SLS has no missi-

>linear aerospike
>on a traditional tube rocket

It's all about the swag bag, baby.

>Reads Cis

>ECKSDEE MUH MEME LMAO

...

...

It's nice but pretty overrated for the price honestly

>2030+

...

Wow, this is awful. It's the retarded stepchild of Space Station Freedom.

Protip: "sometime in the 2030s" means "We'll all be retired then, so our plan doesn't have to make sense or work. Just keep those cheques coming."

Let's remember what happened with Space Station Freedom:
- The USA launched Skylab in 1973.
- The USA started building the shuttle with Skylab as its main intended destination for interesting manned flights, and a staging area for missions into deeper space.
- The USA cancelled other systems which could visit and maintain Skylab based on the space shuttle schedule.
- The space shuttle did not meet schedule and therefore Skylab fell on Australia in 1979, leaving most of the continent a barren desert. (the aftermath was the subject of a documentary titled "The Road Warrior")
- "No problem!" said NASA, "We'll just use the shuttle to build a modular space station. (it'll give us something to do with the shuttle)"
- Space Station Freedom was officially announced by President Reagan to the public in 1984. "Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade."
- In 1993, Space Station Freedom was cancelled on time and under budget.
- In 1998, ISIS started launching its own space station in cooperation with the USSR, humiliating the USA.
- Heedless of America's image or warnings from Congress that their actions were treasonous, NASA used the new ISIS station as an excuse to continue the failed shuttle program until it blew up in 2003, killing the only man at NASA who knew the secret of manned spaceflight.

There are only three launches on there that require more performance than Falcon Heavy can provide, and the first one isn't until 2027.

Up until that point, each mission is just using the 10 tonnes excess after Orion is sent to high lunar orbit: about one quarter of the SLS's capacity to high lunar orbit.

Each of those four payloads could be sent by a Falcon Heavy launch with tonnes to spare for extra supplies and equipment, and a Falcon Heavy launch can send manned Dragon to dock at it. Or NASA could send all four payloads as one integrated unit, no assembly required, on one SLS launch (which is about 2.5 times the Falcon Heavy payload to TLI).

So why send Orion on infrastructure launches that don't need crew, when it takes up three quarters of the payload capacity? Because the point is to find excuses to fly SLS/Orion, just like NASA kept looking for excuses to use the shuttle. The ostensible mission is not important to them, so they will compromise it to an unlimited degree in order to include the systems they want to keep busy and funded (if you really want to understand NASA, note that this doesn't apply to launch/crew vehicles alone).

As for the "Deep Space Transport", if you're going to do such a thing, there's no reason it can't be modular. Three Falcon Heavy launches send more mass at a much lower cost and with more schedule freedom.

However, note that SpaceX's ITS plan would have red dust on American boots about a decade before this "Deep Space Transport" could attempt to orbit Mars (without landing anyone on it).

yes but the gov't presence will still be the largest, because they have the most money and greatest capacity for withstanding liability lawsuits.

That's not to say this is an either/or situation though, everyone benefits from more investment. NASA will do what NASA does while other companies can choose to contract with them or other firms. Much like how the USPS subsidizes airlines through mail service, NASA will subsidize spaceflight ventures with ISS (and related) resupply contracts.

Everyone wins from this.

>it is high time NASA abandons launcher business for good

no because it wouldn't promote competition. Less competition -> less innovation and higher prices

Joking aside that's all because the space shuttle was a shit cargo vehicle, SLS allows block 2 cargo to be launched without a crew. As a result, the only thing keeping it from flying are better boosters (which, given the cost of boosters, is likely to receive more money from Congress because Congress wants to keep the booster builders employed).

>So why send Orion on infrastructure launches that don't need crew

so the station's facilities can be used immediately. NASA is expected to do science, y'know

>However, note that SpaceX's ITS plan would

stopped reading there since ITS is a meme, not even a spacex hater but get real here

NASA operates at the speed of government, which is typically very slow.

That said, things are better now then they were ten years ago. Any remaining ISS launches NASA might do will be done by SpaceX, as would any future resupplying to the ISS's replacement. This means lots of money for SpaceX which means more things like rovers or asteroid captures from them. Meanwhile, NASA's safety record will improve because the shuttle's gone and they're down to just one or two launches a year. Politically, Trump wants a moonbase which will more or less create the things needed (landers, rovers, shielded hab modules etc) for a Mars mission. Also the GOP will remain in a position of uncontested power through at least 2030, which means they won't have much interference with their plans.

Meanwhile, Vasmir rocket tech will probably be tested and deployed (if it hasn't already, see the X-37's supposed thruster testing) which could make sub-yearly Mars missions feasible. Everything is coming together, even if it'll take twenty years. The key thing is that the shuttle is gone.

That's what happens when you can only launch once per year and most of your cash is being burned on a $35 billion rocket that actually cost $9.8 billion thanks to $25 billion getting tied up in needless overhead.

