Smoke and Mirrors in Space
Truth behind #NASA Mars plan. There is nowhere near enough budget to fulfill any of this #emptypromise #Orion #EFT1 pic.twitter.com/L98NDI79Kd
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) December 5, 2014
Truth behind #NASA Mars plan. There is nowhere near enough budget to fulfill any of this #emptypromise #Orion #EFT1 pic.twitter.com/L98NDI79Kd
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) December 5, 2014
Their goal is to hope that by the time SLS is ready, NASA will have somehow conjured up the funding for it to do something.
Just thought of something. What are the odds that NASA will end up canceling and/or delaying to death Block IB for lack of funding and Administration apathy, leaving only the Block I booster as an extraordinarily expensive way to do the same thing that SpaceX and the other commercial crew companies are promising to do for cheaper?
Last I heard, the current thinking is to have just one launch of the SLS Block 1, and prioritizing the creation and use of a more capable 2nd stage, in whatever form that ultimately takes.
there’s so much that’s “up in the air” so to speak… it’s really hard to guess how things will ultimately pan out. a lot depends, as noted by everyone here, on what gets funding.
>conjured up the funding for it to do something
There’s plenty of something! Just think how many _tons_ of Star Trek figurines SLS could launch into LEO and back!
It might be because of the 6 year budget planning cycle that nothing shows up beyond 2020. However in another 6 years it ought to become obvious that not only have other boosters overtaken SLS but also that another capsule has overtaken Orion.
You meant the Martian Colonial Transports from Hawthorne will zoom pass the Orion Lunar Sortie capsule.
Supposedly each MCT will be capable of transporting 50 metric tons to the Martian surface. After getting to LEO on top of a BFR (aka Big Freaking Reusable) rocket and getting refuel prior to Earth departure.
There was some silly comments on another forum about the Colonial Fleet in the mid to late 2020s.
Nothing so motivates politicians as their adversaries. Unfortunately, sound reasons for increasing space exploration budgets as necessary for the long-term benefits reaped by the country in technology, economics, and security usually fall on deaf ears; with the possible exception of security. Future budget increases may depend more on the behavior of Russia and China with respect to their earthbound neighbors and their ambitions in space; than any intrinsic value of space exploration to the country. I support the current architecture because it gives us capability. I’m hoping for a better class of politician when it gets ready to go. I may have no realistic basis for that hope, but I don’t think what were currently doing is going to get us anywhere whether we go with the current architecture, return all the money over to commercial space. I think there’s just not enough. Once you go BEO things get a lot more complicated, and the possibility of adverse outcomes when you cut corners I think really increases. We’ll see.
Maybe if current architecture didn’t focus so much on trying to launch to Mars using one single launch, using one single big rocket then it might actually be possible. As it stands I even have doubts about SpaceX’s MCT going there in one launch. Then again, no real plans for MCT have been divulged so it might not even be just one launch. Only time will tell.
Yes, most people are assuming MCT to be a single monolithic vehicle.
If you look at the dV requirements from the Earth’s surface to Mars, SMV (single monolithic vehicle) is a very, very inefficient paradigm.
I’m convinced that Elon will look at the problem, and figure out that he needs to have an orbital fuel depot at EML1 or 2. The MCT will become either a cycler, or a reusable craft that launches from there and returns to there. Of course that implies that there is some type of CIS lunar transportation network up and running.
Regarding MCT, I suspect it will be a reusable propulsion module with a reusable payload carrier/mission vehicle equally able to do Mars descent and ascent (fully propulsive) or Earth launch and return (using inflatable TPS).
SSTO on Mars would be a very exciting vehicle.
Doing SSTO on Earth is very, very hard. I don’t see that as possible unless the design cuts out absolutely everything else not strictly required for booster ascent.
Not SSTO. Launch from Earth would use the reusable HLV. The mission profile would be something like this:
*Launch to orbit; R
* Rendezvous with a pre-launched propulsion stage;
* Fly to Mars;
* Drop off cargo and crew;
* Mars-based SSTO tanker refuels propulsion stage with ISRU LCH4 and LOX;
* Return to orbit;
* Fly back to Earth;
* Mission vehicle returns to Earth whilst propulsion stage is re-tanked and serviced in orbit.
Possible.
I imagine you’d want the reentry vehicle to be as small as possible, but you’d want a hab to use on the cruise to Mars to be on the large side. For this reason, I expect to see one vehicle for Earth orbit to Mars orbit transportation, and different vehicles for getting to and from the surface.
Looks like another Ares-1X
You mean the emperor has no clothes? Who’d a guessed!
i guess if you can’t do real work, make a glossy presentation ?
I don’t think anyone who talks about “SLS to Mars” has really thought
about it or even bothered to research it. I’m sure they don’t know how
long it takes to go to Mars (six months by direct route) or how long
Orion can operate (21 days with four crew).
NASA has to hold some responsibility for this lack of common knowledge and this probably leads somewhat to the agency’s budget woes. If people were aware what it takes to go to Mars at the bare minimum (2 SLS-class launches per mission, assuming they get Mars Direct to work) and how much that would cost, they might demand a larger budget for the agency.
Walt Disney made a great short film about Von Braun’s earliest ideas on lunar exploration. I think that someone needs to do something similar about what could be done for the Moon, the asteroids and Mars. If it educates, entertains and enthuses, it might impel some action.