[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[StrandedonEarth]

11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Dicking around on KSP forums maybe

Oh, so looking for inspiration in "The Spacecraft Exchange" subforum?

Well, I suppose there were a few paper iterations.... And expanded tooling.... then there's the SRB work (a good chunk of which was done during the Shuttle/Ares era)

[ZooNamedGames]

3 hours ago, tater said:

No, it's NOT, unless you are saying SLS isn't actually ready to do the one thing it is supposed to do. Which is it? Is Orion ready to put people in when it flies, no changes, yes or no? If the answer is yes, you are correct, if ANY flight feature on Artemis II is not installed and operating on Artemis I, then the answer is NO.

It's not like those systems need testing Tater. They are ready, past tense. Notice how there are 0 plans for testing or experimenting with Artemis 2 ECLSS, none. Why? Because it is ready, not integrated true, but it is ready. NASA very well could stick LS onboard Orion, it's a choice to save time not to- it's not a matter of "Artemis not ready", it's a matter of what gets Artemis flown sooner. The decision is to skip ECLSS integration, not because it isn't ready but because that moves the launch time sooner.

3 hours ago, tater said:

It's not MEANT to do ANYTHING then.

I can understand wanting SLS/Orion to work or do something, why not, it's a crew vehicle, cool. What I don't understand is arguing that there is anything it's actually useful for that isn't make-work.

Atlas V can launch crew, and only crew once Starliner is working. Falcon 9 can do the same come May when it will. By the time SLS flies so will Vulcan, and NG (certainly before SLS flies crew). All at vastly lower cost than SLS. So what is SLS for, exactly?

Saturn V wasn't meant to either by that logic.

Atlas V, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy- all of these vehicles can't send Orion to the moon. It's nice to ponder on an assemblable Orion but that is not only extremely costly to develop (adding to the costs people already complain about), but also delay the program further. Not to mention that would add additional complexity, failure points (more testing), & also reduce Orion's abilities even further. Why not New Glenn? It's not man rated, has gone through 0 tests to be. We've been through this before, "but why is SLS man rated on the first launch?", for 2 reasons- 1) Most of SLS' major components have already flown 135+ times before thanks to the Shuttle program (RS-25s, Solid Rocket Motors, AJ-10 Engine on Orion Service Module, ICPS (not shuttle but whatever)) - 2) SLS has gone through the maximum amount of testing rigors possible to put an unflown rocket through. Pressure tests? Succeeded. Sound tests? Succeeded. Heating? Succeeded. Safety systems? Succeeded. Despite being unflown- and yes this is wholly an opinion but one I'd put legitimate money on- SLS is one of the safest rockets ever built in history. How can that be? Because again they've tested every facet, of every bolt, of every sheet of metal, of every integration system, with true flight tests to boot thanks to the Shuttle program. As a result, the vehicle will keep crews safe no matter the condition, before the crews ever step inside Orion. New Glenn? It's tests are just to prove it can fly, it has no specification for crew. It's made 0 progress to prove itself.

Arguing cost on the topic of SLS is to argue with a scientist about philosophies- NASA doesn't care about cost. They get their funding from Congress which has a massive sum of money to dispense. When NASA successfully proposes a mission they like (notice, as much as I hear that SLS is just Shelby's initiative, it isn't- since SLS has support from both sides) (also note, NASA makes the missions, not Congress as often as I hear that as well), then Congress provides funding. How much funding is dependent on the scale of the mission they've proposed.

"But Zoo! As a taxpayer I demand better results!" - Not even private citizens remotely have anything comparable to SLS. The only vehicle that remotely can compete is SpaceX's Super Heavy booster (New Glenn's GTO launch mass is 13,000kg vs Orion's full launch mass of 33,500kg). A booster that does not yet exist past an engine, & a render. SLS is frankly, the only vehicle available. "But why launch direct to the moon?!" Because long duration missions lead to greater strains on ECLSS, higher efficiency fuels, like hydrolox or metholox, run the issue of greater & greater boil off issues, which would require a new vehicle to be built that again, does not exist.