Meanwhile, SpaceX is managing to make shit happen with overhead costs of only 14¢ on every dollar. Quite a contrast.

arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/

>no because it wouldn't promote competition. Less competition -> less innovation and higher prices
Is this a joke?

Government competing with private industry is not a healthy or beneficial situation. The space shuttle was responsible for decades of stagnation in the launch industry.

>so the station's facilities can be used immediately
Here's the current plan:
EM-2: Orion and station power/propulsion (station's facilities can't be used at all)
EM-3: Orion and habitat (station's facilities badly incomplete)
EM-4: Orion and supplies (station's facilities badly incomplete)
EM-5: Orion and airlock (crew finally on complete station!)
EM-6: Deep Space Transport
EM-7: Orion and supplies (crew finally has a reason to be there!)
EM-8: fuel for DST
EM-9: Orion and supplies (crew finally gets to take DST for a spin!)

Consider this option:
EM-2: the whole station in one piece
EM-3: an Orion capsule (crew already on complete station!)
EM-4: DST
EM-5: Orion
EM-6: DST fuel
EM-7: Orion
Years and billions of dollars saved!

Or even:
EM-2: the whole station in one piece
Falcon Heavy/Dragon launch: near-simultaneous crew visit
(optional) more Falcon Heavies: man it permanently with regular resupply and rotations
EM-3: Deep Space Transport
Falcon Heavies to supply and crew it promptly
And hey, we're going to Mars a decade ahead of schedule! We didn't even need to figure out how to still build SLS after running out of scavenged shuttle engines!

Literally only the first two are likely to happen. Three is a maybe. The rest are pipe dreams.

>Meanwhile, Vasmir rocket tech will probably be tested and deployed (if it hasn't already, see the X-37's supposed thruster testing) which could make sub-yearly Mars missions feasible

All the talk about Vasimr. I remember when I heard about that engine in 2010-2011ish, I was super excited because there were promises how it will help us travel to planets way faster than anything we had and the talks with NASA to test it on ISS in 2015 if I remember correctly. Since then I haven`t heard anything about it. Is it even feasible and what`s the progress on that.

>Is it even feasible and what`s the progress on that.
Who knows? and they're still doing ground testing.

VASIMR is electric propulsion, like an ion thruster or hall thruster. Like those options, it has poor thrust-to-mass and requires a lot of electrical energy relative to the thrust and impulse. Unlike those options, it's unproven and inherently large and complicated, requiring things like superconductors. So far, it's also less efficient at accelerating ions, and there remain unsolved problems with making it work in space.

Because it's large, it's supposed to be more suited to a large spacecraft needing more thrust, but it's still too early in development to say if it'll be more practical in any way than an array of conventional electric propulsion. If anything, concentrating all of that lossy electrical equipment in one place means a cooling system and radiators will need to be added, rather than the small units having enough surface area each to serve as their own radiators.

It's also supposed to have the advantage of variable specific impulse, so thrust can be increased by injecting more propellant and accelerating it to lower speed, but there's a further electrical efficiency loss when they do so.

A key problem is that, being electric propulsion rather than something like a fusion rocket or nuclear thermal rocket or fission fragment rocket, it offers no solution to the problem of where the power is coming from, and is in fact a power hog. As such, it requires a separate, unrelated breakthrough to offer benefits out of the character of existing, mature electric propulsion systems, and those breakthroughs are likely to suggest better solutions to the propulsion problem.

It doesn't seem like a very desirable technology to develop. Claims that it could send people to Mars in 39 days were essentially fraudulent or delusional, based on unrealistic assumptions.

Still better than nothing. EM-4 will, at the latest, be launched in 2025 (2026, being extremely generous). By that point the ISS will be decommissioned and deorbited, which will probably happen around 2024.

>EM-2: the whole station in one piece

No-go, modularity is required even if it's resource intensive. This is the political reality as it allows NASA to get more countries on board their space station.

>And hey, we're going to Mars a decade ahead of schedule! We didn't even need to figure out how to still build SLS after running out of scavenged shuttle engines!

As of yet, SpaceX has not demonstrated an ability to even get things to Mars in the first place. Let's get their LEO command modules crew rated first.

>It doesn't seem like a very desirable technology to develop.

It's plenty desirable, all it needs is a power source ie a nuclear reactor. NASA has already put one into orbit (SNAP), so it's not like this is technically impractical. All that's needed is the political support, and I doubt a Republican gov't would care much about it.

>Claims that it could send people to Mars in 39 days were essentially fraudulent or delusional, based on unrealistic assumptions.

Needing a nuclear reactor for auxiliary power isn't "unrealistic", especially when a shorter flight time of 40-80 days would make a Mars mission much more feasible.

>It's plenty desirable, all it needs is a power source ie a nuclear reactor
>Needing a nuclear reactor for auxiliary power isn't "unrealistic"
But VASIMR needs a *magic* nuclear reactor.

