SLS Launch was supposed to be later than June 2020. As an agency we need to stick to our committments. We should launch around the Moon in June 2020. I think it could be done. Orion and Service module could be launched on a commercial rocket @JimBridenstine
Wicker: you are looking at using a commercial rocket to send Orion/Service module around the Moon. Whose rocket? Bridenstine: no rocket exists – yet. We could use 2 rockets to put Orion/service module and another to put a booster into orbit, dock them, and send it to the Moon.
Bridenstine: We can use off the shelf capabilities to accomplish this objective while sticking with SLS. I think this can be figured out in the next couple of weeks. NASA has a history of not meeting launch dates. I am going to change that.
Here's the real significance of this Jim Bridenstine announcement. If you can do EM-1 with commercial rockets and LEO docking, you can do all of the EM missions with commercial rockets and LEO docking.
In addition, @SciGuySpace if @NASA adopts a more modular approach where pieces are docked together in LEO then you can get more flexibility out of more parts from more players. A standard docking adapter makes this inherently flexible and govts/companies can use multiple rockets.
It would be very interesting if @torybruno did propose a @ULA_ACES concept for EM-1 that used an ACES stage as a Earth/Moon tug – one that would be used again for future missions – with human crews on board.
Hmmm, by June of next year?! Now where/who could possibly come up with a launch vehicle(s) to do the EM-1 mission? Would a Delta IV Heavy do it? Probably not an Atlas V. Vulcan? Probably not anywhere near ready. How much does a Tesla roadster with dummy astronaut weigh compared with the Orion spacecraft? Anybody got any ideas?
The Falcon Heavy has the ability to send about 16,800 kg to Mars, so it should be about the same for the Moon. The Orion/Service Module weights 25,800 kg. The Dragon2 weights about 15,500 kg. The Roadster only weighed about 1,500 kg.
Thank you for the data. Perhaps the idea of orbiting the Orion and its service module separately and assembling them in LEO would work. If not, then we just wait to perform EM-1 until 2022 or later…unless, of course, another commercial option is viable.
Or just take the next logical step and replace the Orion with one of the pre-flown Dragon2 capsules and call it EM-1. It would allow Astronaut Ripley to be the first mannequin to fly around the Moon ?
And thinking along those lines there is a pre-flown capsule and FH already at the Cape. If Administrator Bridenstine really wants to throw a monkey wrench into SLS/Orion just hire them to go around the Moon on the anniversary of Apollo 11. I am sure Elon Musk would give it go if asked…
No, assembling the Orion capsule and service module in orbit is not viable. The interface is far to intimate and requires far too many tests. Maybe, with a very different space station with a real service facilities, it might be possible. But those two modules can’t just be autonomously plugged together.
The idea is to launch them together, but to low Earth orbit, not to a lunar transfer orbit. A Delta IV Heavy or a Falcon Heavy can do that without trouble. Then launch an upper stage (or, if you will, an expendable space tug) which would dock with the Orion and push it into a trans-lunar orbit. That’s not as easy as it might sound, but it’s much easier than trying to mate the Orion capsule and service module in orbit.
2004: “The fundamental goal of this vision [for Space Exploration] is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will: • Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond; • Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations; • Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests. • Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.” “Depending on future human mission designs, NASA could decide to develop or acquire a heavy lift vehicle later this decade. Such a vehicle could be derived from elements of the Space Shuttle, existing commercial launch vehicles, or new designs.” “In particular, NASA will seek to use existing or new commercial launch vehicles for cargo transport to the Space Station, and potentially to the Moon and other destinations.”
I’m sure many other people in NASA have thought of this already. From what Twitter says, we’ll get details next week. Apparently the study of this has been underway for some time. So it’s not an off the cuff remark.
Can they line up two Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy launches by June 2020? That’d be pretty neat, but also aggressive in scheduling. If they’re sending the Orion Service Module as well they’d need to build a bigger payload fairing (more than 5.2 meters).
It’s pretty cool, though, that they’re trying out the “launch the propulsion and crew modules separately” plan. That’s realistically how we’re going to do crewed interplanetary missions until we have super-heavy launch vehicles (and even then there’s a benefit from using it – more payload on the way to the destination plus more fuel for adjustments).
Personally I think this is just a warning shot to the SLS program that they could be replaced if they don’t get moving. After all, at the speed of NASA bureacracy it will probably take at least year for NASA to do the RFP on this.
But there is another crazy option. And I do mean crazy. Elon Musk is talking about doing test flights to orbit with the Starship/Super Heavy later this year. He is already doing static tests with the Hopper. It would be nice if he could use one of the Pads at the Cape for the test flights given its massive thrust, 50% greater than the Saturn V. It would easily to launch the Orion and its Service Module on one of the test flights. Like I said, this is a crazy option, but its also crazy for Administrator Bridenstine to challenge the Great and Powerful Alabama Pork Machine. They have been bring the pork home to Huntsville, and crushing all opposition, since WWII.
There is also another option. Just drop the Orion and that is to use a Falcon Heavy to send a used Dragon2 capsule on the EM-1 mission. Elon Musk had originally designed the Dragon for operations beyond Earth Orbit, and he tends to leave such capabilities built in when he modifies vehicles. For example he tweeted the other day that the Dragon2 still has the capability to do a propulsive landing, all it would take is a software update if NASA would allow it.
Looks like a certain Associate Professor had Wheaties on his breakfast table this morning- or, perhaps, for many mornings running.
I suspect the SLS team was fully aware of replaceability, although many argued correctly that it’s not a simple substitution. Still, there is great power in saying something out loud that had been to date simple water cooler talk.
Launching Orion/SM gives us something that the Dale Carnegie Sales Course considers essential: demonstration. By showing this capability, the folks in Alabama would be dramatically disarmed.
Your point on this, though, eludes me? ” It would be nice if he could use one of the Pads at the Cape for the test flights given its massive thrust”
One of the challenges of test flying the orbital version of the Starship/Super Heavy is going to be creating a large enough safety zone for the acoustic energy generated by the Super Heavy.
The acoustic energy of the Saturn V was so strong it damaged the press booths on Apollo 4 which were three miles away. On youtube there is a great video of Walter Cronkite describing ceiling panels falling and staff trying to hold the big glass window in its mount because it was shaking so hard from the launch.
The 31 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy will be putting out 50% more thrust than the Saturn V on launch which means it should require a much larger safety zone to prevent damage from the acoustic energy and I just don’t see how they will be able to provide one at Boca Chica, especialy as they are only a couple miles from the border. I suspect if they stay there they will be forced to use a launch platform 6-8 miles offshore for the flights. But Pads 39A and 39B would be able to easily handle the acoustical energy.
Is Boca Chica really a problem? I don’t see the Mexican border as a major issue. To fly a Super Heavy out of Boca Chica is going to mean paying any locals within earshot (which is a good distance.) But the locals on both sides of the border would be willing, if the price is right. How many people live within five or ten miles of the facility?
“For example he tweeted the other day that the Dragon2 still has the capability to do a propulsive landing, all it would take is a software update if NASA would allow it.”
I saw that, and like you wondered why Elon mentioned that particular capability at this particular time. It’s true that he does tend to answer geeky questions (the geekier the better), but still.
Are you two suggesting that Elon will answer this by attempting an FH/CrewDragon moon landing?
As for Dragon Supper Heavy sending up Orion, I was about to call it a pipe dream…but they wouldn’t need Starship for that, and the development curve for the launcher should be way shorter than that of the spacecraft. It will still need several demo flights before it would be trusted with NASA’s precious Orion though.
