Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

_Augustus_

By _Augustus_
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ultimate Steve

Ultimate Steve

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Hmmmm........ www.rocketbuilder.com says that the cost of an Atlas V 551 is just $73M. That can't be right, can it?

That value, according to the website, includes revenue saved by reliability and lack of schedule slips. Actual amount paid is probably higher (and for me it seems that every config is 73M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
_Augustus_

_Augustus_

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

That value, according to the website, includes revenue saved by reliability and lack of schedule slips.

So it's actually far more than that and they're just saying marketing nonsense to get you to buy their rocket.

Completely correct:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/29/nasa_sls_spacex/

Quote

The SLS is competing with the James Webb Space Telescope for the mission most delayed and over-budget.

Quote

 

....but NASA has an answer for this. The Lunar Orbital Platform Gateway will have modules so large that nothing but an SLS will do.

There are a few problems with this statement.

The first is that the Lunar Orbital Platform Gateway is still very much on the drawing board, so there is no reason why it could not be designed to be launched in smaller pieces.

The second is that former astronaut Richard Mastracchio (now Senior Director of Operations for Commercial Resupply Services at Orbital ATK) remarked at a lecture given in the UK at the weekend that Lunar Orbital Platform Gateway would likely be constructed from Space Station-derived modules.

The heaviest module on the Space Station is the Japanese Kibo lab, weighing in at 15,900 kg.

The third is that NASA moved away from single Skylab-style launches some time ago, and now has far more experience with the modular building techniques used for the Space Station.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NSEP

NSEP

Posted
Posted (edited)

BFR doesn't match up to SLS when it comes time in development. SLS is far ahead of BFR when it comes to what has been built and tested. Its like mentioning antimatter power storage in a conversation about rooftop solar panels. Maybe a bit exaggerated, but you get what i mean.

Edited by NSEP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
monophonic

monophonic

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, PB666 said:

BTW if you are laser sintering of parts, you are also going to have toxic vapors generated.

Not to mention the process requires fine  powdery stuff staying put with a very precisely smooth level surface. Good luck getting that to work in microgravity. Especially of you want it in the near future and without billions of development costs.

 

2 hours ago, Scotius said:

Excuse me. Do you want me to post a link to YT video of a police chase in USA, in which escaping suspect (high as a kite) took his (stolen) Ford truck offroad?

Did he get a lady and a cougar with the truck? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotius

Scotius

Posted
Posted

I'd think he stole the truck from the lady, and the cougar bailed immediately and ran for the hills :sticktongue: Doped up (and dumb as a rock) criminal in an uber-powerful car? Baaad combination. Luckily no one was hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DAL59

DAL59

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, NSEP said:

BFR doesn't match up to SLS when it comes time in development. SLS is far ahead of BFR when it comes to what has been built and tested. Its like mentioning antimatter power storage in a conversation about rooftop solar panels. Maybe a bit exaggerated, but you get what i mean.

The first launch in 2020, the second in 2023.  While the BFR will have several build, and multiple launches a year.  SpaceX is on track to launch BFR in same year as EM-1.  

Edited by DAL59
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NSEP

NSEP

Posted
Posted
Just now, DAL59 said:

The first launch in 2020, the second in 2023.  While the BFR will have several build, and multiple launches a year.  SpaceX is on track to launch BFR in same year as EM-1.  

How do you know that for certain? How do you know the BFR is not going to get pushed back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

That value, according to the website, includes revenue saved by reliability and lack of schedule slips. Actual amount paid is probably higher (and for me it seems that every config is 73M.

Wow.

That's like Tesla saying "The price of a new Tesla is actually just $2,000 because imagine never having to pay for gas again!"

3 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

"The SLS is competing with the James Webb Space Telescope for the mission most delayed and over-budget."

Except that the JWST is actually going to DO something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ultimate Steve

Ultimate Steve

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NSEP said:

How do you know that for certain? How do you know the BFR is not going to get pushed back?

It will probably be delayed, but not by as much as Falcon Heavy was. With the recent upgrade to New Glenn (which is scheduled to fly 2020 as well) SpaceX might be freaking out a bit as they might eventually need the BFR to stay competitive, so they do have incentives to get it up fast. Even if it first flies in 2023 with a refight within a few months, it will have tied SLS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DAL59

DAL59

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, NSEP said:

How do you know that for certain? How do you know the BFR is not going to get pushed back?

