier than 2 Tons on Mars, period. It's a VERY hard, and recently discovered (post 2000) problem.

    (6) the Asteroid mission has tepid congressional support but enthusiastic White House support. Why? Because a mission to an asteroid spares NASA the difficulty of having to develop a lander to the moon (or somewhere else) and an entirely different space suit meant for terrain. All they have to do is "dock" with the Asteroid-grabber and crawl onto it. Furthermore it's cost protects the ISS for a few more years. Its likely that if the Asteroid program goes forward, it'll be a one off. If it does not, it'll be canceled in favor of accelerating SLS development to go to Mars sooner.

    Congress will decide a year from now, because it will have to choose to fund development of the Asteroid grabber probe or not. If I were a betting man, I'd say that mission is screwed, and it's probably for the best. There is little going to an asteroid will accomplish besides saving the ISS for another 4 years.

    (7) The private sector is ready for LEO operations, ISS resupply and recrew. It is no where near ready for the deep space exploration the SLS is designed to do, and the most likely company to be ready first, SpaceX, will not be ready until well after the SLS is ready. SpaceX is an ideal follow on company, but they shouldn't go first. The Falcon Heavy will loft 50ts, great for orbital resupply and orbital infrastructure, but insufficient for deep space manned missions. Their forthcoming Mars Colonial Transporter hinges on development of the methane-powered Raptor Engine. This will be great for colonization trips to Mars by crews of 100 in the post 2030 timeframe, since methane fuel can be manufactured on mars very easily, but it will arrive well after the SLS launches the first American crews there.


    NASA should basically clear the brush and map the area, and then let the private sector build the tracks and infrastructure.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Why are we helping them? We can't let the commie Europeans beat us to Mars! If they do, the Soviets win.



    Anyways, I hope this is why they stopped flying their own shuttles. We need more developments in space travel and we need to get off this rock.
    Okay so, a bit of background. The Orion is two components, a Capsule and a Service Module. Service modules house propulsion, additional life support, power generation, lots of stuff. Originally, it looked like this.



    It was going to be a very compact service module, likely with circular solar arrays. But this was an added expense. Then someone at NASA had what is, in my mind, the best move NASA has made since 1994 when they internationalized Space Station Freedom to save it from cancellation. (turning it into the ISS).

    The ESA has a vehicle called the Automated Transfer Vehicle, the ATV, they use to resupply the space station once or twice a year. It looks like this. It is the principle means of resupplying the ISS. It brings more cargo than SpaceX Dragons or Russian Progress vehicles. It's one of Europe's most important space projects, because it is a first step to independent spaceflight.



    It has a pressurized section with racks that haul cargo, a service section. If it had a capsule instead of the "cargo room", it could be a full fledged space vehicle. In fact previously,the ESA planned to make it just that at some point in the future, to give it the ability to launch European Astronauts on it's own.

    But NASA saw what it had on it's plate to pay for . NASA thought about it. The US has the capsule, while the ESA has something very much like a service module... why not kill two birds with one stone?

    The result is this (note this picture has a medium sized upper stage attach to the back of the service module): Orion.



    This should give you a sense of how big the Orion capsule is. It's gigantic for a capsule.

    So what's the deal? Through at least 2025 the ESA will supply modified ATVs to act as the Orion's service module. In exchange, ESA astronauts will be included in Missions, and ESA modules in Gateway station (if it is built), and hopefully, ESA personnel on our joint Mars mission. Basically NASA is binding itself to the ESA for the long term. We're combining our resources.

    The contract is only through 2025 though, and while a Mars space craft will not need an ATV-derived service module, any Orion mission to Earth-Moon region space will. This will keep the ATV production line open well past the lifetime (which means jobs) of the ISS and bind the ESA to the US Space Program for decades to come. As I said, fucking brilliant move.