 

But Zoo- I specifically said- what is SLS for?? - It's for launching crews to NHRO to send a crewable vehicle to LOP-G to enable lunar missions. "But Artemis 1 won't send crew to the moon!" - No, since NASA got enough flak for their decision to fly crew on STS-1 in 1981. This mission is to test every component, every part & every module. Past Artemis 1, Artemis 2 will send crew to the moon. Something no other entity, government, private, or otherwise can do within the same timeframe. Starship is said to perform Dear Moon by 2023 though this is extremely unlike as there's 0 work done to make that possible aside from multiple self destructing water towers; Though Artemis 2 will experience some delays as well (I say late 2023/Early 2024- though the next presidency would likely want to secure that chance to send humans back to the moon so an acceleration in pace could be expected), it won't be nearly as severe since most, if not debatably all the testing work has already been completed, meaning only production & assembly must be completed. After that, Artemis 3, will land crew on the moon which is the whole point of Artemis. In 3 missions (2 half missions with pad aborts & 1 of EFT-1, so in total 6 if you want to be pedantic), NASA plans to set boots on the moon. By comparison, the Saturn V flew 2 uncrewed missions, with an additional 4 crewed missions before attempting the landing. Even the Soviet N1 had 4 test flights planned, yes- it failed but there were multiple tests of the vehicle before it did 1 crewed mission. SLS is going to be the fastest vehicle to enable us to not only fly a crewable spacecraft to the moon, but to set boots on the moon.

"But Zoo- why use SLS?! Orion ok, but why SLS?!" To reiterate- it's because SLS is the only launcher that is proven to be safe, passed all tests, & is ready to fly. Orion may not carry crew, but it's not a matter of "it isn't ready" as it is, just not opting to spend time implementing ECLSS.

Edited March 12, 2020 by ZooNamedGames

[tater]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

It's not like those systems need testing Tater. They are ready, past tense. Notice how there are 0 plans for testing or experimenting with Artemis 2 ECLSS, none. Why? Because it is ready, not integrated true, but it is ready. NASA very well could stick LS onboard Orion, it's a choice to save time not to- it's not a matter of "Artemis not ready", it's a matter of what gets Artemis flown sooner. The decision is to skip ECLSS integration, not because it isn't ready but because that moves the launch time sooner.

Nonsense, it's complete, or incomplete. Binary. Arrtemis I is a boilerplate Orion as far as all internal systems are concerned. Starliner was 100% ready, too—more ready, as it actually flew.

 

Quote

Saturn V wasn't meant to either by that logic.

This is patently absurd. Saturn V was meant to launch crew missions that could land humans on the Moon, and return them to Earth. It accomplished what it was meant to do admirably. If they went with a larger lander concept (direct ascent, say), they would have built Nova, instead.

SLS never had a mission that it was designed to complete. What is the mission of SLS? Be specific. "launching people to BLEO" isn't a mission any more than a suborbital flight is a mission, or sending a tourist to some high orbit would be. It needs to be useful for, um, something. If the goal is humans to the Moon (in all cases "to the Moon" means walking on it), then we need "SLS Nova" that can loft 67.5t to TLI (that or a smaller capsule).

 

Quote

Atlas V, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy- all of these vehicles can't send Orion to the moon.

The only part of the Moon that is interesting for people to visit is the surface. SLS can't do this, either.

 

Quote

It's nice to ponder on an assemblable Orion but that is not only extremely costly to develop (adding to the costs people already complain about), but also delay the program further. Not to mention that would add additional complexity, failure points (more testing), & also reduce Orion's abilities even further.

This is simply nonsense. Orion can't go to the lunar surface, and the people riding in it can't without all the orbital assembly, etc, you complain about—except that that assembly might in fact be in lunar orbit, lol.

Quote

Why not New Glenn? It's not man rated, has gone through 0 tests to be.

NG is man rated from the first flight, just as Vulcan is, and Atlas V is. This is not debatable, it's a fact. The day NG flies they can put a capsule on it (ditto Vulcan).

SpaceX tests actual rockets to get certified, other companies test all the parts, and the rocket (exactly like SLS) is crew rated from the start.

Quote

Meet New Glenn

Named after pioneering astronaut John Glenn, New Glenn is a single configuration heavy-lift launch vehicle capable of carrying people and payloads routinely to Earth orbit and beyond. Featuring a reusable first stage built for 25 missions, New Glenn will build a road to space.

^^^From the Blue Origin website. This has always been true, and any time they are asked, they say so.

 

Quote

We've been through this before, "but why is SLS man rated on the first launch?", for 2 reasons- 1) Most of SLS' major components have already flown 135+ times before thanks to the Shuttle program (RS-25s, Solid Rocket Motors, AJ-10 Engine on Orion Service Module, ICPS (not shuttle but whatever)) - 2) SLS has gone through the maximum amount of testing rigors possible to put an unflown rocket through. Pressure tests? Succeeded. Sound tests? Succeeded. Heating? Succeeded. Safety systems? Succeeded. Despite being unflown- and yes this is wholly an opinion but one I'd put legitimate money on- SLS is one of the safest rockets ever built in history. How can that be? Because again they've tested every facet, of every bolt, of every sheet of metal, of every integration system, with true flight tests to boot thanks to the Shuttle program. As a result, the vehicle will keep crews safe no matter the condition, before the crews ever step inside Orion. New Glenn? It's tests are just to prove it can fly, it has no specification for crew. It's made 0 progress to prove itself.

