[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[Codraroll]

6 hours ago, tater said:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/nasa-delays-sls-rocket-rollout-says-launch-date-is-¯_ツ_-¯/

 

Beautiful comment from the comment section:

Quote

I don’t mind if there’s a delay as long as the test flight goes well and it lands safely afterwards, either on land or a drone ship, either way is fine

 

[tater]

 

 

 

[Beccab]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

 

 

 

Sigh

[tater]

Block 1 is an abomination that never should have existed given the need for a bespoke ML.

If the whole stack wasn't so underpowered, and if Orion was not purposely fattened to disallow commercial launchers (that's a Constellation era thing, since it was meant to only fly to LEO, then dock for BLEO), they could maybe have built full diameter aeroshell around ICPS so that it could utilize a shared ML with the EUS version. get the test flight in without having to spend more than the rocket should actually cost to make a ML. That was not possible because as it is ICPS can't send Otion to TLI, Orion has to do the last burn.

That or design the tower such that it can have swapable parts to trivially convert from B1 to B1B. But no, because that would have made sense.

[cubinator]

Can we just skip to a Block 3 or something?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, cubinator said:

Can we just skip to a Block 3 or something?

The contracts are already signed.

And they cost... Plus.

[tater]

3 hours ago, cubinator said:

Can we just skip to a Block 3 or something?

Good idea, since Block 2 isn't enough to do anything.

[Flavio hc16]

11 hours ago, cubinator said:

Can we just skip to a Block 3 or something?

 at least it gets more reusable and cheaper

[Beccab]

1 minute ago, Flavio hc16 said:

 at least it gets more reusable and cheaper

But then how do you maintain the SRB jobs at Orbitak ATK?

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, Beccab said:

But then how do you maintain the SRB jobs at Orbitak ATK?

And that's exactly at least one reason why SLS has a future, while SS not so obviously.

ICBM and SLBM are solid-fueled, and their manufacturers need money to eat and stay able to manufacture.

While the last kerolox ICBM in US was Titan I in early 1960s.

Edited February 8, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Flavio hc16]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And that's exactly at least one reason why SLS has a future, while SS not so obviously.

ICBM and SLBM are solid-fueled, and their manufacturers need money to eat and stay able to manufacture.

While the last kerolox ICBM in US was Titan I in early 1960s.

Lol...are you saying that crony capitalism is a good thing? Because you sound like you are.

And if not, are you saying that nuclear proliferation of ICBMs is a good thing?

[tater]

NG is a ~$30B company. Boosters are maybe a single digit % of their revenue.

[kerbiloid]

39 minutes ago, Flavio hc16 said:

ol...are you saying that crony capitalism is a good thing? Because you sound like you are.

Why any "ism" here?

The ballistic missile manufacturer will stay by default, and they will get paid contracts anyway.

So, the solid rocket boosters will be used wherever it's possible. And there is not so many places for them except the ballistic missiles (not so many to be produced) and heavy space rockets.

29 minutes ago, tater said:

NG is a ~$30B company. Boosters are maybe a single digit % of their revenue.

The technological chain.

[tater]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The technological chain.

They can make a billion or two with very little work, so they do.

SLS was formed to keep Shuttle contractors busy. Not out of military necessity, or technological chains, it's much, much more prosaic—it's about jobs in districts.

[kerbiloid]

Just now, tater said:

SLS was formed to keep Shuttle contractors busy.

Shuttle got SRB to keep ICBM/SLBM manufacturer busy.

And SLS has similar SRB.

[tater]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Shuttle got SRB to keep ICBM/SLBM manufacturer busy.

And SLS has similar SRB.

MT is now owned by NG. The US uses loads of solids in smaller tubes (missiles). SRBs are chump change, they could dump the launch market tomorrow and they'd not be any less busy.

[kerbiloid]

Just now, tater said:

in smaller tubes

The big one is harder to make due to local instabilities, and the technological chain should not be "restored" but "ready to use".

Unlikely they will let ICBM industry just get gone even for a second.

[tater]

43 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The big one is harder to make due to local instabilities, and the technological chain should not be "restored" but "ready to use".

Unlikely they will let ICBM industry just get gone even for a second.

That's not a concern, they already won the contract for new ICBMs.

They will of course leverage their missile work to get "free money" from NASA. It's more of the same, and they get paid more for less work. For what was Morton Thiokol, a few billion is a decent amount of money, but they have continuous military business regardless. Smaller weapons actually get used in training, so they are constantly replaced and also not cheap per unit size.

Edited February 8, 2022 by tater

[Meecrob]

On 2/8/2022 at 11:35 AM, kerbiloid said:

The big one is harder to make due to local instabilities, and the technological chain should not be "restored" but "ready to use".

Unlikely they will let ICBM industry just get gone even for a second.

Wait, are you under the impression that the USA needs an excuse to produce ICBM's? Like the same USA that had the cold war with the Soviets?

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Wait, are you under the impression that the USA needs an excuse to produce ICBM's? Like the same USA that had the cold war with the Soviets?

Wut???

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Meaning we build swords and plowshares. 

Sword industry has never been dependent upon plow industry. 

Making plows is just a profitable sideline for some sword manufacturers 

[kerbiloid]

Exactly.

That's why I believe that the Second Moon Race will be first of all an exttra money for SRB/ICBM manufacturers.

And the question is not even in money.
Once having captured such important hill as space rockets, it's not wise to leave it just because you have more money than it brings, and later get requiring its recapture.

[BekfastDerp13]

They need to take money out of the military budget and give nasa 1.5 or 1% more. No need for an over sized budget when we just came out of a war. SLS can speed up production and NASA can do more stuff.

Edited February 11, 2022 by BekfastDerp13

[kerbiloid]

NASA doesn't make the stuff, it manages the contract distribution.

[Beccab]

11 minutes ago, BekfastDerp13 said:

They need to take money out of the military budget and give nasa 1.5 or 1% more. No need for an over sized budget when we just came out of a war. SLS can speed up production and NASA can do more stuff.

The problem of SLS is definitely not money, on recent years congress allocated to it more money than NASA requested and is already twice over budget. SLS like that because it was designed by congressmen (in general design, type of propulsion and even payload target for whatever reason) and built using outdated types of contracts (cost plus to build a SOFI tank, really?) to benefit legacy aerospace contractors. It's a 20th century rocket, no different than the dozens of shuttle derived launch vehicles that were designed since the RS-25 started static fires but with the worse of all problems the modern aerospace industry has