See: spacenews.com/vasimr-hoax/
>If generous but potentially realistic numbers are assumed (50 watts per kilogram), Chang Diaz’s hypothetical 200,000-kilowatt nuclear electric spaceship would have a launch mass of 7,700 metric tons, including 4,000 tons of ... reactor system hardware... Yet it would still get to Mars no quicker than the 6-month transit executed by the Mars Odyssey spacecraft using chemical propulsion in 2001
According to Ad Astra, they get about 1 lbf from a 200 kilowatt VASIMR thruster. Scaling it up a thousand times gives a 200,000 kilowatt system with 1,000 lbf of thrust. 7700 tonnes is about 17 million pounds, but let's reduce that to the round figure of 10 million pounds for simplicity.

It would therefore be capable of acceleration at one ten-thousandth of g, or about 0.001 m/s^2, under 100 m/s per day. In 39 days, the supposed entire length of the flight, it would be able to accelerate less than 4 km/s.

4 km/s is by no means game-changing. It's certainly not enough to get to Mars in 39 days even if you started from a conventional chemical departure burn, could apply this additional 4 km/s instantly at the beginning, and use aerobraking at the end. Even with conventional space-storable hypergols, it only takes a propellant mass fraction of about 3/4 to get 4 km/s.

Taking into account the disadvantages of low-thrust systems (no taking advantage of oberth effect), powered by an advanced 50 w/kg reactor, it would take about half a year for the VASIMR craft just to escape Earth orbit from LEO.

Low-thrust propulsion (which VASIMR certainly is) is only good for very long missions, and without major technology advances, solar will remain the far superior power source over nuclear on spacecraft in the inner solar system.

>EM-4 will, at the latest, be launched in 2025 (2026, being extremely generous)
It's not remotely generous to SLS skeptics to say EM-4 will be launched by 2026 at the latest. It's still somewhat generous to SLS believers to assume SLS will fly at all, or that it if it does, it'll have a second flight.

SLS is a grossly uneconomical, low-launch rate system based on 1970s technology and inferior crew safety due to the large solid boosters (which pose the same threat of destroying parachutes in the event of an abort as they did on Ares I, one of the reasons for its cancellation), being developed alongside and contrasted with unpredentedly cheap, high-launch-rate, cutting-edge systems. With every year that passes, it becomes more obviously unnecessary and embarassing.

It's quite likely that both SpaceX's planned manned moon flyby and their demonstration of 24-hour turnaround booster reuse will happen before SLS's first launch, and that at least the expendable version of ITS will fly before SLS's second launch. Remember that even the expendable ITS would offer over quadruple the SLS payload capacity at under a quarter of the cost. It could throw all the hardware on NASA's roadmap to lunar orbit in one cheap launch, and then a Falcon Heavy could send crew to it.

Furthermore, there's been a major change in American politics, so the future of blatant pork/profiteering projects like SLS is in doubt.

>SpaceX has not demonstrated an ability to even get things to Mars
What kind of a criticism is this? Their launch vehicle has certainly demonstrated sufficient performance and accuracy for the task. NASA's roadmap doesn't even have a Mars landing on it.

>Let's get their LEO command modules crew rated first.
Dragon 2 isn't LEO-only, and it's well ahead of schedule compared to Orion. It'll probably do a manned moon flyby and an unmanned Mars landing before Orion carries crew in space.

>ITS will fly before 2035
lol

>I want to believe.jpg

Question here wasnt space shuttle very complex sls should be rather easy in comparison. So why is it such a struggle and over budget and late and a failure.

It's not LEO so it's okay in my book.

It's a problem with NASA. Bad decisions from distant, inattentive, unqualified people are baked into both the design and the organizational structure. The team has no recent experience developing any size of rocket, and many of the people on it are near retirement age, with inflexible minds and tired, cynical attitudes. Nobody gets fired for refusing to sign off on things if they can dig up some plausible excuse to send it back for more work, but they've seen people get blamed, humiliated, and fired for signing off on things that later turned out to have any problem. Nobody has a strong motivation to find ways to cut costs or delays.

These clowns don't get it:
>>ITS will fly before 2035
>lol
>ITS is a meme

There's nothing particularly hard or slow about developing a big rocket. It only took ten years from the first orbital launch ever to Saturn V. Things are bigger, you just have to spend more money and a little bit longer on fabrication times.

SpaceX is a private company. There are no unqualified people in the decision-making chain. They dismiss non-performers, poor performers, and obstructive people. The team (not just the individuals on the team, but the organization itself) has recent experience developing large, cutting-edge rockets. They'll be coming fresh off putting the finishing touches on Falcon Heavy, another superheavy.

ITS will fly, quite possibly a couple of years behind the official public schedule but still within a reasonable time. Remember that, like Falcon 9, it makes sense both as an expendable rocket and as a reusable one, and it may fly as an expendable for a while before reusability is working. As an expendable rocket, it poses no special difficulties or schedule risks. As a reusable, this time SpaceX will have the experience of the F9 flyback booster and propulsive-landing Dragon behind them, so they shouldn't have anywhere near the same struggle.

