[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

I think Starship and Superheavy will work. Might take a few tries. Reuse? A huge ? to me.

To borrow from the X Files, "I want to believe."

This is not my first rodeo. The first spacecraft I saw fly over like an ISS pass (which I see all the time when my watch taps me that it's about to happen)? Apollo-Soyuz. I was visiting my grandma in Wisconsin with my dad, uncle, and cousins (boys vacation from back east). I watched Shuttle become a thing. My girlfriend (now wife, lol) came into the bathroom while I was shaving to say that "the shuttle just blew up" and I I said, "That's not funny" thinking it was a joke. I then lived through decades of... Shuttle. Doing LEO stuff. No Mars, no bases on the Moon, no next gen Shuttle, no Constellation (even with a buddy working on it). I'm sick of waiting. I want someone, ANYONE, to move the ball down the field. I'm not a fan of the CCP, but if they looked like they were doing something actually transformative, and we had "SLS," I'd root for China.

[tater]

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Why, when a used Falcon is as reliable as a new one?

Because they have not always come around to the new normal. In WW2, there were actually Admirals and other senior officers who thought battleships actually mattered. At all. LOL.

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The talk is about the reusable stage 1.

The expendable stage 2 just spends a reusable engine as expendable every flight.

Both are identical tanks, only differing in length.

Both use Merlin engine(s). S1 uses 9 M1D, S2 uses 1 Mvac. The engines share common parts. The workers can build X meters of tank(s) per year, which is enough to build more than enough stage 2, with time leftover—so they build a few S1s.

The engine people only need to build 1 Mvac per flight (all expended), but they have the capacity to build an engine a day (more?), so they build extra M1Ds for boosters.

It's that or fire them. Rockets are not that expensive, so just build a few more.

 

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The SRB  production needs the same, and is more important than Martian colonies.

The SRB people have a huge contract to build hundreds of next gen ICBMs. But sure, why not build SRBs for SLS at a BILLION per flight? Free money.

 

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

about Red Dragon, Colonial Transporter, ISRU methane, one-way Martian trip, and a megaton of other hype nonsense.

Currently they have a half-Proton rocket with reusable first stage of unclear efficiency of reusability and a single-use crewed spaceship which can be used several times more as a cargo box.

Starship and Super heavy are literally actually built. Seriously, you sound like a loon. having a plan, then changing faced with new data is called being rational. Why do "Red Dragon" when you can make Starship, instead? Why stick with a design that is not cost-effective to build (ITS), when you can switch materials and do SS/SH?

It's called being agile.

I realize you'd apparently prefer they fly nothing but Falcon 9 for the next 50 years—it ain't broke, why bother making anything else? Amiright?

The Russians have been making the same rocket forever. The US flew Shuttle for 30 years. I'm done. I have no interest in any throw away (even if cheap), or expensive rocket that is THE SAME %#@$ing thing until I die. I'm sick of moon bases being "Soon! In the next 20 years!" I want them if not NOW, before my kids are done with college.

Edited February 15, 2022 by tater

[tater]

[snip]

I mention R-7/Soyuz in the same way I mentioned Shuttle, though Soyuz is longer lived than Shuttle. Bottom line is that they are/were super useful for an extremely limited range of applications.

I'd rather see whatever bleeding edge rockets Russia can come up with—love that flyback booster concept, cool as hell. Do it.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, tater said:

I mention R-7/Soyuz in the same way I mentioned Shuttle, though Soyuz is longer lived than Shuttle.

My post which has started the "discussion".

On 2/8/2022 at 11:15 AM, kerbiloid said:

Why any "ism" here?

The ballistic missile manufacturer will stay by default, and they will get paid contracts anyway.

So, the solid rocket boosters will be used wherever it's possible. And there is not so many places for them except the ballistic missiles (not so many to be produced) and heavy space rockets.

The technological chain.

On 2/11/2022 at 10:11 AM, kerbiloid said:

That's why I believe that the Second Moon Race will be first of all an exttra money for SRB/ICBM manufacturers.

And the question is not even in money.
Once having captured such important hill as space rockets, it's not wise to leave it just because you have more money than it brings, and later get requiring its recapture.

Where do you see SpaceX? Starship? Russians? Angara? R-7?

I haven't mentioned any of that in any word.

Yes, I'm sure that the US authorities will take care about the military applications first of all, like everyone did.
Because ICBM/SLBM are a necessary condition to have the starships, newglenns, and other joy.

[snip]

Edited February 15, 2022 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[RyanRising]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Currently they have a half-Proton rocket with reusable first stage of unclear efficiency of reusability and a single-use crewed spaceship which can be used several times more as a cargo box.

While the first part only has most of the evidence suggesting the reuse is effective, the second statement is demonstrably false. Crew Dragon Endeavour and Resilience have flown twice, with people on board. I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say here? [snip]

Edited February 15, 2022 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[tater]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

That's why I believe that the Second Moon Race will be first of all an exttra money for SRB/ICBM manufacturers.