    And yes, this is why we retired the shuttles. The shuttles easily had another 10+ years in each of them (20+ for Endevour) but we couldn't afford to fly the Space Shuttle (really just for the SAKE of flying it... it's purpose was fulfilled), fun the ISS, and build the SLS, all for the tune of about $3 billion a year, each. Something had to give, so the vintage 1970s space vehicle was the first to go.

    The shuttles were great, but the most useful capability the shuttle had was it's ability to bring heavy cargo back from space, which was rarely utilized. For going to Mars, or building space infrastructure, the shuttle is the wrong vehicle. hell, it took something like 45 flights for the shuttle to build the ISS... SLS could have done it in ~8. It's good it's gone. Orion provides true space-faring capability.
    Last edited by Skroe; 2014-05-03 at 01:49 PM.

  11. #11
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,283
    By "dry run" I meant using the moon to iron out some of the logistics, though an asteroid mission could serve the same purpose. We placed people on a celestial body before but its been a very long time.

    I still fear the future of NASA's manned space program because it seems like they only get stuff done right when you light a fire under their ass. Constellation was a mess.

  12. #12
    Deleted
    Skroesec: thank you for your informative replie. I am impressed by the sanity of NASA, we need a Service Module, look the ESA have the ATV in production we can use it as a Service Module.....

  13. #13
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by a77 View Post
    Skroesec: thank you for your informative replie. I am impressed by the sanity of NASA, we need a Service Module, look the ESA have the ATV in production we can use it as a Service Module.....
    The Europeans understand the value of investing into science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  14. #14
    Badass. About time.

  15. #15
    Titan Yunru's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Continent of Orsterra
    Posts
    12,392
    This craft seems like a waste of money. A better investment would be a lunar mining base, so we can use the solar power to build ships there.
    Or something like this:

    Big large slow mothership to colonize the mars. (made in space)
    Don't sweat the details!!!

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by pacox View Post
    By "dry run" I meant using the moon to iron out some of the logistics, though an asteroid mission could serve the same purpose. We placed people on a celestial body before but its been a very long time.

    I still fear the future of NASA's manned space program because it seems like they only get stuff done right when you light a fire under their ass. Constellation was a mess.
    Your point is valid, but your destination is wrong. If you want to test logistics, you do that on Phobos, the moon of Mars, rather than our Moon.

    Getting to Mars for American spaceflight is actually pretty easy (I use that qualifier because it's difficult for most other countries). You wait until Earth and Mars are in the right spot in their orbital paths as to allow for the least amount of fuel to be used, and the launch within the window. For us, getting to Mars is America's deep space bread and butter. The challenge with human has to do with duration (4-6 months, depending on propulsion method) saftey from cosmic radiation, and health from long exposure to weightlessness. But we have the technology to send humans into Mars orbit, no sweat. It wouldn't even be the expensive part of the missions. You wouldn't even really need new launch vehicles to do that. The space shuttle could have taken copies of certain ISS components (flown and unflown), along with a new main-mission module (control center) and propulsion stage, and built it very bare bones, in orbit, at any time in the last 20 years. As i said before, the eventual Mars ship will be about 2/3rds the mass of the space station (with a new propulsion stage), so we've actaully built something bigger than what we'll need to go to Mars.

    The difficulty of mars is (in order of difficulty) and cost is reflected in:

    (0) Returning from it (if chemical rocketry is used)
    (1) Landing on it.
    (2) Lifting off of it.
    (3) living on it.

    Almost all the cost of the mission is there. Getting to Mars, is the easy part. We could do that in almost no time.


    getting back to your point about logistics, it's very likely that years before we land on Mars, NASA will send astronauts to Phobos to dry run the logistical challenges and use Phobos as a logistics hub. Phobos is not the moon. It is a captured asteroid with an orbit so low, that that will impact Mars in just 8 million more years (after billions of years of orbiting it). It is essentially a big rock in space with the fleetingest of gravity. A mission to phobos, like other asteroids, may be able to dock directly with it. It might not require a lander at all (thus, saving costs). If that's the case, then we hit the jackpot with Mars as our destiantion, because it means we can start basing supplies on Phobos without worrying about the concept of "downmass" (that is to say "landing" supplies on Phobos).

