[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[Lewie]

37 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

If it were merely Elon time, I'd agree, unfortunately we're now on FAA time. It won't be only a month, there's still an at least 30 day minimum public consultation period that has yet to even start, plus an unknowable amount of time after that to complete the process.

Despite that on balance of probability I think Starship/Superheavy is more likely than not to get approval to launch this year, that SLS is more likely than not to  slip into next year, and that a version of Starship/Superheavy will launch before SLS.

SLS will be a more complete system at the time of first launch, however Artemis 1 will not be an operational launch, it'll be an uncrewed test flight with a less than fully complete Orion capsule.

By the time of SLS's first operational flight Artemis II in 2023 earliest, I fully expect Starship will already be operational for uncrewed payloads.

 

Well, drat!

and you do have a point with SLS being more or less a finished vehicle....but the  by the time it is actually used for a crewed mission, SS will be operational.

(wait you said that too, lol. Hey, great minds think alike!)  

Edited August 8, 2021 by Lewie

[SunlitZelkova]

I think what @SpaceFace545 means by "paper rocket" is that the actually useful (in terms of mission capability) Starship that everyone claims "is in metal"- Cargo Starship- doesn't actually physically exist. Therefore Starship is not a currently (like, right now, on August 8th, 2021) existing alternative to SLS.

One might say claiming Starship- that is, Cargo Starship, which is presumably what everyone is referring to in the discussion of what should be used for Artemis- "has been built", is the equivalent of stating the Ares I "was built" because Ares I-X existed. Yet the Ares I itself is a paper rocket. Saying that SS/SH's static fire makes it as real as SLS is like saying Ares I-X's launch made Ares I as "real" as Falcon 9*.

No one can deny SN20 and BN4 exist in metal, and they are indeed Starship test vehicles, but they are not the "Starship" we all think of when talking about replacing/retiring SLS. That Starship's cargo bay doors are not even being worked on at the moment to focus on the orbital test. It is still a paper rocket. It is planned to come to fruition at some point. But right now (August 8th, 2021, and the next several months at least) it is a paper rocket.

Starship test vehicles exist. Starship does not (right at this moment). That's not to say it is a bad thing, but it is the truth.

I nonetheless disagree with SpaceFace545's pro-SLS statements and other anti-Starship opinions.

*This is not a perfect analogy. SN20/BN4 are obviously "more Starship" than Ares I-X ever "was Ares I". But the logic of treating test vehicles as the finished product is there, so I used it.

[tater]

49 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Yet the Ares I itself is a paper rocket. Saying that SS/SH's static fire makes it as real as SLS is like saying Ares I-X's launch made Ares I as "real" as Falcon 9*.

Nonsense.

SLS is built, and static fired. That’s it. Otherwise entirely untested. Artemis I is the SLS/ Orion equivalent of the upcoming SS/SH orbital test flight. Orion is still only a boilerplate as well. The first all up test is Artemis II.

[tater]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Starship test vehicles exist. Starship does not (right at this moment). That's not to say it is a bad thing, but it is the truth.

Starship does not yet exist as a fully reusable vehicle.

Starship has not yet been launched into an orbital trajectory (or one where it could reach orbit with minimal effort as the test launch will be, intentionally disposing of it to test reentry).

Those things are true.

My statement was that when it static fires it will be as real as SLS currently is. SLS Is static tested for the core, and is in the process of being stacked. It is flight article. The only possible stacked test is a launch, set for later this year, maybe early 2022.

SN20/B4 are also flight articles. They will soon be static tested. They too will likely fly this year. At the point B4 is static fired, it's as tested as SLS. It's as real as SLS. It's currently as real as SLS was before Green Run.

It's not a paper rocket, that is definitionally one where metal had not been bent/printed, or I suppose these day where fiber has not been wrapped. Once flight articles are being fabricated, a rocket cannot be called "paper."

 

As for test articles, Artemis I is just a test article. Artemis II is the first all-up SLS/Orion flight.

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, tater said:

SLS Is static tested for the core, and is in the process of being stacked. It is flight article. The only possible stacked test is a launch, set for later this year, maybe early 2022.

