[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[Barzon]

I think it is certain. Considering its required by LAW to launch on SLS.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Barzon Kerman

[tater]

50 minutes ago, Barzon Kerman said:

I think it is certain. Considering its required by LAW to launch on SLS.

SLS was required by "LAW" to launch in 2016.

Quote

(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appro-priations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.

The above is from the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (signed into law by President Obama in 2010):

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf

Note also that the total payload of 130 tons (minimum!) is required by that operational date.

 

Quote

The proposal offers $600 million for the Europa Clipper mission, enabling a launch in 2023. However, NASA would instead seek to launch the mission on a commercial launch vehicle rather than SLS, a move it claims "would save over $700 million, allowing multiple new activities to be funded across the Agency."

(from space.com this March)

700 M$ savings, so NASA is saying that they think the marginal launch cost of SLS is more like 800 M$ (they had been saying 500 M$).

 

52 minutes ago, Barzon Kerman said:

Un-named Europa LANDER, aswell. From the latest budget request.

NASA already pushed that back to 2030 at the earliest.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/without-champion-europa-lander-falls-nasa-s-back-burner

Edited August 14, 2019 by tater

[ArkaelDren]

I can't believe someone would quote me on a misstep of sts launch numbers.  I am not a politician or public figure that needs scrutinizing.  The STS-51-L was the correct number and everyone can see or look it up. 

I know I am a horrible representative.  The point I don't think I'm relaying here, is the impact a company like SpaceX has had on the "Entire" Industry.  Ask anyone off the street back in 2010 "Hey, ever heard of SpaceX", most would be clueless.  Try it now.  Wasn't one of the main reasons for the Space Program to provide support for itself?  I suppose someone could twist words around well enough to say "No".  If I have learned one thing about the internet, its that someone out their will take my words(Cause I suck at writing)and twist them for their own agenda.  Tater can you explain to me, why its not cool to be a Fan Boy of a man like Elon musk?  By no means am I asking you because I think your on SpaceX's side, I see you being objective.  Guys I am not hear to be right, nor am I here to get people to like what I say.  I am here to learn, to see good objective discussion.  How can anyone compare SpaceX to NASA?  You cant.  They are entirely different beasts.  But you can say, SpaceX has been one of the best ventures to come along, for the future of space travel, in a very very long time.  Why would anyone argue that?

[ZooNamedGames]

2 hours ago, ArkaelDren said:

I can't believe someone would quote me on a misstep of sts launch numbers.  I am not a politician or public figure that needs scrutinizing.  The STS-51-L was the correct number and everyone can see or look it up. 

I know I am a horrible representative.  The point I don't think I'm relaying here, is the impact a company like SpaceX has had on the "Entire" Industry.  Ask anyone off the street back in 2010 "Hey, ever heard of SpaceX", most would be clueless.  Try it now.  Wasn't one of the main reasons for the Space Program to provide support for itself?  I suppose someone could twist words around well enough to say "No".  If I have learned one thing about the internet, its that someone out their will take my words(Cause I suck at writing)and twist them for their own agenda.  Tater can you explain to me, why its not cool to be a Fan Boy of a man like Elon musk?  By no means am I asking you because I think your on SpaceX's side, I see you being objective.  Guys I am not hear to be right, nor am I here to get people to like what I say.  I am here to learn, to see good objective discussion.  How can anyone compare SpaceX to NASA?  You cant.  They are entirely different beasts.  But you can say, SpaceX has been one of the best ventures to come along, for the future of space travel, in a very very long time.  Why would anyone argue that?

I know several people who have recently been polled (in multiple settings and ages) and most don’t know what SpaceX is. A small portion remembers when you specify it’s two major attributes- ‘Elon Musk’ and or ‘“landable rockets”. Buy in large those surveys showed that NASA is the household identity- not SpaceX (or any other agency for that matter). So yes, the actions of SpaceX does impact the industry since people don’t have the knowledge to know any better to know the difference between NASA and SpaceX. They both launch from the US- bear US flags, are built in the US, etc etc etc. So the people (tax payers) only see the failure, not the successes- and that’s a trait of human psychology.  

[ArkaelDren]

My Dad was Chief of Flight Operations for a major airline.  He used to be responsible for 1300 pilots.  He told me once, that he would bring in certain pilots with a similar personality trait that I believe you have.  He would fire them, then give no explanation or reason.  Of course it was all in a brief for the pilot in question.  So then I asked him why, he said, "Because they would attempt to argue with you".  I think people that are inherently disagreeable make great lawyers, but not to much for an industry that needs people that can "make a decision, build the thing, test it all up, then iterate ".  to quote Tater.  Zoo buddy, I am going back to listening to Chris Cornell sing a few of my favorite songs, click the old close button, and forget your name. 