    A trip to Phobos would have a very similar mission profile to Mars, without the immense expense of landing on Mars, living on Mars and Launching off Mars. It would be the closest analogy that a Manned Mars trip would have to Apollo 8, since simply orbiting Mars doesn't actually accomplish anything. The trip there and back would valdiate the transit methodology and vehicle capability (the vehicle would be restocked and reused every trip). It would allow us to establish a foot hold in orbit around Mars for the actual manned landing. It would accomplish great science too. But it would leave the danger and difficulty of actually landing and living on Mars for the next mission and wisely, not try to validate five different systems in one mission. It would essentially be a dry run for the vehicle meant to return people safely to earth. Once NASA has confidence in that, then they can start focusing on landing people on Mars.

    The Phobos idea is a new one, but it is one that has made more rapid progress in moving the Mars mission beyond the conceptual stage to the planning stage than any other idea in memory. It's highly likely that the eventual manned mission to Mars will look something like this, starting in 2032ish.

    2029 - a Delta IV Heavy launches a docking mechanism to Phobos and a Mars telecommunications orbiter (meant as a relay for manned missions).
    by 2033 -6 SLS Block II cargo flights build and supply the "Mars Transit Vehicle (MTV).
    2034 - SLS Block II manned sends Orion + cargo to the MTV. Orion carries crew of 4.
    2034 - First manned Mission to Mars orbit. Docks with Phobos in early 2035. Validates technology and methodology.
    mid 2035 - After 3 months in orbit, MTV begins journey back to Earth. Arrive in early 2036.
    2036 - MTV refurbish and resupplied. Some modules replaced.
    2036 - 4 SLS Block II Cargo flights launch planetary payload to Phobos and Mars. Phobos plays host to the "Phobos-Mars lander", which provides the mans for manned crews to land on Mars. Very large Habitation module with supplies. and base is landed on Mars and deployed robotically. As of 2014 the technology to land large things on Mars does not yet exist.
    late 2037 - First manned Mission to Mars disembarks in the MTV. Crew of 8. Two Orion's are carried.
    Mid 2038 - MTV arrives in Mars orbit, docks with Phobos. Crew takes the Phobos-Mars Lander to the base on Mars. First Man on Mars becomes a reality.Crew spends 300 earth days on Mars.
    Mid-Late 2039 - Crew finishes manufacturing the methane fuel needed for the the Phobos-Mars lander, and returns to Phobos. MTV leaves Mars orbit
    Early 2040 - First Mars crew returns to Earth. MTV still in orbit.

    Subsequent flights will keep utilizing the MTVs, with eventually multiple MTVs being built to allow for continuous basing on Mars. One unknown is if (and how often) the Phobos-Mars lander will need to be replaced. Every replacement would need a SLS Block II flight of a new lander to Phobos, which would get expensive if it were replaced every mission, so simplicitly and reusablity would be essential. This is the biggest technical challenge before going to Mars.

    So you have exactly the right idea, just the wrong Moon. Phobos is very important. We can built legitimate Mars-system infrastructure there owing to it's low gravity and low orbit. It's an ideal beachhead.

    This plan I laid out here is what NASA's most recent Mars mission plans reflect. It's very unlikely we'll just do a direct Earth-> Mars trip without going to Phobos first. In fact, Earth-> Mars would save us one mission cost (the first trip to Mars orbit without landing) at the price of immense technical mission complexity for the actual manned landing mission.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Descense View Post
    This craft seems like a waste of money. A better investment would be a lunar mining base, so we can use the solar power to build ships there.
    Or something like this:

    Big large slow mothership to colonize the mars. (made in space)
    Never going to happen. At least, not for many hundreds of years.

