SLI is dead, what comes next?

dicktice · 2002-11-12 17:39:23

I shouldn't really be posting here because I find the lengthy descriptions of huge numbers of different rockets with mysterious acronyms give me headaches!
I feel the term 'EELV' is probably a key factor in all this and I keep meaning to do a google search one day to find out what it means! The LV bit must be launch vehicle ... but the EE ... Hmmm.
Easily Elevated?
Extremely Energetic?
Enormously Expensive?
Anyhow, that's not why I'm here. I just came across what is either a very cynical evaluation of America's space program or a painfully accurate description of same!
If you've already read this article, I apologise for bringing up old news. But, if you haven't, you may find it interesting (read depressing! ).

"EELV" is a mystery to me, too. Personally, I hate acronyms that come without a (glossery) included once in each submission. Otherwise, you simply "preach to the converted" and we who are new to your specialty, or don't have time to read back to where the damn thing originated, are lost to your proposal(s).
I read the "article" and was neither depressed nor inspired. It seemed to say what had to be said. Unfortunately, when you click on it, you are prevented from going "back" and have to enter <www. Mars Society> or am I just ignorant and don't know how (any advice would be appreciated).

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-12 18:13:46

Yes, Dicktice, acronyms without explanations can be frustrating to the uninitiated!
Fortunately, RobertDyck was patient enough to come back to me and explain that EELV means Evolutionary Expendable Launch Vehicle.

You're right when you say you can't go 'Back' after clicking on a link. The trick is to simply click on the little cross at the top right-hand extremity of your screen, and you'll be returned to New Mars immediately.

nirgal · 2002-11-13 15:14:29

Uhm, I read that EELV stands for *Evolved* Expendable Launch Vehicle. I'm splitting hairs I know...

dickbill · 2002-11-13 19:12:25

Mark S, I agree that some scientific missions would need a huge payload, but that would be rare. 90 tons, that's a lot, most often the shuttle as it is now with it's 10/20 tons payload is enough. OK I am not an expert, but I think that it would be difficult to justify a shuttle C fleet with just some rare scientific missions in mind.

To built a fleet of 2 or 3 shuttle C (or equivalent heavy launcher) able to lift 100 tons, every two or three months, is equivalent to a capacity to lift around 1000 tons/year minimum.
3 ISS each year !
Only men to the moon or Mars justifies this capacity, in my opinion. It is unfortunate to say that but, in the actual state of the things, perhaps the US or european space agencies would'nt have any idea of what to do with that big truck, unless they consider Mars or the moon, or unless they consider to build the shuttle C to use it once a year or less. You are not using shuttle C to launch a 3 tons observation satellite in geosynchronous orbit, or even a 5 tons probe to saturn, right ?

However, one day soon, a "men to Mars mission" will be THE priority. What I don't understand is why the USA are waiting for that day to built a shuttleC. Maybe the USA are confident to build the shuttleC very quickly because all the technology is already there ?

RobertDyck · 2002-11-13 20:21:14

How much would it cost to build just 2 Shuttle-C engine pods? The engines would be taken from a Shuttle Orbiter, so it does not require new engines. After a Shuttle-C flight the engines could be returned to the Orbiter fleet. Quoting from the X-38 web site

Development of the X-38 through the flight of an unpiloted space vehicle is estimated to cost about $150 million. ... The estimated cost of the entire X-38 project ? from development through the construction of four operational spacecraft, ground simulators, spare parts, landing site support facilities and control center capabilities ? is less than $1.2 billion, less than half of the cost to manufacture a single space shuttle orbiter.

Shuttle-C could use the Shuttle Orbiter's static test stand. Landing would use the Shuttle Orbiter's vehicle fleet deployed at the salt flats. With only 2 operational vehicles, that should produce an inexpensive spacecraft. This is part of why I claim we can send a manned mission to Mars without any increase in NASA's budget, after the ISS is complete. Pardon me for wanting to rush completion of ISS.

Mark S · 2002-11-13 20:35:53

I'm thinking that Shuttle-C can be justified economically by launching several satellites on one shot, reducing redundant mission costs for the multiple launches of smaller rockets required for the same payload.

Of course, such a plan requires that a LOT of satellites need to be launched into the same orbit. Using a Shuttle-C to loft multiple satellites in today's market could actually be disastrous because it would REDUCE demand for launchers.

A recent issue of "The Futurist" summed up space tourism (and all of commercial space) like this: costs will come down when there is a demand to commercialize space. Demand will increase when costs come down. The solution to this catch-22 is some enabling technology that will both reduce cost and increase demand. That's why I'm so enthusiastic about the X-Prize.

nebob2 · 2002-11-13 22:12:45

If the cost of launching went down enough more companies may want to invest in space assets. Ariane V already lofts multiple satellites at once. The question is whether there is enough want in the lower orbits likely used by a Shuttle-C, which probably won't diliver to GEO.

SpaceNut · 2015-08-16 09:34:36

Fixed the shifting

The space plane reusability versus expendable. Which when the programs were stopped the airforce continued with resuability with the x series planes and we know where they are with the expendable russian engine issue.....

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-11-23 08:11:39

an old vision gone?
Will NASA have a new Initiative after the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Admin?

I don't know if SLI truly died but it is interesting what comes of project idea and visions and requirements from NASA

it probably set NASA on a path to Commercialization but its a pity Musk / Space-X and the current Admin do not get along better.
there were other issues after the loss of Shuttle and finishing the ISS and Hubble repair.

Musk has gone beyond the Heavy-lift launch vehicle and NASA and the Chinese also will fly super heavy-lift launch vehicles

NASA goes in different direction with political visions, Space Exploration Initiative by Bush senior that was supposed to put a man on Mars, the Space Launch Initiative and new engines and Shuttles to orbit, the Bush junior Vision for Space Exploration, a vision modified by the Obama Admin and Trump Admin leading to Lunar Gateway, once known as the Deep Space Gateway, Constellation program which made the Ares V which is almost the same as the SLS and leads to the Artemis program.
The original SLI is gone but it perhaps led to ideas developed by SpaceDev with Dream Chaser which was acquired by the Sierra Nevada Corporation, and the BE-3 (Blue Engine 3) is a LH2/LOX rocket engine developed by Blue Origin.

Bezos Beats Musk to Mars as NASA Chooses Blue Origin to Launch Mission
https://greekreporter.com/2023/11/23/be … ue-origin/

Rocket engine startup Ursa Major to venture into solid propulsion
https://spacenews.com/rocket-engine-sta … ropulsion/
The company plans to use 3D printing to produce solid rocket motors from 2 to 22.5 inches in diameter

Blue Origin Reveals Full-Scale Model of Future Lunar Cargo Lander
https://gizmodo.com/blue-origin-moon-ma … 1850967064

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-11-23 08:13:36)

SpaceNut · 2023-11-23 10:12:27

A lot has happened to change the course of space travel from US agency of NASA and the tug of war as you mentioned that was going on every 4 years.
Also having seen the commercial costs that do the same as the bloated Nasa driven cost plus, should be done away with.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-11-12 17:39:23

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#27 2002-11-12 18:13:46

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#28 2002-11-13 15:14:29

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#29 2002-11-13 19:12:25

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#30 2002-11-13 20:21:14

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#31 2002-11-13 20:35:53

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#32 2002-11-13 22:12:45

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#33 2015-08-16 09:34:36

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#34 2023-11-23 08:11:39

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

#35 2023-11-23 10:12:27

Re: SLI is dead, what comes next?

Board footer