Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ZooNamedGames

  1. Also NASA saw that Ares 1 would be an expensive LEO vehicle (not to mention dangerous)- where a single vehicle would be cheaper to design than 2, 3 or however many you’d need to support LEO missions.
  2. Bear in mind it would hold more crew as well, if it couldn’t, then it’s just as limited as Orion in any respects. Orion can at least carry 4-6 astronauts. Dragon 2/Starliner is only rated to for a few hours to reach the ISS- not days or the week needed. I’ve read nothing that says they’d only wear vests. There will be dummies on A1 that will have vests- but that’s to collect data- not protect the crew.
  3. Somehow I missed this- But Dragon 2 doesn't have the radiation shielding to make the trip, doesn't have the ECLSS to (7 undocked days, just barely enough to make it to the moon at all), SM is insufficient to do any lunar operations, spacecraft frame isn't built for lunar re-entry, it's too tiny (I couldn't imagine living in what's the size of a SUV for 3 days with a crew of 3-4 others). Same applies to Starliner. By the time you modify those vehicles, they would exceed their launch vehicles abilities & necessitate a larger vehicle. Orion, is the only one that passes all of those requirements.
  4. And the vehicle was still in development. LOPG was first envisioned as the Deep Space Habitat in 2012- a year after SLS was signed into development. SLS was largely a LV built to ferry Orion & maybe cargo. It's destination was always deep space. Even before Artemis, EM-1 was to do a lunar flyby- this was back in 2012 as well. By comparison- Saturn V also lacked much in the end goal. In fact LOR was only selected 5 years before Saturn V first flew. Prior to that- the entire structure of Apollo was also- in limbo. Which is why the CSM's engine is so powerful- it was initially designed to land on the moon from the EOR era. Well NASA's been waiting since the 2000s when they started to refocus on the moon. It's been 20 years, NASA is tired of waiting. SLS flies crew within 3 years (Artemis 1 may be delayed by Artemis 2 is almost entirely unaffected by A1 delays). I see nothing saying a launcher has been finally selected. Considered? Yes. Selected? No. Yeah that bellyflop landing, lack of parachutes, still unreliable landing technology, lack of abort modes, unproven heatshield (not to mention it'll need reworking for lunar re-entry heating), lack of radiation shelter... the vehicle has many many many many many challenges to prove itself. It's taken SpaceX a decade to meet NASA's standards with a standard capsule. much less a radical new design that relies on exploding technology. That was also a decade ago, more than by this point. Changes have occurred. That may have been it's design in 2008, but in 2020 that is not the case. vs 1) Legacy eases development. Work with the F-1 shows how problematic new hardware can be. Meanwhile boosters are already ready, engines, optimized, improved, & ready. So many elements are already finished, in advance of what any other program could achieve. 2) For a "pork" program, it's kind of crappy when Apollo had 2x the number of contractors. Except it can't send it to the moon, which is NASA's destination. I know you have a fascination for LEO- but NASA's been there for 30 years- they're kind of bored of it! Even if it could send to LEO- great. Now there's no tug to send it anywhere. So that's more time and more tax dollars to build a new vehicle when SLS would be ready & waiting.
  5. It can still take multiple days, maybe even weeks to get a launch underway, so those loses are considerable.
  6. Never outright said SLS put it into any orbit. That'd be a challenge for a cyrogenic booster to keep its fuel from boiling off over the course of 3 days to get there.
  7. SLS is to send crew to LOPG, whereby they will descend to the lunar surface. By comparison, Apollo's Saturn V only did the TLI kick- relying entirely on the CSM to do the work. Whereas here SLS does the work. It's mission is crew to lunar orbit- of what kind is irrelevant since from LOPG, they can access any other orbit needed using another craft. "But Zoo, if SLS can't do it then clearly it isn't a good vehicle", Comanifesting cargo is a trait NASA has no interest in repeating. They can maximize the abilities of SLS best & keep costs down by splitting launches. Which is critical for sustainability. With Apollo- there was no drawback to cancelling the program. With Artemis, especially once LOPG is launched & operational- missions can be lined up years in advance, maybe with landers that can be operational even longer (2/3 landers I am aware of, are reusable in some form or another). No, the end goal of prolonged operations on the lunar surface, such as lunar bases- this is critical in allowing us to build the experience & technologies needed to survive on Mars. Short term goals being ISRU? Maybe, but not the ultimate end goal as deep space experience is more important to us getting to Mars than utilizing on site resources- however, using those resources is a major asset but not a necessity. You keep mentioning SpaceX's options, which for deep space are FHr, FHe, & Starship. We already discussed how FHr&e are poor options due to poor payload to TLI, & most definitely being unable to launch Orion to the moon (likely being at the structural limit of the vehicle). So if it isn't FH, then it must be Starship, hence why I keep mentioning it. NASA doesn't want Orion in LEO. Hence why neither vehicles are considered. Time spent in LEO, is ECLSS wasted, not to mention adding more complexity (& with it risk), as well as requiring technology that NASA doesn't want to waste time developing when a LOR vehicle could do the same thing, but at least get man to the moon. Block 1 is a technology demonstrator largely. To prove the vehicle works. It's Artemis' version of Saturn 1. It puts the technology of the new program into practice, rather than theory. SLS 1B is more akin to Saturn V in functionality- being the full vehicle.
