KSK Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, sevenperforce said: But since NASA probably wouldn't buy distributed launch for Clipper, then yeah, it might fly on SLS. EM-1 and Clipper, if EUS is developed. If they only fly ICPS, Clipper will more likely fly on an Atlas V 551 and just do a longer transit. SLS will never fly a Europa Lander, since the lander will not be designed (let alone built) until well after Clipper arrives. I understand that transit time was a key factor since it apparently had a direct bearing on Clipper's design. That being the case, I could see the rationale for SLS as a single booster (to avoid complicating things with a distributed launch) capable of directly injecting the required mass to Jupiter. But I suspect the real impetus is politics. SLS is supported by one influential figure, Clipper by another. Flying Clipper on SLS lets them scratch each others backs when it comes to appropriations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Lets just hope the Zuma booster isn't cursed or anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tullius said: And you really think that there is a single company out there that is dumb enough to jump on such a project? If NASA wanted to let a private company develop a new rocket, it is going to look much more like the commercial cargo or commercial crew programs: The project gets divided into multiple milestones and the companies get paid for reach each one of them separately. This gives you much finer control over costs, since you can stop and rethink how a certain milestone can be reached if costs explode. However, if at some point the companies decide that a certain milestone cannot be reached with the given amount of money, either NASA increases the budget or the project has to be given up. Part of the reason why the commercial cargo and crew programs have been so successful at keeping costs down was the fact that SpaceX wanted to offer Falcon 9 also on the launch market outside of the program. And Orbital ATK and Boeing had to make sure to keep costs down, since otherwise SpaceX would get the whole programs. No, I think commercial cargo/crew is a more realistic mechanism as you say. Right now, however, there is nothing NASA claims to want that the commercial market is not already developing in excess of NASA desires. NASA (some centers, plus congress, not all of NASA, lol) wants SLS, which can't get anything to the lunar surface (crewed). SpaceX is working on something even bigger that can get there. BO is working on something close to SLS Block 1 (probably ~50t to LEO with the cryo stage, and a comparable fairing), and their follow on is already named as a lunar surface capable LV (it's not even a powerpoint, but it's like in dev before some SLS versions have a hope of existing (Block 2)). So we already have 2 companies building huge rockets that NASA hasn't even asked for. I would look at it this way, not that NASA would ask for something like SLS, but that they would want certain capabilities (with specs), and if anyone can offer them those capabilities, they'll pay X amount for it, where X is a reasonable incentive. If companies want to tweak designs in progress to grab that contract they will, if NASA gets no takers, they can come up with a different mission plan with new specs. Look at EELV, for example. Is it worth the few launches to work on being able to load the payload on an erected rocket? If it is, they will change their flow for those, and spend the money to do so. If not, another provider can have it (ULA). What possible specs could NASA ask for right now that could not be met via mere tweaking of vehicles that are actively being worked on, or in early planning stages? Edited April 25, 2018 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 38 minutes ago, KSK said: I understand that transit time was a key factor since it apparently had a direct bearing on Clipper's design. That being the case, I could see the rationale for SLS as a single booster (to avoid complicating things with a distributed launch) capable of directly injecting the required mass to Jupiter. But I suspect the real impetus is politics. SLS is supported by one influential figure, Clipper by another. Flying Clipper on SLS lets them scratch each others backs when it comes to appropriations. But SLS can't manage it until EUS rolls around, which probably will never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 SLS block 1 can only fly a far smaller Clipper than Block 1b can because of the lack of EUS, which is seriously delayed. FH can actually fly something closer to block 1b than block 1 can fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 (edited) NASA cancelling SLS and redirecting that money into telescopes and outer solar system probes would be amazing. That's why I'm waiting for BFR. They could have better, bigger, cheaper and less complicated JWST telescope if only they could launch it on BFR. Edited April 25, 2018 by Wjolcz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbinorbiter Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Wjolcz said: They could have better, bigger, cheaper and less complicated JWST telescope if only they could launch it on BFR. They could just convert BFR upper stage to a telescope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Wjolcz said: NASA cancelling SLS and redirecting that money into telescopes and outer solar system probes would be amazing. That's why I'm waiting for BFR. They could have better, bigger, cheaper and less complicated JWST telescope if only they could launch it on BFR. That's not going to happen. Ever. If SLS were cancelled, there are only two possible options: 1. It is cancelled/shifted/evolved predicated upon a new project that employs many of the same people. 2. That money simply evaporates, as it is specifically for SLS/Orion. I see SLS as having a limited lifespan given changes in availability of SHLVs moving forward. How far into the EM and SM flights they get is anyone's guess. 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: The proposal is not "NASA-backed BFR" but rather "NASA-funded BFR launch" where NASA buys a payload delivery service and supplies the payload but doesn't directly fund the launch vehicle. With F9, NG, BFR, and to a lesser extent Vulcan, we are beginning to see the possibility of LV-agnostic payload services. NASA needs to say "We don't care how it gets there; we just want to know who can put this payload into this orbit at this time while satisfying our reliability assurance criteria." This. 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Yeah, that's just stupid. EDIT: By which I mean, the $40B dev cost is stupid, not dev stipends and cost per launch. Yeah, COTS and Commercial Crew have been pretty cost-effective compared to usual procurement. In my post up thread, I'm thinking of the 2 companies that have a stated goals that are sometimes coincident with some goals that NASA has, and are working towards them irrespective of NASA efforts towards their own goals. SpaceX and BO, to be clear (and to a lesser degree Nanoracks, Bigelow, etc). Bezos is not $#@!