SN20/B4 are also flight articles. They will soon be static tested. They too will likely fly this year. At the point B4 is static fired, it's as tested as SLS. It's as real as SLS. It's currently as real as SLS was before Green Run.

I suppose you could accurately say that SLS is closer to its operational launch configuration than Starship+Superheavy. The vehicle currently stacked in the VAB is much more similar to the Artemis II launch vehicle than SN20/BN4 is to a fully-operational Starship launch system.

However, the only reason for that is that Starship has many more capabilities. Once BN4 test-fires, then the Starship+Superheavy combo will be every bit as close to being an operational super-heavy-lift launch vehicle as SLS is.

Even in its unfinished state, Starship+Superheavy is SLS’s equal. It’s like comparing a prototype Corvette to a four-wheeler....just because the ‘Vette doesn’t have it’s AC system installed yet doesn’t make it less driveable than the ATV.

[tater]

8 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I suppose you could accurately say that SLS is closer to its operational launch configuration than Starship+Superheavy. The vehicle currently stacked in the VAB is much more similar to the Artemis II launch vehicle than SN20/BN4 is to a fully-operational Starship launch system.

Fair enough.

With iterative design, the same could have been said of an early operational F9 vs what exists now as well.

Still, neither are paper rockets, which was the whole point.

[tater]

19 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I suppose you could accurately say that SLS is closer to its operational launch configuration than Starship+Superheavy. The vehicle currently stacked in the VAB is much more similar to the Artemis II launch vehicle than SN20/BN4 is to a fully-operational Starship launch system.

Actually, given the goalpost move a while back I had forgotten something.

SLS Block 1 is not the operational launch configuration. It was only meant to fly ONCE, to test the heatshield on a lunar return trajectory.

Operational SLS is supposed to be Block 1B, and Block 2. EUS is required, since without EUS, the capsule has to take multiple trips through the van Allen belts.

So any Block 1 launches are sort of like SS flying in a lower configuration for testing.

Is a date for Block 1B even penciled in at this point?

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

Is a date for Block 1B even penciled in at this point?

I doubt it will ever fly, it's impossible it will launch before half a decade

[tater]

2 minutes ago, Beccab said:

I doubt it will ever fly, it's impossible it will launch before half a decade

Spacenews from last December said in a story about EUS passing CDR said "mid-2020s" and "beyond 2024."

This means that we'll have the needlessly dangerous Block 1 launches with humans for a few years testing other aspects of the system until they get to the system they actually designed for humans that can do a TLI burn in 1 go to minimize crew hazard (and possible LOM failures). As it is with Block 1, the ICPS does a few burns, and the last burn is actually done by Orion. It's that lousy.

[SunlitZelkova]

8 hours ago, tater said:

Nonsense.

SLS is built, and static fired. That’s it. Otherwise entirely untested. Artemis I is the SLS/ Orion equivalent of the upcoming SS/SH orbital test flight. Orion is still only a boilerplate as well. The first all up test is Artemis II.

See below.

7 hours ago, tater said:

Starship does not yet exist as a fully reusable vehicle.

Starship has not yet been launched into an orbital trajectory (or one where it could reach orbit with minimal effort as the test launch will be, intentionally disposing of it to test reentry).

Those things are true.

My statement was that when it static fires it will be as real as SLS currently is. SLS Is static tested for the core, and is in the process of being stacked. It is flight article. The only possible stacked test is a launch, set for later this year, maybe early 2022.

SN20/B4 are also flight articles. They will soon be static tested. They too will likely fly this year. At the point B4 is static fired, it's as tested as SLS. It's as real as SLS. It's currently as real as SLS was before Green Run.

It's not a paper rocket, that is definitionally one where metal had not been bent/printed, or I suppose these day where fiber has not been wrapped. Once flight articles are being fabricated, a rocket cannot be called "paper."

 

As for test articles, Artemis I is just a test article. Artemis II is the first all-up SLS/Orion flight.

Thank you for the clarification. I retract my statement that an SS/SH static fire does not make it "as real" as SLS.

Nonetheless, while I now understand that SLS too is un-ready, I disagree that Cargo Starship is not a paper rocket.

