.50calBMG

Members
  • Content Count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by .50calBMG

  1. Been a while since I've wanted to like something this much
  2. As someone on "team anything but SLS", Orion could be launched on New Glenn and have nearly the same capabilities as an SLS block 1 launch for a fraction of the cost, and use the same architecture that's already in place. The only way SLS is useful if if you cancel block 1 and go straight to 1B or 2, and even that is stretching the word useful because its so prohibitively costly and has such an anemic launch rate.
  3. I personally wouldn't mind the use of the RS-25 for SLS if they were doing something like ULA so that they could get them back and use them again. The RS-25 is a pain to refurb, yeah, but I wouldn't put it past the incredibly smart people at NASA to find a way to bring that down. The way SLS is now, with a stupidly high price, under-powered first stage, and a useless upper stage (ICPS has no business as an upper stage for an SHLV. Great for a mid-sized LV like Delta IV and still useful for an HLV like D IV heavy), is not useful to anything other than... Wait... It will come to me eventually... Maybe... As far as staging arrangement goes, I remember seeing somewhere that that staging arrangement is the most efficient way to build a rocket. If it wasn't, then how are Soyuz and Ariane 5 (and hopefully 6) as successful as they are? Finally, I don't want to come across as ignorant on some of these things. I know SLS has been bogged down by politics, as are most government projects. It's a given that that's going to slow stuff down, but I also didn't feel the need to address it because it's something that was going to happen no matter what. It just seems to me like SLS is more and more like some British aircraft, namely the fairey albacore, or half the stuff they made in the late 40s, in that it was advanced at the point of it's design and promised to be better than it's predecessor, but by the time it finally made it into service it was so outclassed that wasn't even useful. I don't hate SLS, in fact, like I said earlier, I was super excited for it. I'll be excited for the first launch of something useful on it, like if it keeps Europa Clipper. I'm not hating on SLS just because everyone else does, or because it's easy. If anything, I'm just disappointed that it will never reach it's full potential under it's current program, and it won't be sustainable enough to be around for the next one.
  4. At the risk of going off topic (and getting caught by my boss), I'll keep this sort of brief. My argument for them being at the same level is based on the fact that, even though technically SLS is an SDLV, nothing on it has been flight tested except for the launch escape tower, unless EM-1 had an ICPS instead of a DCSS, which iirc it didn't. While the difference between the two is minimal, they are still different enough to warrant a name change. Starship, more specifically star hopper, has flown twice with the same model of engine that will be used on the full scale production version. The heat tiles that they still plan on using have been flown both on the hopper itself and on dragon for full reentry testing. Starship may not have it's life support, but neither will Artemis-1. Neither ship is ready, but they are both getting close. Right now, they're both just tubes with some bulkheads in them, but nothing that they actually need to function (boosters, engines, landing legs, etc.). Starship at the very least has had the same goal since it's inception, to get to Mars. SLS has had the Artemis program for a few months, and seemingly less than half of that program, arguably none of it, needs SLS.
  5. My problem is that not only am I tired of waiting for it to do literally anything useful, I'm tired of having to pay for it to get built at a speed that makes glaciers look fast. Sure, I don't pay that much for it, but I'm paying for it none the less. It's getting built by some of the wealthiest, biggest, and arguably most reputable companies in the US, but it's still not even ready for an all up test. I understand that large projects take a long time, but they've had time. I didn't have to pay a cent towards starship, and it's not even a quarter as old as SLS, but they are both at about the same stage in development. Sure, SLS has the advantage of a larger fairing, but we don't have anything that needs all that volume. As @tater has pointed out multiple times, the Artemis program is a make work to at least sort of justify even having SLS to begin with. Constellation was a much better program, aside from the faults with the Ares 1, than SLS can ever hope to be at this point, and it should have been revived instead of creating a "new program from scratch".
  6. I was excited for SLS back when I was in highschool (2011-2015), but it seems like almost no progress has been made on it compared to almost anything else, and I'm not just comparing them to SpaceX. Ariane 6, for example has, if you really think about it, a lot in common with Ariane 5, and it took less then 5 years to go from the announcement to component testing. SLS has been around in some form or another since the 80s iirc, and still hasn't been fully integrated. It just astounds me how long it has taken, and the pace that seemingly everyone else is taking, especially SpaceX, just exacerbates it further.
  7. Sorry zoo, but it's hard to get hyped about something that is moving at such a slow pace that turning a section of it can be considered newsworthy. How long until it's fully integrated?
  8. OAP, Orbital Assembly Platform LEAP, Large Exo-atmospheric Assembly Platform
  9. If I had to guess, it's the dust getting sucked through the exhaust and glowing from heat
  10. Guess they should have been either a bit less graditum, or a bit more open about what they actually have at the moment.
  11. No, if you don't let any exhaust escape, you won't get any net thrust. Like what was said earlier, pulling up on your own shoe laces doesn't lift you off the ground, in the same way that blowing into a balloon doesn't move you forward because none of the air escapes to produce thrust. You effectively must lose something to gain something, in this case it's propellant for thrust. Nothing is ever free according to physics.
  12. The only thing I can think of after watching that is that it sounds like a TIE fighter
  13. So, I guess we can officially say raptor is the highest chamber pressure engine to ever fly now... Is anybody else vibrating with excitement?
  14. I don't know, I wouldn't think a blowoff valve would pulse like that
  15. I don't think so, I believe Ariane 5 was flying before the 5m Atlas V was flying. I guess they could have bought it from Arianespace, but I doubt that because Ariane probably uses them more often.
  16. Is it bad if I had to think about it? </S>
  17. Dang, was really hoping she could get that mythical 100%. Vega has always been my favorite ESA launcher.
  18. Man, that's unfortunate. How many more flights did the original Vega have before Vega c replaced it?
  19. It doesn't need a separator between it and the kick stage, I didn't see an ejection force on it? It tried to spin the entire second stage along with it. I should mention that I am using 1.6.1, so maybe the breaking ground expansion adds some plugins to the stock game that I just don't have.
  20. Is there a dependency for the turntable to actually spin or am I just using it wrong?
  21. Sorry if this has been asked before, but is there a way to re-enable the G limiter?
  22. Huh, never seen that happen on other launches before, but makes sense. I almost thought they blew a nozzle out like ATK did a few weeks back.
  23. Anyone else wondering what all those little flecks were that came out just before booster sep? Looked like the right side booster flashed a bit as it happened too.
  24. Only problems with your logic is that the moon is much easier to get to, and at certain times Mars is far more dangerous, like the EDL phase, or the journey there. I agree that Mars is humanities future, but we just aren't ready yet. We can easily set something up on the moon at this point, but we don't have the experience in landing anything larger than the curiosity rover on Mars yet, so it is a good idea to take baby steps for now.