    Spacecraft are built in extremely controlled conditions by large staffs of engineers, manufactuerers, weldiers, electricians... so many specialties. They require components weighing hundreds of thousands of tons (far more than they can lift) from suppliers world wide.

    Any Lunar rocket manufacturing would essentially have to replicate the entire US/European/Japanese/ Canadian space flight industry on the Moon, including moving the people there. That would alone require a large rocket like this. And that means that any resource that does not exist on the moon needed for construction would have to be sent up, and then landed on it, somehow.

    Basically in the end, you're adding expense for the honor of doing it on the moon. A far more realistic and economic option is to have orbital refueling depots. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and a propellant. If it could be mined and then tanked, every single rocket could be retrofitted with orbital refueling technology, greatly enhancing their capability. Remember, an SLS Block IIB can loft about 6-7 times the cargo as a Delta IV Heavy to LEO, but only about twice as much as a Delta IV Heavy to TLI (lunar orbit trajectory). If a Delta IV Heavy could refuel after reaching oribit, and we had fueling depots laid out at Lagrangian points, super-heavy lift, never mind off world construction of space vehicles, might be economically irrelevant.

  17. #17
    Why are we spending more time/energy/money on space exploration when we have a huge vastly unexplored ocean we can exploit?

  18. #18
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Silk Road
    Posts
    9,424
    Quote Originally Posted by cratezhayao View Post
    This craft seems like a waste of money.
    There are reasons the SLS is called the Senate Launch System and Rocket to Nowhere. And while NASA (or someone else) may someday find something wonderful to do with the Orion, right now its primary mission seems to be getting federal dollars into Lockheed Martin's bank accounts. (And that's without mentioning that both will likely be rendered obsolete by SpaceX before they reach operational status.)
    "In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    There are reasons the SLS is called the Senate Launch System and Rocket to Nowhere.
    The name 'Senate Launch System' is meant to be derisive, but it's really perfectly descriptive. It took Congressional intervention to tell NASA exactly what it was going to do after the failures of (in chronological order):

    - Shuttle C
    - DC-X
    -The X-33/VentureStar (late 1990s->2002)
    -Orbital Space Plane
    -The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle
    -Constellation.

    NASA's legacy of of new launch systems since 1980 is utterly abysmal. Let's not forget that the EELV launchers NASA relies upon - the Delta IV and Atlas V - were developed, funded and built, by the Air Force, and not NASA. NASA hated it. More than anything else at the turn of millennium, they wanted the EELV program to die, because it meant they no longer had the monopoly, in government, on human spaceflight.

    And what has happened since the EELVs sarted flying in 2000? They've become NASA's principle launcher. Every major space probe since 2000 has been on an EELV NASA played no part in.

    Congres stepped in, because Barack Obama wanted to kill human spaceflight, and because NASA has failed, continuously with it's programs because of it's internal politics. The name 'Senate Launch System', they use, but it's really an object of humilation, a reminder that the days of being left to their own devices are effectively over. What you see in that comment is resentment about the end of a culture very used to getting its way. What did they want instead of the SLS? Really depends who you asked at NASA. One clique wanted a follow up "Shuttle 2". Another wanted an all-new fully liquid booster with no Shuttle technology. Another faction wants commercial launchers. Then there was the DIRECT faction, the people who wanted to put a capsule on EELVs, and people who want to turn NASA into the Climate Change Agency (including White House Science Advisor John P Holdren.

    In fact, without the SLS, there would be no plan... NASA would be riven by the turf battles that have consumed it since the late 1990s.

    We see this, even in things that have nothing to do with the SLS. The NRO gave NASA in 2012 two and a half unused KH-11 Spy satellites. The Hubble Space telescope is essentially, a KH-11 with a different optics package that is looking down. If you saw the two side by side, KH-11 would look slightly fatter, but is otherwise identical. the NRO Gift is perfect for a mission called WFIRST, the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), to look at the early universe across a very large arc of space. In fact, the KH-11 design is far beyond anything NASA was planning for WFIRST. It provides capability far beyond what they expected to design in a new sattelite. And NASA has two and a half of these things, valued at $200 million a piece. Sounds great huh?