-ing around, sleeeper though BO is. SpaceX is also moving forward with some alacrity, even if we can expect some goals to be set in Elon-time, not real time. They want people in space, and in larger numbers than ISS crews, or smaller LOP-G crews flying once every couple years for a few weeks. The capabilities they are building---because they want to---can allow NASA to achieve their own goals, using their large workforce in many Congressional districts, by building things to GET launched, vs things that do the launching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, tater said: That's not going to happen. Ever. If SLS were cancelled, there are only two possible options: 1. It is cancelled/shifted/evolved predicated upon a new project that employs many of the same people. 2. That money simply evaporates, as it is specifically for SLS/Orion. I see SLS as having a limited lifespan given changes in availability of SHLVs moving forward. How far into the EM and SM flights they get is anyone's guess. Hm. Forgot it's not that simple. If they had less projects they would probably get less funding too, wouldn't they? But SLS isn't very innovative so why not give all these engineers job of developing new ways of launching rockets like tripropellant engines and aerospikes and rockets using them? These are just examples, but hopefully you get what I mean. Edited April 25, 2018 by Wjolcz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 17 minutes ago, Wjolcz said: Hm. Forgot it's not that simple. If they had less projects they would probably get less funding too, wouldn't they? SLS was mandated by Congress. Some NASA centers are not pleased with it. Lori Garver was never a fan when she was deputy admin as I recall. SLS and Orion exist for each other, and for the contractors that are building them. Any other missions are incidental to trying to keep as many flights as possible since the program costs a few billion a year, even if they fly nothing at all (just to keep the lights on). If SLS were magically cancelled tomorrow, that money would simply cease to exist, NASA would not get to spend it on something else. 17 minutes ago, Wjolcz said: But SLS isn't very innovative so why not give all these engineers job of developing new ways of launching rockets like tripropellant engines and aerospikes and rockets using them? These are just examples, but hopefully you get what I mean. I'm not an SLS fan, and this is the SpaceX thread, but it's not a lack of innovation. They are doing some new things, and they are doing some older-fashioned things. The whole program was wrongly predicated upon using Shuttle tech (to employ the same people), so it's necessarily not going to be as innovative as a clean sheet design. Part of the rationale was to quickly man rate the thing, lol. Quickly. Hahahah. Large NASA projects are necessarily always going to be multiple contractors following the Apollo example. I'd prefer they work on pure spacecraft exclusively (manned and unmanned). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Block 5 static fire April 30th, but the launch might be delayed until May 7 (because payload): https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2018/04/25/bangladesh-delays-launch-of-its-first-satellite-again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/space.2018.29013.emu (text of the Musk talk from last fall) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 What if the SLS used aerospikes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 32 minutes ago, DAL59 said: What if the SLS used aerospikes? We would finally have something praise-worthy to comment on. And probably SLS thread would be 200+ pages long by now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Why do we get SLS/SpaceX crossovers on our threads every couple dozen pages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said: Why do we get SLS/SpaceX crossovers on our threads every couple dozen pages? The threads are right next to each other and its a heated debate. I thought this was the SLS thread due to the page full of sls discussion WHOA WE HAVE NEW EMOJIS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said: Why do we get SLS/SpaceX crossovers on our threads every couple dozen pages? Because the SpaceX cadence isn't high enough yet, lol. May 4 (7?) is the next launch, then 1.5 weeks later is one from VAFB, with another fairing recovery attempt which will be exciting. I need me some rocket landings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, tater said: Because the SpaceX cadence isn't high enough yet, lol. More like the SLS cadence is *slightly* low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, DAL59 said: More like the SLS cadence is *slightly* low. Random thought: There's a decent chance F9 has 100 consecutive launch successes by the time EM-1 flies, several of which will be FH flights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 (edited) Speaking of fairing recovery... Looks pretty wrecked. Seawater must be like acid to fairings. Edited April 25, 2018 by sh1pman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 2 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: Why do we get SLS/SpaceX crossovers on our threads every couple dozen pages? Because the SLS thread was inundated with BFRguments, retribution was brought down on the SpaceX thread in an effort to bring balance to the force forum. Next SpaceX will seduce SLS to the sooty side and attempt to rule the BO thread as master and apprentice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Because the SLS thread was inundated with BFRguments, retribution was brought down on the SpaceX thread in an effort to bring balance to the force forum. Next SpaceX will seduce SLS to the sooty side and attempt to rule the BO thread as master and apprentice! SLS will get really badly beaten up by New Glenn. A decade later New Armstrong (trained by New Glenn) will defeat both BFR and SLS, founding the New Republic shortly after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Not again... https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2018/04/25/bangladesh-delays-launch-of-its-first-satellite-again I guess in other star wars news, we might not be able to nickname this core the "Millennium Falcon" anymore (Hey, the Block 5's need names! They're going to be flying more often!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 ^^^I posted that a few hours ago. The range has not changed anything, though, so it's unsure at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 2 hours ago, tater said: ^^^I posted that a few hours ago. The range has not changed anything, though, so it's unsure at the moment. Woops sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.