A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Additional SLS Launch Delay



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 28th 18, 11:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Additional SLS Launch Delay

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 27 Mar 2018
06:05:58 -0400:

In article ,
says...

wrote on Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT):

NASA chief explains why agency won?t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets:

"By some estimates, NASA could afford 17 to 27 Falcon Heavy launches a year for
what it is paying annually to develop the SLS rocket, which won't fly before
2020. Even President Trump has mused about the high costs of NASA's rocket.

On Monday, during a committee meeting of NASA's Advisory Council, former Space
Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale raised this issue. Following a presentation
by Bill Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight for NASA, Hale asked whether
the space agency wouldn't be better off going with the cheaper commercial
rocket.

"Now that the Falcon Heavy has flown and been demonstrated, the advertised cost
for that is quite low," Hale said. "So there are a lot of folks who ask why
don't we just buy four or five or six of those and do what we need to do without
building this big, heavy rocket and assemble things like we did with the space
station?""

See:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...heavy-rockets/


And have they asked SpaceX what it would cost to develop the Falcon
Super Heavy, which would have at least the capability of SLS Block 1B?


Falcon Heavy cost $500 million to develop. Even if Super Heavy cost
double that, it would still less than a single year of SLS development
funding. SLS Block 1B won't fly realistically for another 6 years. So,
I'd WAG that Super Heavy would cost about 1/10th of what it will cost
SLS Block IB just to get to first flight.


Falcon Super Heavy would cost much less than that. They hit all the
big speed bumps with side boosters doing Falcon Heavy.


I know, I was being "conservative".


Same goes for launch costs. Even if we assume Super Heavy costs double
compared to Falcon Heavy, that's about $300 million per launch in fully
expendable mode, so partially reusable mode would be a bit less than
that.


My guestimate is that Falcon Super Heavy in reusable form would cost
around $120 million (Falcon Heavy is only about $30 million more than
Falcon 9) and less than $250 million in expendable form.


Sounds about right. Again, I was being "conservative".

SLS Block 1B is what NASA will be flying when BFR is ready.


Hopefully. SpaceX would no doubt like to focus all of its development
efforts on BFR instead of Falcon Super Heavy. Unfortunately, we may
have to wait until BFR is flying before SLS is finally killed. BFR will
obsolete SLS completely.


I don't think that will be enough to kill it at this point.


You don't think BFR flying will be enough to kill SLS? BFR will make
SLS look like horse drawn wagons at the dawn of the age of the
automobile. Especially when BFR starts flying crew, refueling in LEO,
and making trips beyond LEO, SLS will look like an antique.

I would hope at that point Congress would stop beating the dead horse
and bury it. This Administration doesn't care much about SLS, it's
Congress that needs "convincing".

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #13  
Old March 28th 18, 12:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Additional SLS Launch Delay

Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 28 Mar 2018
06:58:58 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 27 Mar 2018
06:05:58 -0400:

In article ,
says...

SLS Block 1B is what NASA will be flying when BFR is ready.


Hopefully. SpaceX would no doubt like to focus all of its development
efforts on BFR instead of Falcon Super Heavy. Unfortunately, we may
have to wait until BFR is flying before SLS is finally killed. BFR will
obsolete SLS completely.


I don't think that will be enough to kill it at this point.


You don't think BFR flying will be enough to kill SLS? BFR will make
SLS look like horse drawn wagons at the dawn of the age of the
automobile. Especially when BFR starts flying crew, refueling in LEO,
and making trips beyond LEO, SLS will look like an antique.

I would hope at that point Congress would stop beating the dead horse
and bury it. This Administration doesn't care much about SLS, it's
Congress that needs "convincing".


I honestly don't think so. I think what we'll get is a "yes, it has
the cargo capacity but the payload interface requirements don't match
our payloads right now and changing those would be prohibitively
expensive" and they will continue to **** money down the SLS rat hole.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #14  
Old March 28th 18, 10:02 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Additional SLS Launch Delay

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 28 Mar 2018
16:28:20 -0400:

On 2018-03-28 01:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Why, they'll start the Lunar Orbiting Platform - Gateway. And use
that as justification for needing more engines and more launches.


Isn't "gateway" just the equivalent of a toilet stop in the middle of
the desert you can use on long car trips? Without the long car trips,
it isn't needed. And you can't stay there for long.


I personally don't see the point of the thing, which makes it the
perfect NASA project.


And since the real trips to Mars will be staged from LEO where BRF will
refuel BFS which will then goto Mars direct, I suspect that SLS will get
cut long before NASA has the first component for "Gateway" ready to launch.


NASA's plan is to go to Mars from the Gateway.


Remember that both NASA and Russia were late with their modules.


What?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #15  
Old March 29th 18, 04:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Additional SLS Launch Delay

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 28 Mar 2018
17:25:33 -0400:

On 2018-03-28 17:02, Fred J. McCall wrote:

NASA's plan is to go to Mars from the Gateway.


Yep. But if the only purpose of Gateway is to act as a pitstop for such
travel, then you only build it once you are sure you are going to Mars
that way.


Wrong. In fact, using that logic nothing would ever get built.


In fact, does Gateway have ANY use?


Ask NASA.


If you're going to assemble and fuel
a Mars expedition ship around the moon, won't it be easier to just send
first module to any Moon orbit and attach subsequent modules to it?


