Jump to content

[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Wow, So the first real reflight is Artemis III (preferred real numbers) on Artemis VI. At 1 per year, that means they turn around a capsule in 3 years. 12 times longer than they turned around Shuttle (much, much more complicated). For reasons.

Sorry if I'm not super excited about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the heat shield isnt reusable (its ablative), and it is a BEO craft, the stresses are far higher, and Congresses' doodallying meant that the Shuttle workforce retired and left aerospace, or moved to other companies due to lack of work, so they essentially dont have any experience with reusing rockets, let alone spacecraft, so the fact that partial capsule reuse will occur on the 6th flight, is pretty good, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Barzon said:

Well, the heat shield isnt reusable (its ablative), and it is a BEO craft, the stresses are far higher, and Congresses' doodallying meant that the Shuttle workforce retired and left aerospace, or moved to other companies due to lack of work, so they essentially dont have any experience with reusing rockets, let alone spacecraft, so the fact that partial capsule reuse will occur on the 6th flight, is pretty good, imo.

Nothing about Orion was related to Shuttle, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The longer I live, the less I understand why an aluminium barrel with wires costs many millions, and why it takes years to build every one.
No matter, Orion, CST-100, Soyuz, or anything else.

900 000 000 is a whole bomber. Can be a capsule more complicated than a bomber?
(Same with Soyuz. What to weld there for 2..3 years in a pair of 2 m large spheres. Especially when hundreds of similar spheres have been launched uncrewed as photosats.)

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The longer I live, the less I understand why an aluminium barrel with wires costs many millions, and why it takes years to build every one.
No matter, Orion, CST-100, Soyuz, or anything else.

900 000 000 is a whole bomber. Can be a capsule more complicated than a bomber?
(Same with Soyuz. What to weld there for 2..3 years in a pair of 2 m large spheres. Especially when hundreds of similar spheres have been launched uncrewed as photosats.)

A bomber is using hardware and parts that are a lot more common (a typical artificial horizon goes for anywhere from $750-$2,000). Capsules, especially newer ones- have to use vastly more complicated systems. Though I can't speak for Soyuz- but I know older iterations of American crewed spacecraft used star trackers to identify orientation (I know Apollo astronauts had to confirm the computer's alignment by using a star tracker in the LM)- with each star tracker on a spacecraft basically being a camera linked to a computer which tries to compute- "Is this a star? If no, go back to start- If yes, is this the right star? If no, go back to start- if yes, move to next star tracking system (rinse and repeat)". An artificial horizon is largely powered by gravity, a force that (basically) doesn't apply so they won't work. 

Not to mention spacecraft are pressure vessels and are more akin to a inverted submarine- where instead of surviving intense pressures on it- the vehicle has to survive immense pressures pressing outwards. Not to mention they also have to handle unique heating and cooling that's unlike any other place on Earth. As well as dealing with the challenges of the exceptional speed and forces during launch and re-entry. Don't forget anti-debris protection and radiation shielding. That adds extra cost since they are expensive and require multiple tests through the installation and assembly process, which in turn continues to add to the cost.

Then we should mention this is the first capsule of it's kind, capable of carrying this many crew, with this modern of a spacecraft system. The last time we went to the moon, we had 3 crew, in a more analogue than digital spacecraft. Now Orion is the polar opposite in that it's more digital than analogue- and can carry 4 crew, maybe more. So context matters. 

Edited by ZooNamedGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you joking?

100%.

The first core stage is literally in the final stages of assembly right now. The first Orion is complete. The ICPS is complete. The SRBs are. All that remains now is engine mate on the core stage, testing, and then stacking in the VAB, and then, of course, launching, in late 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Barzon said:

are you joking?

100%.

The first core stage is literally in the final stages of assembly right now. The first Orion is complete. The ICPS is complete. The SRBs are. All that remains now is engine mate on the core stage, testing, and then stacking in the VAB, and then, of course, launching, in late 2020.

Consider this a like. 

7 minutes ago, coyotesfrontier said:

So what are the chances of Artemis actually doing missions and not being cancelled?

More likely than Starship right now and it's ever shrinking design.

I'd actually like to see a graph that shows how much Starship has downgraded since ITS in 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Though I can't speak for Soyuz- but I know older iterations of American crewed spacecraft used star trackers to identify orientation (I know Apollo astronauts had to confirm the computer's alignment by using a star tracker in the LM)- with each star tracker on a spacecraft basically being a camera linked to a computer which tries to compute- "Is this a star?

Every SLBM carries a star tracker, as well as a spaceship. Every ICBM, SLBM, and starship  carries an IR horizon sensor, too.

Also MX inertial reference sphere is probably much more expensive than just astronavigational equip.

32 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

are more akin to a inverted submarine- where instead of surviving intense pressures on it- the vehicle has to survive immense pressures pressing outwards.

