What do you think of the SLS?

[MrZayas1]

Wondering what you guys think of the new NASA development, the Space Launch System. I personally think that instead of making a new rocket, they should just stick to the guns of the past! They worked perfectly fine and we could give them a facelift, what do you think?

[SuperFastJellyfish]

Wondering what you guys think of the new NASA development, the Space Launch System. I personally think that instead of making a new rocket, they should just stick to the guns of the past! They worked perfectly fine and we could give them a facelift, what do you think?

It would be great if there were more than two payloads planned for it.

[Seret]

"If you build it, they will come" is not a responsible way to spend public funds. The payload should always come first.

[quasarrgames]

Would have preferred a redesign for the space shuttle. Maybe stick a NERVA on it for testing purposes, then later for actual application.

[Wahgineer]

Wondering what you guys think of the new NASA development, the Space Launch System. I personally think that instead of making a new rocket, they should just stick to the guns of the past! They worked perfectly fine and we could give them a facelift, what do you think?

Guess what the SLS is. (hint: compare the Saturn V and the SLS side-by-side.)

[sgt_flyer]

well, a saturn V launch would be priced around 1.2 billion with the adjusted prices. (Most of the parts were handcrafted, which accounts for a huge amount of required man-hours to build one - and that is extremely costly)

Nasa is targeting a 500 million launch cost for SLS.

Check the cost problems of the RL-10 engine, that's the same problem you would be facing with rebuilding saturn V (all of those systems would have to be rethinked almost from scratch to be able to produce them with a more industrial approach.)

After that, SLS first versions is just a matter of reusing what has already been built and proven with the space shuttle.

[VirtualCLD]

Would have preferred a redesign for the space shuttle. Maybe stick a NERVA on it for testing purposes, then later for actual application.

Or you know, a mission specific shuttle design. You want a human-rated shuttle? then design it for carrying humans ONLY, a la Dream Chaser. Want to send moderate sized non-human payloads, build a cargo ONLY shuttle a la X-37 (even X-37 may be too big). Never do all-in-one in this field, it's not going to work. That's one of many reasons why the shuttle/orbiter didn't do so well. That being said, I don''t have much faith in Dream Chaser and the X-37 is overkill and not necessary for putting non-human payloads in orbit (just stick the payload on top of a rocket with fairings, done).

Mission/payload specific designs are key, at least for now. Eventually it would be nice to have variants (which we kind of have now) such as airplane variants of the same model.

[Redhotita1]

The SLS it's just awesome! New Technology, new design. The Saturn V/Apollo style it's just epic, i don't like the SLS/Altair and SLS/Orion, but it's more efficient than a Saturn V, first the money, right?

[Dkmdlb]

Would have preferred a redesign for the space shuttle.

The space shuttle was rightly put out of its misery. Unless you are talking about a brand new kind of system merely "inspired by" the shuttle, there were so many problems with that system that it's not worth doing a second iteration.

[Streetwind]

New Technology, new design.

Except that it's old technology Space shuttle engines, space shuttle solid boosters, space shuttle tanks.

That doesn't mean that that's bad - the engines for example are the highest Isp chemical rocket engines that have ever seen service in the history of spaceflight, and the solid boosters are the single most powerful rocket motors overall flown in the history of spaceflight. These things should be well up to the task, and reusing them saves a lot of money.

That said, I am sticking by the mantra I keep repeating: ask me to judge the SLS again after it has flown. Until it flies, there's nothing proven. It's all theory for now, and only a successful launch will change that.

[The Jedi Master]

The space shuttle was rightly put out of its misery. Unless you are talking about a brand new kind of system merely "inspired by" the shuttle, there were so many problems with that system that it's not worth doing a second iteration.

I don't know why people say this. There were terrible tragedies, yes, but it worked perfectly fine otherwise. It was a (relatively) cheap way to go to space. Now SLS is going to be that.

[xenomorph555]

I'm gonna say it now, the sls, is the ugliest rocket ever created... bad name as well. Plus the solild boosters "I got an idea lets kill another crew". I doubt it will cost what they say, probably over 3-4 times as much.

[Streetwind]

I don't know why people say this. There were terrible tragedies, yes, but it worked perfectly fine otherwise. It was a (relatively) cheap way to go to space.

No, it was an insanely expensive way to go to space. It had unique capabilities that no other craft had, but if all you were after was "going to space", other options would have served you for a fraction of the price.

Not sure where I heard it, might have been a Scott Manley video of some description, but apparently someone did the math and determined that if you fueled the entire Falcon 9 purely with dollar bills, it would still be cheaper on a price per kg basis than the space shuttle.