To be clear, I did not call Starship in general a paper rocket. To use more analogies, the UR-700 and its spacecraft were "total paper rockets", while *Starship in general* is not a paper rocket.

But that said, I (now) think it could be said that both "Operational SLS" and "Operational Starship (Cargo Starship)" are both paper rockets. No Cargo Starships have been built, neither has an operational (capable of fulfilling its intended mission of taking humans to the vicinity of the Moon) SLS-Orion been fully fabricated.

I say this not to say that Starship can't be used for further roles in Artemis or whatever or that it "can't" replace SLS. I say this as many of the posts I have seen (not necessarily yours or anyone in particular) make it sound or seem to imply as though Starship will be fully operational after the static fire, when it is not. Regardless of the state of SLS (which I now recognize as being as on the verge of simply being equal in development to Starship, not ahead), "Operational Starship" is still paper. Again, that is not to say that "Operational SLS" is here or will be ahead of "Operational Starship". It is just that "Operational Starship" is not "more ready" than "Operational SLS" right now, which is what some posts I have seen appear to imply.

I think it is important to make this clear, as such posts that appear to imply Starship being operational are what attract silly and desperate defences of SLS- and absurd and nonsensical attacks on Starship.

-----------------------------------

I would like to clarify my definition of "paper rocket". Once a rocket has been fully fabricated- not even necessarily tested- I think only then it is no longer paper.

I think this based on the definition used for other "paper projects". A couple of examples are the German E-100 super heavy tank and the Sovetsky Soyuz class battleships. These had some components manufactured- multiple ships of the Sovetsky Soyuz class started construction and the hull of the prototype E-100 was partially completed- however these projects were never completed fully. The E-100 never had its turret installed, while the Sovetsky Soyuz class were cancelled well before they were functioning ships. These vehicles are considered to be paper projects.

To use an example for spaceflight, if SN20 had only had its nosecone built before some event forced the halt of Starship development, I would consider SN20 to be a paper rocket. However it has now been more or less fully assembled, and thus is no longer paper. Even without all of the tiles it could still fly.

Definitions may of course differ, I share my definition simply to inform you of it, not to change your opinion.

------------------------------------

Even without using my definition, I think the logic of my opinion on "Operational SLS" and "Operational Starship" being equally unready, and the need to take care in not accidently implying otherwise, still stands. However, that is not to say you must adopt my opinion or anything. It is not my intention to change your opinion, only to share an idea as part of a discussion.

[tater]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

But that said, I (now) think it could be said that both "Operational SLS" and "Operational Starship (Cargo Starship)" are both paper rockets. No Cargo Starships have been built, neither has an operational (capable of fulfilling its intended mission of taking humans to the vicinity of the Moon) SLS-Orion been fully fabricated.

No one disagrees with the factual statement that neither is yet operational as envisioned (and neither has actually flown yet).

 

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I would like to clarify my definition of "paper rocket". Once a rocket has been fully fabricated- not even necessarily tested- I think only then it is no longer paper.

I think maybe we have a definition issue. I've been paying attention to US space stuff a long time, and have been paying serious attention since the 1980s—when many projects were presented at conferences, etc. (some that I attended in the 80s and 90s). I actually have some of the "paper" in my bookshelves since "paper rockets" refers to stuff that existed on on paper (this was even before powerpoint, though paper seems to have stuck more than that as a label for "never built" projects). I have a copy of Lunar bases and Space Activities in the 21st Century (Houston, 1988) that is 8.5x11 pages, and every single paper is in a different typeface, because it is literally copies of the submitted papers, bound (poorly bound)—some look like they are not just in "courier" but were probably TYPED on a typewriter.

Paper rocket = NEVER BUILT

That's it. No metal bent. Metal bent, tested, but not completed? Come up with a new name for it, it's not a paper rocket.

Edited August 9, 2021 by tater

[StrandedonEarth]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Metal bent, tested, but not completed? Come up with a new name for it, it's not a paper rocket

“Papier-mâché rocket” starts to sound appropriate, lol

[SunlitZelkova]

19 hours ago, tater said:

No one disagrees with the factual statement that neither is yet operational as envisioned (and neither has actually flown yet).

Yes, but many of the posts made on this forum seem to imply that it is.