Pressures are incomparable. A spaceship cabin withstands just 1 atm, like any jet plane cabin.

32 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Don't forget anti-debris protection and radiation shielding.

Just a soft blanket made of standard polymer tissue and foil layers.

32 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Now Orion is the polar opposite in that it's more digital than analogue-

Soyuz is digital. Shuttle, Buran, and TKS were. Apollo iirc.
Ok, let it have i486 instead of i386. But unlikely that's a problem. Most of crafts used ZX Spectrum-level CPUs.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Barzon said:

you know you dont have a good argument when you have to resort to nit picking to make a "point".

I don't know what do you mean, I just list potentially expensive things from the quoted post.
None of them looks costing million USD. They are just details like a plane uses.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

More likely than Starship right now and it's ever shrinking design.

I'd actually like to see a graph that shows how much Starship has downgraded since ITS in 2015.

I'm pretty sure only once or twice? It's gone from the 12m design to the 9m design and from IIRC 450 tons to 100 tons to LEO. Then it went back up to 150 tons and then back down to 100-150 ish depending on your definition of a useful orbit.

That makes it seem like it only carries 25% of the original and if you want to be harsh, then sure, but the 12m version and the 9m version are so different that I don't think it's fair to claim that they are the fundamentally the same rocket. Not counting the original 12m ITS proposal, the payload may have actually had a net increase. We should have updated numbers in a few days.

We haven't seen much of anything on payload bay size but they are putting the header tanks in the nose for now, at least on the prototypes, so the bay may have shrunk in length a bit (although likely just in the nose). The whole vehicle has lengthened since the last update by a few meters, though, but we don't have exact numbers, and we don't know how much of that extension is tanks vs bay. We should find out on the 28th.

 

Re: SLS. Barring a catastrophe (A RUD on the first flight would be catastrophic for the SLS program), Artemis 1-2 are basically guaranteed. Even if Starship works, they are still going to want to keep SLS around because having just one provider isn't great, so Artemis 3 will likely happen as well. After that, though, I'm not making any bets, a lot could happen in the next 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ultimate Steve said:

Re: SLS. Barring a catastrophe (A RUD on the first flight would be catastrophic for the SLS program), Artemis 1-2 are basically guaranteed. Even if Starship works, they are still going to want to keep SLS around because having just one provider isn't great,

Spoiler

huzzah-a-man-of-quality-36530427.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLS certainly flies (though a RUD would be pretty catastrophic to the program), and with the Orion buys, Orion flies several times (Orion could potentially be LV agnostic in future, I suppose, as well). First flight is remotely possible 2020, I bet 2021.

I think some of the systems on the horizon clearly obviate SLS in the even middle term future.

NG, or a stretched version (third stage) would do the same job as Block 1 for literally an order of magnitude less money per flight, for example, and the elephant in the room is Starship, clearly. It'll be a tin can, fantasy, junk pile, etc, ad nauseum, right up until it isn't (then we'll see posts about how it's crappy and downgraded from ITS, etc)... There's every chance we have some serious data on Starship in a stunningly short period of time (months).

45 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I'd actually like to see a graph that shows how much Starship has downgraded since ITS in 2015.

Oh, wait, that's already a thing. NASA was talking about vastly more capable shuttles in the 60s and 70s... I guess SLS is a massively downgraded SHLV for NASA then? NASA solicited designs for 450 ton to LEO payloads from kooky startups like... Boeing, General Dynamics, Grumman, etc. Agility is a feature, not a bug. It's like ICPS. ICPS was supposed to be to fly the boilerplate quickly, then never be used again. They should have decided that was nonsense, and pushed EUS years ago. Instead, they showed some agility recently, and decided to fly ICPS more than once. Changes can be positive or negative, and in different time frames.

I'd also not that with effectively no complex tooling to speak of, they could make an arbitrarily larger SS if they had need for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think SLS will be forced to fly a few times only because so much has been wasted spent on its development that it sort of has to. Look at the backlash on constellation when it got axed after the Ares 1x flew. 

I think starship is going to be better in every meaningful way than SLS except for payload volume to orbit, but only if the EUS gets built, which at this point seems unlikely. 

Even though the payload mass has shrunk vs the original 12m version, it's still twice what the block 1 SLS can do, and for a fraction of the cost.

You are vehemently defending an outdated, over-budget, and arguably useless (B1) rocket that is in and of itself an old, almost archaic design against something on the bleeding edge of technology and vastly more capable, while not only being more affordable to launch, but cheaper and faster to develope. So what if the design changes a few times before it gets finalized. SLS isn't the same now as the original proposal. 