Tater, hate to point you out as I am kinda a bad example to be associated with  but thanks for your attempts at some great subjectivity. 

[mikegarrison]

23 minutes ago, ArkaelDren said:

My Dad was Chief of Flight Operations for a major airline.  He used to be responsible for 1300 pilots.  He told me once, that he would bring in certain pilots with a similar personality trait that I believe you have.  He would fire them, then give no explanation or reason.  Of course it was all in a brief for the pilot in question.  So then I asked him why, he said, "Because they would attempt to argue with you".

I'll just drop this in here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management

Quote

Specifically, CRM aims to foster a climate or culture where authority may be respectfully questioned. It recognizes that a discrepancy between what is happening and what should be happening is often the first indicator that an error is occurring. This is a delicate subject for many organizations, especially ones with traditional hierarchies, so appropriate communication techniques must be taught to supervisors and their subordinates, so that supervisors understand that the questioning of authority need not be threatening, and subordinates understand the correct way to question orders.

Cockpit voice recordings of various air disasters tragically reveal first officers and flight engineers attempting to bring critical information to the captain's attention in an indirect and ineffective way. By the time the captain understood what was being said, it was too late to avert the disaster.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by mikegarrison

[ZooNamedGames]

49 minutes ago, ArkaelDren said:

My Dad was Chief of Flight Operations for a major airline.  He used to be responsible for 1300 pilots.  He told me once, that he would bring in certain pilots with a similar personality trait that I believe you have.  He would fire them, then give no explanation or reason.  Of course it was all in a brief for the pilot in question.  So then I asked him why, he said, "Because they would attempt to argue with you".  I think people that are inherently disagreeable make great lawyers, but not to much for an industry that needs people that can "make a decision, build the thing, test it all up, then iterate ".  to quote Tater.  Zoo buddy, I am going back to listening to Chris Cornell sing a few of my favorite songs, click the old close button, and forget your name. 

Tater, hate to point you out as I am kinda a bad example to be associated with  but thanks for your attempts at some great subjectivity. 

That sounds like an airline I would want to avoid. That kind of behavior leads to broken communication and trust- things that have been the exact causes for airline disasters in the past as @mikegarrison has pointed out. And one prime example of why that isn’t safe is the Tenerife disaster.

But regardless this is somewhat a more personal regard that isn’t really relevant. So let’s return to the topic of the SLS instead so we can avoid potentially making more personal comments than comments on the subject matter itself.

Edited August 15, 2019 by ZooNamedGames

[jadebenn]

Can we get back on-topic please?

[Kerbal7]

14 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I had a long rant but I want to keep this succinct and direct as possible so I'll put this in a 10 point format so I can keep things on point to answer your question as to why I'm not pro-SpaceX-

1. SpaceX is a brand new company that has only 20 years of existence. This means they have little economic experience keeping their business and their budgets stable and functional in turbulent economies (2010-2020 has been a rather calm year since we just recovered from the 2000s recession).
2. SpaceX has only one major achievement- landing rocket boosters after deploying payloads. That's it- landing rockets was done in the 1990s and the 2000s through the use of the DC-X rocket. An achievement that will soon fall to Blue Origin once they deploy commercial payloads with New Glenn.
3. SpaceX only has 1.5 actively functional vehicles (3 if you include the only other rocket they built that actually flew payloads, Falcon 1). Those rockets being Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy Core booster- the external two are regular Falcon 9s- so they aren't a new design. However the core is a modification of the Falcon 9 B5- which very much goes against your point of all plans being built which leads to Point 4-
4. SpaceX has made many design promises they've failed to meet- much like NASA. As @Barzon Kerman listed, there's a whole laundry list of things he's said and had knocked down because it doesn't work in reality.
5. The promises made by Musk affect the whole industry. If he makes promises, the public (ie the taxpayers) expect us to meet them. When reality kicks him off his high horse and suddenly we fail to go to Mars as he plans- it makes everyone in the industry look back. Not just SpaceX. It paints us as "too far behind" and "not ready yet" which leads to cuts in budgets for organizations and agencies like NASA which in turns means they no longer have the funds to operate their own space programs or fund new developing companies- like SpaceX once was- which leads to point 6-
6. SpaceX was literally built by NASA. Saying that SpaceX has made all of their achievements on their own through their successes is a massive inaccuracy. SpaceX has only flown because of NASA investments into the development of Falcon 9 reusable rockets. As NASA say the potential for a quick 24h turn-around rocket (which is as impossible as it was with the Shuttle) for cheap- but SpaceX has failed both points and specifically pointing out the flaw with cost leads to problem 7-
7. SpaceX hasn't proven reusable rockets as economical, nor any more efficient than standard expendable rockets. Current pricing of launching on the F9 has not dropped and announcements that those prices are fixed. You could claim they're simply maximizing budget margins- but if that was the case, why would Musk be in such a hurry to develop another rocket system to replace the Falcon 9 rocket family (BFR isn't just for BEO flight- it's intended to completely antiquate the Falcon rocket family). Clearly the Falcon 9 is not cost-efficient and can't even meet a reasonable turn around time.
8. SpaceX does not have guarenteed funding by NASA. So any failures, mistakes or missteps in development means that the entire companies momentum is broken. Falling to entirely rely on the Falcon 9 which as we established isn't economical anyway. Which doesn't help them when (not if) the economy gets into another upset. Which- speaking of funding-
9. SpaceX's founder- Elon Musk has proven that he has trouble keeping some of his ventures afloat with constant faults and issues with another company of his- Tesla.
10. SpaceX is a great company. Their fanboys are not. Constantly claiming on every NASA YouTube video and online thread posting how NASA is "antiquated", "too slow" and "inefficient"- basically stating that only SpaceX and Elon are the means to the future and by extension- destinations like the Moon and Mars. Despite many ignoring and overlooking point 6 and that NASA made SpaceX and SpaceX only gets contract money by doing what they need- and what they need is SpaceX in LEO- not BEO despite that being Musk's current ambition of the week.