They bought a factory land for it and are diverting employees to it.  

Edited by DAL59
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Scotius said:

Excuse me. Do you want me to post a link to YT video of a police chase in USA, in which escaping suspect (high as a kite) took his (stolen) Ford truck offroad? That beautiful, monstrous car tore through the scenery like a beast, and took in stride abuse that would leave a lesser car wheels up and leaking fluids from every pipe. The chase ended only when that idiot drove into a pond and got the car hopelessly stuck in the mud. I think i fell in love that day :D Too bad i'm several thousands of dollars short of being able to buy such truck.

Well, you can convert a technical into a boat, but then again dropping buildings on a truck or launching them over a castle wall . . . . . . . .reserved for british car-fan shows. 

4x4 have their function. i have one, the best however i believe are in the jeep format with alot of user added equipment, if you want to waste your saturday winching youself and your buddies up the side of a mountain. Mine is delegated more or less to more environmentally friendly occupartions like boat ramps and the intertidal zone of a beach. And frankly the best function of a truck offroad is to carry an ultralight or a boat someplace remote enough to takeoff and explore without 18" ruts in the ground. Many of the places I used to go offroading has been simply banned . . . . . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDE

DDE

Posted
Posted (edited)
On ‎31‎.‎03‎.‎2018 at 1:49 AM, Bill Phil said:

I have a sneeking suspicion that the usefulness of the station is, as of now, not apparent. 

Amusingly, I was recently chastised for missing the chance to attend a NASA-Roscosmos get-together in Moscow. They had discussed the LOP-G.

After a 120-second rant, I was completely forgiven, given two Expedition 51 pins, and told to never even attempt to attend such events in the future.

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted

Dunno if this got glossed over last month or not (listening to Anthony Colangelo reminded me of it (I follow Jeff Faust's work)):

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considers-acquiring-more-than-one-gateway-propulsion-module/

NASA is looking at launching the PPE with commercial launches, and more importantly, it will not be cost-plus. The PPP model will be used, with NASA not buying the thing until it is in orbit, and demonstrated to be working as designed. Money will be provided to aid development, but ti won't be the old, "Here's a couple billion, call us for more when it goes behind schedule and over budget." model. The thought is that habs will be done the same way.

Pretty cool, actually, even if I think DSG is kinda dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, tater said:

Dunno if this got glossed over last month or not (listening to Anthony Colangelo reminded me of it (I follow Jeff Faust's work)):

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considers-acquiring-more-than-one-gateway-propulsion-module/

Pretty cool, actually, even if I think DSG is kinda dumb.

Yeah i posted the link a few pages back. i too think the Propulsion element is the best part of the whole LOP/G ordeal, and i think there is a range of uses for elements like it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Yeah i posted the link a few pages back. i too think the Propulsion element is the best part of the whole LOP/G ordeal, and i think there is a range of uses for elements like it. 

I thought I remembered seeing it. It likely didn't get enough discussion because it's not negative, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

Interesting at which point?

What do you mean? Long surface stays at the south pole, reusable ascent stage, If they could pull this off, i think this would actually be a step up from constellation landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Canopus said:

What do you mean? Long surface stays at the south pole, reusable ascent stage, If they could pull this off, i think this would actually be a step up from constellation landings.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, the reusable ascender is the only major difference from a Constellation architecture.

A reusable lunar space truck is not a bad idea. I didn't see whether they were planning to refill (which needs some sort of IVP) or use drop tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't a low, frozen lunar orbit be preferable for surface missions? While highly elliptical, such orbits have a much lower apolune than the proposed DSG orbit.

Note that the only reason a better lunar orbit is not used by DSG... is that Orion cannot go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, tater said:

Wouldn't a low, frozen lunar orbit be preferable for surface missions? While highly elliptical, such orbits have a much lower apolune than the proposed DSG orbit.

Note that the only reason a better lunar orbit is not used by DSG... is that Orion cannot go there.

another advantage for the high orbit given is that supply launches to the gateway can be undertaken by smaller rockets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...