What do you think of the SLS?

[KASASpace]

well, you have 2 stages and a half for example

saying 2 stage and halves would make little sense

Hmm, so 2 stages. I don't know why I thought it said "stages and a half" as in multiple rockets.

Wait, what do you mean by 2 and a half stages?

Do you mean the payload has to operate as its own stage as well?

[sgt_flyer]

Hmm, so 2 stages. I don't know why I thought it said "stages and a half" as in multiple rockets.

Wait, what do you mean by 2 and a half stages?

Do you mean the payload has to operate as its own stage as well?

Well, for the two Energia launchs, buran circularized on it's own ofter separating from the core stage, and the satellite they launched with it had to do the same. (But it failed to do it properly and fell back in atmosphere)

The Soyuz spacecraft also circularize on it's own after separation from the Block I.

Even then, those launchers bring the spacecrafts the closest possible to LEO, (so the spacecraft only needs a few D/V to circularize) and the upper stage then fall back into atmosphere (to prevent too much additional debris in orbit)

Example : soyuz : the 4 boosters + the core stage are fired at launch, but the core stage has more fuel than the boosters. Those boosters are dropped when empty, but the core stage is now light enough with all the burned fuel to continue it's ascent.

Then the upper stage is started, and bring the spacecraft (or a Fregat transfer stage + payload) to almost full LEO (periapsis still in atmo) then the spacecraft finalize it 's insertion and perform it's mission.

So the spacecraft / transfer stages are generally ommited in the 'stages to orbit' count.

Edited April 29, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[KASASpace]

Interesting........

It helps to keep the Kessler syndrome low, but then again, other launch vehicles don't always do the same.

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

I don't see that much use for it, because unless NASA get the public support of the Apollo days, it won't be going far. NASA is way underfunded, anyway.

[Rastaman]

He who has the largest rocket controls space. And he who controls space, the world.

Cost is irrelevant considering what's at stake: Everything. It could be ten or a hundred times as expensive, they'd still have to do it (and they did in the 60s). There are more important things in the world than economics and efficiency, and that is absolute capability. One look at the US defense budget will confirm this. The economy of space launch systems is a fake debate. It doesn't matter for the trillion dollar military.

The powers that be in China know and intend to build their very own SLS, the Long March 9. Still, it is likely the Americans will get there first. It's called "Full Spectrum Dominance". And without control of space you don't dominate anything.

Independent development of significant space hardware and infrastructure by private companies is science fantasy. Risks and costs are always socialized. If we waited for private enterprise to create anything substantial infrastructure wise (aka the important achievements of civilization), we'd still be living on trees.

[Dkmdlb]

He who has the largest rocket controls space. And he who controls space, the world.

Citation needed. Specifically, please cite that the world is controlled by spacefaring superpowers.

Cost is irrelevant considering what's at stake: Everything.

'Everything' is not at stake.

It could be ten or a hundred times as expensive, they'd still have to do it (and they did in the 60s). There are more important things in the world than economics and efficiency, and that is absolute capability.

Please explain why there has been a 40 year gap since the 60's when "they" did "it."

One look at the US defense budget will confirm this.

Nope. Looking at the defense budget shows exactly the opposite. Absolute capability isn't as important as they (and you) think. For evidence of this, look at Afghanistan: where superpowers go to die at the hands of third world sheep farmers.

The economy of space launch systems is a fake debate.

False. It is a real debate. It's only a fake debate for people who are willing to point guns at others to take their money to fund their space launch systems. In the real world, cost and efficiency take center stage.

It's called "Full Spectrum Dominance". And without control of space you don't dominate anything.

This is silly hyperbole.

Independent development of significant space hardware and infrastructure by private companies is science fantasy.

This ignores significant facts vis a vis private companies developing space hardware and infrastructure.

Risks and costs are always socialized.

Only under socialism.

If we waited for private enterprise to create anything substantial infrastructure wise (aka the important achievements of civilization), we'd still be living on trees.

Citation needed. Private industry produces many of the important achievements of civilization. Also, according to your logic, public infrastructure subsidies and works programs were formed WHILE OUR ANCESTORS WERE STILL LIVING IN TREES!! So I think it's safe to assume that you are exaggerating, and using hyperbole and outright false statements to make your silly point.

[cantab]

Since the Soviets failed to launch Polyus, nobody has made a credible attempt to "control" space. And until there is an outright war or desire for outright war between two superpowers, nobody will.

[Seret]

Private industry produces many of the important achievements of civilization.

This is undeniable. For example: the entire Industrial Revolution, including big infrastructure projects like the railways and electricity grid. The influence of government spending on it was peripheral at best and largely involved them adopting innovations that had already been developed.

[Nibb31]

This is undeniable. For example: the entire Industrial Revolution, including big infrastructure projects like the railways and electricity grid. The influence of government spending on it was peripheral at best and largely involved them adopting innovations that had already been developed.

That really depends on where you live.

In Europe, most of the large power and transport infrastructures, and even a large chunk of the heavy industries (mining, aerospace, automobile, power, etc...), were initiated, developed, and controlled by the government until the 1980's.