Nope, Elon Musk is very focused on making the Starship his moon lander. But it is a reminder that Dragon2 does in theory have that capability if someone is interested. And it could probably be done for less that $300 million, maybe a lot less. Maybe Astronaut Ripley will be the first mannequin on the Moon 🙂
Heh. IF she survives being blasted off the front of a rocket, hurled through the sound barrier and back again on eight Super Draco’s, and then dipped into the ocean again.
The mannequin, Ripley, is named after a fictional character who did survive things like that. And the in flight abort is supposed to be something people can survive. Since she’s just a piece of plastic, I’m sure she’ll won’t be harmed, let alone afraid.
Besides a software update they would also need to figure out where to land it. Of course they could land it at LC-13 at the cape, but it would be on a different day than launch day so there could be complications with range scheduling. I suppose they could land it out in the parking lot at Hawthorne! Just kidding of course as I’m sure a large buffer area will be required. I’m not saying they wouldn’t find a place to land it but I’m just wondering where that would be. Maybe the cape and just deal with schedules, or Boca Chica. But what about an emergency station abandon, there would be little time for the FAA to restrict airspace, a problem you don’t really have so much of when landing in the middle of the ocean.
The Utah Test Range is already certified (or whatever) for landing capsules from space. That’s where the Stardust and Genesis sample returns landed, and where the OSIRIS-REx samples will land. And, in case of an emergency, clearing airspace over a military establishment is not a problem.
I’m not sure a barge landing would be allowed, there’s not a lot of margin for error. Propulsively landing on the water might be okay for the astronauts if they missed the barge, but hitting the edge of the barge then falling over might not be.
They don’t land Dragons in the middle of the ocean. It’s close enough to the coast that airspace would still be an issue. But the FAA is perfectly capable of restricting airspace; they do for launches… I suspect everyone flying east of Florida is used to that.
For an emergency, a Dragon would have enough in-orbit capability to handle it. It’s designed to support the passengers for up to a week. That’s plenty of time. Air traffic control reroutes aircraft every time a pilot declares an emergency and diverts. They aren’t exactly set up to receive an emergency declared in orbit, but I’m confident they could respond in a hour or two. The crew in the Dragon can easily wait in orbit that long.
Of course, the vehicle would be wrecked. That software patch isn’t going to add landing gear. But a software patch might make a hard landing less hard, and survivable for the passengers.
Controlled airspace I agree there would be no problem. I was actually referring to the NOTAMS for pilots flying VFR which requires a certain amount of lead time, although I’m not sure how much. There would be little if any problem with that at the distances from the coast that Dragon lands. Or at an active military base as you mentioned in another reply since that is always restricted anyway.
Yes Dragon can loiter for quite a while after abandoning the station, but they don’t like to keep people in space and exposed to risk if they don’t have to. Even the final Shuttle landing they wouldn’t delay just one more orbit so that the landing would be in daylight, even though the weather forecast was no problem. So while Dragon could loiter if needed, I think they would prefer to bring it down as soon as they safely could. Which of course depends on what orbit it happens to be on when it leaves the station and also how fast they can get a medical team to whichever landing sites they are considering.
There is the Shuttle landing facility at Kennedy that is not used much nowadays that can serve as contingency landing site for commercial crew capsules.
I think they would just use LC-13. For Dragon crewed missions it will be empty anyway since AFAIK they don’t plan to recover stage 1 at the cape since they will be flying a shallower launch profile to reduce the amount of g’s during an abort.
Even if they did return stage 1 to LC-13, by the time Dragon needed it they would have probably removed the booster from the pad by then. Even for an orbit-once-around they wouldn’t be landing at the cape because it doesn’t have cross-range capability.
As for using SLF it would burn up the asphalt on that very expensive runway, but I guess maybe on the tarmac somewhere would be okay, no real reason to land on the runway.
I am remembering something about that, from the deep recesses of memory…wasn’t it the case that the runway wasn’t originally grooved? That part of the surface was grooved after an orbiter was observed swerving a bit on landing?
The SLF runway was grooved originally. But after the first few orbiter landings there got tire issues from overheating they grind down the pavement to reduces tire heat buildup from friction with the runway surface.
Good point I forgot it is concrete which of course would hold up better to being blasted by Super Dracos. But I’m pretty sure like any runway they won’t want to risk damage if they can avoid it. There is a nice big square apron near the runway that would be a perfect landing pad, although it’s a bit close to the fire and rescue building (although that could also be an advantage!).
There is also the overrun area at each end of the runway, not quite as wide as the runway but probably good enough and they wouldn’t be as worried about those sections getting damaged.
I remember a discussion a while back that landing in a large grass area would be okay, although that could start a grass fire in areas susceptible to that which could cause additional complications. But realistically for an abort they can land on concrete, asphalt, grass, dirt, even water if they had to.
EDIT – I just noticed on the Google Maps satellite view that there is a smaller pad in front of the VIP viewing area which has an orbiter sitting on it. I’m not sure when the photo was taken but I’m guessing that is the mockup orbiter that used to sit outside at the old location of the Astronaut Hall of Fame. But it does give a sense of scale for these areas, as does the T-38 sitting on the larger apron area.
The purpose of EM-1 was to conduct an unmanned test of the SLS launch vehicle and the Orion capsule/service module in deep (well, not LEO) space. If you use a Falcon Heavy and a Dragon 2, what’s the point? Err… Actually, if you used an SLS Block 1 and an Orion, what’s the point? Never mind.
It seemed at first from Bridenstine’s comments that Orion + service module was nearer and dearer to NASA’s heart than SLS (because of European partners?), but I see that he has clarified those comments. I’m thinking you’ll see an update on this site shortly…
“It’s pretty cool, though, that they’re trying out the “launch the propulsion and crew modules separately” plan.”
I read this as a dramatic architecture departure. To date the basic ideas always assumed that gear would be assembled on earth, then lifted to orbit in appropriate modules. This fact is one of the key reasons that SLS is needed: lift assembled gear in one go.
Many critics, especially those supporting more use of SX’ gear, which has lower payload ability, readily admit that SX would require more on-orbit assembly.
I have wondered about NASA’s stand on this- the desire to limit construction in space. NASA has an incredible amount of experience working, building, assembling in space – on orbit, anyway. Perhaps this experience is why they shy away from orbital construction? I don’t know.
For only two spacecraft docking, I don’t think it would be too difficult.
I’m skeptical they can come up with two Delta IV Heavy rockets in just over two years for this, so it’s probably going to be Falcon Heavy for the TLI stage if they go this way.
EDIT: I forgot that this would be an uncrewed mission, so no need to worry about man-rating.
I’m skeptical they can come up with two Delta IV Heavy rockets at all, or Falcon Heavy launches in two years. SpaceX has deemphasized FH in favor of Starship and FHSH. DIVH is slated for retirement and two of them would launch the same mass as one FH for the price of an SLS. Boosting the SLS development schedule is cheaper and more likely than launching even one Delta in 2020.
That could be the politics at work. Threaten to launch Orion on commercial rockets, maybe get Congress to allocate more funding to speed up SLS development.
Except that Administrator Bridenstine is proposing a $375 million cut for SLS and another $192 for ground support equipment for SLS. Wouldn’t he have increased the request for SLS is that was his strategy?
I doubt a bigger budget for SLS will help. We’re talking about the first flight, so I don’t see much that can be done in parallel to finishing up that copy of the hardware and actually flying it.
That and I’ve heard many people say that putting more people on a late project makes it later. Who’s going to train the new guys? The guys working on the project, which just takes away from their ability to contribute to the project.
When you’re working on flight hardware, this applies as there is only so much room to work on things like the aft engine section of the SLS core., You simply can’t fit more workers in that same space, so the additional workers just end up standing around, waiting for someone else to get out of the way.
It is not about getting more money for SLS, it is about setting the stage to kill the SLS. Once orbital docking using the Falcon Heavy and/or Delta IV is demonstrated as a way of putting the Orion around the Moon there is no longer any reason for SLS. Not even the Alabama Pork Machine and all of Boeing’s lobbyists will be able to save it.
You can usually get some time savings out of throwing money at the problem. Shuffling the schedules around, working shifts, etc. But if it gets to the point of doubling the cost to shave 10% off the schedule, that probably isn’t a good idea.
My experience with managing teams tells me that adding more people is helpful only insofar as your key people are performing tasks best left to younger/newer team members. Otherwise, more does not help.
There you go. That makes more sense. However, relying on this Congress to react quickly enough to matter at this stage in the game is asking a lot. Also, everytime Congress has asked NASA if pulling money from Commercial Space initiatives and feeding it to SLS would help, NASA has said that more money won’t help the schedule. From the nature of the delays that I’ve read about, I agree.
Apparently a few weeks ago, Mike Pence asked if more funding could move EM-1 back to the left. He was told it was too late for that. And that’s why he’s pushing this alternative for study.
FH has two flights on this year’s manifest. Their transporter/erector at KSC is currently being converted to FH mode. But I have heard the payload may not be ready, which would be a delay that is not the fault of SpaceX.
Ya I’m not worried about that. Those launches will happen, they just won’t happen soon enough to certify a 2020, crewed, flight date using data from those launches. If it is possible, it will require much focus on the part of SpaceX. Also, Congress WILL have something to say. There is an actual law that forbids the components of established and Congressionally funded missions to be tinkered with without an Congressional approval. This dysfunctional Congress is not going to be able to do that until at least 2021.
Edit: no crew. Someone else here forgot that and my brain went with it and FFed to EM2.
Well, EM-1 is an unmanned mission, so certifying Falcon Heavy (or Delta IV Heavy) to carry astronauts isn’t an issue.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by, “There is an actual law that forbids the components of established and Congressionally funded missions to be tinkered with without an Congressional approval.” We just had an instrument yanked off the Europa Clipper mission, to be replaced with a less expensive and more project-directed version provided by someone completely different. No one asked Congress for permission (well, at least not officially. I’m not sure about unofficial communications.)
You might mean something a bit different. Congress did specifically mandate use of SLS for EM-1. Changing that isn’t tinkering with something Congress approved and funded. It’s tinkering with specific implementation details Congress insisted on in writing. They may well explode over that.
SpaceX demonstrated automated rendezvous and docking on its first Dragon 2 flight. That’s what you’d likely need to do EM-1, which is uncrewed, using commercial vehicles. You launch Orion on one LV (say a Delta IV Heavy), then an earth departure stage on another LV (e.g. Falcon Heavy), then dock Orion to the earth departure stage. It’s really not *that* hard.
We did that mission with crew back in the 60s with Gemini and an Agena upper stage. The crew performed “eyeballs out” burns on those missions.
It’s not quite that simple. SpaceX has demonstrated autonomous docking, but docking is nothing new. But the docking interface we’re talking about is between an upper stage and the Orion capsule/service module. That is going to be under acceleration, and potentially as much as one g, depending on the details. That’s a bit new. The Apollo CSM/LM interface is close, but I don’t think the loads were as great.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. It’s actually a straight-forward engineering problem. But you can’t just snap your fingers and have it delivered to the Cape. Actually, it would take a new upper stage and modifications to the Orion support module, before they could be delivered to the Cape. Except they already have been.
There was one comment at the Senate hearing Keith didn’t mention. Administrator said this two-launch idea wouldn’t be trivial and a number of things would have to be developed before the June 2020 launch. Then Senator Wicker stated the obvious: “It’s 2019.”
NASA’s stance on this stems from wanting to build a big rocket – plain and simple. Architecture studies that used EELV’s and built on their positive experience assembling in space were dismissed because they didn’t allow NASA to build a big rocket. The studies were rigged to put in huge costs for EELV’s to make building one big rocket look better. The teams were not allowed to contemplate anything other than existing EELV’s – no Falcon Heavy etc, since “it doesn’t exist yet”… never mind that SLS didn’t exist either (still doesn’t) – it was a “given” they could build it (at a fraction of what it is actually costing) for the purposes of the study. Good to see the current team is starting to figure this out.
Keith’s been saying that for a while, I think. Studies on the orbital propellant depot idea came back positive, although you’d need big spacecraft that require the equivalent of a ton of fuel launches to justify it (otherwise you might as well just fuel the departing spacecraft directly while it’s waiting in orbit around Earth).
Years ago, JSC Safety and Mission Assurance endorsed propellant depots as a way to increase mission success. The model they used was to pay a fixed fee for each pound delivered to the depot.
Or lots of smaller missions. You need enough propellent use to justify the infrastructure and to let the tank farm act as a buffer for the occasional tanker launch failure. But that can be infrequent, very large missions or more frequent and more modest missions.
The Orion team has known for years that they could probably launch on a Falcon Heavy or EELV. Any discussion of such was forbidden so as not to get NASA upset. (Even the NASA staff knew this but again, can’t PO the Senate by saying so.)
It does look like a dramatic change the the architecture. Except it can’t be, at least not if there was ever any point to SLS. Even in the Block 2 configuration, it’s “only” on par with a Saturn V. That means, even assuming factor of two improvements in technology since Apollo, the architecture you described will never be able to support more than somewhat enhanced Apollo missions. Call it three people on the lunar surface for a week, tops.
At the same time, you are quite correct: It looks like that is where SLS was or is heading. Doing more does require something different from assembling everything on the ground and launching it on one, huge launch vehicle. So, at some point, in space assembly will have to come in. Or, at the very least, in space docking and fuel/supplies transfer. It’s not like we haven’t done all that before.
When it comes to NASA’s current disinclination to do in orbit assembly, I think you’re correct about it being lessons learned from ISS. Unfortunately, I think it’s learning the wrong lessons. Building ISS was supposed to be, in part, an opportunity to learn how to build things in orbit. But they did it in a very complicated, difficult way. A way which involved lots of interfaces between the modules, lots of EVA work, etc. And that, surprisingly, turned out to be very difficult, time consuming and expensive. So now you have studies saying human missions to Mars will require in orbit assembly, and that it will be insanely expensive. That’s based on using the cost of ISS to estimate the cost of in orbit assembly.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Mir was a space station assembled from six 15-20 tonne modules. It wasn’t such a big task. There were no EVAs required for docking the modules. The interconnections were limited to a few fluid and electrical lines, and I think many of them were passed through the hatches joining the modules. (Which makes connecting them an ordinary task for the crew while working inside the station.) Nor is fuel transfer exactly new and exotic. And, in some cases, you don’t need any real connections at all. If it’s a propulsive stage, it just has to dock with the payload section (admittedly with a mechanically sound mating.) No hatch, no pipes, hoses or wires. In this day and age, any command and control between the two can easily use a radio.
“NASA has a history of not meeting launch dates. I am going to change that.”
This kind of bravado, especially in the space biz, can easily turn around and shoot the Administrator in the foot. To date our new Administrator has done much to garner support, including from me. It’s essential that the Administrator not be seen characterizing timelines in the manner of Mr. Musk.
“NASA has a history of not meeting launch dates. I am going to change that.” Cancelling stupid pointless programs is an excellent way to achieve that goal.
If the purpose of the mission is to test Orion and SLS, I wonder what about Summer 2020 is so important that it supersedes the point of the entire mission.
