DAL59 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 13 hours ago, tater said: I'm clearly not an SLS fan, but that doesn't mean that it's a piece of junk. I mean... you could launch the same payload on 2 FH's for 1/10 the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, DAL59 said: I mean... you could launch the same payload on 2 FH's for 1/10 the cost. True, but sometimes its not easy to split a payload in half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 45 minutes ago, NSEP said: True, but sometimes its not easy to split a payload in half. I think SLS payload fairing will also be quite a bit bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 5 hours ago, DAL59 said: I mean... you could launch the same payload on 2 FH's for 1/10 the cost. I have a 10 m diameter payload that is taller than it is wide. How do we cut it to fit on FH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Spoiler 2 hours ago, tater said: I have a 10 m diameter payload that is taller than it is wide. How do we cut it to fit on FH? Space-X would make a Falcon Jumbo, six-around-one, with 7*9 = 63 engines. And put a common fairing ring on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Hide contents Space-X would make a Falcon Jumbo, six-around-one, with 7*9 = 63 engines. And put a common fairing ring on top. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi1291 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, NSEP said: True, but sometimes its not easy to split a payload in half. 6 hours ago, tater said: I have a 10 m diameter payload that is taller than it is wide. How do we cut it to fit on FH? Just for the difference in cost you could probably hire an army of engineers to engineer that payload into two! SLS is just an excuse to spend money. Taxpayer money, which they would have no matter what (as long as they dont cancel SLS), and spending that is better than just sitting on it Edited February 10, 2018 by rudi1291 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 11 hours ago, tater said: I have a 10 m diameter payload that is taller than it is wide. How do we cut it to fit on FH? Don't build a 10m payload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Nibb31 said: Don't build a 10m payload. Habitat ? Trusses ? Heatshield ? PVs ? The way forward is larger. It's human nature (unless it's not for humans). True that BFR will come though. Maybe if BFR's assembly will involve all states, SLS will be ditched and they'd put the money on BFR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Nibb31 said: Don't build a 10m payload. Having greater payload diameter offers enormous economies of scale, especially when it comes to tanks and habitats. Imagine if the ISS used Skylab-diameter modules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 OK, so you don't make a 10m diameter hab. You really want to be stuck with 5 meters? Falcon wasn't designed to loft habs, it's too skinny. It's not ideal for lofting large payloads, and the benefit of the extra mass to LEO is nothing but propellant, nothing else is mass limited. This can have use, clearly, but it doesn't get large items to orbit, it gets the same, small items to orbit with extra dv. Remember, I'm as hateful of SLS as anyone here, but this nonsense about FH doing what SLS does is silly. If you are going to make that argument, use NG, not FH. Or NG with tank refills from FH. Sometimes it's about volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 FH a GTO and beyond kinda lifter, not really a LEO one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 12 minutes ago, NSEP said: FH a GTO and beyond kinda lifter, not really a LEO one. Exactly. Same payloads (or slightly more massive), but delivered to GEO with full tanks, vs GTO with the sat using its own props to circularize. And reusable into the bargain. It's not really a substitute for SLS. I'd have scrapped SLS years ago, don't get me wrong. It does, however, have capabilities that FH lacks. Not just mass, but volume to orbit. Not that I care, I think that it first needs a purpose, then you make a rocket for that payload---unless you can actually make something so cheap that you can overbuild it... and we'll see how that works with BFR/BFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 3 hours ago, YNM said: The way forward is larger. Or inflatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, rudi1291 said: Just for the difference in cost you could probably hire an army of engineers to engineer that payload into two! I will give you a free cookie if you manage to split a gaint space telescope in half, make both halves fit inside a Falcon Heavy payload fairing, and then reassemble it in space without any help around, and without damaging it. I would rather just wait a while for the SLS to pop up into existence and pay those 500 million dollars for a ride on the SLS to be honest. Edited February 10, 2018 by NSEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, NSEP said: I will give you a free cookie if you manage to split a gaint space telescope in half, make both halves fit inside a Falcon Heavy payload fairing, and then reassemble it in space without any help around, and without damaging it. I would rather just wait a while for the SLS to pop up into existence and pay those 500 million dollars for a ride on the SLS to be honest. Interferometer. Reassembly not required. Edited February 10, 2018 by RCgothic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 21 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Interferometer. Reassembly not required. Here, have this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZooNamedGames Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 As much as I admit that SLS isn't what we want, what I want even less is for us to just resign use BFR; a vehicle that doesn't even exist beyond paper, has not been tested. I love what SpaceX is doing for the aerospace industry but as a whole I think that SpaceX is a one trick pony. Even the Falcon Heavy