It shouldn't be an issue- we are just discussing stuff on a game forum after all- but unfortunately it is. Particularly posts that criticize other in-development spaceflight programs and say that such programs should (immediately) decide to use Starship- despite Starship being in-development as well, and no more ready or proven than the "other spaceflight programs" being criticized- are problematic in that they raise the ire of supporters of those "other spaceflight programs".

Now the above does not apply to SLS, because the main picking point for SLS its something very, very clear- cost and capability. But there are other perfectly sound space projects- the first example that comes to my mind is the ROSS- that have been argued over on this forum because Starship was implied to be something "more real" than the project being criticized*.

That said, I don't intend to accuse such posts of deliberately being written to cause such a situation. It is just something to be careful of.

I am also not accusing you of making such posts. In fact, I don't think I have seen any such posts from you. I am just stating why I raise this point.

20 hours ago, tater said:

I think maybe we have a definition issue. I've been paying attention to US space stuff a long time, and have been paying serious attention since the 1980s—when many projects were presented at conferences, etc. (some that I attended in the 80s and 90s). I actually have some of the "paper" in my bookshelves since "paper rockets" refers to stuff that existed on on paper (this was even before powerpoint, though paper seems to have stuck more than that as a label for "never built" projects). I have a copy of Lunar bases and Space Activities in the 21st Century (Houston, 1988) that is 8.5x11 pages, and every single paper is in a different typeface, because it is literally copies of the submitted papers, bound (poorly bound)—some look like they are not just in "courier" but were probably TYPED on a typewriter.

Paper rocket = NEVER BUILT

That's it. No metal bent. Metal bent, tested, but not completed? Come up with a new name for it, it's not a paper rocket.

I think it isn't so much the definition of paper rocket as much as it is the definition of "built".

Built in my case means completed. Example- You don't complete the framework of a house and then leave it as a skeleton and say "I built a house".

Built in your case seems to mean if any part was fabricated, it can be considered built. Example- Someone built the framework of a house. Despite still being a work in progress the framework has been "built". Thus this could be extended to describe the house as having been "built".

I don't think either definition if necessarily wrong, it just depends on the context of the discussion. If you are comparing the US and Soviet space programs of the 80s and 90s, no one is going to say the Soviets built five Buran orbiters while the Americans built five Space Shuttle Orbiters and thus imply the production was somehow equal. One Buran orbiter was built, and construction began on four more but they were never completed. On the other hand, you can casually look at Starship production and say they have "built" SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, SN15, SN16, and even SN17 as some parts were fabricated despite it not being fully assembled (completed). That sentence makes sense (at least to me).

I'd like to clarify when I say "paper rocket"- and likewise probably when others use it to- I (and perhaps we) do not mean it literally. I didn't realize it until now, but "paper (insert vehicle type)" seems to be somewhat of a slang term for any non-completed project. An example of this is how the historical war-related video game community frequently refers to the Stalingrad class battlecruisers as "paper ships" despite them having been laid down before cancellation and thus not literally paper. Perhaps there is a inter-generational communication issue lol.

[tater]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Built in your case seems to mean if any part was fabricated, it can be considered built. Example- Someone built the framework of a house. Despite still being a work in progress the framework has been "built". Thus this could be extended to describe the house as having been "built".

I'd say I'm building a house. Under construction.

If I had plans drawn up, but hadn't even bought any land yet—yeah, I'm not telling people I'm building a house.

 

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I'd like to clarify when I say "paper rocket"- and likewise probably when others use it to- I (and perhaps we) do not mean it literally. I didn't realize it until now, but "paper (insert vehicle type)" seems to be somewhat of a slang term for any non-completed project. An example of this is how the historical war-related video game community frequently refers to the Stalingrad class battlecruisers as "paper ships" despite them having been laid down before cancellation and thus not literally paper. Perhaps there is a inter-generational communication issue lol.

Paper=Powerpoint.

I can't imagine anyone else using it any other way. Paper/Powerpoint means it has been designed at some level (possibly a very, very crude level) but doesn't actually exist as anything real.

