Discussion Journey to Mars

[richfororbit]

Hi,

I don't expect this to go anywhere, but since the new government moved in recently. Does anyone think the program will continue under this government term ahead?

The next budget will certainly continue the webb telescope and the construction of the space launch system.

My view is that the program will continue ahead, I'm not sure about the Journey to Mars orbital mission. Its still a bit early.

Obviously each budget is important since they are steps.

May as well include the official NASA page section https://www.nasa.gov/topics/journeytomars/index.html

 

[Keatah]

Hopefully they nix all this Mars nonsense. It doesn't benefit anyone yet. I'd rather them focus on telescopes and unmanned space probes. Do a moon base first.

And this journey to mars crap, now it's the 2030's, next it'll be the 2040's.. More PowerPoint Spacecraft.

 

[richfororbit]

I think only sporadic missions are realistic. I could see NASA go to Mars, but only as just one mission.

As for an actual outpost on the Moon, that isn't realistic or sustainable. Remember, about two million dollars to keep an Astronaut alive on the surface.

 

[K_Jameson]

Other than that Mars Mission development hell, my eye was caught by the new animation of the future upper stage that is meant to be utilized with the big SLS rocket.

I could not resist to compare that Exploration Upper Stage with our High Energy Stage 5, better known as HES-5, developed for the Jarvis M rocket and the Antares Long Range spacecraft.





Some resemblance?
:rofl:

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't want to discuss politics here ... but I think the really important faces have not changed yet: The Congress.

Trump has shown how much damage he can cause, but the really important power is the power over the federal budget and the president has no power over it.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Given that there has been no concrete, clear agenda from either Congress or the White House on space, I think NASA's kinda committed to keep going on SLS.

 

[K_Jameson]

Given that there has been no concrete, clear agenda from either Congress or the White House on space, I think NASA's kinda committed to keep going on SLS.

The problem I see with SLS is that the initial version ranks at "only" 70 mt, that is a rather poor performance given the astronomical cost of the program. And that cost can doom the subsequent evolute versions of the rocket.

If we want compare SLS with Saturn V (a pretty common exercise), we must consider that the two-stage INT-21 had some 110 tons in LEO (Skylab hasn't exploited entirely its capacity) and the complete three stage rocket, with 135/140 tons, will remain undefeated even by the most advanced SLS version.

If Falcon Heavy, the close second, will prove itself reliable and powerful as Musk say, I don't see those costs justifiable, although a fair competition between the two must consider the BLEO performances, rather than the crude LEO payload. Here the advantage of SLS could be larger, because of the lack of a proper high energy kick stage for the FH.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

The problem I see with SLS is that the initial version ranks at "only" 70 mt, that is a rather poor performance given the astronomical cost of the program. And that cost can doom the subsequent evolute versions of the rocket.

If we want compare SLS with Saturn V (a pretty common exercise), we must consider that the two-stage INT-21 had some 110 tons in LEO (Skylab hasn't exploited entirely its capacity) and the complete three stage rocket, with 135/140 tons, will remain undefeated even by the most advanced SLS version.

If Falcon Heavy, the close second, will prove itself reliable and powerful as Musk say, I don't see those costs justifiable, although a fair competition between the two must consider the BLEO performances, rather than the crude LEO payload. Here the advantage of SLS could be larger, because of the lack of a proper high energy kick stage for the FH.

At the risk of treading into Basement territory, NASA is building this thing to keep America's large-scale rocket manufacturing industry alive, not to actually GO anywhere. NASA's entire program right now for beyond LEO is SLS and Orion. Nothing else.

 

[Urwumpe]

At the risk of treading into Basement territory, NASA is building this thing to keep America's large-scale rocket manufacturing industry alive, not to actually GO anywhere. NASA's entire program right now for beyond LEO is SLS and Orion. Nothing else.

Not to oversimplify, but of course in the past, there was not a huge difference because all NASA programs since Apollo involved keeping the whole industry alive by NASA. If this was primary or secondary target is hard to tell.

Also I think it isn't wrong to do this. The private spaceflight is still in its infancy, it will take some years until it can keep itself alive.

What is a better question: Is the planned architecture really the best that NASA can do? Should the SLS be used for "Flags and Mars Rocks"? Or could there be a more sustainable architecture, that also allows letting private spaceflight follow NASA?