The only way this makes sense is that Birdenstein’s boss wants to have sent something to the Moon before November 2020.
Today Orion EM-1 sits at KSC (more or less) ready to go. Undergoing test, waiting for SLS. When you have to worry about batteries and other elements ageing out before you fly – waiting for the launch vehicle, you need a new launch vehicle.
Orion could fly today. Autonomous docking is no longer an issue for the US (thanks SpaceX!)
Launch Orion on Atlas V, dock to any (use SpaceX autonomous docking capability) upper stage. Do it all in less than a year. Use some of the money from SLS to accelerate Orion production and block buy Atlas V rockets (or anyone human rated launch vehicles – providers will rush to meet the requirements).
Fly Orion often, with or without a crew. Create momentum and develop the things needed to sustain production/enhancement/operations.
Orion-1 probably has to fly for political reasons. However, also pay Musk to send a FH-launched Dragon-2 around the Moon to prove it on an interplanetary coast and direct re-entry. If it works, then at least some of the Orion cost issues have dropped away.
Doom on you SLS. These things were laughed at in 2010 and 2011. Chickens coming home to roost.
I am personally deriving great utility as the “Only NASA” politicians are realizing they have thwarted the good work done by so many “trench engineers”. The political restraints can only last so long,
Onward. The sooner we dump SLS and Orion the sooner we can open up space for all of us.
Somebody needs to check senator Shelby’s blood pressure I am sure it is through the roof. Question is what is more important June 2020 launch and start of lunar exploration or just providing jobs to MSFC? Sadly I am sure I know which one the estemeed senator will choose.
“NASA is considering using two commercial launchers to send an unpiloted Orion crew capsule and its European-built service module on a test flight around the moon next year.” – the idea is to bolt together a Delta IV Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy to form a semi-reusable Dealcon Super-Heavy.
As someone on another site delights in reminding us: Rockets aren’t Lego bricks and you can’t ‘bolt together’ bits from different LVs without a lot of expensive work.
However, payloads can be like Lego bricks. Launch the Orion on top of an Atlas-V-552 and the ICPS on top of a Delta-IVH and you’ve got EM-1 and probably at a fraction of the cost.
Whilst on the subject, is there any broadly-accepted timeline and budget that tells us what ULA would need to make Atlas-V Heavy a reality?
For the Atlas V Heavy, I’d guess at least three years. ULA was talking about two and a half years from the time they got an order, back when the Atlas Heavy was on the table. Then they said that, since no one wanted one, they were taking it off the table. I’d guess it would be the original two and a half years, plus six months or so to pick up where they left off three or four years ago.
By the way, you can build Lego rockets. The Atlas V can fly with zero to five boosters, a four or five meter fairing, and a upper stage with one or two RL-10s (ok, they’ve never flown a two RL-10 version.) The old Deltas were similarly configurable, and the Ariane 4s were even more so. But that has to be designed in from the beginning. What you can not do is take an existing launch vehicle and modify, plug and play, or whatever, in ways it was not originally designed for. That’s going to be harder than starting over from scratch.
SLS isn’t the only problem. Launch Control Subsystem at KSC, previously the target of a GAO investigation, won’t ever be able to launch anything even if SLS is ready. EGS continues to pretend otherwise. Letting someone else do the launching is the only remedy.
Something just occurred to me. The Lunar Orbital Gateway is, in part, a mission package to fly SLS. EM-2 is a Gateway mission. If this results in the demise of SLS because it is defacto replaced by smaller vehicles, then what happens to Gateway? Everyone here knows that FSH can lift LOG components and would be theoretically in operation by the time most of it flies. If FH/DH prove that they can handle Orion on Lunar missions to the LOG and FSH is able to fly its pieces, then what would we need SLS for? Would LOG even still be a thing?
The world community could spend a $ 1billion a year for 20 years building telescopes at EM-2 that’s where you need human tended space stations and we can do it with COTS
Will point out that the SpaceX Starship can do all that the LOP-G was supposed to do.
If the SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship are available. There is no point in building most of the LOP-G components, except for the PPE as solar electric testbed and the Canadarm-3.
The Orion is included in the list of unneeded components. Since Starship also functions as cis-Lunar logistics vehicle.
AFAIK the current SLS/Orion plans does not have a crew Moon lander. The SpaceX Starship is a reusable heavy Moon lander that can function as a Lunar surface habitat.
Of course all the above need the Super Heavy and Starship to be in service.
I suspect that, if this ‘commercial alternative’ goes ahead then, as Eric Berger points out, the entire EM program, including the LOG, becomes commercial-launched.
None of these replies answers my question. LopG exists because SLS/Orion needed missions. I’ve read comments that suggest that it might be the ONLY reason LOPG exists in it’s current form at all. Folks wonder why we would orbit a Moon station that would be almost as useful on the surface…and we plan to do that anyway, but because Orion can’t land on the surface, they want the station in Lunar orbit.
So, if FH/DeltaH can haul Orion or Dragon to Lunar Orbit, then SLS might soon be easily and inexpensively made superfluous for crew. If FSH (or other supers that could be flying soon) can haul LOPG modules, then no SLS is necessary. If no SLS/Orion exists, then LOPG should be a surface station anyway and building an orbital station in the first place at all becomes silly. Right?
I think the countdown began with the launch of Falcon Heavy just over a year ago. That flight led to a lot of people, and not just the usual critics, asking if SLS was really necessary now. NASA reassured them that it was and the questions died down for the moment. But I felt at the time that this was sign of the fragility of the support that SLS has and that it will only get weaker as time goes on.
NASA employees just got an email from the Administrator clarifying things:
Yesterday, I was asked by Congress about the schedule slip of the Space Launch System and plans to get NASA back on track. I mentioned that we are exploring the possibility of launching Orion and the European Service Module to low-Earth orbit on an existing heavy-lift rocket, then using a boost from another existing vehicle for Trans Lunar Injection. Our goal would be to test Orion in lunar orbit in 2020 and free up the first SLS for the launch of habitation or other hardware in 2021. This would get us back on schedule for a crewed lunar orbital mission in 2022 with the added bonus of a lunar destination for our astronauts.
We are studying this approach to accelerate our lunar efforts. The review will take no longer than two weeks and the results will be made available. Please know that NASA is committed to building and flying the SLS for the following reasons:
1. Launching two heavy-lift rockets to get Orion to the Moon is not optimum or sustainable. 2. Docking crewed vehicles in Earth orbit to get to the Moon adds complexity and risk that is undesirable. 3. SLS mitigates these challenges and allows crew and payloads to get to the Moon, and eventually to Mars, safer and more efficiently than any temporary solution used to get back on track.
I believe in the strength of our workforce and our ability to utilize every tool available to achieve our objectives. Our goal is to get to the Moon sustainably and on to Mars. With your focused efforts, and unmatched talent, the possibility of achieving this objective is real.
WOW. Shots fired! This is going to get interesting fast.
From your lips to Shelby’s ears!
Seismographs report major ground shaking in Huntsville!
Hmmm, by June of next year?! Now where/who could possibly come up with a launch vehicle(s) to do the EM-1 mission? Would a Delta IV Heavy do it? Probably not an Atlas V. Vulcan? Probably not anywhere near ready. How much does a Tesla roadster with dummy astronaut weigh compared with the Orion spacecraft? Anybody got any ideas?
The Falcon Heavy has the ability to send about 16,800 kg to Mars, so it should be about the same for the Moon. The Orion/Service Module weights 25,800 kg. The Dragon2 weights about 15,500 kg. The Roadster only weighed about 1,500 kg.
Thank you for the data. Perhaps the idea of orbiting the Orion and its service module separately and assembling them in LEO would work. If not, then we just wait to perform EM-1 until 2022 or later…unless, of course, another commercial option is viable.
Or just take the next logical step and replace the Orion with one of the pre-flown Dragon2 capsules and call it EM-1. It would allow Astronaut Ripley to be the first mannequin to fly around the Moon ?
And thinking along those lines there is a pre-flown capsule and FH already at the Cape. If Administrator Bridenstine really wants to throw a monkey wrench into SLS/Orion just hire them to go around the Moon on the anniversary of Apollo 11. I am sure Elon Musk would give it go if asked…
No, assembling the Orion capsule and service module in orbit is not viable. The interface is far to intimate and requires far too many tests. Maybe, with a very different space station with a real service facilities, it might be possible. But those two modules can’t just be autonomously plugged together.
The idea is to launch them together, but to low Earth orbit, not to a lunar transfer orbit. A Delta IV Heavy or a Falcon Heavy can do that without trouble. Then launch an upper stage (or, if you will, an expendable space tug) which would dock with the Orion and push it into a trans-lunar orbit. That’s not as easy as it might sound, but it’s much easier than trying to mate the Orion capsule and service module in orbit.
ULA says their rockets can’t do this
https://twitter.com/SciGuyS…
That’s not what ULA is saying here. It’s pablum to avoid antagonizing ULA’s major stakeholder.
Why, in fact…
https://twitter.com/SciGuyS…
2004: “The fundamental goal of this vision [for Space Exploration] is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will:
• Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;
• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.
• Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.”
“Depending on future human mission designs, NASA
could decide to develop or acquire a heavy lift vehicle later this decade. Such a vehicle could be derived from elements of the Space Shuttle, existing commercial launch vehicles, or new designs.”
“In particular, NASA will seek to use existing or new commercial launch vehicles for cargo transport to the Space Station, and potentially to the Moon and other destinations.”
This is what you get when you have a non-space person in charge (like O’Keefe proposing to service Hubble with robots).
I’m sure many other people in NASA have thought of this already. From what Twitter says, we’ll get details next week. Apparently the study of this has been underway for some time. So it’s not an off the cuff remark.
AIUI, SpaceX made an offer. That and DM-1’s end to end success may have triggered this.
You didn’t listen to the hearing did you? He is talking about using two existing heavy lift rockets to do it using orbital docking.
A sufficiently interested person, backed by experts, is fully capable of guiding these deliberations. Elon Musk is a good example.
Can they line up two Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy launches by June 2020? That’d be pretty neat, but also aggressive in scheduling. If they’re sending the Orion Service Module as well they’d need to build a bigger payload fairing (more than 5.2 meters).
It’s pretty cool, though, that they’re trying out the “launch the propulsion and crew modules separately” plan. That’s realistically how we’re going to do crewed interplanetary missions until we have super-heavy launch vehicles (and even then there’s a benefit from using it – more payload on the way to the destination plus more fuel for adjustments).
Personally I think this is just a warning shot to the SLS program that they could be replaced if they don’t get moving. After all, at the speed of NASA bureacracy it will probably take at least year for NASA to do the RFP on this.
But there is another crazy option. And I do mean crazy. Elon Musk is talking about doing test flights to orbit with the Starship/Super Heavy later this year. He is already doing static tests with the Hopper. It would be nice if he could use one of the Pads at the Cape for the test flights given its massive thrust, 50% greater than the Saturn V. It would easily to launch the Orion and its Service Module on one of the test flights. Like I said, this is a crazy option, but its also crazy for Administrator Bridenstine to challenge the Great and Powerful Alabama Pork Machine. They have been bring the pork home to Huntsville, and crushing all opposition, since WWII.
There is also another option. Just drop the Orion and that is to use a Falcon Heavy to send a used Dragon2 capsule on the EM-1 mission. Elon Musk had originally designed the Dragon for operations beyond Earth Orbit, and he tends to leave such capabilities built in when he modifies vehicles. For example he tweeted the other day that the Dragon2 still has the capability to do a propulsive landing, all it would take is a software update if NASA would allow it.
Looks like a certain Associate Professor had Wheaties on his breakfast table this morning- or, perhaps, for many mornings running.
I suspect the SLS team was fully aware of replaceability, although many argued correctly that it’s not a simple substitution. Still, there is great power in saying something out loud that had been to date simple water cooler talk.
Launching Orion/SM gives us something that the Dale Carnegie Sales Course considers essential: demonstration. By showing this capability, the folks in Alabama would be dramatically disarmed.
Your point on this, though, eludes me?
” It would be nice if he could use one of the Pads at the Cape for the test flights given its massive thrust”
One of the challenges of test flying the orbital version of the Starship/Super Heavy is going to be creating a large enough safety zone for the acoustic energy generated by the Super Heavy.
The acoustic energy of the Saturn V was so strong it damaged the press booths on Apollo 4 which were three miles away. On youtube there is a great video of Walter Cronkite describing ceiling panels falling and staff trying to hold the big glass window in its mount because it was shaking so hard from the launch.
The 31 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy will be putting out 50% more thrust than the Saturn V on launch which means it should require a much larger safety zone to prevent damage from the acoustic energy and I just don’t see how they will be able to provide one at Boca Chica, especialy as they are only a couple miles from the border. I suspect if they stay there they will be forced to use a launch platform 6-8 miles offshore for the flights. But Pads 39A and 39B would be able to easily handle the acoustical energy.
Is Boca Chica really a problem? I don’t see the Mexican border as a major issue. To fly a Super Heavy out of Boca Chica is going to mean paying any locals within earshot (which is a good distance.) But the locals on both sides of the border would be willing, if the price is right. How many people live within five or ten miles of the facility?
“For example he tweeted the other day that the Dragon2 still has the capability to do a propulsive landing, all it would take is a software update if NASA would allow it.”
I saw that, and like you wondered why Elon mentioned that particular capability at this particular time. It’s true that he does tend to answer geeky questions (the geekier the better), but still.
Are you two suggesting that Elon will answer this by attempting an FH/CrewDragon moon landing?
As for Dragon Supper Heavy sending up Orion, I was about to call it a pipe dream…but they wouldn’t need Starship for that, and the development curve for the launcher should be way shorter than that of the spacecraft. It will still need several demo flights before it would be trusted with NASA’s precious Orion though.
Nope, Elon Musk is very focused on making the Starship his moon lander. But it is a reminder that Dragon2 does in theory have that capability if someone is interested. And it could probably be done for less that $300 million, maybe a lot less. Maybe Astronaut Ripley will be the first mannequin on the Moon 🙂
Heh. IF she survives being blasted off the front of a rocket, hurled through the sound barrier and back again on eight Super Draco’s, and then dipped into the ocean again.
The mannequin, Ripley, is named after a fictional character who did survive things like that. And the in flight abort is supposed to be something people can survive. Since she’s just a piece of plastic, I’m sure she’ll won’t be harmed, let alone afraid.
Good.
In the post-launch news conference Kirk Shireman pointed out that she didn’t complain once during launch.
Besides a software update they would also need to figure out where to land it. Of course they could land it at LC-13 at the cape, but it would be on a different day than launch day so there could be complications with range scheduling. I suppose they could land it out in the parking lot at Hawthorne! Just kidding of course as I’m sure a large buffer area will be required. I’m not saying they wouldn’t find a place to land it but I’m just wondering where that would be. Maybe the cape and just deal with schedules, or Boca Chica. But what about an emergency station abandon, there would be little time for the FAA to restrict airspace, a problem you don’t really have so much of when landing in the middle of the ocean.