IMO a rocket becomes real at some level in the old-school way once it gets funded—fully funded in a way that completion at some level is certain. The early round funding for HLS was not enough to build them, so doesn't count. 2/3 of the bids would not build anything real without full funding, so they are still paper. SLS was real once it was funded (because we knew they would throw money at it as long as it took).

I'm not really concerned about what the video game community called them, historians wouldn't likely call them paper if laid down. (video game people call various warplanes in the ww2 era by slang names literally no pilots used during the war, for example, it made my skin crawl in online flight sims when people used oddball names, heck US pilots didn't even use the "names" for planes, they used the numbers most all of the time (P-51, B-24, etc).

[Hannu2]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I'd like to clarify when I say "paper rocket"- and likewise probably when others use it to- I (and perhaps we) do not mean it literally. I didn't realize it until now, but "paper (insert vehicle type)" seems to be somewhat of a slang term for any non-completed project. An example of this is how the historical war-related video game community frequently refers to the Stalingrad class battlecruisers as "paper ships" despite them having been laid down before cancellation and thus not literally paper. Perhaps there is a inter-generational communication issue lol.

There is a clear difference between funded project which building work has began and "paper project" which has not made any expensive building work yet. Of course there are unclear occasions (of example in my country building work of building has juridically began if I throw one shovel concrete on ground and let it harden but if I dig a trench for basement it has not began). But both SLS and Starship has many essential and very expensive components, like engines, ready or under flight test phase. Billions of dollars have invested for both projects. They are currently work in progress and if they were cancelled before finish they will be failed projects but they have very clearly passed paper rocket phase several years and billions of dollars ago.

I would say that Moon lander version of Starship (and other suggested landers) and all published manned mars-operations are currently in paper phase. They have no significant hardware yet and will need several orders of magnitude more funding than already used to be severe projects under construction.

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, tater said:

I'd say I'm building a house. Under construction.

If I had plans drawn up, but hadn't even bought any land yet—yeah, I'm not telling people I'm building a house.

 

Paper=Powerpoint.

I can't imagine anyone else using it any other way. Paper/Powerpoint means it has been designed at some level (possibly a very, very crude level) but doesn't actually exist as anything real.

IMO a rocket becomes real at some level in the old-school way once it gets funded—fully funded in a way that completion at some level is certain. The early round funding for HLS was not enough to build them, so doesn't count. 2/3 of the bids would not build anything real without full funding, so they are still paper. SLS was real once it was funded (because we knew they would throw money at it as long as it took).

I'm not really concerned about what the video game community called them, historians wouldn't likely call them paper if laid down. (video game people call various warplanes in the ww2 era by slang names literally no pilots used during the war, for example, it made my skin crawl in online flight sims when people used oddball names, heck US pilots didn't even use the "names" for planes, they used the numbers most all of the time (P-51, B-24, etc).

I'd like to clarify the video game community example was just to show how the term *can* be used in a different manner. Not that what they do should be taken as gospel or whatever. My point was I am using "paper [rocket]" in a slang form rather than literally, but now that I am thinking about it, I think I shall cease doing so and just use "normal" words like "completed", "partially completed", and so on, as "paper rocket" in its non-literal form as I used it will just cause too much confusion.

Historians do indeed use a different term for ships at least partially constructed (usually just "partially constructed" in what I have read for the most part). On an off-hand note, I disagree with those video game communities calling partially completed ships "paper" but it is what it is, and it doesn't bother me to the point I would argue over it. As long as such ships are fun to play it doesn't matter.

10 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

There is a clear difference between funded project which building work has began and "paper project" which has not made any expensive building work yet. Of course there are unclear occasions (of example in my country building work of building has juridically began if I throw one shovel concrete on ground and let it harden but if I dig a trench for basement it has not began). But both SLS and Starship has many essential and very expensive components, like engines, ready or under flight test phase. Billions of dollars have invested for both projects. They are currently work in progress and if they were cancelled before finish they will be failed projects but they have very clearly passed paper rocket phase several years and billions of dollars ago.

I would say that Moon lander version of Starship (and other suggested landers) and all published manned mars-operations are currently in paper phase. They have no significant hardware yet and will need several orders of magnitude more funding than already used to be severe projects under construction.