    NASA has been spending the past two years trying to avoid being forced to use them.

    First, they tried not to acknowledge the NRO gift. Then, they tried to paydown their capabilities. When faced with congressional scruitny on the gift, they tried to say that the NRO gift would add, rather than subtract, from the cost of the NRO mission, an assertion debunked by the Congressional Budget Office. At the end of last year, they basically gave us resistance, having gone through every excuse not to use things things. And even then, while the use of one of them is now likely, the use of the second, and then finishing the third, is trying to be avoided by the agency.

    Why? Because this is not what THEY wanted. They had a very specific vision of a sattelite, then a more capable successor, that the NRO design basically displaced both of, and aceclerated their plans. It's a turf battle, over ownership of a project, plain and simple. Again, another indication of an agency that has gotten very used to getting it's way.

    So "Senate Launch System"... it should wear that name with pride. The Senate writing into law what the vehicle will be and what it will launch by when, has made the SLS progress vastly faster than Constellation was.


    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    And while NASA (or someone else) may someday find something wonderful to do with the Orion, right now its primary mission seems to be getting federal dollars into Lockheed Martin's bank accounts.
    Wrong. You're fundamentally wrong on this. Orion itself is inexpensive and launch-vehicle independent.
    The SLS core stage is being built principally by Boeing, on NASA owned facilities, exactly like the Space Shuttle External Tank from which it was derived. It's RD-25D/E engines are being built by Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne.

    The boosters are being built by ATK, now ATK-Orbital, just like the Shuttle stack. If you're part of the "all liquids clique", this is the part you look at in see pork, because a faction of NASA just despises solids for really crappy reasons.

    So like the Space Shuttle, the SLS is a huge multi-contractor program. Oh and something else? It's also 6 months ahead of schedule and $80 million under budget. You name another large government program that is doing so well.

    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    (And that's without mentioning that both will likely be rendered obsolete by SpaceX before they reach operational status.)
    No. Fundamentally no. I'm a huge believer in SpaceX, but they are fundamentally different vehicles. That's like comparing Apples and Steak, just because they're both food.

    Dragon is not capable of deep space travel. Orion is designed for that. That means more sophisticated radiation hardening, entirely different flight systems. More protection from cosmic radiation. A better power system. It would take a massive redesign for Dragon to be able to do what Orion is able to do right now. Will that redesign come? Yes. It will. SpaceX will do it... next decade. They have no plans to send people beyond LEO any time soon, so they have no need to develop said vehicle yet. Right now, they are just getting started on the Raptor engine, that will be the backbone of their Mars mission, way down the line.

    Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are in no way substitutes for the SLS. They are fundamentally different.

    Falcon 9 launches 15 tons of cargo. It will have the capability to have it's first stage reusable by the end of the year.
    Falcon Heavy, which will launch next year, will be able to launch 50 tons of cargo. The first stages on it's 3 cores will come in an optionally reusable configuration.
    SLS will be able to launch 70tons in 2017, 105tons in 2021, and 130-150 tons in 2028 (booster dependent).

    Now the common refrain from the anti-SLS crowd, is that repeated Falcon Heavy flights can make the SLS obsolete. This is a baldfaced lie for a few of reasons - and they know it is too by the way, again, it's poltiics and a turf ware.

    Falcon Heavy in a non-reusable configuration (no landing legs) will indeed be able to to launch 53 tons to LEO. However even with an expanded payload shroud, it's maximum diameter will be 4.5 meters, or just over half of what the first version of the SLS will be able to launch (never mind a possible 10m variant beyond 2030). In a reusable configuration, it's launch capability diminishes to ~40 tons to LEO. Don't get me wrong... this is GREAT for LEO operations and is a true improvement over EELVs. But on this alone, you cannot build Mars missions with a small-diameter launcher that will require three launches for every one launch of the SLS. While the $135 million per flight figure of Falcon Heavy is very, very good, three of them to LEO is only slightly less expensive than one SLS flight to LEO, at the cost of added mission compexity do to smaller modules in the cargo.

