NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

1 hour ago, Cunjo Carl said:

[...]

Oh my gosh, the F1-B LRBs are what the Twin Boar was designed after!? I knew I liked them for a reason!

(Images originally from https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/sls-advanced-boosters-flight-nine-shuttle-heritage/ )

I noticed that a while back when I was looking for counterparts. It's interesting since that means there are now F1 analogues in KSP,  with (IIRC) wildly different stats and sizes.

[Xd the great]

Basically, the f1b is so simple and powerful, i think they should use it instead of the ssme.

[wumpus]

5 hours ago, Xd the great said:

Basically, the f1b is so simple and powerful, i think they should use it instead of the ssme.

While a single F1b has a bit more thrust than 4 RS-25s (1.8Mlb vs. 1.6Mlb), that doesn't seem likely to cover the additional mass thanks to the switch from hydrolox to kerolox.  A "twin boar" F1b might be a monster, and I have to wonder how effective a (possibly single) RS-25 would be as a second stage [are they even rated for ignition in vacuum?].  Sometime I'll have to load up RSS/RO and fiddle with possible SLS configurations (I suspect that it will depress me).

[Xd the great]

Duh, nasa just wants to use up the ssme.

And throw then away.

[Bill Phil]

12 hours ago, wumpus said:

While a single F1b has a bit more thrust than 4 RS-25s (1.8Mlb vs. 1.6Mlb), that doesn't seem likely to cover the additional mass thanks to the switch from hydrolox to kerolox.  A "twin boar" F1b might be a monster, and I have to wonder how effective a (possibly single) RS-25 would be as a second stage [are they even rated for ignition in vacuum?].  Sometime I'll have to load up RSS/RO and fiddle with possible SLS configurations (I suspect that it will depress me).

Maybe an Atlas style stage and a half using F-1b engines? I recall a proposal to do the same to the S-IC. Jettisoning the engines once they're no longer needed.

[tater]

This needs to be here:

 

[sevenperforce]

On 8/3/2018 at 5:39 AM, Xd the great said:

Basically, the f1b is so simple and powerful, i think they should use it instead of the ssme.

Or you can cluster the F1Bs and then you have a Falcon 9.

On 8/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, wumpus said:

A "twin boar" F1b might be a monster, and I have to wonder how effective a (possibly single) RS-25 would be as a second stage [are they even rated for ignition in vacuum?].  Sometime I'll have to load up RSS/RO and fiddle with possible SLS configurations (I suspect that it will depress me).

You need a pair of F1 engines to equal the thrust of a single five-segment SRB. Of course they burn for much longer, so much more dV.

RS-25s are impressively difficult to start and are not vacuum-optimized.

On 8/3/2018 at 11:32 PM, Bill Phil said:

Maybe an Atlas style stage and a half using F-1b engines? I recall a proposal to do the same to the S-IC. Jettisoning the engines once they're no longer needed.

This would have been WAY better than the whole STS program. Especially if they figured out a way to capture and reuse the skirt. 

[tater]

 

 

[RCgothic]

So EM2 is probably going not going to meet that target and the ICPS is rubbish but they can't get EUS prepped in time for either of the planned missions that need it.

SLS is ever more clearly a booster to nowhere.

[Wjolcz]

What's ICPS?

[Green Baron]

International Carnivorous Plant Society

International Convention on Psychological Sciences

Integrated Child Protection Scheme

International Conference on Persuasive Services ("I Can Problem Solve") ...

... and then International Crime Prevention Specialist

:-)

....

 

In this context:

https://www.nasa.gov/sls/interim_cryogenic_propulsion_stage_141030.html

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Green Baron

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

What's ICPS?

Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage

It's the temporary upper stage while they develop the EUS (Exploration Upper Stage).

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Nibb31

[Nightside]

13 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage

It's the temporary upper stage while they develop the EUS (Exploration Upper Stage).

 

They have to orbit the moon once to get enough science to unlock the parts for the EUS.

 

ICPS: insane clown posse spaceship 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Nightside

[tater]

 

[tater]

Orion parachute test live right now:

 

Drop in just a few minutes.

[tater]

Successful test, though NASA screwed up the livestream, and went to a "what's on next" slide for everything after the mains popped.

[Racescort666]

I wasn't sure if this piece of trash that somehow passes for journalism belongs here or not: https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/408152-why-nasas-space-launch-system-is-indispensable

Quote

NASA’s big new rocket is not just a new tool of national power but is an essential insurance policy. America is lucky that we have people like Musk and Bezos who are willing and able to fund their visions of a spacefaring civilization, but we cannot and should not put all our space eggs in the billionaire basket. 

This dude has somehow simultaneously forgotten than ULA and Northrop Grumman exist while claiming that "putting all of your eggs into one basket" is counting on 2 separate private sector companies with independent funding. 

[tater]

He also mentions the ~5 B$ to build BFR, but doesn't once mention the actual cost of SLS/Orion, which is expected to be what, 40 B$?