The "more money" part is kind of important, as is getting it crew rated. This takes a lot of effort and time.

>SpaceX is a private company. There are no unqualified people in the decision-making chain.

The decision-making chain extends into the FAA and probably NASA, we don't like in an ancap state. SpaceX has to prove their ITS won't explode on the launchpad or accidentally fly itself into europe. SpaceX can't just make a rocket, they have to make a safe rocket. And this is just getting it so that SpaceX employees can fly, opening it up to public accommodation is another FAA matter entirely.

It's not happening. But it doesn't need to when SpaceX is already on track to have all the parts needed to build their own space stations.

Its is totally in a limbo it seems they apparently had a huge failure with composites and are redesigning it already. If they ever build it it willbe in aluminum

>getting it crew rated
Unless you're on NASA contract, crew rating isn't really a thing.

>The decision-making chain extends into the FAA and probably NASA
Only NASA if they're paying for it, and the FAA has been firmly directed to let manned commercial spaceflight go forward on an "at own risk" basis until the industry matures.

SpaceX has already passed the hurdles of getting flyback to launch site permission. That won't be a problem for their next rocket.

>The "more money" part is kind of important
I'm confident they'll come up with it. $10 billion spread over six years isn't a huge amount in the big scheme of things (and that's for the full ITS development program, not just the rocket, not just the reusable upper stage, but the habitat, including test flights to Mars). There are individual people who could sign that cheque alone from their personal property.

This is completely your made-up fantasy based on nothing but the fact that they tested a tank to destruction, after reporting that goals had been met, isn't it?

>all it needs
That's a cute way of phrasing it, now calculate the mass of said reactor and the weight of radiators you will need and taking into account the thrust of VASIMR, calculate the final thrust to weight ratio of your ship.

>SLS
>not a giant welfare program
When will you learn?

>SpaceX has already passed the hurdles of getting flyback to launch site permission. That won't be a problem for their next rocket.

They still need to get over the hurdle of needing an individual permit for every launch
Which will be necessary for rapid reuse/test programs.

Theres so many new things in the ITS that could easy delay it for years, dnno.
Maybe they shouldn't have decided to do an all carbon-composite design first thing

Who are you quoting?

They weren't testing it to destruction.

>There's nothing particularly hard or slow about developing a big rocket.
Then why is falcon heavy taking so long?

No goals have been met Im assuming the worst since mrmrmusk sais they are "redesigning".

There's actually very little demand for it.

That is closer than 2004.

there's zero demand for ITS
that's not an excuse

Elon said just last week that FH is "crazy hard" because of "all of those engines"

>why is falcon heavy taking so long?
1) Falcon 9 became capable of serving Falcon Heavy's intended main market: GTO comsats, so the motivation was reduced and changed to launching special heavy payloads, or (and reusability has to be very mature for this) increasing the payload which can be launched without expending any lower stages, or even going for full reusability (Elon Musk has suggested they might attempt upper stage recovery on the debut FH launch).

2) It would have consumed three cores, so it didn't make sense to fly until the production rate was high.

3) As the heavy variant of the rapidly-evolving Falcon 9, it made little sense to develop to the stage of being launch-ready until the incremental development process was nearly over and the design had stabilized (although it was important to keep the heavy variant in mind while evolving F9).

Falcon Heavy isn't a separate rocket from Falcon 9. It's not like they just said they were going to build Falcon Heavy and then fell six years behind schedule. The Heavy variant of Falcon 9, like the light Falcon 5 variant, was one proposed feature among many on a design that got dramatically changed as it approached maturity.

When they first started talking about Falcon Heavy, it was going to be capable of putting 25 tonnes in LEO and use splashdown recovery. Now Falcon 9 can put 22.8 tonnes to LEO and has another performance upgrade coming before Heavy flies, they're talking about Falcon Heavy doing 64 tonnes to LEO (making it significantly inferior to SLS only in its upper stage) and using flyback/downrange booster recovery.

The Falcon Heavy that's supposed to fly this year is a different animal from the one they once hoped to launch in 2011.

>Im assuming
No kidding.

>mrmrmusk sais they are "redesigning".
Source?

>Falcon 9 became capable of serving Falcon Heavy's intended main market: GTO comsats
Zero (0) customers have switched from FH to F9

>so it didn't make sense to fly until the production rate was high.
not when it's cheaper than competition
core production rate has never been a limiting factor for them

>As the heavy variant of the rapidly-evolving Falcon 9, it made little sense to develop to the stage of being launch-ready until the incremental development process was nearly over and the design had stabilized (although it was important to keep the heavy variant in mind while evolving F9).
not true
the first FH will use two cores that were first built and flown more than a year ago

>Falcon Heavy isn't a separate rocket from Falcon 9. It's not like they just said they were going to build Falcon Heavy and then fell six years behind schedule. The Heavy variant of Falcon 9, like the light Falcon 5 variant, was one proposed feature among many on a design that got dramatically changed as it approached maturity.
use proper english please