is just the same trick three times (and is massively impressive), but wholly useless as a whole seeing as others have mentioned that it's payload size is smaller than what the Atlas V offers (least iirc). It may reduce costs but limits scale and until I see BFR begin any major development milestones past just engine tests, I just can't support resigning all future developments to a machine that doesn't exist, as that loops to the same issue we had in the 80s. Relying on proposed vehicles and concepts we should have by [20 years past date]. As bad as SLS is, it at least is being developed and is guaranteed funding. SpaceX is funded by investors and goes where the money trail is. So if a massive new contract lands at their doorstep or a large portion of their investors decides that the next big step is a lunar colony and that Falcon 9 Expendable is the future, then they may have to halt development until money returns. To me, BFR is just Sea Dragon 2. It's big and it holds great promise, but only exists on paper. Meanwhile the expensive SLS is currently being tested and is being developed and has left the blueprints and is becoming a reality with every passing day. Musk has set markers for what we should expect as far as when it should start development and should begin flying but as Falcon Heavy has proven to me, is that every time Musk releases an approximate date for a new development, the time to that point should be multiplied by 4 for the real timeframe of when it'll operate. As Falcon Heavy was slated to fly in 2013 but was delayed and ultimately required a massive overhaul (dropping fuel crossfeed amongst other notions) into it's form that recently flew. Not to mention many of the benefits of the manned Dragon V2 are having to be dropped (such as propulsive landing) as time goes on making this shiny upgrade slowly dull and slowly shift the same way as the SLS. So just don't expect me to rooting for team SpaceX for a while when it comes down to super heavy lifters of the future. Musk has repeatedly shown that his promises are hollow. NASA's promises are weak and slow, but at least the rocket doesn't keep changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said: Musk has repeatedly shown that his promises are hollow. NASA's promises are weak and slow, but at least the rocket doesn't keep changing. His promises WRT space are not hollow at all. They have achieved what he claimed so far, though the timing has slipped, clearly. So has the timing on other vehicles in the same dev path , even with nearly twice the funding (CST-100). Changing the rocket is a Good Thingtm. Not changing a design is a sunk cost fallacy in action. SLS/Orion rook the Constellation design, and changed it, without a mission plan. The US and SM don't cut it for lunar missions. They would have a better vehicle with a clean slate design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said: until I see BFR begin You won't have to wait long. It should be testing by the end of 2019. 1 hour ago, NSEP said: : Sorry, the cookie is too big to fit in the payload faring. Please split it in two so I can eat for 1/10 the cost. Edited February 10, 2018 by DAL59 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZooNamedGames Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 23 minutes ago, tater said: His promises WRT space are not hollow at all. They have achieved what he claimed so far, though the timing has slipped, clearly. So has the timing on other vehicles in the same dev path , even with nearly twice the funding (CST-100). Changing the rocket is a Good Thingtm. Not changing a design is a sunk cost fallacy in action. SLS/Orion rook the Constellation design, and changed it, without a mission plan. The US and SM don't cut it for lunar missions. They would have a better vehicle with a clean slate design. Issue is majority of the appeal of his plans have fallen short. A reusable means for heavy lift to L/MEO has been abandoned with the decaying support for Falcon Heavy. Dragon V2 is no longer propulsive, BFR had to be shrunk, Falcon Heavy fuel crossfeed was abandoned, manned missions aboard the Falcon Heavy was also abandoned. I'm sorry but it's this questionable track record that has been apprehensive to support him. 1 minute ago, DAL59 said: You won't have to wait long. It should be testing by the end of 2019. Meanwhile the SLS will be on a launchpad by the same date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 12 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said: Meanwhile the SLS will be on a launchpad by the same date. It is delayed to 2023, remember ealier in the thread? Also, EM-2 will be after the BFR starts manned launches, I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZooNamedGames Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, DAL59 said: It is delayed to 2023, remember ealier in the thread? Also, EM-2 will be after the BFR starts manned launches, I bet. Imo most of this thread is just bashing of ideas of any kind. So I don't spend much time here. Meanwhile, December and January reports I've read state EM-2 is still on course for 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said: Imo most of this thread is just bashing of ideas of any kind. So I don't spend much time here. Meanwhile, December and January reports I've read state EM-2 is still on course for 2019. Em-1 is set for Late 2019 or early 2020. 10 minutes ago, DAL59 said: It is delayed to 2023, remember ealier in the thread? Also, EM-2 will be after the BFR starts manned launches, I bet. Thats just 5 years. BFR won‘t even fly unmanned in that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZooNamedGames Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Just now, Canopus said: Em-1 is set for Late 2019 or early 2020. From what I read it was December, and all December launches are (in my mind) just the same year since launches often straddle the line as we've seen (*cough* Falcon Heavy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts