Jump to content

[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

ZooNamedGames

By ZooNamedGames
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

tater

tater

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Consensus in that Twitter thread is that the OP is a troll account 

Could well be. Hopefully so, they need to light that candle, finally.

It might also be that some minor issue was found, and rumors spun it into something it wasn't.

If I get a clear answer, I'll post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Beccab

Beccab

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, tater said:

"Artemis" but really, "SLS/Orion."

 

Has all the Artemis stuff, but you can pull out SLS costs.

Most important parts:
- Artemis I to happen NET summer 2022
- The initial four SLS flights to cost 4.1 billions, of which 2.2 billions are for the pure SLS part and 600 millions for ground equipment

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Beccab said:

- The initial four SLS flights to cost 4.1 billions, of which 2.2 billions are for the pure SLS part and 600 millions for ground equipment

I have to assume the ground includes all testing, refurb, and stacking costs, not physical eqp. Remember that Orion capsules run I think $900M refurbed (?). So some cost is refurb per capsule could easily be 100s of millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
AtomicTech

AtomicTech

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, tater said:

SLS is not changing propellants. Option would be to use one of the other RS-25s, they have several.

Man, I wish that somebody else would use the awesome RS-25s for something other than a setback, overdue government jobs program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

They're only *really* good on a reusable sustainer architecture.

And sadly even that could be marginal. I have not seen detailed data on the RS-25 refurb cost per flight for Shuttle. Comparable new engines, designed for reuse without much work would be the Be-4. If that could be converted to hydrolox, the performance is likely similar to RS-25 as a reality check. Those engines are under $7M each. Any reuse would have to come in with less refurbishing cost than that per engine. If Raptor gets down under a million, then that's the next point they'd have to hit to be competitive—cheaper than Raptor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Staticalliam7

Staticalliam7

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/15/2021 at 1:26 PM, AtomicTech said:

Simple Solution,

Use Superheavy and a discardable specialized upper stage based of Starship with Orion mounted on it.

Everyone wins!

NASA gets a safer rocket,

SpaceX gets more money and flexes on Blue Origin,

and

It would look cool.

problems:

1. that's so cursed

2. starship is way wider than orion and would require a ridiculous adaptor

3. Starship will never EVER be expended. Period. That just won't happen. 

4. CURSED

Edited by Staticalliam7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RCgothic

RCgothic

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Staticalliam7 said:

problems:

1. that's so cursed

2. starship is way wider than orion and would require a ridiculous adaptor

3. Starship will never EVER be expended. Period. That just won't happen. 

4. CURSED

SLS is already way wider than Orion and requires a ridiculous adaptor.

Starship's only 50cm extra each side.

 

And when we say "expendable starship", really, what we mean is take a stainless steel tube and stick a raptor on the back of it. Knocking together an expendable raptor upper stage would be ridiculously easy.

"Starship" may never be deliberately expended, but it's not really not difficult to conceive a version with an upper stage for special payloads. 15m diameter payloads. Deep space missions. Things that require launch escape systems. Those sorts of things, even after they've got orbital refuelling down 

Edited by RCgothic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beccab

Beccab

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Orion's already way wider than SLS and requires a ridiculous adaptor.

Starship's only 50cm extra each side.

 

And when we say "expendable starship", really, what we mean is take a stainless steel tube and stick a raptor on the back of it. Knocking together an expendable raptor upper stage would be ridiculously easy.

"Starship" may never be deliberately expended, but it's not really not difficult to conceive a version with an upper stage for special payloads. 15m diameter payloads. Deep space missions. Things that require launch escape systems. Those sorts of things, even after they've got orbital refuelling down 

Also, it was confirmed that the Superheavy on DearMoon is going to be expended because of the mass required to launch in a TLI without refuelling, so a few Starships being expended wouldn't be unheard of

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RCgothic

RCgothic

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tater said:

?

Orion is 5.03m, and SLS is 8.4m.

ICPS is 5m.

I meant it the other way round. (-_-;)

SLS is way wider than Orion. It needs to be adapted down via ICPS, and EUS is needs adapting just as much. For Superheavy it wouldn't be much more.

Edited by RCgothic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I meant it the other way round. (-_-;)

SLS is way wider than Orion. It needs to be adapted down via ICPS, and EUS is needs adapting just as much. For Superheavy it wouldn't be much more.

Gotcha. It is normal for a crew capsule to be much smaller than the SHLV dia (look at Apollo and N1, the only other examples).

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...