Or when landing it on one of their barges. Also there is always WSMR and Wendover.
The Utah Test Range is already certified (or whatever) for landing capsules from space. That’s where the Stardust and Genesis sample returns landed, and where the OSIRIS-REx samples will land. And, in case of an emergency, clearing airspace over a military establishment is not a problem.
I’m not sure a barge landing would be allowed, there’s not a lot of margin for error. Propulsively landing on the water might be okay for the astronauts if they missed the barge, but hitting the edge of the barge then falling over might not be.
They don’t land Dragons in the middle of the ocean. It’s close enough to the coast that airspace would still be an issue. But the FAA is perfectly capable of restricting airspace; they do for launches… I suspect everyone flying east of Florida is used to that.
For an emergency, a Dragon would have enough in-orbit capability to handle it. It’s designed to support the passengers for up to a week. That’s plenty of time. Air traffic control reroutes aircraft every time a pilot declares an emergency and diverts. They aren’t exactly set up to receive an emergency declared in orbit, but I’m confident they could respond in a hour or two. The crew in the Dragon can easily wait in orbit that long.
Of course, the vehicle would be wrecked. That software patch isn’t going to add landing gear. But a software patch might make a hard landing less hard, and survivable for the passengers.
Controlled airspace I agree there would be no problem. I was actually referring to the NOTAMS for pilots flying VFR which requires a certain amount of lead time, although I’m not sure how much. There would be little if any problem with that at the distances from the coast that Dragon lands. Or at an active military base as you mentioned in another reply since that is always restricted anyway.
Yes Dragon can loiter for quite a while after abandoning the station, but they don’t like to keep people in space and exposed to risk if they don’t have to. Even the final Shuttle landing they wouldn’t delay just one more orbit so that the landing would be in daylight, even though the weather forecast was no problem. So while Dragon could loiter if needed, I think they would prefer to bring it down as soon as they safely could. Which of course depends on what orbit it happens to be on when it leaves the station and also how fast they can get a medical team to whichever landing sites they are considering.
There is the Shuttle landing facility at Kennedy that is not used much nowadays that can serve as contingency landing site for commercial crew capsules.
I think they would just use LC-13. For Dragon crewed missions it will be empty anyway since AFAIK they don’t plan to recover stage 1 at the cape since they will be flying a shallower launch profile to reduce the amount of g’s during an abort.
Even if they did return stage 1 to LC-13, by the time Dragon needed it they would have probably removed the booster from the pad by then. Even for an orbit-once-around they wouldn’t be landing at the cape because it doesn’t have cross-range capability.
As for using SLF it would burn up the asphalt on that very expensive runway, but I guess maybe on the tarmac somewhere would be okay, no real reason to land on the runway.
Yeah they will use LZ-1 or LZ-2 at CCAFS if they are available.
The surface of the expensive runway at SLF is grooved concrete.
I am remembering something about that, from the deep recesses of memory…wasn’t it the case that the runway wasn’t originally grooved? That part of the surface was grooved after an orbiter was observed swerving a bit on landing?
No, I don’t recall the flight or the orbiter.
Wikipedia is your friend.
The SLF runway was grooved originally. But after the first few orbiter landings there got tire issues from overheating they grind down the pavement to reduces tire heat buildup from friction with the runway surface.
Good point I forgot it is concrete which of course would hold up better to being blasted by Super Dracos. But I’m pretty sure like any runway they won’t want to risk damage if they can avoid it. There is a nice big square apron near the runway that would be a perfect landing pad, although it’s a bit close to the fire and rescue building (although that could also be an advantage!).
There is also the overrun area at each end of the runway, not quite as wide as the runway but probably good enough and they wouldn’t be as worried about those sections getting damaged.
I remember a discussion a while back that landing in a large grass area would be okay, although that could start a grass fire in areas susceptible to that which could cause additional complications. But realistically for an abort they can land on concrete, asphalt, grass, dirt, even water if they had to.
EDIT – I just noticed on the Google Maps satellite view that there is a smaller pad in front of the VIP viewing area which has an orbiter sitting on it. I’m not sure when the photo was taken but I’m guessing that is the mockup orbiter that used to sit outside at the old location of the Astronaut Hall of Fame. But it does give a sense of scale for these areas, as does the T-38 sitting on the larger apron area.
If they can push back the Orion-and-the-moon mission by about 9 months, New Glenn might also be an option.
The purpose of EM-1 was to conduct an unmanned test of the SLS launch vehicle and the Orion capsule/service module in deep (well, not LEO) space. If you use a Falcon Heavy and a Dragon 2, what’s the point? Err… Actually, if you used an SLS Block 1 and an Orion, what’s the point? Never mind.
It seemed at first from Bridenstine’s comments that Orion + service module was nearer and dearer to NASA’s heart than SLS (because of European partners?), but I see that he has clarified those comments. I’m thinking you’ll see an update on this site shortly…
“It’s pretty cool, though, that they’re trying out the “launch the propulsion and crew modules separately” plan.”
I read this as a dramatic architecture departure. To date the basic ideas always assumed that gear would be assembled on earth, then lifted to orbit in appropriate modules. This fact is one of the key reasons that SLS is needed: lift assembled gear in one go.
Many critics, especially those supporting more use of SX’ gear, which has lower payload ability, readily admit that SX would require more on-orbit assembly.
I have wondered about NASA’s stand on this- the desire to limit construction in space. NASA has an incredible amount of experience working, building, assembling in space – on orbit, anyway. Perhaps this experience is why they shy away from orbital construction? I don’t know.
For only two spacecraft docking, I don’t think it would be too difficult.
I’m skeptical they can come up with two Delta IV Heavy rockets in just over two years for this, so it’s probably going to be Falcon Heavy for the TLI stage if they go this way.
EDIT: I forgot that this would be an uncrewed mission, so no need to worry about man-rating.
I’m skeptical they can come up with two Delta IV Heavy rockets at all, or Falcon Heavy launches in two years. SpaceX has deemphasized FH in favor of Starship and FHSH. DIVH is slated for retirement and two of them would launch the same mass as one FH for the price of an SLS. Boosting the SLS development schedule is cheaper and more likely than launching even one Delta in 2020.
That could be the politics at work. Threaten to launch Orion on commercial rockets, maybe get Congress to allocate more funding to speed up SLS development.
Except that Administrator Bridenstine is proposing a $375 million cut for SLS and another $192 for ground support equipment for SLS. Wouldn’t he have increased the request for SLS is that was his strategy?
I doubt a bigger budget for SLS will help. We’re talking about the first flight, so I don’t see much that can be done in parallel to finishing up that copy of the hardware and actually flying it.
That and I’ve heard many people say that putting more people on a late project makes it later. Who’s going to train the new guys? The guys working on the project, which just takes away from their ability to contribute to the project.
When you’re working on flight hardware, this applies as there is only so much room to work on things like the aft engine section of the SLS core., You simply can’t fit more workers in that same space, so the additional workers just end up standing around, waiting for someone else to get out of the way.
It is not about getting more money for SLS, it is about setting the stage to kill the SLS. Once orbital docking using the Falcon Heavy and/or Delta IV is demonstrated as a way of putting the Orion around the Moon there is no longer any reason for SLS. Not even the Alabama Pork Machine and all of Boeing’s lobbyists will be able to save it.
You can usually get some time savings out of throwing money at the problem. Shuffling the schedules around, working shifts, etc. But if it gets to the point of doubling the cost to shave 10% off the schedule, that probably isn’t a good idea.
