NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[kerbiloid]

Shocked. So instead of utilizing the waste heat as soon as possible, close to the reactor, and keeping cool cryotanks far from the fire, they put the cryotanks between the hot radiators and very hot reactor.

Though, now I see who are those two guys on the panel. A plumber fixes the leakage, and his apprentice gives him wrenches and duct tape.

[DDE]

21 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Though, now I see who are those two guys on the panel. A plumber fixes the leakage, and his apprentice gives him wrenches and duct tape.

And nether of them die from the radioactive fusion reactor.

Spoiler

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[CSE]

This happens to me, too. I start a new career save to go colonize known space and then get carried away and spend nine-tenths of the game building bases / stations / depots and other infrastructure instead of putting boots on regolith as I intended.

[sh1pman]

 

[insert_name]

Looks like they changed their mind about building a second service tower

http://spacenews.com/nasa-no-longer-seeking-to-develop-second-mobile-launcher-for-sls/

[tater]

They didn’t really change their mind, they have been saying that the delay was 33 months between launches forever. More like they decided not to change their minds.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, tater said:

They didn’t really change their mind, they have been saying that the delay was 33 months between launches forever. More like they decided not to change their minds.

Someone is reading the writing on the wall.

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, tater said:

33 months between launches forever

That is kind of a problem...  how are they supposed to do a 12 launch Mars mission?  Over 30 years?  

[Canopus]

5 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

That is kind of a problem...  how are they supposed to do a 12 launch Mars mission?  Over 30 years?  

Thats only the gap between the first and second launches.

[DAL59]

Just now, Canopus said:

Thats only the gap between the first and second launches.

Still.  Compare that to 6 months between FH launches.  

[Canopus]

Just now, DAL59 said:

Still.  Compare that to 6 months between FH launches.  

We get it you are a fan, no need to bring SpaceX up on any occasion.

[tater]

The 33 month delay is partially the MLS, but also the VAB needs to be reconfigured, as well, since EM-1 is flying as a 1-off version of SLS/Orion, that basically only tests the SRBs and core. Nothing else about the stack is final. ICPS won't get used for Orion again, and the Orion CSM is not flight article for crew.

An utter waste of time, IMHO. If they are only actually testing the core and side boosters, they might as well have put something useful on top.

[T-10a]

As bad as this seems, it's still better than nothing. I see the SLS as definitely a pork project, but also NASA using it as a "safe bet" in case the better private SHLV rockets do not come to fruition as fast as NASA likes (as well as getting every last drop of Congressional funds to help NASA do NASA things. If they drop SLS, it'll probably be replaced by either an even worse boondoggle or severely hurt NASA to the tune of "JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS", and there's no guarantee Congress wants to shift funds away from their beloved sectors to SpaceX/Boeing/Blue Origin/other private companies.)

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The 33 month delay is partially the MLS, but also the VAB needs to be reconfigured, as well, since EM-1 is flying as a 1-off version of SLS/Orion, that basically only tests the SRBs and core. Nothing else about the stack is final. ICPS won't get used for Orion again, and the Orion CSM is not flight article for crew.

An utter waste of time, IMHO. If they are only actually testing the core and side boosters, they might as well have put something useful on top.

Hasn't NASA done this time and time again?  Of course if they had some real PR pros, they could come up with something like a Tesla (the original Enterprise shuttle mock up?  Probably something that isn't quite a valuable asset in a museum, but I'm sure they could think of something.

[vintage space on boilerplate loads]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxKgfdUBTZA  (harder than I expected to find, nothing about "boilerplate" or "dummy loads" on the title)

[PB666]

2 hours ago, T-10a said:

As bad as this seems, it's still better than nothing. I see the SLS as definitely a pork project, but also NASA using it as a "safe bet" in case the better private SHLV rockets do not come to fruition as fast as NASA likes (as well as getting every last drop of Congressional funds to help NASA do NASA things. If they drop SLS, it'll probably be replaced by either an even worse boondoggle or severely hurt NASA to the tune of "JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS", and there's no guarantee Congress wants to shift funds away from their beloved sectors to SpaceX/Boeing/Blue Origin/other private companies.)

It is pork, but thats not the bad. The bad is the rediculously slow rate of progress. People fault SpaceX because of the delay of FH, but they were just an upstart, these guys are basically the same group that built the STS, hugely more complex than SLS. They should have been ready back in 2016. Of course their primary payload appears not to be ready until 2020 (at least 2019).