[Guest]

Yeah, the Shuttle was just too costly. It did have some interesting capabilities, but after the ISS was complete, the need for them wasn't so great. Dragon could probably do just as much as the Shuttle with a bigger lifter to support additional lab modules, and even station construction could be done with space tugs or simply adding RCS to the modules, Russian style.

[nettcod]

I personally think that instead of making a new rocket, they should just stick to the guns of the past! They worked perfectly fine and we could give them a facelift, what do you think?

So bring back the Saturn V? That's possible, but probably not very practical. Most of the plans and documents for it were lost, and it was made using outdated manufacturing techniques. We've forgotten how to make them. It's probably easier and cheaper just to start over and build a brand new rocket than to revive and modernize an old one from the '60s.

Edited April 24, 2014 by nettcod

[sgt_flyer]

So bring back the Saturn V? That's possible, but probably not very practical. Most of the plans and documents for it were lost, and it was made using outdated manufacturing techniques. We've forgotten how to make them. It's probably easier and cheaper just to start over and build a brand new rocket than to revive and modernize an old one from the '60s.

Totally agree with that besides, most of the materials used at this time would be considered subpar - or way too expensive compared to current materials technology. (The physics of what happened in those engines could not be simulated back then)

And if you start changing some materials, you'll end up changing everything else too, due to different physical properties.

I wonder, if a Saturn V could be even Man Rated with current standards, if we rebuilt a new one with exactly the same materials / techniques used back then.

[Tex]

I thought it was pretty cool that the J-2 engines on it were the same as the main engines on the Space Shuttle, and using a cluster of four of them was something I had never thought of.

[Dkmdlb]

It was a (relatively) cheap way to go to space. Now SLS is going to be that.

The cost of the program averaged over the number of launches gives you a per-launch cost of $450 MILLION! When you average that over the life of the program and adjust for inflation that number triples. Meanwhile, the Ariane 5 and Delta IV heavy can do the same payloads for one third to one-half the cost, and don't require you to send up 7 people into space on solid fuel boosters. A lot of the time, they didn't even send up anything near that payload. On STS 134 they sent up the 5,200 lb Galileo probe on the shuttle. That's what - $86,000 per pound to low earth orbit at $450 million per launch?? They did other experiments on the shuttle, but nothing that couldn't have been done on a Soyuz or on the ISS.

The cost was insanely high. A falcon 9 can do $4,000 per pound to low earth orbit.

The shuttle sucked for reasons others have mentioned.

[jwenting]

SLS will have the same flaws as the Shuttle. Overpriced, underperforming, poor safety record.

That's inevitable given the way NASA works, and the way the congress appoints budgets based not on what's needed but on what buys the most votes (and thus spreading contracts over as many congressional districts as possible, never mind the cost overruns, quality failures, and other problems that causes).

[Dkmdlb]

I agree with everything you said 100%.

[SargeRho]

And so far they don't actually appear to have said problems. As far as I am aware, it's on budget and on schedule.

[mdatspace]

The SLS has no payloads for interplanetary missions.

It is on budget and schedule, but for how long...

[Javster]

Pointless, IMO. NASA's budget is too small for it. I hope it doesn't just become a way to the ISS...

[Duxwing]

SLS will have the same flaws as the Shuttle. Overpriced, underperforming, poor safety record.

That's inevitable given the way NASA works, and the way the congress appoints budgets based not on what's needed but on what buys the most votes (and thus spreading contracts over as many congressional districts as possible, never mind the cost overruns, quality failures, and other problems that causes).

The shuttle, however expensive, did its job and killed only two crews during one-hundred-thirty-five flights.

---

On topic, I regret my vote. NASA had few alternatives: aspargus-staging Common Booster Cores provides too many failure points, and rebuilding the Saturn V is impossible. Whereas a single-core, two-and-a-half stage lifter is sufficient and simple, and its SRBs are not inherently dangerous. In my limited KSP experience, SLS parts have made lifting enormous payloads almost trivial and could greatly accelerate my LKO development. This rocket is to nowhere but the future.

-Duxwing

[Nibb31]

"only" two crews is 12 people too many.

We been through this discussion dozens of times already. SLS is on budget and on schedule, but it will have a similar fixed infrastructure cost as the Shuttle (the only real savings will be the recovery ships and SCAs). Currently, only the two test flights EM-1 in 2017 and EM-2 in 2021 are manifested. After that, NASA plans on a maximum flight rate of one launch per year. Only two Orion service modules have been ordered from ESA. There are no missions for the SLS, no payloads, and no money to develop any until SLS is operational. It takes time to develop payloads and mission modules, which means that there will be a gap of several years between EM-2 and any future missions. It is unlikely that it will survive that gap.