My experience with managing teams tells me that adding more people is helpful only insofar as your key people are performing tasks best left to younger/newer team members. Otherwise, more does not help.
There you go. That makes more sense.
However, relying on this Congress to react quickly enough to matter at this stage in the game is asking a lot.
Also, everytime Congress has asked NASA if pulling money from Commercial Space initiatives and feeding it to SLS would help, NASA has said that more money won’t help the schedule. From the nature of the delays that I’ve read about, I agree.
Apparently a few weeks ago, Mike Pence asked if more funding could move EM-1 back to the left. He was told it was too late for that. And that’s why he’s pushing this alternative for study.
FH has two flights on this year’s manifest. Their transporter/erector at KSC is currently being converted to FH mode. But I have heard the payload may not be ready, which would be a delay that is not the fault of SpaceX.
It also frees up a FH for the EM-1 mission.
Ya I’m not worried about that. Those launches will happen, they just won’t happen soon enough to certify a 2020, crewed, flight date using data from those launches. If it is possible, it will require much focus on the part of SpaceX.
Also, Congress WILL have something to say. There is an actual law that forbids the components of established and Congressionally funded missions to be tinkered with without an Congressional approval. This dysfunctional Congress is not going to be able to do that until at least 2021.
Edit: no crew. Someone else here forgot that and my brain went with it and FFed to EM2.
Well, EM-1 is an unmanned mission, so certifying Falcon Heavy (or Delta IV Heavy) to carry astronauts isn’t an issue.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by, “There is an actual law that forbids the components of established and Congressionally funded missions to be tinkered with without an Congressional approval.” We just had an instrument yanked off the Europa Clipper mission, to be replaced with a less expensive and more project-directed version provided by someone completely different. No one asked Congress for permission (well, at least not officially. I’m not sure about unofficial communications.)
You might mean something a bit different. Congress did specifically mandate use of SLS for EM-1. Changing that isn’t tinkering with something Congress approved and funded. It’s tinkering with specific implementation details Congress insisted on in writing. They may well explode over that.
SpaceX demonstrated automated rendezvous and docking on its first Dragon 2 flight. That’s what you’d likely need to do EM-1, which is uncrewed, using commercial vehicles. You launch Orion on one LV (say a Delta IV Heavy), then an earth departure stage on another LV (e.g. Falcon Heavy), then dock Orion to the earth departure stage. It’s really not *that* hard.
We did that mission with crew back in the 60s with Gemini and an Agena upper stage. The crew performed “eyeballs out” burns on those missions.
It’s not quite that simple. SpaceX has demonstrated autonomous docking, but docking is nothing new. But the docking interface we’re talking about is between an upper stage and the Orion capsule/service module. That is going to be under acceleration, and potentially as much as one g, depending on the details. That’s a bit new. The Apollo CSM/LM interface is close, but I don’t think the loads were as great.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. It’s actually a straight-forward engineering problem. But you can’t just snap your fingers and have it delivered to the Cape. Actually, it would take a new upper stage and modifications to the Orion support module, before they could be delivered to the Cape. Except they already have been.
There was one comment at the Senate hearing Keith didn’t mention. Administrator said this two-launch idea wouldn’t be trivial and a number of things would have to be developed before the June 2020 launch. Then Senator Wicker stated the obvious: “It’s 2019.”
NASA’s stance on this stems from wanting to build a big rocket – plain and simple. Architecture studies that used EELV’s and built on their positive experience assembling in space were dismissed because they didn’t allow NASA to build a big rocket. The studies were rigged to put in huge costs for EELV’s to make building one big rocket look better. The teams were not allowed to contemplate anything other than existing EELV’s – no Falcon Heavy etc, since “it doesn’t exist yet”… never mind that SLS didn’t exist either (still doesn’t) – it was a “given” they could build it (at a fraction of what it is actually costing) for the purposes of the study. Good to see the current team is starting to figure this out.
Keith’s been saying that for a while, I think. Studies on the orbital propellant depot idea came back positive, although you’d need big spacecraft that require the equivalent of a ton of fuel launches to justify it (otherwise you might as well just fuel the departing spacecraft directly while it’s waiting in orbit around Earth).
Years ago, JSC Safety and Mission Assurance endorsed propellant depots as a way to increase mission success. The model they used was to pay a fixed fee for each pound delivered to the depot.
Or lots of smaller missions. You need enough propellent use to justify the infrastructure and to let the tank farm act as a buffer for the occasional tanker launch failure. But that can be infrequent, very large missions or more frequent and more modest missions.
The Orion team has known for years that they could probably launch on a Falcon Heavy or EELV. Any discussion of such was forbidden so as not to get NASA upset. (Even the NASA staff knew this but again, can’t PO the Senate by saying so.)
It does look like a dramatic change the the architecture. Except it can’t be, at least not if there was ever any point to SLS. Even in the Block 2 configuration, it’s “only” on par with a Saturn V. That means, even assuming factor of two improvements in technology since Apollo, the architecture you described will never be able to support more than somewhat enhanced Apollo missions. Call it three people on the lunar surface for a week, tops.
At the same time, you are quite correct: It looks like that is where SLS was or is heading. Doing more does require something different from assembling everything on the ground and launching it on one, huge launch vehicle. So, at some point, in space assembly will have to come in. Or, at the very least, in space docking and fuel/supplies transfer. It’s not like we haven’t done all that before.
When it comes to NASA’s current disinclination to do in orbit assembly, I think you’re correct about it being lessons learned from ISS. Unfortunately, I think it’s learning the wrong lessons. Building ISS was supposed to be, in part, an opportunity to learn how to build things in orbit. But they did it in a very complicated, difficult way. A way which involved lots of interfaces between the modules, lots of EVA work, etc. And that, surprisingly, turned out to be very difficult, time consuming and expensive. So now you have studies saying human missions to Mars will require in orbit assembly, and that it will be insanely expensive. That’s based on using the cost of ISS to estimate the cost of in orbit assembly.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Mir was a space station assembled from six 15-20 tonne modules. It wasn’t such a big task. There were no EVAs required for docking the modules. The interconnections were limited to a few fluid and electrical lines, and I think many of them were passed through the hatches joining the modules. (Which makes connecting them an ordinary task for the crew while working inside the station.) Nor is fuel transfer exactly new and exotic. And, in some cases, you don’t need any real connections at all. If it’s a propulsive stage, it just has to dock with the payload section (admittedly with a mechanically sound mating.) No hatch, no pipes, hoses or wires. In this day and age, any command and control between the two can easily use a radio.
Wasn’t this technically the plan in Cx with Ares 1 and Ares 5?
FH is reusable, remember?
Break out the popcorn…
“NASA has a history of not meeting launch dates. I am going to change that.”
This kind of bravado, especially in the space biz, can easily turn around and shoot the Administrator in the foot. To date our new Administrator has done much to garner support, including from me. It’s essential that the Administrator not be seen characterizing timelines in the manner of Mr. Musk.
“NASA has a history of not meeting launch dates. I am going to change that.”
Cancelling stupid pointless programs is an excellent way to achieve that goal.
The healing has begun?
If the purpose of the mission is to test Orion and SLS, I wonder what about Summer 2020 is so important that it supersedes the point of the entire mission.
The only way this makes sense is that Birdenstein’s boss wants to have sent something to the Moon before November 2020.
Same with the recent talk of humans to the surface of the moon by 2028 … before the end of Trump’s third term.
Today Orion EM-1 sits at KSC (more or less) ready to go. Undergoing test, waiting for SLS. When you have to worry about batteries and other elements ageing out before you fly – waiting for the launch vehicle, you need a new launch vehicle.