>they're talking about Falcon Heavy doing 64 tonnes to LEO ... and using flyback/downrange booster recovery.
wrong
64 tones is fully expendable only

>The Falcon Heavy that's supposed to fly this year is a different animal from the one they once hoped to launch in 2011.
So?
the falcon 9 flying today is completely different from the one in 2010, but that hasn't stopped them

Why do you completely ignore all of the technical challenges that Musk has stated have been the primary cause of the delays? (i.e. number of engines, vibration modes, pad availability, structural concerns in both stages)

>Elon said just last week that FH is "crazy hard" because of "all of those engines"
That's not what he said though. When he said it was a high-risk flight, he mentioned the engine count, but when he talked about how hard it was, he was saying it needed significant changes to the center core (which needs to carry a much heavier structural load), and new hardware to connect the stages in parallel and to separate them.

watch it again you retard

...

FH cannot send crew to lunar orbit no matter its payload capability or cost

the only "cutting edge" thing about f9 is the subcooled liquid oxygen (which has already caused one accident lmao)

>>mrmrmusk sais they are "redesigning".
>Source?
he said they were releasing "updated" designs soon at the SES-10 press conference

>Zero (0) customers have switched from FH to F9
They only have a few customers manifested for FH. They've certainly already launched things on F9 that would have required FH if they hadn't upgraded F9 performance.

>core production rate has never been a limiting factor for them
That's a hell of a claim to make without any support (which you're not going to be able to produce because it's complete bullshit).

>use proper english please
There's nothing wrong with my English. Learn to read, you fucking chimp. While you're at it, learn to use punctuation and capitalization.

>wrong
>64 tones is fully expendable only
I didn't say that both could be used on a single flight. Learn to read, you fucking chimp.

>Why do you completely ignore all of the technical challenges that Musk has stated have been the primary cause of the delays? (i.e. number of engines, vibration modes, pad availability, structural concerns in both stages)
Okay chimp, produce sourced quotes from him explicitly stating that any of these has been the PRIMARY cause of the delays. I'll just wait here for your creative excuses.

Also, "pad availability" isn't a technical challenge, it's a logistical challenge, a conflict between trying out Falcon Heavy and getting work done with Falcon 9.

Getting Falcon Heavy flying obviously hasn't been the main focus of launch vehicle development at SpaceX. I've explained why it wasn't a priority, and why it made sense for them to do some backburner FH development work anyway.

>it's this same autist, month after month, in every thread
holy shit
how pathetic

>FH cannot send crew to lunar orbit
FH is sending crew on a lunar flyby next year.

>the only "cutting edge" thing about f9 is the subcooled liquid oxygen
Highest thrust-to-weight engines, highest propellant mass fraction, and flyback reusability.

You can never back up anything you claim. How about you go be garbage somewhere else?

>lunar flyby = lunar orbit
lmao

So I did some more reading on this...

TL;DR version:
>the cis-lunar station is better than going to the Moon or Mars or whatever
>the station has been in the works for a long time
>it's a joint project by ISS partners Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia, and the USA
>NASA wants to include commercial partners as much as possible (e.g. Bigelow)
>can support multiple simultaneous deep space projects including Mars missions, a Moon base, and even asteroid capture
>plans are almost finalized and will be submitted to respective governments for approval and funding (June or July)
>construction could begin as soon as next year

Long version:
>Why a cis-lunar station instead of something like a Moon base or Mars base?
Different countries have different exploration interests, for instance NASA has it's sights set on Mars, but Russia is more interested in the Moon. Turns out a really good way to serve everyone's space exploration interests is through a cis-lunar station. Because the cis-lunar station is a compromise between partner nations (Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia, and the USA), it will be designed to support multiple deep space projects as well as it's own science goals.

There's also something critical here: proposed Mars/Moon/asteroid missions have a hard time surviving election cycles and budget cuts, but joint projects like the ISS can survive long term. By doing a joint cis-lunar station, it will be easier to do more interesting missions like going to Mars/Moon/asteroid because the infrastructure and science will already be there and waiting.

[1/3]

>doesn't know the difference between lunar free-return and lunar orbit
>expects to be taken seriously

>What kind of projects will the cis-lunar station support?
The station is meant to support multiple deep space projects, including a Moon base, Mars missions, and even Obama's asteroid capture. NASA would also like to do a Venus flyby on their first Mars mission. Also included is support for construction of a deep space transport. The valuable thing about this station is that it can support all of these projects at the same time. No longer is it Mars versus the Moon versus asteroid capture, instead we can do all of those things simultaneously. It will also make each of those missions more affordable and easier than if they were done by themselves.

>What kind of research will be done on the cis-lunar station?
Alot of the research will be on studying the effects of the long term effects of deep space on humans and man-rated spacecraft, including surface structures for bases on the Moon and Mars. The station is pretty small though, so not much science can be done on it compared to the ISS. That said, the cis-lunar station is meant to be more expandable than the ISS, so it may be possible that the station will increase in size over time, thus increasing the possibility of more diverse research.