SLS SRB cost is chump change. ULA SRB cost added to that? Also chump change. Not even noise.

~$950M every year or two. The school system in my middle of noplace, tiny city spends >2X that per year.

[kerbiloid]

[snip]

 

6 hours ago, tater said:

SLS SRB cost is chump change. ULA SRB cost added to that? Also chump change. Not even noise.

~$950M every year or two. The school system in my middle of noplace, tiny city spends >2X that per year.

If you read my posts, they are first of all about having the ICBM production self-sustainable.

[snip]

 

I'm just sure that any military application will be at the very first place.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[RyanRising]

[snip] I was pointing out that you were wrong about Dragon being a “single-use crewed spacecraft that can be reused as a cargo box.” A very cursory amount of research would show you that this statement is wrong, so why make it? Same goes for the “maiden ship for every crew” - by merit of the reuse we’ve seen this is clearly no longer a requirement.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[kerbiloid]

So, that's why I'm sure that SLS will have a higher priority anyway, regardless of what's better for space flights.

Also, SLS has another significant advantage. Its SRB can be strapped to any other central core.
So, it allows to develop a new rocket not from scratch.

6 hours ago, RyanRising said:

[snip] I was pointing out that you were wrong about Dragon being a “single-use crewed spacecraft that can be reused as a cargo box.” A very cursory amount of research would show you that this statement is wrong, so why make it? 

I reminded NASA requirements.

If SpaceX launches people on their own risk, that's their deal.

[tater]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

If you read my posts, they are first of all about having the ICBM production self-sustainable.

So, most of noise goes from SpaceX side.

They have the contract already. It's all public. Not sure what the point is. The US taxpayer (me) overpays for some SRBs that get used on average every ~3 years (all the R&D years have 0 uses) so that the congressional reps in Utah can say they brought home the bacon. So what? SpaceX is building Starship regardless. Had they not won HLS (which I doubt they expected to)? They still build Starship.

[kerbiloid]

Iirc, the chute landing was also forced by NASA.

[RyanRising]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

I reminded NASA requirements.

If SpaceX launches people on their own risk, that's their deal.

NASA does not have this requirement. DM-2 and Crew-2 were both flown on Crew Dragon Endeavour. Both were NASA missions. Were you unaware of this?

Edited February 15, 2022 by RyanRising

[tater]

Yeah, it's been known for quite a while that Cargo Dragon is a bespoke cargo variant (no LES, for example), and that the Crew Dragons get reused.

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

They have the contract already. It's all public. Not sure what the point is. The US taxpayer (me) overpays for some SRBs that get used on average every ~3 years (all the R&D years have 0 uses) so that the congressional reps in Utah can say they brought home the bacon. So what? SpaceX is building Starship regardless. Had they not won HLS (which I doubt they expected to)? They still build Starship.

Idk.

I'm just sure that sky may fall on ground, but the combat rockets will have higher priority than civil ones.

Also I believe that no "heavy" lunar base will be built until it gets economically reasonable, which can happen only after fusion reactors appear.

So, whatever is better, the lunar base will get on table by 2050s or so, and nobody will force it.

Before that only small temporary geological outposts can happen, and that's what SLS can provide as well.

Edited February 15, 2022 by kerbiloid

[tater]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

I just sure that sky may fall on ground, but the combat rockets will have higher priority that civil ones.

NASA has a total budget that is what, 20X smaller than the Pentagon? So, duh, yeah, if the military wants/needs a launch vehicle (orbital or suborbital) they have more money to spend. Remember also that NASA does not just do space, they do aeronautics as well. NASA's total budget is lower than the public school system in Los Angeles. Substantially lower than the PS system in NYC.

A billion bucks every couple years is meaningful to some contractor in a small state (UT) where that equals jobs and associated jobs in the community to support those workers, but it's not actually a lot of money. Maybe it seems like it if it's 10-25% of the ESA budget, or wherever, but it's just not a lot of money.

There is  a LOT of politics in the US space program, to be sure. But the total money involved is kind of laughable.

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

NASA has a total budget that is what, 20X smaller than the Pentagon? So, duh, yeah, if the military wants/needs a launch vehicle (orbital or suborbital) they have more money to spend. Remember also that NASA does not just do space, they do aeronautics as well. NASA's total budget is lower than the public school system in Los Angeles. Substantially lower than the PS system in NYC.

A billion bucks every couple years is meaningful to some contractor in a small state (UT) where that equals jobs and associated jobs in the community to support those workers, but it's not actually a lot of money. Maybe it seems like it if it's 10-25% of the ESA budget, or wherever, but it's just not a lot of money.

There is  a LOT of politics in the US space program, to be sure. But the total money involved is kind of laughable.

The question is not in money. The question is in the working factory.