 

[Unstung]

At the risk of treading into Basement territory, NASA is building this thing to keep America's large-scale rocket manufacturing industry alive, not to actually GO anywhere. NASA's entire program right now for beyond LEO is SLS and Orion. Nothing else.

Thus SLS could be used to go to the moon as easily as Mars. Plus, getting to the moon, landing, and returning requires a lot less architecture and expense than a Mars mission. Most of the big aerospace contracts come from the Department of Defense, so it may not be that hard to gut the remnants of Constellation in favor of a new system, like praising our lord Elon Musk and letting his gifts take us to new worlds.

 

[K_Jameson]

If the problem was to keep the workers and keep down the costs, I don't see why instead SLS, they haven't chosen to go with a cargo derivative of the STS stack, aka "Shuttle C"

 

[Urwumpe]

If the problem was to keep the workers and keep down the costs, I don't see why instead SLS, they haven't chosen to go with a cargo derivative of the STS stack, aka "Shuttle C"

What is the difference? Except the better cargo handling and the poorer performance?

 

[DaveS]

What is the difference? Except the better cargo handling and the poorer performance?

Better launch rate. Shuttle-C could utilize the existing STS infrastructure and pretty much achieve the same launch rate as the STS (around 6/year). SLS is requiring brand new infrastructure in everything from manufacturing (while the core stage is manufactured in the same facility as the STS ET, it is using brand new hardware) to a new Mobile Launcher at KSC. S/C could use everything essentially unmodified as the cargo element was based on the existing orbiter vehicles.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, the SLS launch rate is more limited by funding for the missions, I am sure it should be no big difference to the STS there. The components are similar, the Bill of Materials is less complex, the inline assembly should even be simpler than the side-mount of the orbiter.

The only big issue I see is, that it is much harder to install the payload as late into the SLS as it was possible with the STS. Essentially, it should better be done by leaving the VAB.

Still... this is only about the launch vehicle, but less about what should be done with it... the exploration mission manifest is pretty empty, it does not look like a sustainable plan.

 

[K_Jameson]

What is the difference? Except the better cargo handling and the poorer performance?

poorer performances at a fraction of the cost sounds a lot like Falcon Heavy. Why FH is "good" and Shuttle-C is "bad"? Only because FH is blessed by Musk?

Also, Shuttle C proposals had 77 / 80 mT of payload (source: Encyclopedia Astronautica), that is better than the baseline SLS.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, Shuttle C proposals had 77 / 80 mT of payload (source: Encyclopedia Astronautica), that is better than the baseline SLS.

The payload to which place. The Block I is at 70 tons to LEO. Block IB already at 105 mt. Block 2 reaches 130 tons.

That is a lot better than what the biggest Shuttle C proposal even promised.

 

[K_Jameson]

The payload to which place. The Block I is at 70 tons to LEO. Block IB already at 105 mt. Block 2 reaches 130 tons.

That is a lot better than what the biggest Shuttle C proposal even promised.

Sure, but at that cost? If the costs and the flight manifest will remain the same, I'm not sure that even Block IB will ever see the launch pad before the cancellation of the entire program. Not to mention Block 2.

There is a contradiction: we want mission architectures that make use of existing and smaller rockets, but when we have the opportunity of a powerful yet existing rocket (sort of)... suddenly SLS is a better choice.

Just to be clear: I'm not against SLS. And I support the need of an heavy lifter for exploration. But maybe in these times of economical constraints, a more conservative design would have been a better compromise... IMHO

 

[Urwumpe]

Sure, but at that cost?

Would the Shuttle (-C) fly once every blue moon, it would also be pretty more expensive than it was in reality. The fixed costs of a launch vehicle should not be underestimated.

 

[K_Jameson]

the exploration mission manifest is pretty empty, it does not look like a sustainable plan.

Maybe a rocket that require less R&D would free more money for exploration tools besides the mere Orion capsule.

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe a rocket that require less R&D would free more money for exploration tools besides the mere Orion capsule.

Sure, but R&D isn't really bad. After all good R&D by NASA helps the US spaceflight industry.

What I rather complain about is that the Orion capsule will just poke into deep space, and require lots of infrastructure on Earth, instead of getting more infrastructure into space to expand the range of smaller simpler spacecraft. And I think this should be the goal of NASA, improving the access of the USA to space.