    Falcon Heavy pushers / Anti-SLS advocates typically counteract this argument in two ways:
    (1) Falcon Heavy can make use of inflatable modules, so volume doesn't matter.
    (2) Falcon Heavy could make use of orbital refueling.

    These two, are mostly fantasy.

    (1) Bigelow Aereospace is the only company doing inflatable development at the minute, and they're not close to doing something ready for deep space. Furthermore while certain crew modules could (and will) certainly be inflatable, other major components - like the propulsion stage, or radiation shielding - cannot be inflatable. These will simply require a high-mass / high volume launcher to loft. Furthermore, any Lunar or Mars mission will require an Earth Departure Stage. The Falcon Heavy is not designed for that (it's upperstage is uniformly a single Merlin-1D). We would have no way of leaving orbit.

    (2) Orbital Refueling is the Magical Unicorn of the Space Community. They've been chasing that dream for twenty years and are no further today than they were twenty years ago. The economics of launching Falcon Heavies (or any other rocket) filled with fuel, such as Kerosene, are still terrible. Furthermore, despite serious efforts by NASA and Bigelow Aerospace to address the major technical problem, there has been almost no progress on it. What technical problem? Boiling off. Volatile fuel boils off in space. It's half the reason the orbital refueling route wasnt discussed in 2012 by Congress, even though it would have meant immense, sustainable business to ULA (the Boeing / Lockheed consortium that builds the EELVs). Orbital refueling is important and will continue to be worked on, but let's be absolutely clear about something: many of the anti-SLS / pro-alternative pushers assume this technology is a done deal, ready to go. It is wishful thinking on their part. Without orbital refueling, Falcon Heavy cannot be used for manned missions beyond LEO. It can be used for probes beyond LEO for sure, and manned missions to LEO. But it doesn't have the power to send large masses to Mars without it.

    SLS will be flying in it's 70t and 105t configuration before Orbital Refueling is even experimentally tried, at the current rate of development. It's 130t configuration will likely beat large-scale deployment. The economics of it simply have to change.

    The SLS is the best solution, on the best schedule, at a reasonable cost, a cost that is challenged despite it's affordability compared to both Ares I/V and the Space Shuttle, simply because yet-another-faction wants to protect the ISS and they know NASA cannot afford BOTH the $3 billion per year ISS and the $3 billion per year SLS + $3 billion per year cargo it caries, while doing Space Science and everything else.

    You're seeing a vicious, terrible turf war at work. Even Elon Musk, my personal hero, said earlier this year in Congressional testimony that SLS and Falcon compliment each other and are in no way shape or form competitors. NASA will use both. NASA will use Orion and Dragon. But that doesn't mean the SLS is a bad program. Far from it, it's tremendously pragmatic program that is what will take Americans to Mars. But what it is, is hated, by a highly fictionalized NASA that had it humiliatingly forced upon, because these people all arrogantly want their own vision.

    So let's not forget, in the story of the "Senate Launch System", Congress is the Hero, SpaceX is the hero, and NASA which had to be threatened into compliance, is the villain of it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    -Edit-
    I want to add one more important thing. People at NASA lie, and lie a lot. They are not trustworthy or honest people. They are political turf warriors who will do anything, say anything to get their way.

    Two weeks ago, NASA Chief Administrator Charlie Bolden, the head of NASA said the most incredible thing I've heard a NASA administrator say in about 8 years. He said, that if the Ukraine situation leads to the termination of US astronauts going to the ISS, and the entire ISS program, he would recommend the termination of the SLS program to congress. He said, incredulously, without the ISS, NASA will have no idea how humans can live in space, and thus no need for the SLS.