  8. For "doing nothing right" it's still the only booster capable of doing the job. Kind of strange how the NASA built rocket, can't fit your vision for Artemis architecture. I'm also going to venture a guess that your continuous commentary about SLS not being capable is from a year old comment from Berger- since SLS has been continuously improving it's payload margins with improved manufacturing processes on the part of NASA, Boeing, Rocketdyne & Lockheed. You seem to have ignored the undeveloped challenges imposed by EOR- one of which being refueling or designing vehicles that can handle forward thrust loading. Strangely NASA saw it more practical to use existing design methods rather than trying to do something new just to chase a smaller pricetag- maybe they knew that hypothetical numbers based on designs never before tested, might not be the best starting point for a hypothesis. Again, no matter which order is used- you either waste valuable life support resources to fly crew up first, or have to design an expensive fuel tank just to keep the fuel from boiling off.
  9. 3.5 Dragons. NASA gives them money- they use the profit to build their vehicles. That money starts with my tax dollars.
  10. Cool, meanwhile SLS actually has a crew capsule. I'd like to see 1 photo of the starship cockpit. Much less the picture of the vehicle that'll send man to the moon (a feat I can do with SLS!) Especially furthered by the limitations of Starship. It relies on refueling- something that's never been proven (ISS refuels are so pitifully tiny it isn't a comparison at all). Orbital refueling has never been proven to work at all. Metholox is a cyrogenic fuel which boils off over time. No system has been made to keep fuel like that from boiling off- none. Much less the ability to rendezvous with it in time before it does boil off. Current launch rates would have Starship arrive to a methane oxygen gas filled starship- but no fuel to be found. Much less a system that can pump it without freezing from the subzero temperatures. Meanwhile again- it's competition, SLS- is already built. No conceptual needs for technology that doesn't exist. Last I checked, NASA was SpaceX's biggest customer so my tax dollar funds their shiny steel rocket, & Falcon Heavy. For as many problems as you claim SLS has- where's the improved alternatives? Just Starship? That's it? New Glenn is too low TLI, same for FHe. Best we have is an imploding steel tube that without it's bigger tube & refueling can't even reach SLS' destinations? Wow. Totally a bad rocket! Must be why not a single entity on planet Earth could do better!
  11. FH required massive retooling & design modifications to support the design. Something which caused drastic delays. SLS, by comparison does use legacy hardware (see shuttle program) and just like the shuttle program, the design needed massive retooling & redesign to support the new design. Only difference is, NASA isn't backing out at the last minute on man rating their rocket. NASA is going forward with it 100%. Especially not with the intention to turn around an make their own rocket obsolete within 5 years according to Musk with Starship.
  12. https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-three-stage-approach-to-human-class-lunar-landers/ I was right.
  13. I think there’s a disconnect here as NASA distinctly considered comanifesting Orion-lander cargo for Artemis. Orion was designed is well said since... it isn’t anymore. It’s been a decade since Orion of constellation. It’s changed to update and meet new mission needs- none of which call for EOR or forward loads. Neither New Glenn nor Falcon Heavy can do what SLS can with crew & you’re already complaining that NASA can’t do it (despite NASA having the rockets for Artemis 2 & 3 already!) And yet it still has a use. Remind me again, aside from NASA- who’s flying on starship? Falcon heavy? It barely flies at all! Both were supposed to change the fate of aerospace but they’re debut has been less than eventful seeing as Atlas V & Delta IV still receive contracts & missions to the very places that SpaceX was intending to compete with. Also NASA never said they wanted mars exploration- hell not even within the current decade. So talk about jumping the gun. Moreover their current architecture has them traveling to LOPG & from there to Mars. Using a crew launcher like SLS. So much for dead end when it’s still in use.