>Who all is involved in cis-lunar station?
ISS partners Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia, and the USA have been jointly and indepently working on the idea since 2009. Because the station and Orion/SLS projects will be expensive, NASA is seeking partnerships to ease the financial burden. Not only does this include the aformentioned countries, but it also includes commercial space companies. Through the NextSTEP program, NASA has selected six companies and teams to work on developing NASA's portion of the station. These companies are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Bigelow, Sierra Nevada Corp, Orbital ATK, and Nanoracks/Loral/ULA. The winning concept(s) will be selected later this year and construction will begin in 2018 or 2019.

[2/3]

>What is included in the cis-lunar station?
Because it's so expensive, the station costs will be divided amongst the five national partners:
Canada - robot arm (think ISS's Canadarm)
Europe - hab/logistics module 1, Orion service module
Japan - hab/logistics module 2, resupply
Russia - airlock module, resupply
USA - propulsion module, Orion and exploration vehicles, resupply

Sources
planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2017/20170309-nasa-iss-partners-cislunar-station.html
russianspaceweb.com/imp-origin.html
popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a24206/orion-nasa-space-plan/
arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/for-the-first-time-nasa-has-begun-detailing-its-deep-space-exploration-plans/
arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/six-contractors-have-begun-work-on-nasas-gateway-to-deep-space/
forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38818

[3/3]

>post thing that's blatantly wrong
>get called out for it
>respond by screaming "chimp" in every post
Please continue, as it makes it easy as fuck to filter and hide your posts.

So it's basically ISS for the moon?

Will Blue Origin's lander ever be used in conjunction with it?

1) I never said or implied the two were the same.
2) There's very little difference between doing a lunar free-return and going to a high lunar orbit like the Orion missions are doing.
3) There's plenty of additional payload capacity to add an auxiliary propulsion module in the Dragon trunk to enable it to have more delta-v than Orion has.

Orion's a badly overweight capsule. It was designed for two-launch missions with Constellation, not single-launch SLS missions. It was intended for moon landing missions, but thanks to being an overweight capsule on an underpowered rocket, it can only take crews to high lunar orbit. Consequently, NASA is planning its future around not being able to get people anywhere more interesting than high lunar orbit, and only being able to do that a few times per decade, all thanks to how incredibly shitty SLS/Orion is.

With a small amount of simple, inexpensive, low-schedule-risk development, Dragon on Falcon Heavy could go anywhere Orion on SLS can go. Thanks to low cost and high flight rate, it'll also be suitable for multi-launch missions, which makes it fit for moon landing missions as well (although more elaborate development would be necessary, to produce the lander and a tug module).

>With a small amount of simple, inexpensive, low-schedule-risk development, Dragon on Falcon Heavy could go anywhere Orion on SLS can go.
It would need at a minimum a long-duration third stage for FH to match Orion capability. It's not going to happen unless NASA funds it COTS-style.

>ONE mission, the europa clipper, which isn't even going to fly on the SLS because it'll have just launched once before then(risky)
source: my ass

It makes use of knowledge and experience gained from the ISS program. It's also like the ISS in that it brings together multiple independent exploration programs under one larger program. But the ISS was more like a research facility whereas the cis-lunar station is an exploration facility.

It makes use of knowledge and experience gained from the ISS program. It's also like the ISS in that it brings together multiple independent exploration programs under one larger program. But the ISS was more like a research facility whereas the cis-lunar station is an exploration facility.

>Will Blue Origin's lander ever be used in conjunction with it?
There have been discussions about re-usable landers but I didn't see any mention of Blue Origin.

Utterly pointless
Why would you do a space station instead of a lunar base for mining/resupply?

>It would need at a minimum a long-duration third stage for FH to match Orion capability.
You mean it would need an expansion of Dragon's propulsion system. It doesn't need to be a full-fledged stage because Dragon can take care of navigation and RCS.

The SuperDraco engine, or even a few Dracos, would be adequate for the purpose, though it would benefit from modifications such as a nozzle extension to improve specific impulse. A simple way to do it would be to put a scaled up version of the propellant tanks from Dragon in the trunk, and put three SuperDraco thrusters (or six for redundancy) on the bottom so they could steer by differential throttling. A more efficient, but possibly more difficult way, would be to use a single gimballed SuperDraco with a nozzle extension.

I say even Dracos could be used, because this isn't like Apollo, where there were considerable gains to be made with a high-thrust maneuvering system, because they were circularizing in, and then returning from, low lunar orbit. In that case, thanks to the relatively high orbital speed in low lunar orbit, the oberth effect comes into play. This is just going to high lunar orbits, with low orbital speeds and small delta-V requirements.

It's also not like Dragon needs a big additional external service module like Orion's getting. The Orion capsule is highly dependent on the service module for things that are built into Dragon. It's not like they're built with comparable technology and efficiency. Orion is clunky and heavy, based on 1960s Apollo technology in the same way SLS is based on 1970s shuttle technology, because Congress and the office of the President didn't trust the modern NASA to develop new stuff on time and within budget (jokes on them though, eh?).

