Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads


_Augustus_

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, tater said:

 

*sigh* Apparently NASA has learned nothing about the delays caused by international cooperation from the ISS.....

3 hours ago, NSEP said:

I found this article, maybe you people would think this is interesting:

https://jalopnik.com/this-is-how-to-solve-the-biggest-problem-with-americas-1489011411

This is really outdated.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tater said:

They chose the orbit they chose partially because that's all stupid Orion can do, because the ESA Service Module is useless, and over 1 km/s short on dv.

 

I don‘t think the original service module had much more Delta V as in the constellation Lunar landings the Lander would have done the Lunar orbit insertion. If Nasa had asked Airbus to build a large Apollo style monster  service module they would have build one. It just was never a part of the whole Orion design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Canopus said:

I don‘t think the original service module had much more Delta V as in the constellation Lunar landings the Lander would have done the Lunar orbit insertion. If Nasa had asked Airbus to build a large Apollo style monster  service module they would have build one. It just was never a part of the whole Orion design.

Yeah, this is true. They were always short on dv because Altair did the insertion.

Moving the program forward without a plan meant that they inherited a fundamentally crippled design. I suppose it was happenstance that the ATV SM was basically the same dv as the previous incarnation of Orion SM.

Regardless, it can't go anywhere useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Canopus said:

I don‘t know. I think they have some pretty good arguments for the NRO. And whats the alternative? Not going anywhere?

They keep telling us Orion is going to Mars :wink: 

They've already said they are planning to fly once a year. For a long time we have known that SLS/Orion must fly at least 2 times a year to make any financial sense whatsoever. It would be better to not fly at all.

The projected NASA budgets:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf

have ~1.1 B$/yr for Orion, and ~2.1 B$/yr for SLS going forward. There are likely elements of the various planned missions not counted there (billions).

So each launch is 3.2 billion $. Yeah, it's not worth it at all. Kill it with fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SLS/Orion budget is very similar to Shuttle, BTW, but shuttle flew over 4 times per year on average, which makes each SLS launch (including annual program costs) 4-5 times more expensive than Shuttle. Its a disaster, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tater said:

The SLS/Orion budget is very similar to Shuttle, BTW, but shuttle flew over 4 times per year on average, which makes each SLS launch (including annual program costs) 4-5 times more expensive than Shuttle. Its a disaster, honestly.

Wow, I never thought there would be a day when I'd miss the Shuttle.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tater said:

The SLS/Orion budget is very similar to Shuttle, BTW, but shuttle flew over 4 times per year on average, which makes each SLS launch (including annual program costs) 4-5 times more expensive than Shuttle. Its a disaster, honestly.

It's not a disaster, it's doing exactly what it was designed to do: provide jobs.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said:

At least the Shuttle flew though.....

I think after two loss-of-vehicles incidents and 14 dead astronauts, the design was flawed enough that no longer counts...

Edited by sjbuggs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sjbuggs said:

I think after two loss-of-vehicles incidents and 14 dead astronauts, the design was flawed enough that no longer counts...

Yeah, a reliability statistically insignificant from practically any other vehicle is "flawed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DAL59 said:

From a commercial standpoint, it makes no sense to do an SLS launch vs 2 falcon heavies.  

From a commercial sense, it didn't make sense to develop the Saturn V, either. It took over half the Apollo Program's budget to develop. 

In all honesty, this may be the cheapest super heavy lifter NASA will ever develop, in terms of development costs. And I'd say it's better to have a super heavy in operation for an extended period of time as opposed to just a few years. It's even better that there'll be more than one super heavy in operation relatively soon (next few decades).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the time it launches it will have cost what, 30 billion?

What are the heavy payloads that we need 10s of billions in dev costs, and billions per launch to put into space? Oh, right, make-work like DSG. Far from earth for now good reason, and far from the moon, also for no good reason.

DSG is a money sink. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tater said:

By the time it launches it will have cost what, 30 billion?

What are the heavy payloads that we need 10s of billions in dev costs, and billions per launch to put into space? Oh, right, make-work like DSG. Far from earth for now good reason, and far from the moon, also for no good reason.

DSG is a money sink. 

Would you prefer they scrap the dsg and restart the Altair? Or just abandon the SLS in favour for smaller commercial launchers but still built the DSG with multiple launches per module?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dump SLS and Orion and cut their losses.

Orion is not capable of much BLEO, and is not useful for LEO, either.

SLS is on track to be replaced in capability by 2 different LVs with vastly lower dev costs (not even paid for by the taxpayer). This replacement will happen in the same time frame as it actually flying.

EM-1 flying 2020, and it’s a fake launch. Orion is not “all up,” for that flight, the icps will never fly again. Useless, 3 billion dollar launch, meaning the first crew mission will be the very first all up test—-3 years after em-1 (33 Months to change facilities for block 1B).

By 2023, NG will be flying, and NA in the works I bet. BFR flying as well, at least in cargo mode. SLS is literally lighting money on fire for nothing. I’m a space geek, but I’d rather the government not print that money to waste. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just cant see the BFR or the new glenn flying in 6 years. Why not keep the Orion and fly it with something like the Vulcan? Using multiple launches and Aces? I think thats far more likely than these giant reusable rockets. Especially the BFR seems incredibly Naive of an idea to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...