• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20,069 Excellent

About tater

  • Rank
    Rocket Surgeon

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

12,748 profile views
  1. I thought it was slow, lol. Not a fan of most launch patter. Theirs is pretty meh.
  2. I assuming it's just for visualizing it. There's overcast here (I'm maybe 4.5 hours north driving), not sure what the deal is. They just reset to 45 minutes from now. Reset again to 12 minutes. And new page, so:
  3. Yes, they say in that chart that the new SRBs SAVE 25+ million each. They should not even cost 25M to save. The fact that they are so very, very overpriced in the first place is astounding.
  4. Reset to 74 min from now, as per their tweet. (ie: set to 11am EST)
  5. There's not really a reason to bump up the TLI mass without something to send. They talk about an Ascent Stage (lunar) that masses 7.5 (?from memory) tons. They have no need for excess capacity, even with just 37t they are fine, and they can't comanifast an entire lander, regardless. Useful payloads---where part of the payload is the Orion CSM---are very limited. It's either some small part of a system (Ascent Stage or a small Gateway part), or it needs to be an entire system, or something larger (cargo launch).
  6. We get a couple tons leeway based on if Orion CSM is attached, and it was already 37-38 with Orion, that gets it ~40t bare. So they only have to eek out 5t, still, the usual numbers that look like that in the past have been BOLE. Still, not for a long, long time, however. If they were to use one for Europa Clipper, that would put all 8 gone (with no slips at all) in 2028. So no new boosters til 2029.
  7. How could they get 8t more without BOLE? You're right, that looks odd, every previous graphic/statement I have seen has advanced boosters required as Block 1b+ or Block 2 (nomenclature seems flexible sometimes). 45t would really be something if Orion didn't suck, it would actually be an Apollo sort of capability. Probably needs to be 50-55t to TLI given Orion as the CM, though (more if superior capability is also required of the lander). Hard to drag out this image: So they are showing different SRBs for Block 1B, or just different paint? Everything I have read has the boosters the same---until they run out, right?
  8. Yeah, in my guestimates of SLS launch cost, I had credited the entire cost of the 2 SRBs at ~40M$. LOL. The new boosters (which of course won't ever count the likely billions in dev cost as something to be amortized) with 50M in savings per pair means that the current SRBs must cost much,much more than that. Looking at the bar graphs on the comparison illustration (with the savings listed) The darker colors are the extant SRBs. That allows a guestimate for each current SRB: 10M+18.4+1+20+1=50.4M$ each, minus the cost of the case which is the same (tube), which says no change, but the graph makes them look like 2M (each segment?). If each segment, that's another 10M per booster. So 60.4M$/SRB. Between the cost of a FH reused, and FH expendable, just for the SRBs.
  9. Reading this: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/sls-advanced-boosters-flight-nine-shuttle-heritage/ the advanced boosters have over 25 million in savings vs shuttle srbs. This is 50M per launch in savings. I’ve been grossly underestimating SRB cost for SLS. Probably more than a FH for each launch.