Orion's not going to have a lot of delta-V. I estimate about 1.35 km/s. That's what you get when only about a 1/3 propellant mass fraction with conventional storable propellants.

>Why would you do a space station instead of a lunar base for mining/resupply?
Because SLS and Orion aren't useful for doing a lunar base (launcher doesn't carry enough, launcher can't fly often enough, capsule's too heavy), and the whole point here is to find missions for SLS and Orion.

adding more propellant to dragon's trunk would void the launch escape system

it needs to be a separate stage

You can get more mass to the Moon through the station because the station can support a re-usable lander. You don't need as powerful a rocket if you use the station. The lander also saves time and money since each Moon project won't need to build a custom lander every time.

>As a result, the only thing keeping it from flying are better boosters (which, given the cost of boosters, is likely to receive more money from Congress because Congress wants to keep the booster builders employed).

give the next minuteman version contract to orbitalATK, that should keep them happy

'coz we feel sorry for you, you can supply the following'
>Russia - airlock module, resupply
the money for that airlock module is gonna come from us aint it?

why not make china a full partner and cut russia out

>adding more propellant to dragon's trunk would void the launch escape system
No it wouldn't. In a launch escape scenario, Crew Dragon doesn't take the trunk contents with it, but when it stages normally, it does take the trunk contents.

Did you think I meant it would be permanently plumbed in? I explained that the propulsive module in the trunk would have its own thrusters. It would have to be able to eject the trunk in any case, to re-enter the atmosphere.

>You can get more mass to the Moon through the station because the station can support a re-usable lander.
This could result in some hardware cost savings, but not mass savings compared to the Apollo model. The Deep Space Gateway would be in high lunar orbit. Flying the whole lander all the way back up there from the surface would cost a lot of additional propellant.

In the Apollo landings, the Command/Service Module (CSM) circularized to low lunar orbit (LLO) with the lunar module. Then the lunar module descended to the surface. Then the lander portion remained on the surface while a small ascender module returned to LLO and docked with the CSM, before being discarded so the CSM could return to Earth with no part of the lunar module.

If you were going to reuse a lunar lander, you wouldn't want to bring it up to any orbit higher than LLO.

There would be significant additional delta-V costs for stopping at the DSG on the way to the moon, because you're matching orbit with it and docking.

Oops, I should correct myself here:
>This is just going to high lunar orbits, with low orbital speeds and small delta-V requirements.
This was faulty reasoning. It's an eccentric orbit (low perigee, high apogee), not a high circular orbit, so high thrust is advantageous.

Well if you are just doing a footprints & flags mission, then the apollo design is adequate
If you want an actual colony you need fully reusable everything + minimized operating costs.

Something that looks more like the ITS

The idea for the project has some roots in Russia so we may have them to thank for it all. Their space program is under severe budget cuts but the airlock may be affordable to them.

As for China, it used to be that Senator Wolf was the major obstacle to China's cooperation with the US in space, but he is no longer in office, so I don't know how likely it is that China will join in the ISS or cis-lunar station now. They do have their own lunar exploration program though, so maybe we will see increased cooperation in the future.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

You're right about the lander needing more fuel/energy to get to the station. When I say more mass to the Moon I am talking about rockets. Only NASA (so far) will be using super heavy lift rockets, so for instance, if Europe wants to land more than a ton or two on the Moon with a heavy lift rocket, then they will use the re-usable lander. Countries can get more mass to the Moon without needing to use bigger rockets if they use the re-usable lander. Pic kind of related.

>Crew Dragon doesn't take the trunk contents with it, but when it stages normally
No.

What don't you understand? Of course the Crew Dragon won't pull the trunk contents with it when it aborts. That would be absurd, taking tonnes of extra, easily-abandoned mass in an emergency. And of course it does take them when it stages normally.

The capsule is connected to the shell (the tubular piece with fins and solar cells on it). The shell connects to the trunk-structure and the trunk-structure connects to the upper stage. The trunk payload (if any) connects to the trunk-structure.

In an abort, the shell disconnects from the trunk, and the capsule and shell rocket away from the trunk-structure and upper stage, with the lightweight shell serving an important aerodynamic function. Then the shell is ejected from the capsule so the capsule can land by parachute.

In routine staging, the trunk-structure simply disconnects from the upper stage, remaining attached to the shell.

>What don't you understand? Of course the Crew Dragon won't pull the trunk contents with it when it aborts. That would be absurd, taking tonnes of extra, easily-abandoned mass in an emergency.
Crew dragon will not carry any substantial payload in the trunk.

When cargo dragon updates to dragon 2, it will carry cargo in the trunk.

>The capsule is connected to the shell (the tubular piece with fins and solar cells on it). The shell connects to the trunk-structure and the trunk-structure connects to the upper stage. The trunk payload (if any) connects to the trunk-structure.
You have zero idea what you're talking about.