    Congress got a good laugh out of that (more on that in a sec), but the broader spaceflight community was appalled by this comment and the sheer dishonesty of it. How it is it a lie?

    First of all it's not backed up by the data. NASA has been conducting extensive living-in-space science since the early 1990s, first on the shuttle, and then in the 15 year old ISS that has seen dozens of crews and hundreds of astronauts and cosmonauts visit i. There is a mountain of data bout living in space, and the medical / biological challenges.

    Secondly, it is not backed up by history. A mission to Earth-Moon L2 or Lunar orbit would look identical in many ways, to to Apollo program in terms of exposure of Astronauts to things that could hurt them. The Apollo program did this, without a space station. They were thoroughly medically vetted before and AFTER, to see the effects of deep space travel. So why was it okay for NASA in the 1960s to not "need a space station" to go to deep space, but NASA in 2014 requiring it?

    The community called him on his bullshit. Congress called him on his bullshit. But everyone knows exactly why he said it. Charlie Bolden is a company man. He's an astronaut who flew on the shuttle and a former military General. His company right now is the Obama Administration. While he was not thrilled about John P Holdren's stupid attempt at ending Man Spaceflight, he was no lover of the SLS and lobbied hard against it, to protect the ISS. He is a diehard member of NASA's large ISS clique, large because the rack science on the ISS (at $250,000 per rack) supports thousands of scientists' careers. So his boss told him to tow an anti-SLS / pro-ISS line, and he did that.

    What he is saying in this comment, is that if you kill the program I do want, I'll recommend that you kill the program I don't want and have long hated. It's dishonest, scortched earth politics, coming from NASA's chief Administrator... the same Chief Administrator who pushed this statement, when NASA sanctions against Russia were announced:
    https://plus.google.com/+NASA/posts/eihoeSm5fVy

    Statement regarding suspension of some NASA activities with Russian Government representatives:

    Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, NASA is suspending the majority of its ongoing engagements with the Russian Federation. NASA and Roscosmos will, however, continue to work together to maintain safe and continuous operation of the International Space Station. NASA is laser focused on a plan to return human spaceflight launches to American soil, and end our reliance on Russia to get into space. This has been a top priority of the Obama Administration’s for the past five years, and had our plan been fully funded, we would have returned American human spaceflight launches – and the jobs they support – back to the United States next year. With the reduced level of funding approved by Congress, we’re now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017. The choice here is between fully funding the plan to bring space launches back to America or continuing to send millions of dollars to the Russians. It’s that simple. The Obama Administration chooses to invest in America – and we are hopeful that Congress will do the same.
    Like... fucking inappropriate time and place, guy? A statement about NASA's legal requirement, and it becomes another weapon in the war between the Obama Administration and Congress, with what is supposed to be the non-political NASA weirdly fawning the Obama Administration.

    Like let's just digest this for a moment. This was the official statement, from NASA, on sanctions. This from an agency which is supposed exude professionalism... this political whine comes about?

    It's even a flat out fucking lie too. NASA funding has not been cut by more than a few hundred million and has even increased some years. It was mostly spared cuts that the government imposed across other agencies. What was cut, and what they are referring to in the middle of it when they said "had our plan been fully funded", is how Congress funded the SLS in full, while giving the separate Commercial Crew program 2/3rds it's requested funding, which has had little effect on the progress of Commercial Crew other than a one year delay.

    This is our space agency. They lie to the public. They lie to Congress. They fight over priorities because their REAL boss (Congress) disagrees, and they disgrace themselves in public settings by putting out appallingly inappropriate programs. I support Commercial Crew as much as I do SLS and would love to see both fully funded... but seriously... what the hell is this *points*. What the hell with the political statements, the sniping and the lying?

    This is NASA in 2014, a place that resents the much needed tough love it got from Congress.

  20. #20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •