Space Launch System

Oldfart1939 · 2021-03-21 12:00:31

As a further set of thoughts: the first stage of an intermediate rocket could be powered by keralox, but the upper stages to methylox. This should make the first stage construction more straightforward, and reuse of older flight tested Merlins could be incorporated into the design.
In effect, I'm suggesting a hybrid design of Falcon 9 and Starship technologies.

SpaceNut · 2021-03-21 12:42:29

GW Johnson wrote:

You avoid the dimensional restrictions for transport if your factory is at your launch site. That's why Starships and Superheavies are built at Boca Chica, and why Musk bought two offshore drilling platforms to use as Superheavy launch sites.
While cheapest, it still costs, but barge transport from Boca Chica to Cape Canaveral using the Intracoastal Canal is feasible. That makes launching Superheavies from Canaveral feasible, if the explosion hazard size and noise levels can be tolerated. They cannot at Boca Chica itself, but could be at those offshore platforms.
GW

Possibly due size and explosive power of a crash is why in the ocean its being launched as its not about making fuel or lower launch costs...

SpaceNut · 2021-03-21 12:44:42

RobertDyck wrote:

Oldfart1939 wrote:
I advocated a larger than Falcon 9 intermediate rocket be built several years ago. Falcon 9 is 12 feet in diameter, or 3.7 meters. I modest increase in diameter would seem very feasible--say to 5 meters. Using the Falcon 9 side boosters would seem to be a no-brainer.
Falcon 9 is manufactured in California, transported to Florida by truck. Bridges along the road limit the load to about 14.5 feet in height. That includes booster diameter and truck wheels, truck bed, etc. Do you know an alternate route that doesn't have any bridges? Perhaps to Boca Chica, Texas, then by barge? Corpus Christi, Texas, has a commercial port capable of handling tanks that large. Can you get out of Hawthorne, California, without passing under any bridges?

Possibly a NASA. Guppy might be used to send sections or barge.

GW Johnson · 2021-03-21 15:31:52

Hi OF39:

Not sure what to "crunch". Not yet anyway.

What I do know about launch site safety is based on our experience with Saturn-5, which ultimately grew to about 8 million pounds of thrust (pretty near 36 MN) in its first stage, and totalled very near 3000 tons (doesn't matter much what definition of "ton") of propellants. They kept people 3 to 4 miles away from that vehicle at launch, and for good reason. For bigger rockets, the keep-away distance gets larger. But I don't really know how it scales. It was nearer 10 miles (16 km) at Nova class sizes. How that is calculated eludes me.

The biggest problem sending people to Mars is having adequate reconfigurable space in which they can live, during the long journey. Space-to-live is required for sanity. We learned that with Gemini-7 many decades ago. That was the mission with Borman and Lovell that stayed up there 2 weeks in a Gemini capsule, unable to straighten their legs, or "go" anywhere but in their suits.

The mission was supposed to be for 3 weeks, but terminated early at 2 weeks because the crew was cracking up mentally. That's not widely known, and it certainly was not publicized, then or now, but it is true. What it proved was that a 2 week Apollo mission to the moon was feasible inside a cramped capsule. But not any longer than that.

This effect was sort-of anticipated in the pilot episode to the "Twilight Zone" back in 1958. It's not the isolation that causes the madness, as in the "Twilight Zone" episode, it is literally the tight confinement, which is far tighter than solitary in prison. Something like 100+ cubic meters per crewperson is required, minimum. More is better.

Which is why long-duration spacecraft are quite often depicted as resembling the ISS. As in "The Martian". Except that no one is yet proposing to build anything like that. But they must!

Myself, I don't really think there is enough space aboard Spacex's "Starship" for 100 people to endure a 4.3 month 2-year abort fast trajectory flight to Mars, much less 8.6 months on a min-energy Hohmann trajectory. They have 800 +/- cubic meters, which at 100 people, is only 80 cubic meters per person, about half what's on ISS. Cramped capsules have something like 1-3 cubic meters per person. Clearly not enough. I'd set it at 50 passengers per flight or less, just to maintain their sanity during the flight.

Even a nuclear missile submarine conforms to this, at something in the neighborhood of 100-150 cubic meters per crewperson. Those voyages average around 4-6 months entirely submerged. It was almost that generous in the diesel-electric subs of WW2, where most crew could get out on deck at least once during the war patrol. That figures at very nearly 100 cubic meters per person.

I'm no expert on these human factors for long duration spaceflight, but the answers to these questions utterly drive your "payload" size, which in turn utterly drives the sizes of your rockets. That much is clear.

The moon was (and is) very different: it's only 3.5 to 5 days there one-way. For a few days there, and 3.5 to 5 days return, you can stay within the 2 week sanity limit for a cramped capsule. That was NASA's thinking in 1965, and it is still true today. But, for longer stays upon the moon, you really do need a whole lot more (reconfigurable) space-per-person in which they can live. We haven't bumped in to that, yet. But we will. And we won't like what we see, when we do.

And you still face the same cramped quarters drives the insanity problem problem, once you get to the moon or Mars! Once you get there, the only way you can go outside is bundled inside a pressure suit. You are simply not "free" to feel the wind or the sun on your face. The habitats there had better have 200+ cubic meters of reconfigurable space per person. Just as my educated guess. Maybe more.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-03-21 15:36:19)

RobertDyck · 2021-03-21 16:52:19

Gemini capsule habitable volume: 2.55 m³
Apollo Command Module habitable volume: 218 cu ft (6.2 m³)
Apollo LM habitable volume: 235 cu ft (6.7 m³)

There was quite a difference between Gemini and Apollo. Gemini was a 2-seat sports car, while Apollo was two minivans (CM & LM).

Mars Direct: 8.4 metre outside diameter, same as core stage of Ares launch vehicle, which was the same as Space Shuttle external tank. Expect 8.0 metre inside diameter. Floor area 50.26548 m² = 541.053 sq ft. Note: according to Wisconsin law, a vehicle with more than 400 sq ft (including slide-outs) is too big to be called an RV, so is prohibited from RV parks. Assuming flat ceiling of 2.4 metres (7' 10.5"), that's 120.637 m³ = 4,260.26 cu ft.

And that's with only 1 deck. Original Mars Direct was only one deck. This image was published in Scientific American, March 2000.
index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41615.0;attach=1775208;image

Experience with FMARS and MDRS have shown the airlock should be on a lower deck, and a compartment is required for the rover so rocks blown from landing rockets won't damage the rover. Apollo LM had a storage compartment for the rover for Apollo 15-17. But this means the lower deck will be rover storage compartment, airlock, stairway to the upper deck, rocket engines used to land on Mars, propellant tanks to feed landing rockets, RCS thrusters for manoeuvres in transit between Earth-Mars, propellant tanks for RCS thrusters, mechanism of landing legs, and life support. We've seen with ISS that life support must be accessible for maintenance. And life support will be the size of 2 full-size science racks, plus regenerable CO2 sorbent system, plus batteries. Surface science equipment, inflatable greenhouse, and gardening tools/soil trays for the greenhouse will be stored with the Mars rover. There's no room left, that's the lower deck. So during transit, they'll have upper deck only. Of course anything in the storage compartment will be unloaded outside once on Mars, leaving a compartment the size of a single-car garage available for EVA prep and workshop.

GW Johnson · 2021-03-21 17:22:15

Spend 3 weeks in a minivan, not alone, but with 6-8 other people (fill the seats, please). See if you come out sane at the end of that interval. Odds are, you will not.

THAT is why the Gemini-7 result still applied to Apollo (and still applies today, half a century later), even though they had a way to "go" into bags instead of their suits in Apollo. There are many facets and factors to this. Not just the volume/person, but what those persons can do with that volume.

Which is why I used the word "reconfigurable". I don't mean moving a chair around, I mean changing what it is used for. Which means some other volume must fill that original function. Quite inconvenient, ain't it?

And just how are you going to feel the sun or the wind on your face while aboard a spacecraft? Even if you go EVA? Same question applies to the moon. Or to Mars. Or to anywhere else we might go that is not on Earth?

It ain't simple. Nothing about sanity or psychology ever is. Most of what we do know was learned by killing people, or by driving them insane. That much is documented history.

Ignore those lessons at your peril. None of the designs I have ever seen for Mars come close to meeting the "criteria" I describe. None. So, you can see why I am extremely pessimistic about crew mental health, for ANY of these mission proposals!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-03-21 17:26:42)

SpaceNut · 2021-03-21 17:29:39

It's one of the reasons for Beam inflatable as well since it gets expandable area to stretch in for minimal mass.

RobertDyck · 2021-03-21 17:55:59

Apollo was 2 minivans: CM & LM. They spent 3 days to Lunar orbit, then one stayed behind while the other two descended to Lunar surface. The two on the surface could go outside, lots of room to move around. Then they returned. Just 3 days in the CM alone, the size of a minivan.

Mars Direct was designed for 4 astronauts. Not 5, not 6, certainly not 8. The floor area of the upper deck alone was equal to a 60-foot class A motorhome with slide-outs extended. Most class A motorhomes are 40-feet; a 60-foot version is articulated. That means two segments with an "accordion" joint between them. And that's just the upper deck. The lower deck will be packed full of stuff, but on Mars will be an airlock and a single-car garage. And an inflated greenhouse the same width as a double-car garage, and twice the length, so double floor area.

RobertDyck · 2021-03-21 19:36:52

GW Johnson wrote:

Which is why I used the word "reconfigurable". I don't mean moving a chair around, I mean changing what it is used for. Which means some other volume must fill that original function. Quite inconvenient, ain't it?

The storage compartment of Mars Direct hab is reconfigurable. You can move furniture and use it for different purposes.

The Large Ship that I described is orders of magnitude larger. It can be reconfigured in many ways. I could describe, but that should be in that discussion thread.

GW Johnson wrote:

And just how are you going to feel the sun or the wind on your face while aboard a spacecraft? Even if you go EVA? Same question applies to the moon. Or to Mars. Or to anywhere else we might go that is not on Earth?

I live in Canada. Specifically Winnipeg. There's snow on the ground 5 weeks per year. It's chilly in spring and fall. Deeply cold the middle 3 months per year. You don't go out when you don't have to; not when the daytime high doesn't rise above 0°F (Fahrenheit), and overnight low can be -30°F (-34.4°C). To go outside I wear long underwear, jeans, socks, snow boots, long sleeve shirt, down-filled parka, cotton toque (knit cap), and ski gloves. When it's really cold I wear a sweater or "fleece" jacket under my parka. Feeling sun or wind on my face is not an issue. Not when wind causes exposed flesh to freeze in minutes. You get used to being indoors. Indoor malls become all the rage in the 1980s, because people could feel open space while still enjoying the warmth of a controlled environment.

I lived in Miami Florida in 1999/2000; they had a couple malls designed for their climate. "The Falls" was an open mall, no roof over the central corridor. There was roof over sidewalk in front of stores on either side of the main isle, with water falls as a feature down that centre of that isle. The water fall added humidity and helped cool the climate. In a hot climate, that helped. The roof meant when rain fell, people had somewhere to stand. The mall made sense, but someone decided to do that everywhere. That mall design makes a lot of sense there. It doesn't make sense in Minnesota or here in Winnipeg. Minnesota has "Mall of America". I was frustrated when a beautiful mall in the west end of Winnipeg was destroyed for an outdoor mall. All parking lot, with separate stores. It doesn't make sense for our climate, but it's what we have now.

Mars Direct: 4 person crew. Intended as first human mission to Mars. Lots of open space to walk. Only change I would make is a plastic film tunnel from greenhouse to habitat.

Mars Homestead Project. Intended for 12 person crew who move to Mars permanently.

Winnipeg mall called Portage Place. A Mars city would have something like this.
portage-place-1b3b0b895056a36_1b3b0d84-5056-a36f-232ca2490e576896_bc0d2157d501d4729a3d5631708a6b2e.jpg

Oldfart1939 · 2021-03-23 10:18:14

I'm still in agreement with GW about the amount of space needed per crewmember. The ability to stand upright, walk around (float around?), use a normal style toilet, eat normal meals, and have a comfortable place to sleep privately, are all major considerations. Regardless of how carefully the psychologists screen the crewmembers, conflicts will arise. That's another reason that everyone aboard needs a "private place," somewhere to be alone and do personal correspondence, read, pray, or simply meditate for a while.

In other threads, I've mentioned Triads as a structure for the first crews of Martian Astronauts. Sending a mass of humanity trapped in a can, will not work. I think that the first Starship shouldn't send more than 25. A smaller version as I've suggested elsewhere, should concentrate on exploration and some infrastructure construction, with a crew of between 10 and possible as many as 15 members.

My family members who served in the Navy talked about the different watches aboard ship, and that sleeping in shifts worked pretty well to avoid unneeded congestion. I would suggest something similar onboard a Starship or a smaller exploration version. If 1/3 of the crew is sleeping, that allows better utilization of the existing space for other activities. 1/3 of the crew is "on duty" performing necessary flight functions; 1/3 is exercising, doing food prep, eating, and recreating; 1/3 is crashed out sleeping.

I maybe the only person here to even raise the topic of sexual activity. That needs to be considered as well. I don't think we'll be sending a group of Monks on these long, deep space journeys?

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-03-23 10:26:23)

RobertDyck · 2021-03-23 11:15:02

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I maybe the only person here to even raise the topic of sexual activity. That needs to be considered as well. I don't think we'll be sending a group of Monks on these long, deep space journeys?

NASA had the attitude there must be no sex in space. But Europe has the attitude that consenting adults can do whatever they want on their off time. Europe was quite insistent on this point, so there is no prohibition re sex on ISS. That same principle will have to hold on Mars.

Quaoar · 2021-03-23 11:58:33

RobertDyck wrote:

Oldfart1939 wrote:
I maybe the only person here to even raise the topic of sexual activity. That needs to be considered as well. I don't think we'll be sending a group of Monks on these long, deep space journeys?
NASA had the attitude there must be no sex in space. But Europe has the attitude that consenting adults can do whatever they want on their off time. Europe was quite insistent on this point, so there is no prohibition re sex on ISS. That same principle will have to hold on Mars.

A Mars mission would last almost three years, so it's better to embark couples from the beginning of the mission.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-03-23 16:02:38

NASA has always had this somewhat Puritanical attitude about a normal human activity.

Go back and watch The Right Stuff, and listen to John Glenn lecturing Alan Shepard.

Calliban · 2021-03-23 16:29:30

Oldfart1939 wrote:

NASA has always had this somewhat Puritanical attitude about a normal human activity.
Go back and watch The Right Stuff, and listen to John Glenn lecturing Alan Shepard.

I kind of understand why they would. When you have a group of human beings couped up in a very confined environment, for a long time, it is a good idea to avoid situations that could give rise to tensions between crew members. And nothing causes more tension than romantic engagements between crew members. It could cause jealousy, or it could result in the two people hating each other after having broken up.

GW Johnson · 2021-03-23 17:04:41

What makes you think there has not already been sex aboard the ISS? Or the shuttle? Or both?

I think the spacious malls in the pictures Robert posted are just about right for habitations off Earth. Given correct ventilation and lighting schemes, you can get the "wind and sun in your face" effects inside such places.

What bothers me is that too many still seem hung upon sending crews to these other places cramped up in space capsules, or very little better. That WILL NOT WORK, as we already saw with Gemini-7 back in the mid-1960's.

The moon is only a single handful of days away, and you can get away with cramped capsules. All those other places are months-to-years away, and we already know cramped capsules drive people mad after only 2-3 weeks.

The modern nuclear missile submarines have around 100-150 cubic meters per crew person. Crews are divided into 3 shifts, and rotate bunks sleeping. The nominal patrol is 3 months, but can be extended to 6 months successfully. They do not surface while on the cruise. But the climate control is very good. These boats rarely if ever surface during the cruise.

Such crews are psychologically screened for this kind of duty. The typical man off the street cannot successfully endure this.

It was similar in the old diesel-electric submarines of WW2. The big 4-engine fleet boats had around 80-100 cubic meters per crewperson, and had 3 shifts rotating sleeping bunks. War patrols were nominally 3 months, but extension to 6 was common. There was airconditioning, which was ineffective in the diesel engine rooms, but there was no heating for cold water cruises. Diesel fumes filled the boat. These boats spent most of their time on the surface, with at least some opportunities to get out on deck.

The older S-class 2 engine boats had no airconditioning, and
only around 50 cubic meters per crew. Same 3 shifts rotating bunks. They served the same war patrols. Same diesel fume problems. Just less space and less comfort: these were WW1 designs. They served throughout the Pacific, and even in the Aleutians.

Again, these were crews psychologically screened to endure this duty. The average man off the street cannot successfully endure this.

There are some WW2 fleet boats on display as memorials. Go aboard one and see for yourself. Such were still serving on active duty when I was in the Navy (I've been on board one). There is a very good reason these were known as the "pig boats".

If you send people to Mars (or those other places) that are not psychologically screened to endure confinement, then your transport had better have considerable space for them inside, to endure the months-to-years to arrive. And the habitation had BETTER NOT BE CRAMPED when they arrive!

THAT is what I have been trying to tell you! Without that special screening selection (and you cannot do that, or few would ever go), what submarine crews endure is NOT a feasible design criterion!

What surface ship crews endure is only somewhat better. But at least those people can go out on deck! You CANNOT do that on a spacecraft!

GW

SpaceNut · 2021-03-23 18:59:27

It appears Bill Nelson is going to be the next Nasa's new admin. So do not expect much to change anytime soon.

tahanson43206 · 2021-03-23 20:15:11

For SpaceNut re #141

On the ** other ** hand, it seems to me reasonable to expect the endless delays to gradually turn into steady progress.

It seems possible we may see ONE launch of the SLS, and none after that, because (by that time) SpaceX ** should ** be putting the SLS contractors to shame.

Contracts are being let for Lunar mission components, so ** that ** part of the planned future may well proceed, using alternative boosters.

***
The Russian partnership with China that is under discussion is both understandable and (should be) concerning, because both nations have major achievements already, and a joint venture ** could ** look impressive.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2021-03-24 08:21:22

What the government and its favored contractors are doing with SLS is not very technologically risky, but very expensive. What Spacex is doing with Starship/Superheavy is extremely risky technologically, but if it works, it will be rather inexpensive. There are many fatal problems left to solve, but the benefits certainly seem to warrant solving them.

What Spacex might have done that is not so technologically risky looks more like Falcon-9 and Falcon-Heavy. Not so dramatically less expensive, but certainly good enough to lead the industry in low pricing. They almost went bankrupt at the start learning what they didn't know that they didn't know.

GW

SpaceNut · 2021-03-28 16:52:20

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/03 … green-run/

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/03 … ge-firing/

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/03 … -schedule/

SpaceNut · 2021-05-15 21:12:58

Really that long …. Ten month schedule to ready SLS for Artemis 1 launch after Core Stage arrives at KSC

Approximately six months of work is anticipated to finish assembly and complete a long series of tests and checkouts of SLS and the Orion spacecraft it will send to the Moon, but current forecasts of this first-time integration work estimate closer to ten months to complete the necessary operations. After the vehicle is put together, weeks and weeks of testing to make sure SLS and Orion are properly talking to each other, as well as the EGS ground infrastructure, will follow.