That's enough for now, I can make more if you want em.

 

I've said much of the same here a long time.

Elon Musk is a con man who swindles tax dollars with ridiculous promises no expert take seriously.

Elon Musk has said he will have BFR cargo missions flying to Mars in 2022. And he will have crewed cargo missions to Mars by 2024. I've said from day one this is absurd and will never happen. Artwork is cheap. Hardware is not. In fact, I've said from day one no BFR will ever fly to Mars. Not one. I still believe this. The BFR is a total scam that'll never make a single trip to Mars.

Yes, Elon and SpaceX cult members let me know they don't like me saying this. But it's not too far away until I'm proven right. 

[tater]

2 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

I've said much of the same here a long time.

Debunked as many times.

2 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

Elon Musk is a con man who swindles tax dollars with ridiculous promises no expert take seriously.

Self-evidently false on a couple levels.

One, no one considers "promises" as a thing. The old space contractors have shown powerpoint (and old fashioned art long before PP was a thing) spacecraft for decades. They are similarly notional, with notional capabilities. They are possible spacecraft.

Two, you've literally been proved wrong on this within the last week or so. NASA (they have some experts, right?) mentioned Starship, and they are working with SpaceX on large lunar lander issues for same, and refilling operations in LEO (ditto). They clearly take it somewhat seriously now that it's moving forward. That's entirely ignoring FH.

 

2 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

Elon Musk has said he will have BFR cargo missions flying to Mars in 2022. And he will have crewed cargo missions to Mars by 2024. I've said from day one this is absurd and will never happen. Artwork is cheap. Hardware is not. In fact, I've said from day one no BFR will ever fly to Mars. Not one. I still believe this. The BFR is a total scam that'll never make a single trip to Mars.

Mars is irrelevant, and has literally nothing to do with anything past SpaceX's own motivation. One, promises, AGAIN, don't matter, they are not contracts, and they no one, anything.

Boeing (SLS prime contractor for core stage) "promised" us this in 1970-something:

450 tons to LEO, fully reusable (SSTO).

Where's meh superheavy lifter they promised me! Waaaa!

 

2 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

Yes, Elon and SpaceX cult members let me know they don't like me saying this. But it's not too far away until I'm proven right. 

That's the nice thing about rapid development, we'll know pretty soon if they can make SS/SH work, indeed, we will likely have a decent idea before the first time SLS/Orion flies all up (all up won't be until the first crew mission, BTW, as Artemis=1 doesn't have a final flight article Orion CSM).

If SS fails---which you seem to want for some inexplicable reason---what will it have cost YOU, exactly? What will it have cost the taxpayers? Same answer in both cases, NOTHING.

 

[Kerbal7]

12 hours ago, tater said:

SLS was required (by law) to have flown in 2016, actually. So 5 years. Also, and this is critical, SLS costs an additional 2 billion dollars to me, the taxpayer, every year it is delayed.

The SLS is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. That being, putting large dollar amounts into the districts of politicians. If it will ever fly isn't near as important.

 

Even if they ever do get the thing off the ground there is very little money to do anything with it. And no political will to get the money. The space program is something everyone likes but no one wants to pay for. Given how expensive manned space flight is... well, you get what we got. Fifty years of going around in a circle. If you want Moon bases and trips to Mars you better pick up a sci fi novel because it isn't happening in our lifetimes.   

