NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[tater]

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

I just cant see the BFR or the new glenn flying in 6 years. Why not keep the Orion and fly it with something like the Vulcan? Using multiple launches and Aces? I think thats far more likely than these giant reusable rockets. Especially the BFR seems incredibly Naive of an idea to me.

NG will certainly be flying in 6 years.

The gap between Falcon 1 and the first Falcon 9 was 2 years. 5 years after first F9 launch booster was landed. I fully expect BFR to be flying (tests) in the timeframe of SLS actually operating. The tests might be grasshopper-like flights, mind you, but it will be flying I bet.

 

[tater]

A guy on NSF posted this possible name for SLS (a real name), but backed off and suggested the next planet.

 SLS follows in the footsteps of Saturn, so clearly it should be callled Uranus.

[NSEP]

49 minutes ago, tater said:

SLS follows in the footsteps of Saturn, so clearly it should be callled Uranus.

SpaceX fanboys will call the SLS "the Reinvented Wheel". Uranus is a terrible name, lets call it George.

I found this video: (keep away from politics while discussing)

 

[tater]

Uranus is pretty descriptive. 

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, tater said:

A guy on NSF posted this possible name for SLS (a real name), but backed off and suggested the next planet.

 SLS follows in the footsteps of Saturn, so clearly it should be callled Uranus.

It's nothing like Saturn, though... Saturn was after Jupiter, it used similar hardware, at least in the Saturn 1 designs, and so that kind of made sense. SLS, on the other hand, is nothing like Saturn. Maybe you could use the RL-10s on EUS as a connection to the S-IV, but that's pushing it. It doesn't even really work in the context of super heavy launch vehicles, since the Space Shuttle was a super heavy launch vehicle (the Orbiter was pretty massive).

And then there's the joke of the situation...

[tater]

I was just editorializing

 

[sjbuggs]

On 11/10/2017 at 10:25 PM, DerekL1963 said:

Yeah, a reliability statistically insignificant from practically any other vehicle is "flawed".

The flaw I speak of isn't just the chance of something going wrong.  It's the inherit flawed idea of placing a crewed vehicle where:

(A) debris lost from lifter could strike the crewed component causing the loss of the crew.

(B) in the event of a major accident on liftoff, no way to abort and save the crew.

Yeah, both shuttle losses could equally be blamed by go-fever at NASA, but that doesn't change the fact that the concept of the shuttle was a failure from both an economic and safety standpoint.

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Saturn was after Jupiter, it used similar hardware

Afaik, SLS does the same with the Shuttle hardware.
So, looks aptly to name SLS  "Weaver".
Or "Sigourney".

10 hours ago, tater said:

Uranus is pretty descriptive. 

How nice, that in Russian -us is always omitted, and "Uran" (oo-rrun) sounds tough.

Edited November 12, 2017 by kerbiloid

[tater]

"Senator Shelby, I'm pleased to tell you that Uranus is huge, and now ready to be sent into space."

[DAL59]

21 hours ago, tater said:

The tests might be grasshopper-like flights, mind you, but it will be flying I bet.

He confirmed that in the reddit AMA.  He also said he will use the BFR spacecraft as a no payload SSTO.  (!)

[tater]

Saying something is not proof that it will happen. I am saying that I think it will likely be flying at least grasshopper style by that point in time.

Many craft are no-payload SSTOs, BTW. If a payload mass fraction is something like 4%, then if you can get the dry mass of a booster to ~4%, you have an SSTO. A useless SSTO, but an SSTO.

[PB666]

On 5/15/2017 at 2:13 PM, tater said:

NASA is apparently looking into a Delta IV Heavy launch for Orion (launch abort test at max Q?).

Seems like a FH could be modified for the same task for less than the difference between 90 M$ and 375 M$ (D IVH).

Delta VI has better mains.

[NSEP]

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Delta VI has better mains.

You mean Delta IV right?

[tater]

For a launch abort test it seems like cheaper would be better, though I have no idea if that was what that was for (old post).

The more I pay attention to SLS, the less I like it, lol.

[PB666]

19 hours ago, NSEP said:

SpaceX fanboys will call the SLS "the Reinvented Wheel". Uranus is a terrible name, lets call it George.

I found this video: (keep away from politics while discussing)

 

More Vapor-ware.

[PB666]

My thoughts on this:

The least likely agency to make a near future moon colony is the ESA, The EU simply takes too long to do anything and everything is too political

The second least likely is the current administration, In fact if they say there is going to be a space colony on the moon, it registers in my mind as most likely a colony at the Bal-Mara resort in Florida, complete with play-boy space vixens dressed up a venusians serving $1,000,000,000 cocktails to any international visitors that want "the very best [insert superlative] space experience in the Wwwwhhhhoooolllllleeeee Universe".

