Next logical step...

[bjbeard]

I was just thinking about the COTS, SLS and where the heck things are going.

SO I come up with this idea.

Man rating existing boosters will take darn near as long as building a new one. So go back to the Titan design, use the in stock SSME's 2 on the first stage, 1 on the second stage, use the remaining in stock OMS systems as the service module engine, top it with with the COTS vehicle of your choice.

This uses existing (if old) designs and "off the shelf" components that would only have to have systems integration testing. Should cut the time to flight in half, an get things back into a positive rhythm.

[Cras]

I dont think man-rating an existing vehicle would be just as hard and long as a new vehicle.  But of course, SLS is not a new vehicle.  It is Shuttle derived.

Actually the first proposal was to use the EELVs, man rating those.  But Congress has been quite involved with the next gen NASA launch system.   To the point where it is invasive.   And that is why we have the SLS.  And why it looks the way it looks, and uses the components it uses.

[bjbeard]

Vehicles designed by committee that serves no ones purposes...

Why does that sound familiar...

[Cras]

That is the part that gets me.   No purpose.


The Orion capsule was built with no real mission in mind.   It came to be the moon, then maybe a rescue vehicle for the ISS, then maybe asteroid, then mars, or maybe the moon after all.....no lander....


Then SLS is just a heavy lift vehicle.  Again with no purpose but to lift a big load of stuff.   Which means when it comes time to where we really know what we want to do, and what the vessel is gonna look like....we now know what the Orion's SM is gonna be, but what if a lander gets thrown into the mix sometime down the road....will that require a more modifications to SLS?

I honestly do not understand what is so hard to just pick a path and go down it.  What is this whole asteroid buisness anyway.....   Set a goal for Mars, use the Moon as a training ground for learning all the procedures for such a flight, and build the vehicle to suit that need.  If we can then turn it into some sort of asteroid mining cart later, fine.

[Derrick]

I totally agree with Cras.

The moon is only 3 days away, we should start from there, build the base, get the training and procedures done effectively and then go on to Mars.  That's it. Spaceflight is hard, risky and dangerous.  Sort out the niggles closer to home before going the distance.  No sense in planning a mission to an asteroid or some other exotic place which will have no benefit in any case.

It seems that we are always planning to run the full marathon, but forget that we are still stuck at the starting line with the very first small step taken more than 40 years ago. 

Learn to walk before you can run!

[bjbeard]

Problem is that supporting the mission to Mars, there would have to be a high frequency of flight to and from the moon. This means a depot at ISS and three or four transfer vehicles constantly shuttling between ISS and the moon, where most likely a lunar orbiting station would be, as carrying landers would cost too much fuel.

So this means a hangar at ISS, something that was in the original Freedom station design but nixed after the redesign to ISS. The Space Exploration Initiative from 1989 is still the best program for what needs to be done, but no one wants to even look at that.

I guess were all gonna be Morlok's one day...

[Cras]

You will not use the ISS for a mid course stop to the moon.  The inclination is way off for a good fuel efficient transfer.  Besides, the future of the ISS beyond 2020 is uncertain.

There is plenty of chatter of a lunar space station, which can serve as a waypoint for surface excursions and the like.   But any sort of Mars flight I would imagine would be launched from LEO, some sort of temporary assembly point in a low inclined orbit....but still possible from KSC.   Then off to Mars from there.  There are still serious issues to deal with.   Landers, Shuttles, cross-planet contamination, tracking networks, procedures.

ISS is great for learning how to maintain a spacecraft for long periods of time in space, and to test out the means to keep humans in zero g for long periods of time.  But that is about the limit for its use in terms of getting to Mars.

[bjbeard]

Oh yea, didnt think about the ISS 51deg inclination... Lunar missions are roughly 20deg less. Damn just blew that idea out of orbit. Why was the ISS put in a 51 deg orbit anyways?

[mborgia]

The ISS was originally planned for a 28.5 degree orbit.  This was to maximize the lifting capacity of the Space Shuttle.  The change to a 51.6 degree orbit was made once the Russians were brought into the program to accommodate their far north launch sites.  Bringing the Russians in was supposed to allow us to share costs.  But in fact it made the station fabulously more costly.  For example, the Destiny lab could have been launched to a 28.5 degree orbit fully equipped in just one mission.  But going to the 51.6 degree orbit required that it be launched essentially stripped.  Two further shuttle missions were required to deliver the lab's equipment at a cost of over a billion extra dollars.

[bjbeard]

Congress is a "special kinda stoopid" arent they?

(s****d? REALLY? Censor Nazi's around here... Wahit..I can type Nazi, but not stup1d???)

[Cras]

The ISS was originally put into a 40 something degree inclination wasnt it?

And then later increased to accommodate soyuz and progress.   

One hand, it is nice that it is such a high inclination so it flies over more of the Earth, more chance for people to see it, more nice pictures....

on the other hand......30 degrees would have been much nicer.   Those ISS launches really pushed the Shuttle to the limit.  The SLWT, the OMS kick.....not to mention making some of the aborts even more risky, as if they were not risky enough...I know NASA was worried of the thought (among other things) of a shuttle break up and having the crew stranded somewhere in the north atlantic and freezing to death.

I still question the what we gained from dealing with the russians in the ISS.   In hind sight...it would have been far better I think if we just went with Europe and Japan and left the Russians to their own pathetic devices.   Also would have meant us not having to deal with Mir and the debacle that was.

[bjbeard]

Amen brother.

ISS ended up just like shuttle. Designed by committee, serving no one's purpose.