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, Racescort666 said:

I wasn't sure if this piece of trash that somehow passes for journalism belongs here or not: https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/408152-why-nasas-space-launch-system-is-indispensable

This dude has somehow simultaneously forgotten than ULA and Northrop Grumman exist while claiming that "putting all of your eggs into one basket" is counting on 2 separate private sector companies with independent funding. 

From the very bottom of the article;

Quote

Peter Huessy is the director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies of the Air Force Association, which receives industry donations. He has been a guest professor on Nuclear Policy and Congressional Relations at the U.S. Naval Academy since 2011. Previously, Huessy was a senior defense fellow at American Foreign Policy Council.

Basically he is a shill for the Military Industrial Complex and will say whatever it takes to keep the pork flowing through the DoD to ULA.  And even at  the top it is listed as an "editorial" and not "journalism" (there's a difference?  YES: you can use photographs without permission for "editorial usage" but have to pay for them for "journalism".  Yet another reason that opinion masquerades as news).

[sh1pman]

He also doesn’t address the biggest problem with SLS - its huge opportunity cost. All of that money and time could be spent on something vastly more useful.

[Confused Scientist]

Ignoring the multiple syntax, grammar, and spelling errors ("Blue Origin's New Glenn"), as well as general crimes against good structure, word choice, and flow, the lesson from this article is as follows:

"Because competition helps to lower cost and inspire innovation, we must go all-in on a rocket that has not been built yet and [Hussey even acknowledges this] might not ever be built."

His claim that SLS could launch an entire GPS constellation in one launch is untrue unless each satellite has a five km/s kicker motor to adjust the inclination and orbital timing for full global coverage. The same is true of the military constellation. Hussey also cheers the SLS's manned Moon and Mars mission opportunities, while forgetting that other than Orion we have no firm design whatsoever for long-duration deep space exploration hardware. That's what BFS is.

This paragraph right here is probably the worst one:

Quote

If the 1986 Challenger disaster taught us anything it was: Don’t put all your Space Launch eggs in one basket. After that accident and the other ones that grounded all of America’s older space launch vehicles for about two years, NASA and the Air Force decided to build two sets of rockets under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. 

First of all, what the **** are the "other ones" and the "older space launch vehicles"??? And when were the expendable launch vehicles of the '80s ever "grounded"???
(Challenger should be italicized, "Space Launch" shouldn't be capitalized, there should be a comma after "anything".)

[insert_name]

13 minutes ago, Confused Scientist said:

Ignoring the multiple syntax, grammar, and spelling errors ("Blue Origin's New Glenn"), as well as general crimes against good structure, word choice, and flow, the lesson from this article is as follows:

"Because competition helps to lower cost and inspire innovation, we must go all-in on a rocket that has not been built yet and [Hussey even acknowledges this] might not ever be built."

His claim that SLS could launch an entire GPS constellation in one launch is untrue unless each satellite has a five km/s kicker motor to adjust the inclination and orbital timing for full global coverage. The same is true of the military constellation. Hussey also cheers the SLS's manned Moon and Mars mission opportunities, while forgetting that other than Orion we have no firm design whatsoever for long-duration deep space exploration hardware. That's what BFS is.

This paragraph right here is probably the worst one:

First of all, what the **** are the "other ones" and the "older space launch vehicles"??? And when were the expendable launch vehicles of the '80s ever "grounded"???
(Challenger should be italicized, "Space Launch" shouldn't be capitalized, there should be a comma after "anything".)

To be fair, there was also a delta and a titan34D that failed that year, leaving the U.S. with only a 5/8 success rate for orbital launches that year. While I do agree the SLS is problematic, having more than one booster is a good idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_in_spaceflight#Launches

[kerbiloid]

32 minutes ago, Confused Scientist said:

First of all, what the **** are the "other ones" and the "older space launch vehicles"??? 

Spoiler

 

[DerekL1963]

17 hours ago, sh1pman said:

He also doesn’t address the biggest problem with SLS - its huge opportunity cost. All of that money and time could be spent on something vastly more useful.

That's true only if you suffer from the delusion that if Congress didn't spend their Magical Space Money (which can only be spent on space stuff) on the SLS, then it would be available for other space stuff.  The (US) Federal budget doesn't work that way, and there's zero certainty that money not spent on the SLS would automagically be spent on other space stuff.

[wumpus]

9 hours ago, Confused Scientist said:

First of all, what the **** are the "other ones" and the "older space launch vehicles"??? And when were the expendable launch vehicles of the '80s ever "grounded"???

(Challenger should be italicized, "Space Launch" shouldn't be capitalized, there should be a comma after "anything".)

The expendable launch vehicles of the 70s were grounded once the Shuttle took off and "ungrounded" when Challenger crashed.  Weirdly enough, this would bolster his argument better than botching the chronology.  NASA was determined to justify the costs of the Shuttle, so demanded that everyone needing to put something into orbit must risk the lives of seven astronauts and pay the exorbitant rates to put the entire orbiter in space using man-rated technology.  They couldn't keep doing this after Challenger, even though the Shuttle's safety record was more or less as predicted.