  14. Ah your right. NASA can’t do anything with SLS- it’s not like they could build a version with a more powerful upper stage- they couldn’t ever do that! You say that but for a white elephant- it’s the only elephant in the room. No other rocket can do what SLS can do- within 5 years.
  15. You know of another spacecraft that can fly crew to deep space by 2025? [snip]
  16. I’d use my new “Orange rocket bad” bingo board here but I know I’d win within a few hours so there’s no point. We can’t go anywhere more interesting if we can’t live on the moon. Period.
  17. 3.5bil you day for 1 core- round down as production is streamlined, x10 for 10 cores, is 30mil. Reuse has a place. Deep space isn’t it.
  18. Apparently NASA doesn’t agree since they’ve already purchased 10 cores from Boeing & I don’t see a budget request for 30 billion worth of booster cores. Moving a few gallons of stable hypergolic fuels is a far far far far far far far far far far far far cry from moving tens of thousands worth of gallons worth of cryogenic fuels that in hours will boil off, much less days or weeks it takes for launches to finish.
  19. EOR was found to be even more expensive & more dangerous- not to mention requiring many technologies that still don’t exist. Problems that SpaceX will soon have to develop themselves while NASA goes with proven technologies ahead of time. Boeing was quoted at specifically 800mil per core. [snip]
  20. No, the real danger is the unified opinion would support cancelling SLS & funding the equally slow & delayed SpaceX. It’s been just short of a decade of funding SpaceX as part of the CCP to build a capsule (& it isn’t even reusable!). Falcon Heavy? 2013? Delayed to 2018 & has launched as often as SLS will. Yes SLS is costly & slow- but it’s a surefire better option than throwing more money at SpaceX who’s spent their hard earned cash blowing up tubes in Texas rather than build actual rockets (not to mention they’re struggling with the smaller starship fuel tanks, I can imagine it’ll take them years and dozens of prototypes to stop super heavy from exploding!). Any option short of SLS will be slower; development alone will cost as much if not more, & ultimately not meet NASA’s mission. Despite its costs or its delays, SLS is the most powerful rocket that will fly crew by 2025, which is great since no other vehicle can fill its role within the next decade. Falcon Heavy even when fully expendable, is not able to send orion to TLI. SLS can send nearly an additional 10t of payload to TLI over FHe. Tater has gone on about the idea of EOR assembly with FHe, but that would cost more $$$, time & add additional risks & mission limitations that Bridenstine, nor any NASA administrator can seriously accept. And if I hear another quip about how Boeing is entirely to blame, I swear to kraken.
  21. I really stopped following the forums since it's just rehashing Berger commentary. Meet at least a dozen people on Twitter though that agree with me so it's a lot better there.
  22. They're trying to. It's called Starship & Super Heavy. So far it won't stop exploding. That, along with SpaceX only flying for a short duration, makes NASA apprehensive to contract out flying crews to the moon.
  23. That had no funding. So that comparison is exceptionally poor. Falcon Heavy can only barely lift Orion, it certainly can't throw it past LEO, even in full expendable. Multiple rockets allows for more versatility & cheaper flights for non-crew flights. Outside of SLS, no booster is capable of sending payloads to the moon. Assembling Orion is not practical as previously mentioned, & Dragon 2 isn't capable of completing the journey in it's current iteration. Many of the components have been tested. Remember the Space Shuttle? What did it have on it's first stage? RS-25s & Solid rocket motors? What does SLS have on it's first stage? Oh why RS-25s & Solid Rocket Motors! Of the same design! Only with an extended segment which was already considered for the Shuttle program. ICPS? Flown on multiple Delta missions. AJ-10? Apollo & the Space Shuttle! NASA has made SLS available for commercial use. NASA doesn't expect it to be used due to the growing alternatives available, but it's more of a case of "we have this for you to use, it's a bit expensive but it can lift more than anyone else". Ok, time for the big reply... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  24. It's not like those systems need testing Tater. They are ready, past tense. Notice how there are 0 plans for testing or experimenting with Artemis 2 ECLSS, none. Why? Because it is ready, not integrated true, but it is ready. NASA very well could stick LS onboard Orion, it's a choice to save time not to- it's not a matter of "Artemis not ready", it's a matter of what gets Artemis flown sooner. The decision is to skip ECLSS integration, not because it isn't ready but because that moves the launch time sooner. Saturn V wasn't meant to either by that logic. Atlas V, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy- all of these vehicles can't send Orion to the moon. It's nice to ponder on an assemblable Orion but that is not only extremely costly to develop (adding to the costs people already complain about), but