StrandedonEarth Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Consensus in that Twitter thread is that the OP is a troll account Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said: Consensus in that Twitter thread is that the OP is a troll account Could well be. Hopefully so, they need to light that candle, finally. It might also be that some minor issue was found, and rumors spun it into something it wasn't. If I get a clear answer, I'll post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted November 4, 2021 Share Posted November 4, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropian Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 "Budgetary shortfalls," hah. Nobody saw that coming... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 "Artemis" but really, "SLS/Orion." Has all the Artemis stuff, but you can pull out SLS costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 4 minutes ago, tater said: "Artemis" but really, "SLS/Orion." Has all the Artemis stuff, but you can pull out SLS costs. Most important parts: - Artemis I to happen NET summer 2022 - The initial four SLS flights to cost 4.1 billions, of which 2.2 billions are for the pure SLS part and 600 millions for ground equipment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 5 minutes ago, Beccab said: - The initial four SLS flights to cost 4.1 billions, of which 2.2 billions are for the pure SLS part and 600 millions for ground equipment I have to assume the ground includes all testing, refurb, and stacking costs, not physical eqp. Remember that Orion capsules run I think $900M refurbed (?). So some cost is refurb per capsule could easily be 100s of millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicTech Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 Simple Solution, Use Superheavy and a discardable specialized upper stage based of Starship with Orion mounted on it. Everyone wins! NASA gets a safer rocket, SpaceX gets more money and flexes on Blue Origin, and It would look cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted November 28, 2021 Share Posted November 28, 2021 Still an evolving situation, but it's confirmed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 On 11/27/2021 at 7:46 PM, Beccab said: Still an evolving situation, but it's confirmed BE-4 engines or some other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 SLS is not changing propellants. Option would be to use one of the other RS-25s, they have several. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicTech Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 3 minutes ago, tater said: SLS is not changing propellants. Option would be to use one of the other RS-25s, they have several. Man, I wish that somebody else would use the awesome RS-25s for something other than a setback, overdue government jobs program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 10 minutes ago, AtomicTech said: Man, I wish that somebody else would use the awesome RS-25s for something other than a setback, overdue government jobs program. They're too expensive to use on anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 12 minutes ago, tater said: They're too expensive to use on anything else. They're really only good on a sustainer architecture. They're only *really* good on a reusable sustainer architecture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 3 minutes ago, RCgothic said: They're only *really* good on a reusable sustainer architecture. And sadly even that could be marginal. I have not seen detailed data on the RS-25 refurb cost per flight for Shuttle. Comparable new engines, designed for reuse without much work would be the Be-4. If that could be converted to hydrolox, the performance is likely similar to RS-25 as a reality check. Those engines are under $7M each. Any reuse would have to come in with less refurbishing cost than that per engine. If Raptor gets down under a million, then that's the next point they'd have to hit to be competitive—cheaper than Raptor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staticalliam7 Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 (edited) On 11/15/2021 at 1:26 PM, AtomicTech said: Simple Solution, Use Superheavy and a discardable specialized upper stage based of Starship with Orion mounted on it. Everyone wins! NASA gets a safer rocket, SpaceX gets more money and flexes on Blue Origin, and It would look cool. problems: 1. that's so cursed 2. starship is way wider than orion and would require a ridiculous adaptor 3. Starship will never EVER be expended. Period. That just won't happen. 4. CURSED Edited November 29, 2021 by Staticalliam7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Staticalliam7 said: problems: 1. that's so cursed 2. starship is way wider than orion and would require a ridiculous adaptor 3. Starship will never EVER be expended. Period. That just won't happen. 4. CURSED SLS is already way wider than Orion and requires a ridiculous adaptor. Starship's only 50cm extra each side. And when we say "expendable starship", really, what we mean is take a stainless steel tube and stick a raptor on the back of it. Knocking together an expendable raptor upper stage would be ridiculously easy. "Starship" may never be deliberately expended, but it's not really not difficult to conceive a version with an upper stage for special payloads. 15m diameter payloads. Deep space missions. Things that require launch escape systems. Those sorts of things, even after they've got orbital refuelling down Edited November 29, 2021 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicTech Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 Ridiculous Expendable Upper Stage or the REUS With the Adapter Buoyant Launch Expansion or the ABLE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 22 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Orion's already way wider than SLS and requires a ridiculous adaptor. Starship's only 50cm extra each side. And when we say "expendable starship", really, what we mean is take a stainless steel tube and stick a raptor on the back of it. Knocking together an expendable raptor upper stage would be ridiculously easy. "Starship" may never be deliberately expended, but it's not really not difficult to conceive a version with an upper stage for special payloads. 15m diameter payloads. Deep space missions. Things that require launch escape systems. Those sorts of things, even after they've got orbital refuelling down Also, it was confirmed that the Superheavy on DearMoon is going to be expended because of the mass required to launch in a TLI without refuelling, so a few Starships being expended wouldn't be unheard of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 1 hour ago, RCgothic said: Orion's already way wider than SLS and requires a ridiculous adaptor. ? Orion is 5.03m, and SLS is 8.4m. ICPS is 5m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, tater said: ? Orion is 5.03m, and SLS is 8.4m. ICPS is 5m. I meant it the other way round. (-_-;) SLS is way wider than Orion. It needs to be adapted down via ICPS, and EUS is needs adapting just as much. For Superheavy it wouldn't be much more. Edited November 29, 2021 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 7 minutes ago, RCgothic said: I meant it the other way round. (-_-;) SLS is way wider than Orion. It needs to be adapted down via ICPS, and EUS is needs adapting just as much. For Superheavy it wouldn't be much more. Gotcha. It is normal for a crew capsule to be much smaller than the SHLV dia (look at Apollo and N1, the only other examples). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted November 29, 2021 Share Posted November 29, 2021 54 minutes ago, tater said: Gotcha. It is normal for a crew capsule to be much smaller than the SHLV dia (look at Apollo and N1, the only other examples). Cursed: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 48 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Cursed Yeah, the thing I hate most about that stack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.