Kibble

Try hard rock before death knows jazz tunes. wdseds

Ever since I learned of SLS's configuration with the five segment boosters and stretched core, I've wondered why they did that, since it just adds developement time. But yesterday I was working to Photoshop (somebody else's) art of Space Shuttle into System, and it seemed to naturally evolve that way. Making the core inline means taking the ogive and making it a cylinder. Since the tank walls are the structure, the tank increased in size - room for a lot more oxygen. That means you have to stretch the hydrogen tank with another ring. But since the interstage between the tanks is the main structure supporting the vehicle from the thrust of the SRBs, it makes it too high for the SRB attachment point, so you have to add another segment. This may just be a coincidence though. Is this (but less stupid, and done by professionals) the design process that led to the current configuration of Space Launch System, or something else entirely? Here's my Photoshop I think it turned out alright. From Skrabek's Rockets of the World

Oh wonderful, big rocket <3

No its me! Who's star whip? Ethanadams

Minor Planets like Cruithne with mean motion resonances never get very close to Earth, by definition. It would take several years of phasing to get it here. It's probably easier to find Minor Planets that are already going to make a close approach, even if at flyby it'll have high relative velocity, cause you are going to use high-efficiency solar electric propulsion anyway.

Kettles have dark sides and sin. rantye

If that information is accurate...wow! Chelomei might of been a bad influence on the Soviet Space Program, but his rocket sure went on to do great things.

Kitchen sinks bring real love from goofy valentines. tpyekiw

I don't like cockpit lights. I do want some more space station parts though! (Hitchhiker is uh-uh-ugly!)

As a dog otherkin, this is my true name. Duchess Kibble Von Kibblestein!

System's core stage is a minimally modified ET - it will fly with the same spray-on orange foam as Shuttle.

Has a haughty aardvark had a hard short happy ski? fuilne

Yay time to get out my big rockets from the sock drawer

Space Shuttle actually does have a pretty good configuration for one particular task - the manual assembly of large multi-modular experimental piloted spacecraft. You launch a module, the OMS to rendezvous, the astronauts to assemble and pilot it, an airlock to EVA from, and a Canadarm to move around the modules and EVA on. Of course, starting in 1998 it was actually used for this to build USOS. It still would never need those big dumb wings though. OTOH the huge black-zones where abort is impossible tempts fate in the most distressing ways. Plus having the heat shield completely exposed during all phases of the flight. I'm sure we're all familiar with the disastrous results of those two flaws. EDIT: You should read The Space Shuttle Decision

You could have it vary with the orbital orbital energy of the transfer. For the Moon it would be transfer perigee speed minus LEO speed. For interplanetary trajectories to superior planets it would be the transfer speed wrt the Sun minus Earth's orbital speed, and for trajectories to inferior planets its Earth's orbital speed minus the transfer speed. Here are some back-of-the-envelope examples 7.533 km/s for Mercury 2.495 km/s for Venus 2.945 km/s for Mars 6.317 km/s for Ceres (Most of the other Asteroids are pretty similar) I think the multiplier should be doubled for bodies without an atmosphere (no aerocapture). Or possibly halved for bodies with an atmosphere. And maybe it could be on a logarithmic scale or something, I don't know. You're the judge, after all!

Actually since it has that big long Truss, it might stabilize itself with the gravity gradient.

MEO is big and empty, cause there's not much reason to go there. The only orbital debris would come from satellites in highly eccentric orbits. Most highly eccentric orbits are Molniya satellites, but they're inclined several degrees wrt Space Station's orbital plane. It would also be well below the altitude of those navigation satellite constellations like GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo. Fregat has thrusters for all degrees of freedom, and you don't need to "redesign" anything! Just put a payload on top consisting of avionics equipment and a docking probe. Fregat is made to have payload attached. The point was you can do it in less Soyuz launches, maybe even just one or two.

Does this mean that scoring for AU excludes multipliers for the celestial body?

The same value as the worn-out hulk of the Great Pyramid of Giza, the worn-out hulk of Stonehenge, or any other monument. Its visually impressive, and a good example of what can be done with international cooperation. In thousands of years people will look in the sky and wonder how and why we built it. Back when we didn't even have the capability to ISRU even basic stuff like water! I meant that as a metaphor - just boost it to a semi major axis of a couple thousand kilometers. EDIT: added below You don't have to use Progress - Soyuz can launch a full Fregat stage with a probe on top to dock where Progress does. Depending on how high you want it to be, it might take a few Fregats, but its still a lot better.

It would cost exactly as much to maintain Space Station as a tourist facility as to maintain it during current nominal operations. But for historical purposes, I wish we could clean the whole thing out, vent the gases, and boost it to a very high graveyard orbit. Depending on the altitude it could stay as a monument to the insatiable spirit of Homo Sapiens for thousands of years.

Its just what I always wanted!! <3

But it doesn't eliminate the problem. To use high-energy fuel you will need to launch the stage last, which means the astronauts might have to wait for a very long time. But even if you launch it last, and try for a first orbit rendezvous, the rendezvous might not be a success and it would take days for the phasing orbit to catch up, and by then the boil-off would be significant enough to affect mission operations. AKA mission abort. Plus you can only launch one stage,or in the time you launch, rendezvous, and dock a second one all the hydrogen leaks out. And limiting the stack to one Earth departure stage is a problem when you're trying to use small rockets. Its not that simple. The on-orbit stack will be an extremely complex multi-module human-rated habitable space laboratory. You need to service it, or it will stop being habitable. That means large-scale logistics for the many months until the next launch window, on the scale of the logistics for any other piloted space facility. I'm talking about available launch vehicles. 20mt-to-LEO rockets exist in abundance because that is about what you need to put a good-size satellite at GEO. Any payload class larger than about 30mt will be dedicated to BEO missions anyway, because no other missions need such a large capacity. And operating and manufacturing a unique rocket will cost about the same whether it lifts 75mt or 175mt. That's the reason orbital assembly is favourable (for large piloted space laboratories) - you can use launch vehicles that are already in production, amortized by their other missions.

I love rocket engine clusters :3

Exactly! Nothing compares to the value of in-production operational space vehicle hardware. Space Launch System won't have liquid boosters because the kerosene pipes at Launch Complex 39 weren't kept operational and ended up rusted-out and useless. We'll never* build any Apollo hardware again just because we shut down the production lines for it </3 *except AJ-10 rocket engine used on Delta-K upper stage and Orion, and R-4D thrusters used on ATV, Orion, and Kounotori

There are more costs to orbital assembly than just having to pay for more rocket launches. It means you can't use high-energy fuel, because boil-off. So your stuck with lower-efficiency storable fuels. It means more failure modes, especially because of so much rendezvous and docking, and if the launch of just one of the modules fails the entire mission has to be aborted, and the modules already on-orbit are wasted effort doing nothing. Also in most cases you're going to have to use fairly big (Proton-class) rockets anyway, or even bigger if you don't want your stack to be a stupidly long chain of 20mt rocket stages. Either way the program would end up with a similar cost and complexity to the assembly of Space Station.