[Seret]

That really depends on where you live.

In Europe, most of the large power and transport infrastructures, and even a large chunk of the heavy industries (mining, aerospace, automobile, power, etc...), were initiated, developed, and controlled by the government until the 1980's.

During the 20th century, yes, but not during the Industrial Revolution. Take the first country to industrialise, the UK. The railways, national grid, coal mines, etc were built and operated as private enterprises until they were nationalised in 1947. The canals were also privately built, the only reason they were never nationalised is because they were no longer useful by the time the political fashion had turned to nationalisation of infrastructure in the mid-20th century. In the 19th century heyday of the Industrial Revolution it was private entrepreneurs like Brunel, Stephenson, Watt and Boulton all the way.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Seret

[Wahgineer]

NASA knows that low energy rockets are cheaper, because the price of LH2 is large,

Hydrogen? Expensive? You can get the stuff from water! Heck, you can get the Lox from water, too! If anything, Nasa should work on a cheap way to separate water into it's base components. That way, it can make its own fuel AND make the integration of fuel cell car infrastructure easier.

[Red Iron Crown]

Hydrogen? Expensive? You can get the stuff from water! Heck, you can get the Lox from water, too! If anything, Nasa should work on a cheap way to separate water into it's base components. That way, it can make its own fuel AND make the integration of fuel cell car infrastructure easier.

Hard to imagine a cheaper way than electrolysis for decomposing water. It uses our common energy infrastructure and the actual decomposition apparatus is just a couple of electrodes. There's some complexity in the hydrogen capture/storage system, but that will be true whatever the method used.

You can get hydrogen for cheaper by decomposing hydrocarbons, but there are environmental implications.

[Nibb31]

Making hydrogen is cheap. Handling and storing it is something else.

[Wahgineer]

Making hydrogen is cheap. Handling and storing it is something else.

It's like handling any other flammable gas (including O2): with extreme caution.

[Duxwing]

That 2 million is still more than the 1 million it actually cost Company A

Run the model for more turns, and the price drops--1.5, 1.25, 1.125, ...--to some price wherebelow the last company standing no longer finds making rockets for NASA worthwhile and whereabove NASA is not willing to pay that company. In general, this price movement is called the Invisible Hand and moves almost any price to equilibrium.

Also, even if 2 million were the equilibrium price, it's 2 million less than the original 4 million dollar price.

-Duxwing

[Nibb31]

It's like handling any other flammable gas (including O2): with extreme caution.

No. The problem with H2 is that it's extremely hard to contain. H2 is the smallest molecule, so just about any material is porous to it. it as dense as possible. You need to keep it liquid because as soon as it warms up, it's going to bleed through any container. This is why they use cryogenics and constant topping up of tanks.

[KASASpace]

Hydrogen? Expensive? You can get the stuff from water! Heck, you can get the Lox from water, too! If anything, Nasa should work on a cheap way to separate water into it's base components. That way, it can make its own fuel AND make the integration of fuel cell car infrastructure easier.

Oh, you can get H2 easy. It costs large amounts of energy and thus money to cool it down to it's boiling point. Then you have to actually STORE and transport the thing.......

[KSK]

Jumping back a page or two...

I think at best the SLS will provide two truly spectacular demo flights. I'd dearly love to be wrong but I just don't think the funding will be there to support the kind of missions that it makes sense to launch on the SLS.

I'm actually far more excited about SpaceX, although again, I'm not at all sure they'll do much beyond LEO other than a couple of publicity stunt flights around the Moon (which wouldn't stop me getting ridiculously excited about them ) My gut feeling is that the SpaceX approach of reusability and commonality is the right one, although there are some good contradictory arguments to that on this thread.

If I had to bet on any organisation to kick off an era of cool space stuff though, it would surely be SpaceX.

[NFUN]

This may have been posted earlier in the thread, and I am sorry to be a pedant, but it should be "They should have just went to the Moon", not 'should of'.

[Red Iron Crown]

This may have been posted earlier in the thread, and I am sorry to be a pedant, but it should be "They should have just went to the Moon", not 'should of'.

No, it should be "They should have just gone to the Moon."

[Dkmdlb]

No, it should be "They should have just gone to the Moon."

You are so pendantic.

[Javster]

You are so pendantic.

*pedantic

(For irony's sake)

[Red Iron Crown]

You are so pendantic.

I am sometimes, it's true. I try to resist, but when someone makes a grammatical error correcting someone else's grammatical error, it's too much for me.

[NFUN]

I am sometimes, it's true. I try to resist, but when someone makes a grammatical error correcting someone else's grammatical error, it's too much for me.

When I was first writing the comment I had written gone instead of went. I changed it back because I didn't think it was an important enough quirk to deserve correction. I find it a little obnoxious when somebody writes a sentence and every other word is nitpicked unnecessarily, but that is just my opinion, man.

We should probably get back on topic; the last 5 posts or so have been about this.

[Seret]

To be fair, if you'e going to try and correct someone else's grammar and then you stuff the grammar up yourself, you're fair game.