When I said Cargo Starship was paper, it was not to say no parts at all have been constructed, it is to say there is no fully completed Cargo Starship and therefore it cannot be treated like an existing launch platform (on its own. Versus SLS is another story).

After having been enlightened by tater's post, I think it is fair to say Starship *will be* as real as SLS very shortly, but Starship is not nearly as real as (to use a random example) Proton. I only say this as not in this thread, but in others, I have seen some posts that imply Starship as being in such a state.

[tater]

17 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

When I said Cargo Starship was paper, it was not to say no parts at all have been constructed, it is to say there is no fully completed Cargo Starship and therefore it cannot be treated like an existing launch platform (on its own. Versus SLS is another story).

It's a planned application, and the basic test vehicle is literally already built. No door yet, obviously, they are hardware rich, and planning on flying throw-away vehicles first.

It's like having an airliner with just the cockpit and no other finished interior. Loads  of work to make an interior that meets safety requirements, egress, etc, but the aircraft as an aircraft? Still works. Still exists. Back to ships, it's like the ship coming off the ways with power, propulsion, bridge, etc, but not fitted out.

[SunlitZelkova]

13 minutes ago, tater said:

It's a planned application, and the basic test vehicle is literally already built. No door yet, obviously, they are hardware rich, and planning on flying throw-away vehicles first.

It's like having an airliner with just the cockpit and no other finished interior. Loads  of work to make an interior that meets safety requirements, egress, etc, but the aircraft as an aircraft? Still works. Still exists. Back to ships, it's like the ship coming off the ways with power, propulsion, bridge, etc, but not fitted out.

That comment was to mean that within the context of discussing different mission architectures treating Cargo Starship as an existing launch platform is incorrect (in my opinion).

I.e., yes, while an airliner with a cockpit and no finished interior is a functioning plane, and you can say the airliner has been built, you aren't going to suggest using that airliner for a world tour of an athletic team over a fully fitted out and operational airliner.

Perhaps I am over-estimating how much work needs to be done to make Cargo Starship. But whether a few modifications or six months worth of development away, when discussing how a mission architecture can be improved (other mission architectures, Artemis could be called "an equally untested mess of a program") I think it is incorrect to treat Cargo Starship in the same manner as existing launch vehicles like Proton (which I have seen other posts imply or directly do).

[tater]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Perhaps I am over-estimating how much work needs to be done to make Cargo Starship. But whether a few modifications or six months worth of development away, when discussing how a mission architecture can be improved (other mission architectures, Artemis could be called "an equally untested mess of a program") I think it is incorrect to treat Cargo Starship in the same manner as existing launch vehicles like Proton (which I have seen other posts imply or directly do).

Starship is a work in progress, obviously. It will exist as a launch vehicle capable of taking payloads when it exists to do so (chomper door, whatever).

The moment they get it to work to orbit, however, it's existence as an expendable LV if needed is a foregone conclusion, and given the speed at which they work, very quickly. They understand fairings, and if it is expendable, it's a tube with a top that comes off in a way they are intimately familiar with.

The SpaceX pace is basically what you might expect in years divided by 4. 160+ hours a week instead of 40. 2 years? 6 months. They clearly pitched milestones to NASA for LSS that meet 2024, and NASA thought those milestones were credible.

[Hannu2]

On 8/11/2021 at 3:36 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

When I said Cargo Starship was paper, it was not to say no parts at all have been constructed, it is to say there is no fully completed Cargo Starship and therefore it cannot be treated like an existing launch platform (on its own. Versus SLS is another story).

I understood. But my English skills (which may be bad, I am not native) say that paper rocket is not suitable word for that phase. Paper rocket is rocket under planning.

And if you think for example other companies and operators, rocket under flight test program (Starship) or under finalizing for first flight to orbit (SLS) are much more potential than rockets in early planning phase (for example manned Mars crafts or proposed nuclear stages). Probably every company and space organization take Starship into account and estimate benefits, risks and schedules when they plan their own projects in paper stage, even they would eventually decide that it is better to take one of current production models. But no one even think about possible nuclear rockets of far future.

 

On 8/11/2021 at 3:36 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

After having been enlightened by tater's post, I think it is fair to say Starship *will be* as real as SLS very shortly, but Starship is not nearly as real as (to use a random example) Proton. I only say this as not in this thread, but in others, I have seen some posts that imply Starship as being in such a state.

