SLS Stage 1 missions

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1109/14heavylift/

The SLS rocket will first appear in a 70 metric ton 'lite' version.
What would be possible missions for this thing? I can' imagine them
sending people to Mars in an Orion capsule, the crew would most likely
go mad. A two month asteroid mission would be risky but just barely
within the realm of possiblity. A Lunar mission will only be possible
with the 'large' version, if at all.

Each launch is most likely going to cost at least as much as Shuttle.
So where's the gain? Where will they go?

On Sep 15, 9:28*am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1109/14heavylift/

The SLS rocket will first appear in a 70 metric ton 'lite' version.
What would be possible missions for this thing? I can' imagine them
sending people to Mars in an Orion capsule, the crew would most likely
go mad. A two month asteroid mission would be risky but just barely
within the realm of possiblity. A Lunar mission will only be possible
with the 'large' version, if at all.

Each launch is most likely going to cost at least as much as Shuttle.
So where's the gain? Where will they go?

Short-duration missions will be lunar orbit, GEO, and short stays at
Earth-Moon L1 and L2, in all likelihood.

In article ,
says...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1109/14heavylift/

The SLS rocket will first appear in a 70 metric ton 'lite' version.
What would be possible missions for this thing? I can' imagine them
sending people to Mars in an Orion capsule, the crew would most likely
go mad. A two month asteroid mission would be risky but just barely
within the realm of possiblity. A Lunar mission will only be possible
with the 'large' version, if at all.

Each launch is most likely going to cost at least as much as Shuttle.
So where's the gain? Where will they go?

The upper stage of the 'heavy' version is what's needed to escape
earth's gravity with a meaningful payload.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

Matt Wiser wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:28 am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
Each launch is most likely going to cost at least as much as Shuttle.
So where's the gain? Where will they go?

Short-duration missions will be lunar orbit, GEO, and short stays at
Earth-Moon L1 and L2, in all likelihood.

Why should a manned mission go to GEO or L1/L2? Seems even more silly
than going to asteroids or the moon.

Matthias

On 9/15/2011 8:28 AM, Kulin Remailer wrote:


A Lunar mission will only be possible
with the 'large' version, if at all.

You could do a lunar mission using two launches and putting the parts
together in LEO.
The Constellation plan was to us an Ares I to orbit the Orion
spacecraft, and a Ares V to orbit the TLI stage and Altair lander.
Using the SLS, you would break the payload down into two larger pieces
that would be more evenly sized.
Maybe each would do a TLI burn on its own and then dock while they were
on the way to the Moon.

Pat

On 15 Sep 2011 16:28:42 -0000, Kulin Remailer
wrote:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1109/14heavylift/

The SLS rocket will first appear in a 70 metric ton 'lite' version.
What would be possible missions for this thing? I can' imagine them
sending people to Mars in an Orion capsule, the crew would most likely
go mad.

Orion's just the taxi to and from the Mars vehicle, which will
probably be a few Space Station-class modules bolted to fuel tanks and
a nuclear rocket engine.

A two month asteroid mission would be risky but just barely
within the realm of possiblity.

Fly it with an MPLM-like cargo/habitat to give the crew room to
stretch their legs. (MPLM is the big cargo module the Shuttles used to
haul supplies and experiments back and forth from the Station. We just
happen to have two sitting around looking for something to do.

A Lunar mission will only be possible
with the 'large' version, if at all.

Or two standard versions. Just dock them together and off you go.

Each launch is most likely going to cost at least as much as Shuttle.
So where's the gain? Where will they go?

Anywhere you want them to.

Brian

On 9/15/2011 10:23 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Short-duration missions will be lunar orbit, GEO, and short stays at
Earth-Moon L1 and L2, in all likelihood.

The way I heard it, the first lunar missions for Orion/MPCV wouldn't be
into and back out of lunar orbit, but just a lunar loop mission like the
Soviet Zonds did... which sounds pretty pathetic, as Apollo 8 did better
than that.

Pat

On 09/15/2011 11:28 AM, Kulin Remailer wrote:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1109/14heavylift/

The SLS rocket will first appear in a 70 metric ton 'lite' version.
What would be possible missions for this thing? I can' imagine them
sending people to Mars in an Orion capsule,

No one's suggesting we do that. It's almost universally acknowledged
that Mars missions will require multiple launches to assemble the Mars
Transfer Vehicle, and that the Orion would only be used to carry the
crew to the MTV, and return the crew at the end of the mission.

"Matthias Wieser" wrote in message
e...
Matt Wiser wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:28 am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
Each launch is most likely going to cost at least as much as Shuttle.
So where's the gain? Where will they go?

Short-duration missions will be lunar orbit, GEO, and short stays at
Earth-Moon L1 and L2, in all likelihood.

Why should a manned mission go to GEO or L1/L2? Seems even more silly
than going to asteroids or the moon.

Matthias


GEO offers possiblities for satellite servicing demonstrations, before
passing that off to the private sector; L1 could (underline could ten times)
be used to park a propellant depot-assuming that concept works, and we'll
have to wait until an in-space technology demonstrator is flown, likely in
2014, as per a recent NASA Request for Proposals. As for L2, a spacecraft at
L2 would be able to control a rover on the lunar farside, something that has
never been done. I don't like Flexible Path (I'm a moon first person, but
realize that the budget won't support a return to the lunar surface at
present), but it's the best program that the budget will support. So make
the best of it.

Matt Wiser wrote:


"Matthias Wieser" wrote in message
e...
Matt Wiser wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:28 am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
Each launch is most likely going to cost at least as much as
Shuttle. So where's the gain? Where will they go?

Short-duration missions will be lunar orbit, GEO, and short stays at
Earth-Moon L1 and L2, in all likelihood.

Why should a manned mission go to GEO or L1/L2? Seems even more silly
than going to asteroids or the moon.

Matthias


GEO offers possiblities for satellite servicing demonstrations, before
passing that off to the private sector;

Manned missions? No way. If satellite servicing will some time start -
then unmanned. Robotic arms and low latency links exist. MDA, Kayser
Threde and maybe others are in the process to develope such robotoc
servicing missions - but it depends if there is founding for these
developments.

L1 could (underline could ten
times) be used to park a propellant depot-assuming that concept works,
and we'll have to wait until an in-space technology demonstrator is
flown, likely in 2014, as per a recent NASA Request for Proposals.

That's no reason to perform a manned mission to L1. Either you have a
real destination somewhere else, then L1 could be a stop inbetween. Or
you don't have a real destination somewhere else, then there is also no
need/benefit for flying a manned mission to L1.

As
for L2, a spacecraft at L2 would be able to control a rover on the
lunar farside, something that has never been done.

Of course - but this relay satellite would not have to be manned.


Best regards,
Matthias