Request Any SLS and Orion MPCV in development?

[cymrych]

Hey Gattis et al.,

Here's a preliminary set of configs for the Pyrios RP-1/LOX Advanced Boosters. I also created a scenario with a 150mT probe (special config included called SLSprobe) to test this to a 200 km circular orbit.

Basically, I computed the internal volume of the boosters, assumed 80% of that volume for tankage, then computed the relative volume and mass of the propellant. Works out to a hair over 1 million kgs propellant a piece. For the mass of the empty Pryios booster, I assumed a similar mass ratio as for the core, 10.48. I also upped the thrust on the core and boosters to represent 104% throttle, which was standard for the SSMEs, although I don't rightly know if the F-1B will have this capability. Even with the boosters at 100% rated thrust, the Liftoff thrust:weight ratio is still just a hair under 1.2, so it's no big deal if you wish to down-rate them back to 100%, 16MN.

Anyhow, let me know what you think. It's a close call getting that 150mT probe to orbit, but it's doable. Max g-loading is right before booster sep, at right about 4-g.

Note: I haven't yet tinkered with the autopilot, or g-load limiting thrust, so a little bit of user input to get to orbit is recommended. Right now, the core's AP is aiming for 110km, which doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for the overloaded EUS to work. I shoot for 170 km or so manually, then circularize at 200 at first ApA after SECO.

Cheers!

 

[cymrych]

Oops, you'll also need both of these config in the Config/Vessels/Velcro folder.

Note: Overwrite the previous SLSPyriosBOOSTER2.cfg with this one here. I forgot to adjust it's empty mass to match the other booster (which probably explains the slight roll I was getting on liftoff.)

 

[gattispilot]

ok. Thanks.

I have updated the old SLSTOWER with out extending arms. I increased the mass so the SLS with those boosters won't move the tower. Also added beacons.

I have attached the PB booster meshes.

 

[Astro SG Wise]

Also, I heard that NASA got confirmation to start the building of SLS, but what about in the future? Could SLS be cancelled now that it is so close?

 

[4throck]

That's a large nice looking rocket :thumbup:

 

[gattispilot]

Thanks. I have seen about the velcro auto pilot and southern orbit. The fix is to rotate the whole tower to 90 rather than 180. But then That would look wrong. What if I either add another attachment to the tower so it faces 180 out. But then the Orion hatch will be on the opposite side. So will need to change that?

 

[4throck]

Had the same problem when changing the Ares V from multistage to Velcro.
No simple solution. "My" Ares V actually flies sideways, you can see that when it rolls.
Only solvable by rotating the meshes.

I'd just try to get the hatch in a realistic position.

 

[gattispilot]

So rotate the attachment point on the tower?

And then rotate the attachment for the orion so the hatch will be on the correct side?

Soon:

 

[gattispilot]

On the tower. All it does is detach the rocket and animate the arms. The SlS is Velcro based so it uses Velcro procedures.

So Does the attachment need to be rotated 180 degrees out. Sure you could rotate the whole tower but with the spotlights,.... that wouldn't work

 

[4throck]

It's one of those situations where I don't remember exactly how I did it. But I rotated the attachment directions for the booster rockets, I remember that.

 

[gattispilot]

Wow that would be better than changing the tower,....

I think the next release will be easier as the files will be in sls folders,....

 

[gattispilot]

Well Merry christmas to all.

I feel your pain. I am redoing the location of files. And now I get the sitting SLS. It seems the booster are not firing.

not sure why not though

 

[Astro SG Wise]

Yeah, seems pretty weird. Not to fear, I have an impure installation anyway (full of bugs from unfinished installs and lack of required addons), so I have learned to deal with the numerous times that scenarios fail :compbash: . But, it still does look like the Orion MPCV is too heavy, or something. Quite strange...

Merry Christmas!

 

[gattispilot]

Well I think it is the attachment to the tower. So That part may go away. You can raise the sls or any ship. using PADBIAS. So the tower launch sequence maybe for looks right now.

---------- Post added 12-24-14 at 07:22 AM ---------- Previous post was 12-23-14 at 05:18 PM ----------

ok. I think FrancisDrake found the bug. Can someone where the sls falls thru try this:
Open the scenario: And make the lines under the boosters like this:

Booster1:Velcro\SLSBOOSTER2
  STATUS Landed Earth
  POS -80.6745292 28.5191812
  AFCMODE 7
  NAVFREQ 0 0
  CONFIGURATION 0
  PRIMEBOOSTER 0
  CENTERTHRUST 1
  PADBIAS 1.00
  TGT_HEADING 95.00
  PARALLELBURN 1 slsCORE -6.5000 -2.5000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
END

Do it for both. It seems the landed on earth part is the key.

 

[gattispilot]

I guess what next is a new set of scenarios. With tower attach w/o and raised touchdown points.

So should I also make a another set for raised touchdown point for the tower raised on the ground with the spot lights also.

And from what I have seen use the 5 segment SRB for the 70 and use the PB booster for the 105 and 130 ton version

 

[gattispilot]

Any thoughts/ideas on the SLS70 crew and Altair. Presently :

  PAYATCH ALTAIRLANDER 0 -65 0 0 -1 0 0 0 1

and the Orion is :

  SERIESBURN 0 Orion 0 0 -79 0 0 -1 0 1 0

So when the Orion separates it fires it main thrust. So you have to kill the thrust and then rotate back to the Altair

 

[Astro SG Wise]

Greetings once again...