@ZooNamedGames I don't mean this as a post to attack you by any means, but more because I don't understand your viewpoint. I don't get why you feel the need to attack SpaceX just because it isn't SLS. What's the point of attacking SpaceX when they are not even really competing against SLS, or even NASA?

Edited by .50calBMG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

   @Dale Christopher That made me smile after an 11 hour workday with no lunch. Have a... Wait, they sill haven't gotten likes working yet... Have something that you didn't have before and is up to you to interpret. Just remember it was from me. ;)

And here's that video that basically furthers my points further. Thanks mister "fly safe" man

https://youtu.be/z49eVQ6LxIE

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, .50calBMG said:

but only if the EUS gets built, which at this point seems unlikely. 

The just-released Senate budget once again includes EUS funding. So does the old House bill.

Congress wants EUS.

42 minutes ago, .50calBMG said:

You are vehemently defending an outdated, over-budget, and arguably useless (B1) rocket that is in and of itself an old, almost archaic design

This is the true galaxybrain take on the SLS. Apparently every rocket design that is flying bar one is "old and archaic," regardless of their actual age.

You know, if you're upset because you think someone's misrepresenting the progress of a project you like, maybe you shoudn't do the same thing in return.

Edited by jadebenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, .50calBMG said:

@ZooNamedGames I don't mean this as a post to attack you by any means, but more because I don't understand your viewpoint. I don't get why you feel the need to attack SpaceX just because it isn't SLS. What's the point of attacking SpaceX when they are not even really competing against SLS, or even NASA?

My issue is with those who basically proclaim SpaceX to be the savior of space exploration- when they ignore major hurdles SpaceX hasn't yet overcome and yet NASA has literally accomplished with their latest spacecraft. People for example, proclaiming that SpaceX will beat NASA to the moon when SpaceX has no way to accomplish such a goal.

SpaceX is good as a company. Issue is the aspirations (admittedly set by Musk and not the company- and if you wish to argue the company I'd like to see an employ led project/development rather than a project initiated by Musk). People love to claim Musk meets his mark- but the Falcon Heavy was 5-8 years late to fly (depending on your source), now yes, SLS has been slow- but that's to be expected for NASA. The pace has been slow but at least constant- even when there was political resistance, the project continued development. The engines continued to be worked on, working to use cheaper more efficient materials in assembly of the RS-25s. Working to test every aspect of the two massive fuel tanks for the core stage. Despite not flying, the vehicle in testing, has never stopped moving forward. It has been proving itself ready and we've got nearly a decade's worth of tests to prove that. 

People forget that politically- just about everyone who could make a roadblock has made roadblocks. Commercial has always been appealing politically since you get the shine and appeal from the public. No one cares about normal flight anymore (see how many people watched Starman get launched by Falcon Heavy vs the next/last Soyuz flight to the ISS).

Yes NASA is as slow as a turtle to SpaceX's hare's pace- but I can't see it any differently than the turtle beating the hare in this footrace to the moon and perhaps beyond. Which reminds of me of Musk's goal of sending colony hardware to Mars starting last year. 

 

That's why I don't like SpaceX. Less disliking the company, but more the people who overestimate it's ability and it's actual non-rose tinted glasses view on things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not upset by it, I just don't understand it. However, there is factual evidence supporting the fact that SLS has been mismanaged, is over budget, is years behind schedule, and sucking money from other, more promising programs while starship hasn't cost a thing to any other NASA project.

Also, just because I called it "old and archaic" doesn't mean I hate it. Soyuz will never ceases to amaze me that not only is it still flying, but that it meets all the requirements set for it to this day (and that it looks so good doing it). I only call SLS that because there is literally not a single new piece of technology on it. 

Edited by .50calBMG
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, .50calBMG said:

I'm not upset by it, I just don't understand it. However, there is factual evidence supporting the fact that SLS has been mismanaged, is over budget, is years behind schedule, and sucking money from other, more promising programs while starship hasn't cost a thing to any other NASA project.

Perhaps- but yet even with the worst circumstances it still succeeds. Yes costly- but we can blame politics. If Starship were to be put through the same political hurdles and delays SLS has- it'd evolve into a nasty beast just like SLS. SLS is more a product of it's leadership than engineering design.

That said- it still offers something that no other agency can offer. Manned capacity to the moon and the possibility of a landing by 2025. Something SpaceX and no other agency can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZooNamedGames Thank you for not misinterpreting that as an attack and for providing a logical explanation instead of the "do as he says, but not as he does" excuse. 

I am well aware that it's politics that is currently drowning SLS, but I try to stay as far from politics as possible because nothing ever ends well after bringing it up.

I am also not in the "Elon is God emperor of humanity" camp either. There are definitely faults with every program. For example, SpaceX is essentially building a MiG-21 as a test platform for something more akin to... Well... A space shuttle, and I am amazed they haven't had more problems than they have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...