also delay the program further. Not to mention that would add additional complexity, failure points (more testing), & also reduce Orion's abilities even further. Why not New Glenn? It's not man rated, has gone through 0 tests to be. We've been through this before, "but why is SLS man rated on the first launch?", for 2 reasons- 1) Most of SLS' major components have already flown 135+ times before thanks to the Shuttle program (RS-25s, Solid Rocket Motors, AJ-10 Engine on Orion Service Module, ICPS (not shuttle but whatever)) - 2) SLS has gone through the maximum amount of testing rigors possible to put an unflown rocket through. Pressure tests? Succeeded. Sound tests? Succeeded. Heating? Succeeded. Safety systems? Succeeded. Despite being unflown- and yes this is wholly an opinion but one I'd put legitimate money on- SLS is one of the safest rockets ever built in history. How can that be? Because again they've tested every facet, of every bolt, of every sheet of metal, of every integration system, with true flight tests to boot thanks to the Shuttle program. As a result, the vehicle will keep crews safe no matter the condition, before the crews ever step inside Orion. New Glenn? It's tests are just to prove it can fly, it has no specification for crew. It's made 0 progress to prove itself. Arguing cost on the topic of SLS is to argue with a scientist about philosophies- NASA doesn't care about cost. They get their funding from Congress which has a massive sum of money to dispense. When NASA successfully proposes a mission they like (notice, as much as I hear that SLS is just Shelby's initiative, it isn't- since SLS has support from both sides) (also note, NASA makes the missions, not Congress as often as I hear that as well), then Congress provides funding. How much funding is dependent on the scale of the mission they've proposed. "But Zoo! As a taxpayer I demand better results!" - Not even private citizens remotely have anything comparable to SLS. The only vehicle that remotely can compete is SpaceX's Super Heavy booster (New Glenn's GTO launch mass is 13,000kg vs Orion's full launch mass of 33,500kg). A booster that does not yet exist past an engine, & a render. SLS is frankly, the only vehicle available. "But why launch direct to the moon?!" Because long duration missions lead to greater strains on ECLSS, higher efficiency fuels, like hydrolox or metholox, run the issue of greater & greater boil off issues, which would require a new vehicle to be built that again, does not exist. But Zoo- I specifically said- what is SLS for?? - It's for launching crews to NHRO to send a crewable vehicle to LOP-G to enable lunar missions. "But Artemis 1 won't send crew to the moon!" - No, since NASA got enough flak for their decision to fly crew on STS-1 in 1981. This mission is to test every component, every part & every module. Past Artemis 1, Artemis 2 will send crew to the moon. Something no other entity, government, private, or otherwise can do within the same timeframe. Starship is said to perform Dear Moon by 2023 though this is extremely unlike as there's 0 work done to make that possible aside from multiple self destructing water towers; Though Artemis 2 will experience some delays as well (I say late 2023/Early 2024- though the next presidency would likely want to secure that chance to send humans back to the moon so an acceleration in pace could be expected), it won't be nearly as severe since most, if not debatably all the testing work has already been completed, meaning only production & assembly must be completed. After that, Artemis 3, will land crew on the moon which is the whole point of Artemis. In 3 missions (2 half missions with pad aborts & 1 of EFT-1, so in total 6 if you want to be pedantic), NASA plans to set boots on the moon. By comparison, the Saturn V flew 2 uncrewed missions, with an additional 4 crewed missions before attempting the landing. Even the Soviet N1 had 4 test flights planned, yes- it failed but there were multiple tests of the vehicle before it did 1 crewed mission. SLS is going to be the fastest vehicle to enable us to not only fly a crewable spacecraft to the moon, but to set boots on the moon. "But Zoo- why use SLS?! Orion ok, but why SLS?!" To reiterate- it's because SLS is the only launcher that is proven to be safe, passed all tests, & is ready to fly. Orion may not carry crew, but it's not a matter of "it isn't ready" as it is, just not opting to spend time implementing ECLSS.
  25. Orion is as tested as possible, they even are throwing dummies on board like SpaceX to test radiation shielding. A study was even launched to make it crewed so it's not that distant from a final vehicle- especially when the very crewed vehicle we're comparing it to, is in production right now. Orion is just as ready as SLS. Of course SLS isn't going to do a Apollo mission ever- it isn't meant to. (like saying Vulcan can't do a powered landing, it isn't meant to). It's going to launch crew & only crew. Though there are discussions of including station modules, even those are sliding off the table in favor of commercial launches to maximize SLS use towards crew. Which is SLS' mission; crew to LOP-G. It isn't meant to carry a lander.
  • Create New...