[T-10a]

Yeah, that I'm bitter about as well, considering the flaws of Constellation showed the moment serious hardware testing started they could have designed something sensible back then. I'm just trying to find some optimism in the near-future spaceflight that isn't in Musketeer fantasies.

Edited March 2, 2018 by T-10a

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, T-10a said:

Yeah, that I'm bitter about as well, considering the flaws of Constellation showed the moment serious hardware testing started they could have designed something sensible back then. I'm just trying to find some optimism in the near-future spaceflight that isn't in Musketeer fantasies.

They were backed into a corner. (They being NASA) They were forced to use Shuttle derived hardware for SLS, and that didn't pan out so well. Ultimately it can't even be said to really be Shuttle derived anymore, it's basically unrelated. SRBs, core, launch pads, all had to be changed and/or redesigned. Not to mention lack of payloads...

But the real problem is oppurtunity cost. Those billions could've gone to much better programs. 

[sevenperforce]

9 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

They were backed into a corner. (They being NASA) They were forced to use Shuttle derived hardware for SLS, and that didn't pan out so well. Ultimately it can't even be said to really be Shuttle derived anymore, it's basically unrelated. SRBs, core, launch pads, all had to be changed and/or redesigned. Not to mention lack of payloads...

But the real problem is oppurtunity cost. Those billions could've gone to much better programs. 

The requirement for use of Shuttle-derived hardware could have been satisfied if they had built DIRECT immediately.

But nooooo.

[PB666]

10 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

They were backed into a corner. (They being NASA) They were forced to use Shuttle derived hardware for SLS, and that didn't pan out so well. Ultimately it can't even be said to really be Shuttle derived anymore, it's basically unrelated. SRBs, core, launch pads, all had to be changed and/or redesigned. Not to mention lack of payloads...

But the real problem is oppurtunity cost. Those billions could've gone to much better programs. 

More critically,  the RS25D were designed for a reusable vehicle, and able to justify its high cost on some notion, the SR25E and F are never to be reused (if they come to exist).

But remember the cancellation of the shuttle was supposed to have saved those billions . . .we could have kept the shuttle and at least got something in return for the billions.

Just remember that RS-25D sitting around in a warehouse not being used at all is also an opportunity cost, that you bring up the point.

[tater]

Yeah, but if you need to design a ridiculously expensive vehicle to use the few handfuls of engines gathering dust, a clean slate might have been better.

SLS was never about efficiency, though, else they could have built something truly revolutionary with the money they’ve spent.

Thats the sad part. I’m not a huge Shuttle fan, but it was a revolutionary spacecraft, no question. SLS/Orion just isn’t.

[sh1pman]

24 minutes ago, tater said:

Thats the sad part. I’m not a huge Shuttle fan, but it was a revolutionary spacecraft, no question. SLS/Orion just isn’t.

Whole bunch of revolutionary rockets coming in early-mid-20s. Then NASA will finally scrap SLS and just buy rides on those.

[DerekL1963]

28 minutes ago, tater said:

Thats the sad part. I’m not a huge Shuttle fan, but it was a revolutionary spacecraft, no question. SLS/Orion just isn’t.

SLS/Orion is essentially exactly what Shuttle detractors spent decades insisting the Shuttle should immediately be replaced with - a capsule based crew system and a seperate heavy lift cargo system.  Essentially an Apollo CSM and a Saturn V class vehicle.

On a modest tangent though, I get so weary of the insistence that everything be "revolutionary".  This isn't consumer market stuff to impress your friends.  The isn't the latest iShiny that'll be replaced in eighteen months.  This is millions and billions of dollars worth of workaday vehicle.  Evolutionary works.

[sevenperforce]

42 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, but if you need to design a ridiculously expensive vehicle to use the few handfuls of engines gathering dust, a clean slate might have been better.

SLS was never about efficiency, though, else they could have built something truly revolutionary with the money they’ve spent.

Thats the sad part. I’m not a huge Shuttle fan, but it was a revolutionary spacecraft, no question. SLS/Orion just isn’t.

They should have flown Orion Lite, using the Shuttle's OMS as a drop-in service module to provide LES, orbital insertion, and orbital maneuvering, with a smaller hydrolox tank and the SSMEs. If you're going to expend the SSMEs anyway, then just do an SSTO. They could have preserved US crewed flight capability to service the ISS, and built for BLEO by expanding that system.