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-16 06:34:28

For SpaceNut re #145

The folks working on this vehicle cannot afford a failure....

It's no wonder (to me at least) that the James Webb space telescope is to be launched by a non-US launcher.

** That ** launch cannot fail either.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-05-28 20:02:12

Nasa's the funding so now there is no reason not to stay on time The Biden administration's $24.8 billion fiscal 2022 budget request for NASA will keep the agency on track to send the the first woman and the next man to the moon as early as 2024, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said Friday, but he warned that target date is far from certain.

The $6.88 billion for deep space exploration includes $4.48 billion to cover continued development of the Space Launch System — SLS — super heavy lift rocket and a planned upgrade, the Orion crew capsule that will carry astronauts to the moon and the required ground systems.
Another $2.39 billion is earmarked for ongoing development of the planned Gateway lunar space station, which will serve as a research lab and staging base, and a new lunar lander — the Human Landing System, or HLS — to carry astronauts down to the surface and back up to lunar orbit.

Under the Artemis program, America will land the first woman and the first person of color on the moon.

SpaceNut · 2021-06-13 13:20:39

Progress towards first flight...
see-nasa-s-bonkers-big-moon-rocket-standing-up-boosters-and-all

SpaceNut · 2021-06-14 20:00:48

Accounting we have some errors... NASA finishes assembling its $18.6BILLION Space Launch System

Teams of experts in Florida had to use a specialized crane to lift the 188,000lb core stage in between the twin solid rocket boosters, to complete the launch configuration. The 212-foot-tall core stage, which will provide more than two million pounds of thrust at launch, arrived at Kennedy on April 27. The massive core stage houses propellant tanks and four engines to provide the thrust necessary to get the heavy payload of the ground. Together with the two solid rocket boosters, the SLS rocket will provide more than 8.8 million pounds of thrust to launch the first of NASA's next-generation Artemis Moon missions, with Artemis-1 launching in November this year.

SpaceNut · 2021-07-14 22:20:30

Boo hiss why are you tasking so long Artemis 1 SLS stacking work running long, preps for integrated tests continue in parallel

apparent issue with prime contractor

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2021-03-21 12:00:31

Re: Space Launch System

#127 2021-03-21 12:42:29

Re: Space Launch System

#128 2021-03-21 12:44:42

Re: Space Launch System

#129 2021-03-21 15:31:52

Re: Space Launch System

#130 2021-03-21 16:52:19

Re: Space Launch System

#131 2021-03-21 17:22:15

Re: Space Launch System

#132 2021-03-21 17:29:39

Re: Space Launch System

#133 2021-03-21 17:55:59

Re: Space Launch System

#134 2021-03-21 19:36:52

Re: Space Launch System

#135 2021-03-23 10:18:14

Re: Space Launch System

#136 2021-03-23 11:15:02

Re: Space Launch System

#137 2021-03-23 11:58:33

Re: Space Launch System

#138 2021-03-23 16:02:38

Re: Space Launch System

#139 2021-03-23 16:29:30

Re: Space Launch System

#140 2021-03-23 17:04:41

Re: Space Launch System

#141 2021-03-23 18:59:27

Re: Space Launch System

#142 2021-03-23 20:15:11

Re: Space Launch System

#143 2021-03-24 08:21:22

Re: Space Launch System

#144 2021-03-28 16:52:20

Re: Space Launch System

#145 2021-05-15 21:12:58

Re: Space Launch System

#146 2021-05-16 06:34:28

Re: Space Launch System

#147 2021-05-28 20:02:12

Re: Space Launch System

#148 2021-06-13 13:20:39

Re: Space Launch System

#149 2021-06-14 20:00:48

Re: Space Launch System

#150 2021-07-14 22:20:30

Re: Space Launch System

Board footer