The third least likely are the Russians, despite the past failures of the Russians, Putin generally does what he says (although check your pockets later because its likely he will not have paid for it [Proceeds on Moonland space resort in Bal Mara]).

The most likely first new colony built on the Moon is likely to be the Chinese. (Expect a bunch of fatalities, but they got the guts we lost after the 70's), no big fan of Chinese science but they will get it done.

Why is it that each new administration feels fit to jerk NASA's chain?

 

[DAL59]

I think that SpaceX (or some other company )is going to be paid by the US to race China.   

[kerbiloid]

1. 70% probablity. Noone.
2. 25% probability.  By cost: 60% NASA + 10% ESA + 10%JAXA + 10% Roscosmos. The rest 10% - NASA again, but without pleasure.
3. 5%. We'll find an alien lunar base.

Edited November 12, 2017 by kerbiloid

[tater]

SLS will continue via inertia, at least until it is patently obvious it is ridiculous. That will happen when SLS missions can all be done more than 10x cheaper by commercial systems. I’m pretty sure that it would already be 10x cheaper with extant commercial launchers, actually. So maybe 20x cheaper, lol.

[Bill Phil]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Afaik, SLS does the same with the Shuttle hardware.
So, looks aptly to name SLS  "Weaver".
Or "Sigourney".

Kind of. The only real Shuttle hardware on SLS is the SSME. The SRBs had to be redesigned, the ET had to be completely redesigned to handle an upper stage above it and engines below it. It's barely Shuttle derived, which is probably why it's taking so long... maybe they should've just dropped the Shuttle hardware...

[DerekL1963]

13 hours ago, DAL59 said:

I think that SpaceX (or some other company )is going to be paid by the US to race China. 

First China has to be in a race.  They aren't, and aren't going to be anytime soon.  They've got just (barely) enough of a space program to be considered a Major Nation and not a yuan's worth more.

The whole idea of China being in a race is created of whole cloth by clueless space fanboys who want to relive Apollo.

[James Kerman]

35 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

The whole idea of China being in a race is created of whole cloth by clueless space fanboys who want to relive Apollo.

Actually China is doing a lot in space for a lot less than NASA.  I'm quite sure the spacefaring nations take them seriously.

In the last 18 months China has launched three pioneering space science missions – the DAMPE dark matter probe, Shijian-10 retrievable microgravity probe, and the QUESS quantum science satellite.

They have plans to fly a reusable spaceplane by 2020:
https://www.space.com/38662-china-launch-space-plane-2020.html

Reusable Rockets:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/17/a-new-spacex-china-developing-system-to-recover-reuse-space-rockets.html

Last year China beat Russia in launches:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z43kex/china-russia-usa-annual-rocket-launches

They have a 2nd generation station that's doing research on Quantum communication among other things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Experiments_at_Space_Scale

Many other examples:
https://gbtimes.com/channel/chinas-space-program
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/28/china-new-space-superpower-lunar-mars-missions

Edited November 13, 2017 by James Kerman
Changed wording

[DerekL1963]

53 minutes ago, James Kerman said:

Actually China is doing a lot in space

Um, so what?  I didn't say they weren't.  I said they weren't pushing the boundaries, and they aren't starting a race.
 

1 hour ago, James Kerman said:

I'm quite sure the spacefaring nations take them seriously.

No offense, but did you actually read what I wrote?  Because nowhere did I write anything that could possibly be understood as claiming that nobody took them seriously.  In fact, I very specifically wrote that they were trying to be taken seriously.

[James Kerman]

Sorry, mate - It read to me like you were being critical of their program, my mistake. I was also responding to the point that you don't think China is in a race.  It seems to me that they are pushing very hard to become equals if not leaders in space technology.

[DerekL1963]

16 hours ago, James Kerman said:

Sorry, mate - It read to me like you were being critical of their program, my mistake. I was also responding to the point that you don't think China is in a race.  It seems to me that they are pushing very hard to become equals if not leaders in space technology.

No, I was being critical of the idiots who are trying to map the current Chinese onto the 1950's Soviet Union - and then use that as a justification for reigniting the Space Race.  But the problem is, the Chinese aren't racing.  There's no value to be had in it, as space is no longer the proxy from ICBM's and technological superiority of political systems.

Instead, what have is the more normal sort of international competition. where they're trying to been as equals or maybe modestly in the lead.   The latter is a particular point to pay attention to, as while space 'racing' doesn't have much international value it still has considerable internal propaganda value.   Much more so in China than in the US, where it's propaganda value is essentially zero if not negative.