Again, ask NASA. Here. Feel free to go argue with them about it.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-...-in-deep-space


If gateway were as big as the space station with crew based there who
could do EVAs etc, I can see an advantage. (send new module, do basic
auto berth, and have crews complete the connections, tests etc).


See the link above.


But as it stands, the first module sent up for mars expedition will
likely be more functional than gateway anyways.


Oh, I see. You're arguing about what you IMAGINE.


When SpaceX shows faster progress with BFR/BFS than NASA does with
whatever it designs to get to and from Mars, NASA's idea to get to Mars
will get killed.


Want to bet?




Remember that both NASA and Russia were late with their modules.


What?


Sorry, meant to mention the ISS. Both Russia and USA were late in
delivering their modules to ISS.


Yes, but so what?


NASA is bound to be late with Gateway as well.


Based on what?


The more delayed Gateway is, the more the chances that SLS
will be killed before the first Gateway part is ready.


Based on what?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #17  
Old March 29th 18, 04:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Additional SLS Launch Delay

JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 29 Mar 2018
04:35:24 -0400:

On 2018-03-28 23:06, Fred J. McCall wrote:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-...-in-deep-space



And did you follow my suggestion and ask NASA all your questions?
Apparently not, so accept the answers you're about to be given.


The image I had been given from reading elsewhere was the equivalent of
Zarya/Node1 days of ISS where ECLSS was provided by the visiting Shuttle
and they just had fans running from small solar array.


I don't feel responsible for "the image you had been given". The
Gateway will consist of at least four modules: Power and Propulsion,
Habitation, Logistics, Docking.


Sustaining indeterminate number of crews for 30 to 60 days requires full
ECLSS and toilet.


Four crew for up to 41 days, initially. Long duration missions later
during Gateway full up testing.


So essentially, they need to build Destiny (ECLSS +
command and control) one node, the airlock and the PMA docking
adpaters, and then add the toilet, propulsion and enough solar panels
and radiators for power/cooling.


Or they just need to order a B330-DS. Order two and you've taken care
of both the Habitation and Logistics modules. Note that these are
heavier (and more capable) than NASA's current plan, but can probably
be spun up more quickly than some clean sheet design. NASA's current
plan has each individual module of the Gateway at a target mass of 10
tonnes or less. A B330 weighs about twice that. I think their mass
limit is a result of having each module after the PPS module delivered
by Orion, so the total to TLI is limited to a 26 tonne Orion and 13
tonnes of other cargo to stay within the capability of SLS Block 1B.


Unless they duplicate Destiny/nodes/airlocks and its old military copper
networking, and all the software, there is no way they would be ready to
start launching by 2022.


Oh, don't be silly! The Habitation module isn't expected to launch
until 2024. The 2022 launch is the Power and Propulsion module and it
is now planned to go on a commercial launcher, probably Falcon Heavy
or Vulcan (although Vulcan ACES won't be available in time).


Oh, does NASA even have automated docking software so a module can get
to that Gateway and dock automatically so station can self-assemble
without crew, canadarm ?


Of course they do. Orion does automated docking (which is probably
why they're sending each of the pieces of the Gateway on a mission
that includes Orion). The Gateway Logistics module will have an arm.


Also, that page mentions commercial cargo resupply. Who would do this
and with what rocket and what cargo vehicle?


Who would do it? Whoever wanted to bid on it. The expected players
would be ULA with Vulcan, SpaceX with Falcon Heavy, and Blue Origin
with New Armstrong. Cargo vehicles would presumably be Dragon,
CST-100, and whatever Blue Origin comes up with for a cargo module.


How many such cargo resupply would be required by NASA and if it is only
1 or 2, do you really think the likely suspects will spend the megabucks
to develop such a system?


They're going to need more than a couple resupply missions given the
days of 'stay time' they're talking about for crewed operation.


Is it fair to assume that Dragon on Falcon9 can't make it to the moon
and back?


It can, but it would be cargo-limited since Cargo Dragon's dry mass
eats up around 2/3 of the TLI capability of Falcon 9. Falcon Heavy is
more likely.



Oh, I see. You're arguing about what you IMAGINE.


I had read elsewhere that the hab capabilities expanded the Orion's
space and provided an airlock to allow crews to do EVAs but not meant to
support life for long periods. (aka. short missions supported by Orion).
The NASA text above, by stating 30 to 60 day support changes this quite
a bit, but also makes this Gateway far bigger and far more costly, with
no regular use planned. Just a pet project.


Where do you get the 'no regular use planned'?



Yes, but so what?


So despite NASA's proven on-time performance for SLS, Orion, and despite
its proven on-time performance for ISS modules, you still really believe
that it can design, build, test enough modules to make Gateway liveable
before they run out of SSME engines and/or funding for SLS ?


The Power and Propulsion module is already designed (from the asteroid
mission). They're going to be buying more SLS engines. Your only
apparently reason for believing everything will be late is, well, your
imagination. Funding for the start of Gateway is in the current
budget request.

snip political bull****

No, I don't need to consider your political delusions.

Read this.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017...lti-step-mars/


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Possible Shuttle launch delay Pat Flannery Policy 0 March 14th 10 03:50 PM
launch delay is manifest snidely Space Shuttle 0 February 4th 09 10:48 AM
launch delay 24 hrs Jim Oberg Space Shuttle 4 August 6th 07 03:03 AM
THAICOM 4 (IPSTAR) launch : several days additional delay Jacques van Oene News 0 July 19th 05 02:11 PM
Russians delay launch of new booster Revision History 6 November 2nd 04 04:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.