I have a few questions and things to get straight from current circumstances and past subjects. The SLS is supposed to take 30 tons, am I correct? I have been trying to come up with a new, more modern form of a mission to mars (with Orion MPCV) stack. I have been trying to incorperate the [ame="http://orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=5339"]Reusable Nuclear Shuttle[/ame], and some past designs have looked like this...

1) I wanted to make an SLS/Orion mission, so the obvious way to get the RNS into orbit would be to use the SLS to take it up. So, if a Block II SLS configuration can take "30 tons", what in the world does short tons mean? According to google, the RNS' wet mass is 165.347 short tons (way over the limit = 150,000 kg?). I have attempted to launch a fully loaded RNS into orbit on SLS, to no avail (not including extra weight of adapters, and extra connection pieces). That is where the problem is, and I have a few ideas. Would an SLS with LRBs be better than one with SRBs? Do liquid rocket boosters supply more thrust over time?

2) Seccondly, I was also trying to come up with an effective habitat module for the crew to stay in. I have found a load of them, but also, weight and applicability also has to apply somewhere. In the past pics that I have, I was using the [ame="http://orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=2231"]Grasshopper Aerospace marscore[/ame] for Energia. This gave some pro's and cons. It has a generous amount of living space, which would be needed for a long term Mars mission. The only problem, is that the RNS is nuclear, and the solar panels would excede the shadow shield. So, would it be better to build the habitat module in space, or send it all on SLS? The marscore is made of multiple modules, so it would take some time to make, as opposed to the starlab, which is mainly a straight object, but may be too big for the SLS fairings, or excede the weight limit. In the end, I am asking these questions...

1. What are the weights (in tons) for the RNS and Starlab, to see if they are compatible with Space Launch System?
2. Would the Starlab Space Station, which seems like a better choice than the marscore, be more cost efficient, or compatible with a mission like this?
3. Does anyone have any other ideas?

I was just thinking of a post-constellation stack design, and in real life, the SLS is going to have to be the rocket to take it. I think that the Starlab habitat module, paired with the RNS would be a great combination. For vehicles, the Orion MPCV would be a great ferrying vehicle, and the Pheonix moon mission Lunar Transfer Vehicle has been tested, and I believe that with the correct precision, can land on Mars. (That was another request, could someone with better pilot skills land the LTV on the martian surface? I crash nearly every time, but I am close! :lol

If anyone has any ideas, because mine seem everywhere :jiggy:, that would be of great help. I know orbitingpluto was of great help before.

 

[ISProgram]

I think the reason SLS chose between LRBs and SRBs is because while SRBs are cheap to develop, LRBs may provide more of a boost.

SRBs give you a hellavu lot of thrust over a short time, LRBs give you lower thrust over a much longer period. It really comes down to the mass fraction of each booster type, and the Isp of the fuel. The size of the booster also matters if you want to do a valid comparison. In other words, it depends.

Note that the shuttle would've used LRBs at one point in its design phase, but SRBs won out in term of developmental simplicity.

 

[orbitingpluto]

1:
Short Tons: It's a measurement equivalent to 2,000 pounds, with it's biiger the brother the long ton equvilent to 2,240 pounds. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton"]Wikipedia is the likely the place to go to read up on what a short ton is.[/ame] If you need a handy converter between the various tons out there, I reccomend using Google's auto-suggestion feature; type something like "12 short tons =" into the search bar, and the suggestion box should come up with " 12 short tons = 907.18474 kilograms". You can also specify what to convert to with phrases like "x pounds = ? kg", and Google usually recognizes the short hand forms of most measurements, so it's useful enough to be my go to converter.

LRBs verses SRBs: Your off on the wrong foot here. The question isn't LRB or SRB, it's "rocket I have" verses 'bigger/better rocket'. The LRB being proposed for SLS is bigger than the current SRB, so since your in the market for more payload capability that's what you should want. There's a bunch of other stuff, but it's technical and depends on the rockets being used, so generalizations are sometimes clunky. If anything is generally correct, solids need to burn more propellent to get the same oomph(thanks to generally low ISPs), so they are generally heavier, and solids use the whole case as it's combustion chamber, so they have to built to deal with that(heavier, in other words). This would seemingly make solids poor cousins to the more efficient and lighter liquid rocket, but solid rockets have the advantages of being less costly and more reliable, and also being less temperamental than a liquid engine, so I'm afraid I have to leave you with the dreaded phrase, it depends.

2: I think this part of the discussion needs it's own thread, but I think as far as SLS is concerned, the hab could need at least a SLS to itself, to perhaps two. Starlab is said to mass in at 160-170 tons(so says the first post), and in this post it was said it could squeeze under 128mt minus the water for it's shelter, so it should be light enough for one of the upgraded SLS versions, though I forget exactly which. There's quite a bit more to a Mars hab than launching it, so I will again point out that you should make a separate thread for it, since this thread is mostly about SLS and Orion.]

I'll be pleased to share more about Mars habs there.

 

[Astro SG Wise]

Thanks much. I forgot to say, SLS is "130 tons", not 30 tons. What was I thinking! :blush:
Either way, thank you very much, and I also too was thinking of splitting Starlab into two pieces to take it up.