The ICBM/SLBM factory must run without a pause, It needs something to manufacture, something to let the personnel keep up their skills, the equipment be cared and kept always intact.

Money don't play much role here.

Because if tomorrow, say, "NK" builds a thousand of primitive rockets, no SpaceX can provide ICBM in a year.
The last ICBM cryorockets were Titan I and R-9.

So, whatever exists as peace time "contracts", the military needs will override any of them at any moment.

Edited February 15, 2022 by kerbiloid

[tater]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The ICBM/SLBM factory must run without a pause, It needs something to manufacture, something to let the personnel keep up their skills, the equipment be cared and kept always intact.

Yes, there is always a place for defense industry to keep production lines warm.

It's the same reason SpaceX doesn't fire all their F9 booster workers. generally, the smaller defense contractors simply have fewer people.

When NG bought Thiokol, I assume they also got the coatings part of the company? That's probably the bulk of business. Dunno.

[RyanRising]

21 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

NASA does not have this requirement. DM-2 and Crew-2 were both flown on Crew Dragon Endeavour. Both were NASA missions. Were you unaware of this?

@kerbiloid I’d like you to address this. Were you unaware or aware that a Dragon has flown multiple crewed NASA missions?

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

@kerbiloid I’d like you to address this. Were you unaware or aware that a Dragon has flown multiple crewed NASA missions?

I was unaware, but this changes nothing on the SRB topic.

(I don't follow the hype about the space tourists.)

9 minutes ago, tater said:

It's the same reason SpaceX doesn't fire all their F9 booster workers. generally, the smaller defense contractors simply have fewer people.

SpaceX rockets have nothing to do about combat missiles. Recon sat launches as maximum.

Same recon sats can be launched by SRB rockets like usually.

Edited February 15, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Snark]

Lots of content has been redacted and/or removed, involving a wide variety of forum users, due to one or more of the following:

• off-topic
• personal remarks, insults
• arguing about arguing
• accusations

Folks, please don't do that sort of thing.  It's against the rules, and it makes the forum a less pleasant place for everyone.

Since it appears that a fair number of folks could use a refresher, here are some helpful tips:

 

The following things are absolutely okay and permitted for people to do:

• Expressing an opinion.
  • Yes, even if it's different from yours.
  • Yes, even if it's different from all your friends'.
• Disagreeing with a previous post by someone else.

If someone is doing one of the above things, and you have a problem with it, then the problem is yours, not theirs.

 

The following things are not okay, so don't do them:

• Personal remarks and insults.
  • If you have to resort to name-calling and finger-pointing to make your point, then you really don't have a point, now, do you?
  • Please don't do this to other people.
  • If someone else does it to you, then you can report it (please do!) or ignore it, but please don't respond in kind.
• Accusations or speculation about other people's motives or intentions.
  • At all.  Ever.  No matter how sure you are that you're right.  Even if you actually are right.
  • If you think someone is behaving so egregiously that they're violating forum rules, then by all means file a report and the moderators will have a look.
  • It is never okay, however, regardless of perceived provocation, to make such accusations publicly.  It's not your place to do so.  Please don't do it.
  • Some examples of accusations include calling someone a troll, or saying that they're lying.
• Going off-topic into irrelevant side issues.
  • This one's a bit of a gray area.  Nobody minds much if you touch tangentially on another topic now and then.
  • But if a post veers completely off-topic, e.g. "what is the definition of the word 'mockup'," for multiple posts going back and forth?  Pretty good sign that the discussion doesn't belong in the thread.
• Arguing about arguing.
  • This is a special case of being off-topic.
  • Please address a person's substantive points, rather than arguing about whether they're reasonable or not.

Not everyone is going to like everyone else.  If someone annoys you, that's your lookout; there are many ways to deal with this.  For example, you may choose to simply ignore the person, or you may choose to respond to their substantive points with substantive points of your own.  Lashing out angrily, however, never solves anything, doesn't win arguments, and gets in the way of people who just want to read about the thread's topic.  So please don't do it.  It's generally never a good idea to post while angry; it rarely produces good results.

 

OK, unlocking the thread.  I trust we can all comport ourselves like civil adults?

Thank you for your understanding.

[tater]

 

 

[tater]

 

 

[tater]

 

 

 

I remember the usual suspects in this thread arguing that the $2B ballpark as a min we were using for SLS (plus another $1.xB for Orion) was too high.

[Beccab]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

 

 

 

I remember the usual suspects in this thread arguing that the $2B ballpark as a min we were using for SLS (plus another $1.xB for Orion) was too high.

Reminder that a NASA employee and r/Spacelaunchsystem moderator a couple years ago tried hard (and almost succeeded) to make it so the wikipedia article on SLS stated that its cost per launch was 800 million dollars 

[tater]

OP for this thread has said something similar, even when we knew what the RS-25 refurb cost (~$128M each), and that the SRBs alone are ~$950M a set.