RCgothic

Members
  • Content Count

    394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RCgothic

  1. Extended deep space operations are pretty pointless if the booster is incapable of taking crew anywhere that requires them. The only difference between extended deep space operations and extended LEO operations is risk to crew.
  2. We do need to launch on the timescales Apollo did because that enables rendezvous mission architectures. Without those we are never going beyond the earth moon system and we are never establishing a significant lunar presence.
  3. We never *will* be ready for the moon or mars or even just significant orbital presence unless and until we have a booster capable of doing the job. Of lifting substantial payloads and performing the required rendezvous mission architectures. Want to forget the competition? Fine. They're forgotten. SLS is *still* not the booster that advances manned spaceflight. Its most advanced form can barely recreate Apollo at 1/4 of the flight cadence.
  4. Yes, payload integration happens after static fire so that if the booster explodes it doesn't take the payload with it, as happened with AMOS 6.
  5. SLS fails on its own terms, nevermind any competitors. It was supposed to take humans to Mars and it never can, not even in its most ambitious block 2 format. It can barely manage the moon. It simply costs too much and can't fly often enough. It fails as a stopgap because it doesn't stop the gap. Better to cancel it now and focus on designing and building a clean slate big dumb booster with a decent launch cadence and have another 10 year gap, than drag this charade on for another 5 years before realising that cancelling it and starting again is what should have happened in the first place.
  6. SLS is a dead end and any money spent on it is a waste. It's a dead program walking. The only thing keeping it going is sunk cost fallacy. There's nothing SLS block 1b or 1b can do that a handful of launches from an alternative extant booster couldn't do for a fraction of the price. Even Block 2 will never have Mars capability, and that is the purpose for which this booster has been touted. If Block 2 ever flies I'll be truly astounded. And the gap in human spaceflight capabilities is not ok. It will have been nine years since the shuttle least flew, and everyone knew that retirement date was coming. "Only 50% longer than the Apollo-Shuttle gap" does not make it ok. 6 years then wasn't ok either, although at least that produced a groundbreaking vehicle. Where shuttle went wrong was keeping it in service for 25 years after it became clear it wasn't going to acheive its required cadence. They should have done something else. The opportunity cost of the last 20 years had been crippling.
  7. Also Orion has full mobility. All Dragon needs to do is hold orientation, which is easy, even connected to a FUS.
  8. There's a difference between a custom fairing to cover Orion and its LES at about 5m diameter at around Falcon's normal fairing size, and flaring out an interstage to cover EUS at 8.4m. The EUS is the same diameter as the SLS core. The Orion service module (built by ESA) is narrower than Orion.
  9. EUS is never going on a FH. FH's maximum fairing size is 5.2m. EUS is 8.4m. ICPS would at least fit within the fairing.
  10. FUS, Plus EUS, Plus ICPS? That sounds even less plausible.
  11. Maybe it's true we weren't ready to build bases on the moon immediately post Apollo. But the only reason we're still not ready is because for 40 years we haven't been making any serious effort in that direction. We've flown the same crafts conservatively long past the time we should have been doing something new and boundary breaking, and SLS/Orion is more of the same.
  12. ICPS on top of the falcon second stage looks wrong. And mass to LEO includes fuel residuals, it's not literally how much weight you can have in the payload section. How do ICPS and FUS stack up DV wise? In terms of thrust? Could ICPS be a straight replacement for FUS? That seems a bit more feasible as all the weight is going on top of FS1, which is used to having the weight of stages above it.
  13. I thought he was suggesting using them as an inferometer array. They don't have to go into the far reaches of the solar system, just far apart from each other. A telescope the diameter of Mars orbit?
  14. I am so with tater on this. SLS isn't capable enough to perform any useful mission. It can't fly often enough to do EOR. It can't comanifest enough payload with Orion to perform useful beyond low earth operations. As an architecture it makes no sense. A non-man-rated booster capable of boosting 180 tonnes to LEO 4 times a year with Orion going up separately? Now we're talking.
  15. Does an all up test fire require expending two side boosters? If they don't then the thermal and vibrational environment isn't being tested.
  16. I'm sure this was the plot of a decent episode of Star Trek TNG. The Drumhead.
  17. Well that doesn't sound brilliant.
  18. As has been pointed out, you can't directly use kgf as a stand in for Newtons. There's a hidden factor of g. F=ma 116,000kgf = 5,000kg*a 116,000kg*g = 5000kg*a 1,137,960N = 5000kg*a a = 1,137,960N / 5000kg N= kg*m/s/s So a= 1,137,960 (kg*m/s/s) / 5000kg a = 227.592 m/s/s For constant mass, v=u+at = 0+227.592m/s/s *2s = 455.184m/s
  19. Exactly sh1pman. Dream big. You may not get where you intended to go, but chances are you'll get *somewhere*. SLS is just not ambitious enough - it doesn't acheive anything another booster couldn't manage, nor learn anything new because of its reliance on established tech.
  20. The only way BFR doesn't fly more than SLS after it's been built is if they crash it.
  21. If BFR doesn't beat SLS, it will be New Glenn. SLS is an atrociously managed project from start to finish.
  22. Did someone just use "not-econimical" as an argument against an SLS competitor?
  23. This is a lot (a *lot*) of effort for maybe an extra hundred metres per second, which is at best what drag would afford you. Saturn 5 is over 100m tall. The crush depth of most submarines is under 1000m. So you can go under 10 body lengths deep and in order to do so you have to build your rocket like a submarine. You'd lose any benefit from poor dry mass.
  24. BFR is very much larger than anything else that's ever flown. Perhaps that affords more time for an abort. Cut main engine, deploy grid fins, drag separation sufficient? Doesn't help on the ground, I suppose.
  25. Assuming aerocapture fails, either enough speed has been braked to establish an atmosphere intercepting orbit in which case you'll get a second attempt (although the trajectory may be very harsh on a second attempt or have too long a period), or you're still on an escape course flying off into interplanetary space again.