[tater]

Sorry, proved wrong 2 weeks ago:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-us-industry-partnerships-to-advance-moon-mars-technology

Quote

SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, will work with NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to advance their technology to vertically land large rockets on the Moon. This includes advancing models to assess engine plume interaction with lunar regolith.

Quote

SpaceX will work with Glenn and Marshall to advance technology needed to transfer propellant in orbit, an important step in the development of the company’s Starship space vehicle.

Quotes from NASA.

9 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

The SLS is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. That being, putting large dollar amounts into the districts of politicians. If it will ever fly isn't near as important.

Absolutely true. I agree completely.

Quote

Even if they ever do get the thing off the ground there is very little money to do anything with it. And no political will to get the money. The space program is something everyone likes but no one wants to pay for. Given how expensive manned space flight is... well, you get what we got. Fifty years of going around in a circle. If you want Moon bases and trips to Mars you better pick up a sci fi novel because it isn't happening in our lifetimes.   

That's why any of us are fans of SpaceX (and someday Blue if they'd be less bloody gradatim). I've been through this for decades. The benefit of kooky billionaires is that we don't have to play the change every 4-8 years thing. I honestly think it's the only way we will see the required focus.

I'm not really even a manned spaceflight person, from a scientific perspective, robots are more cost effective, and this will only improve as intelligent systems mitigate comms lag. None the less, I want to see it---for no other reason than it is cool.

I don't see SS flying with crew any time soon, frankly, but I think it will work as a LV, and if---big if---they can make stage 2 reuse a thing (a REAL thing, not Shuttle reuse, gas it up and go reuse with little refurb/cost), then it literally changes everything. Even if crew need to go up on a different vehicle, or the S2 needs to be more specialized for crew safety (winged? VTHL?), it's a game changer. I want that future. I love that a couple billionaires want it too.

Edited August 15, 2019 by tater
typos

[mikegarrison]

Quote

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of.

- Lord Kelvin, 8 Dec 1896, in a hand-written letter to Maj. Baden Baden-Powell, declining to join the Aeronautical Society.

Edited August 15, 2019 by mikegarrison

[Nightside]

39 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

- Lord Kelvin, 8 Dec 1896, in a hand-written letter to Maj. Baden Baden-Powell, declining to join the Aeronautical Society.

Spoiler

And now no one ever uses his name unless things are about to get unpleasantly cold or hot.

 

I have an SLS question: Is EUS still a thing?

[tater]

39 minutes ago, Nightside said:

  Reveal hidden contents

And now no one ever uses his name unless things are about to get unpleasantly cold or hot.

 

I have an SLS question: Is EUS still a thing?

Supposedly it's back on the table. Luckily, since it's SLS, a new stage is magically man rated, probably the first time it flies. Wonder what the price tag is on that stage dev? Billions?

[Vanamonde]

Please don't make the arguments personal, folks, and avoid accusing others and public figures of misconduct without substantiation. 

[kerbiloid]

Maybe just distinguish "promise" and "claim"?

Spoiler

P.S.
Regardless of Space-X real achievements, this company is a great ad campaign for KSP, lol.
Squad should add Elon Kerman to the standard trio+Val.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by kerbiloid

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Nightside said:

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

- Lord Kelvin, 8 Dec 1896, in a hand-written letter to Maj. Baden Baden-Powell, declining to join the Aeronautical Society.

  Hide contents

And now no one ever uses his name unless things are about to get unpleasantly cold or hot.

"And now he is a synonym to absolute zero".

[Kerbal7]

4 hours ago, tater said:

I'm not really even a manned spaceflight person, from a scientific perspective, robots are more cost effective, and this will only improve as intelligent systems mitigate comms lag. None the less, I want to see it---for no other reason than it is cool.

I feel the same.

Robots can do scientific exploration much, much cheaper—safer too. They are only going to get more and more capable. The purpose of manned space flight is to inspire. And that's not a trivial thing. Human beings are emotional animals and inspiration is vitally important. After the Apollo program America experienced a surge of people going into scientific fields. This scientific deluge transformed the country. Apollo also changed everyone's perspectives. 

But politicians can't see beyond the next election cycle. They'd rather burn money having wars in the desert than an awe inspiring Moon base. That's how they are.     

Edited August 15, 2019 by Kerbal7

[tater]

 

[sh1pman]

Quote

@NASA_SLS rocket that will help send humans deeper into space than ever before.

But not too deep. Not as deep as Saturn V did.

[kerbiloid]

22 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

But not too deep. Not as deep as Saturn V did.

Depends on 3rd stage correct shutdown.

[tater]

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1162033949591216128

 

 

[ZooNamedGames]

"Going with a women- there will be a women on this mission" >I wonder if they're pushing something

[tater]

A smart bid to have continuity (does the next person really want to be the one that stops a woman from going to the Moon?).