>Crew dragon will not carry any substantial payload in the trunk.
Do you have a source to support that claim? If not, have you got any reason why they wouldn't?

They'll certainly be taking pressurized cargo. The space shuttle took unpressurized cargo to ISS on crew missions.

>When cargo dragon updates to dragon 2
That'll just be the same vehicle as Crew Dragon with different stuff loaded in it.

>Do you have a source to support that claim? If not, have you got any reason why they wouldn't?
because, just like you said, heavy cargo in the trunk would interfere with the use of the escape system
>The space shuttle took unpressurized cargo to ISS on crew missions.
the space shuttle was also massive compared to f9, and had no escape system

>That'll just be the same vehicle as Crew Dragon with different stuff loaded in it.
it won't need abort capability, hence why it could carry heavy pressurized cargo

>because, just like you said, heavy cargo in the trunk would interfere with the use of the escape system
Except that's not what I said. That's what you said. What I said is that they will leave the trunk contents behind in an abort scenario.

This isn't something that's hard to do.

>What I said is that they will leave the trunk contents behind in an abort scenario.
What's your source on this?

What's your source on them not doing this?

In all of the images and animations, they show an open-bottom shell on Crew Dragon, not a closed-bottom trunk. Material inside it wouldn't affect abort as long as it didn't connect to the shell.

Yet all they'd have to do to still use the trunk space for cargo is sandwich a lid-like structure between the shell and the upper stage, with explosive connectors like the ones currently used to separate Dragon from its trunk before re-entry.

There's no reason for them not to do this. Even with flyback recovery, Falcon 9 has way more capacity to LEO than is needed to launch Dragon with any reasonable load in the pressurized space. There's tons of excess capacity for them to put whatever would fit in the trunk.

you're just making up bullshit now

I'm applying reason to the information we have.

Neither of us have a source for an authoritative statement supporting our position. My position, however, is reasonable and backed by detailed explanation of how an obviously desirable capability would be easily achieved. Your position is unreasonable and supported by sputtering denials and misrepresentations of my position, lacking proper punctuation or capitalization.

If you're going to be garbage, do it somewhere other than Veeky Forums.

likely better than chemical propellant, a 40ish day trip would shave off a huge amount of logistics supplies, while driving transit costs down as a single vehicle could be reused without refueling. Hence why NASA is funding it.

>Unless you're on NASA contract, crew rating isn't really a thing.
>Only NASA if they're paying for it, and the FAA has been firmly directed to let manned commercial spaceflight go forward on an "at own risk" basis until the industry matures.

The industry is going to be "mature" in five years when there will be three different commercial capsules (Dragon, Dreamchaser, Starliner) and two different government ones (Orion, X-37). This means SpaceX will be subjected to the same standards Boeing, Lockmart and Northrop are. It's not a difficult problem, but it is a process that will mean lots of paperwork and safety-first decisionmaking. The only entity that can afford huge disasters without lawsuits is NASA, because Congress hires good lawyers to protect their pork programs. More to the point SpaceX will remain a NASA oriented business because NASA spends more money on space exploration than anyone else, and NASA itself is the door to DoD contracting.

>$10 billion spread over six years isn't a huge amount in the big scheme of things (and that's for the full ITS development program, not just the rocket, not just the reusable upper stage, but the habitat, including test flights to Mars).

$10 billion to Mars is a tall order when it's a sunk cost because there's nothing profitable on Mars. That's why the STS petered out like it did, rather than Northrop or Boeing building a better version and selling it to the private industry. The Concorde couldn't maintain a profit either, even the A380 is having issues.

Of course Musk could blow all his money on it, but I reckon he's a lot smarter than that and will opt for a general cargo vehicle first. Less red tape and a greater ability to send rovers and other equipment to other planets (ie, things they could much more quickly get contracts for).

>The industry is going to be "mature" in five years when there will be three different commercial capsules (Dragon, Dreamchaser, Starliner) and two different government ones (Orion, X-37).
Yeah, two high-cost, low capacity commercial crew vehicles on the market is not a mature commercial passenger spaceflight market. This is fucking ridiculous.

>$10 billion to Mars is a tall order
It's not "$10 billion to Mars". It's $10 billion to develop a fully-reusable orbital rocket that carries 300 tonnes or 100 (potentially 300) passengers (with baggage) to LEO per flight, expends no hardware, and burns the cheapest propellant combination ever seen.

It could lower tickets to orbit to the $10,000 price range, and make visiting or working in space a realistic prospect for tens of millions of people.

The benefits are not comparable to any previous launch technology development program, and yet the costs are.

>That's why the STS petered out like it did, rather than Northrop or Boeing building a better version
STS was unmitigated shit. It petered out because it was entirely a pork project. There was nothing to salvage from it of commercial value. It wasn't an honest attempt to produce a cost-effective reusable launch vehicle, early in the planning process it became obvious that it wouldn't save anything over existing expendables, and they accepted that and continued. Bad faith from the start.