Of course Starship or SLS are not in operational work yet (i.e. "ready") and it is not guaranteed that they will ever be.  And Proton clearly is because it has very long history and you can routinely buy a standard launch. But it is not definition of "paper rocket", at least in my opinion. It may be that someone uses that word differently. But in any case it causes confusion to call project in test and finishing phase as paper project.

On 8/11/2021 at 5:25 AM, tater said:

The SpaceX pace is basically what you might expect in years divided by 4. 160+ hours a week instead of 40. 2 years? 6 months. They clearly pitched milestones to NASA for LSS that meet 2024, and NASA thought those milestones were credible.

SpaceX's phenomenal pace of development is easy to forget because Musk gives always those "aspirationally" unrealistic schedules which slip years. But if you look history there are no many examples of such rapid development even in superpower's almost infinitely funded projects.

But I am sure that NASA is not serious with that manned Moon landing in 2024. It is clearly impossible if they do not accept very high risk level and increase funding immediately by an order of magnitude.

[tater]

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

But I am sure that NASA is not serious with that manned Moon landing in 2024. It is clearly impossible if they do not accept very high risk level and increase funding immediately by an order of magnitude.

I thought 2024 was always aspirational on the part of NASA—but I don't think the budget needs to change that much at all.

They have SLS/Orion now, and it is paid for. That is crew delivery.

They just bought their first test lander and crew lander for a fixed price ($2.9B) from SpaceX.

The risks are whatever the acceptable risks were for the HLS contract plus SLS/Orion.

It;s not an order of magnitude more money at all, continued operations will require whatever SpaceX is contracted for after the first crew landing for continued operations in addition to SLS/Orion costs.

[SunlitZelkova]

12 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

I understood. But my English skills (which may be bad, I am not native) say that paper rocket is not suitable word for that phase. Paper rocket is rocket under planning.

And if you think for example other companies and operators, rocket under flight test program (Starship) or under finalizing for first flight to orbit (SLS) are much more potential than rockets in early planning phase (for example manned Mars crafts or proposed nuclear stages). Probably every company and space organization take Starship into account and estimate benefits, risks and schedules when they plan their own projects in paper stage, even they would eventually decide that it is better to take one of current production models. But no one even think about possible nuclear rockets of far future.

 

Of course Starship or SLS are not in operational work yet (i.e. "ready") and it is not guaranteed that they will ever be.  And Proton clearly is because it has very long history and you can routinely buy a standard launch. But it is not definition of "paper rocket", at least in my opinion. It may be that someone uses that word differently. But in any case it causes confusion to call project in test and finishing phase as paper project.

I shall respond with my response  to tater-

On 8/10/2021 at 5:36 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

I'd like to clarify the video game community example was just to show how the term *can* be used in a different manner. Not that what they do should be taken as gospel or whatever. My point was I am using "paper [rocket]" in a slang form rather than literally, but now that I am thinking about it, I think I shall cease doing so and just use "normal" words like "completed", "partially completed", and so on, as "paper rocket" in its non-literal form as I used it will just cause too much confusion.

Historians do indeed use a different term for ships at least partially constructed (usually just "partially constructed" in what I have read for the most part). On an off-hand note, I disagree with those video game communities calling partially completed ships "paper" but it is what it is, and it doesn't bother me to the point I would argue over it. As long as such ships are fun to play it doesn't matter.

So I now think "paper" was too confusing of a word to use, and I would now consider Cargo Starship to be "in development", not "paper", as you said.

[tater]

 

Under 3 years—for a disposable engine in the complexity ballpark of Be-4 and Raptor.

I guess $100M each doesn't buy "expedited shipping."

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

How in the? 

I can build a house in a matter of months.  Strip and rebuild an engine... Never mind you get the picture... 

How does it take 4 YEARS to build... Anything?!? 

Edited August 25, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[tater]

3 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

How does it take 4 YEARS to build... Anything?!? 

Well, the components likely come from... dunno 50 States? or maybe they made sure to have more than 435 components so at least 1 from every unique Congressional district?