Orion could fly today. Autonomous docking is no longer an issue for the US (thanks SpaceX!)
Launch Orion on Atlas V, dock to any (use SpaceX autonomous docking capability) upper stage. Do it all in less than a year.
Use some of the money from SLS to accelerate Orion production and block buy Atlas V rockets (or anyone human rated launch vehicles – providers will rush to meet the requirements).
Fly Orion often, with or without a crew. Create momentum and develop the things needed to sustain production/enhancement/operations.
KILL IT DEAD. We do not need Orion to explore and it will not lead to settlement. Orion is way to expensive.
Orion-1 probably has to fly for political reasons. However, also pay Musk to send a FH-launched Dragon-2 around the Moon to prove it on an interplanetary coast and direct re-entry. If it works, then at least some of the Orion cost issues have dropped away.
Doom on you SLS. These things were laughed at in 2010 and 2011. Chickens coming home to roost.
I am personally deriving great utility as the “Only NASA” politicians are realizing they have thwarted the good work done by so many “trench engineers”. The political restraints can only last so long,
Onward. The sooner we dump SLS and Orion the sooner we can open up space for all of us.
Somebody needs to check senator Shelby’s blood pressure I am sure it is through the roof. Question is what is more important June 2020 launch and start of lunar exploration or just providing jobs to MSFC? Sadly I am sure I know which one the estemeed senator will choose.
Shelby may accept this in return for the restoration of EUS funding.
“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
I hope he gets SpaceX to cost the adapter hardware and mission profile independently, otherwise it will cost the usual $1+ billion, because …
“NASA is considering using two commercial launchers to send an unpiloted Orion crew capsule and its European-built service module on a test flight around the moon next year.” – the idea is to bolt together a Delta IV Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy to form a semi-reusable Dealcon Super-Heavy.
As someone on another site delights in reminding us: Rockets aren’t Lego bricks and you can’t ‘bolt together’ bits from different LVs without a lot of expensive work.
However, payloads can be like Lego bricks. Launch the Orion on top of an Atlas-V-552 and the ICPS on top of a Delta-IVH and you’ve got EM-1 and probably at a fraction of the cost.
Whilst on the subject, is there any broadly-accepted timeline and budget that tells us what ULA would need to make Atlas-V Heavy a reality?
I assume you know I was joking.
For the Atlas V Heavy, I’d guess at least three years. ULA was talking about two and a half years from the time they got an order, back when the Atlas Heavy was on the table. Then they said that, since no one wanted one, they were taking it off the table. I’d guess it would be the original two and a half years, plus six months or so to pick up where they left off three or four years ago.
By the way, you can build Lego rockets. The Atlas V can fly with zero to five boosters, a four or five meter fairing, and a upper stage with one or two RL-10s (ok, they’ve never flown a two RL-10 version.) The old Deltas were similarly configurable, and the Ariane 4s were even more so. But that has to be designed in from the beginning. What you can not do is take an existing launch vehicle and modify, plug and play, or whatever, in ways it was not originally designed for. That’s going to be harder than starting over from scratch.
SLS isn’t the only problem. Launch Control Subsystem at KSC, previously the target of a GAO investigation, won’t ever be able to launch anything even if SLS is ready. EGS continues to pretend otherwise. Letting someone else do the launching is the only remedy.
Do you have a link for that? I’d like to read more about it.
Fly Orion on Delta Heavy with a Human rated ICPS Dock with SpaceX Heavy upper stage.Keep ICPS as a wet lab at distination
Something just occurred to me. The Lunar Orbital Gateway is, in part, a mission package to fly SLS. EM-2 is a Gateway mission. If this results in the demise of SLS because it is defacto replaced by smaller vehicles, then what happens to Gateway? Everyone here knows that FSH can lift LOG components and would be theoretically in operation by the time most of it flies. If FH/DH prove that they can handle Orion on Lunar missions to the LOG and FSH is able to fly its pieces, then what would we need SLS for? Would LOG even still be a thing?
The world community could spend a $ 1billion a year for 20 years building telescopes at EM-2 that’s where you need human tended space stations and we can do it with COTS
Will point out that the SpaceX Starship can do all that the LOP-G was supposed to do.
If the SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship are available. There is no point in building most of the LOP-G components, except for the PPE as solar electric testbed and the Canadarm-3.
The Orion is included in the list of unneeded components. Since Starship also functions as cis-Lunar logistics vehicle.
AFAIK the current SLS/Orion plans does not have a crew Moon lander. The SpaceX Starship is a reusable heavy Moon lander that can function as a Lunar surface habitat.
Of course all the above need the Super Heavy and Starship to be in service.
Still need a small ship to ship shuttle if we have an orbital station at all and only access it with Starship. Too big to dock.
But you’re right, Starship does most of what LOPg is for.
If you are talking about a small 4 to 8 persons orbital transfer vehicle with low Delta-V. Yeah that would be quite useful for orbital platforms.
However if the SpaceShuttle can docked with the ISS than the Starship can probably docked with an orbital platform.
My understanding was that Starship and LOPG are roughly the same size…making frequent and routine docking of the two…disruptive.
I suspect that, if this ‘commercial alternative’ goes ahead then, as Eric Berger points out, the entire EM program, including the LOG, becomes commercial-launched.
None of these replies answers my question. LopG exists because SLS/Orion needed missions. I’ve read comments that suggest that it might be the ONLY reason LOPG exists in it’s current form at all. Folks wonder why we would orbit a Moon station that would be almost as useful on the surface…and we plan to do that anyway, but because Orion can’t land on the surface, they want the station in Lunar orbit.
So, if FH/DeltaH can haul Orion or Dragon to Lunar Orbit, then SLS might soon be easily and inexpensively made superfluous for crew. If FSH (or other supers that could be flying soon) can haul LOPG modules, then no SLS is necessary. If no SLS/Orion exists, then LOPG should be a surface station anyway and building an orbital station in the first place at all becomes silly. Right?
The countdown to the cancellation of SLS has begun?
I think the countdown began with the launch of Falcon Heavy just over a year ago. That flight led to a lot of people, and not just the usual critics, asking if SLS was really necessary now. NASA reassured them that it was and the questions died down for the moment. But I felt at the time that this was sign of the fragility of the support that SLS has and that it will only get weaker as time goes on.
NASA employees just got an email from the Administrator clarifying things:
Yesterday, I was asked by Congress about the schedule slip of the Space Launch System and plans to get NASA back on track. I mentioned that we are exploring the possibility of launching Orion and the European Service Module to low-Earth orbit on an existing heavy-lift rocket, then using a boost from another existing vehicle for Trans Lunar Injection. Our goal would be to test Orion in lunar orbit in 2020 and free up the first SLS for the launch of habitation or other hardware in 2021. This would get us back on schedule for a crewed lunar orbital mission in 2022 with the added bonus of a lunar destination for our astronauts.
We are studying this approach to accelerate our lunar efforts. The review will take no longer than two weeks and the results will be made available. Please know that NASA is committed to building and flying the SLS for the following reasons:
1. Launching two heavy-lift rockets to get Orion to the Moon is not optimum or sustainable.
2. Docking crewed vehicles in Earth orbit to get to the Moon adds complexity and risk that is undesirable.
3. SLS mitigates these challenges and allows crew and payloads to get to the Moon, and eventually to Mars, safer and more efficiently than any temporary solution used to get back on track.
I believe in the strength of our workforce and our ability to utilize every tool available to achieve our objectives. Our goal is to get to the Moon sustainably and on to Mars. With your focused efforts, and unmatched talent, the possibility of achieving this objective is real.
Ad Astra,
Jim Bridenstine