SLS is not man rated because of the only 2 parts that have flown with humans before (RS-25 and OMS engine). It is man rated because of a system for establishing failure probabilities of parts based on actual use, or ground testing, etc.

NG and Vulcan are doing the same thing. Vulcan is the designated, crew-rated LV for Starliner flights post Atlas V out of the box.

 

Quote

Arguing cost on the topic of SLS is to argue with a scientist about philosophies- NASA doesn't care about cost. They get their funding from Congress which has a massive sum of money to dispense. When NASA successfully proposes a mission they like (notice, as much as I hear that SLS is just Shelby's initiative, it isn't- since SLS has support from both sides) (also note, NASA makes the missions, not Congress as often as I hear that as well), then Congress provides funding. How much funding is dependent on the scale of the mission they've proposed.

SLS/Orion is a program to do things to spend money. Some of us would prefer a program to spend money to do things.

 

Quote

"But Zoo! As a taxpayer I demand better results!" - Not even private citizens remotely have anything comparable to SLS. The only vehicle that remotely can compete is SpaceX's Super Heavy booster (New Glenn's GTO launch mass is 13,000kg vs Orion's full launch mass of 33,500kg). A booster that does not yet exist past an engine, & a render. SLS is frankly, the only vehicle available. "But why launch direct to the moon?!" Because long duration missions lead to greater strains on ECLSS, higher efficiency fuels, like hydrolox or metholox, run the issue of greater & greater boil off issues, which would require a new vehicle to be built that again, does not exist.

This is abject nonsense, all of it. SLS is the only vehicle to launch Orion... nowhere useful. Distant lunar orbit is not useful. It teaches us nothing we could not learn in LEO. ECLSS is the same, the only thing not the same is radiation, which is far worse, and nothing even proposed for Gateway mitigates radiation, so they are noit even testing that (and such a test on humans would be unethical, anyway, put a rad detector in a sample shielded spacecraft, and measure, instead).

 

Quote

But Zoo- I specifically said- what is SLS for?? - It's for launching crews to NHRO to send a crewable vehicle to LOP-G to enable lunar missions.

It was not designed for this role, this role was invented for it, since it was literally the only BLEO place it can go and return from. I can tie a Christmas tree on the roof of our BMW sedan, or fill it with trash bags and drive to the dump. It was not designed for that role, even if it can do it. A pickup is designed for that role.

 

Quote

"But Artemis 1 won't send crew to the moon!" - No, since NASA got enough flak for their decision to fly crew on STS-1 in 1981.

I didn't say Artemis I would not send crew to the Moon, I never thought it should. I said SLS/Orion will never send crew to the lunar surface in one flight. Since it can't, not ever. As soon as you add a second flight, it eliminates literally every argument you have against using "not SLS" to do the mission. Docking is not hard, and it's not risky in LEO, if you fail to dock, you come home. With literally any "not Orion" vehicle, the price would not be so absurd, so you'd not care (at 1B$ +, not true of Orion).

Quote

This mission is to test every component, every part & every module. Past Artemis 1, Artemis 2 will send crew to the moon.

Distant lunar orbit is not "to the Moon." It was an amazing accomplishment in December 1968, though to be fair Apollo 8 was far more challenging than Artemis II, but it's not anything now. Closer to the Moon than I am right now, but incapable of doing anything we can do here. For reasons.

Also, if they want to test everything, they should start by testing the life support integrated into the spacecraft before they put people in. What if the clock's off by several days and vents the cabin to space thinking it already spashed down? (yeah, longer than 11 hours off)

Quote

Something no other entity, government, private, or otherwise can do within the same timeframe. Starship is said to perform Dear Moon by 2023 though this is extremely unlike as there's 0 work done to make that possible aside from multiple self destructing water towers;

I don't drag Starship into these conversations on purpose. I stick to existing LVs, and "old school" LVs doing things the "old space" way like ULA and Blue Origin. The fact that you think the testbeds are "0 work done" is pretty comical.

 

Quote

Though Artemis 2 will experience some delays as well (I say late 2023/Early 2024- though the next presidency would likely want to secure that chance to send humans back to the moon so an acceleration in pace could be expected), it won't be nearly as severe since most, if not debatably all the testing work has already been completed, meaning only production & assembly must be completed.

The idea it would be accelerated is comical as well. It's honestly a coin flip to be canceled in such a case (Artemis, not SLS, which will then get some other make-work if anyone can think of something). It could not be accelerated in any case.

Quote

After that, Artemis 3, will land crew on the moon which is the whole point of Artemis. In 3 missions (2 half missions with pad aborts & 1 of EFT-1, so in total 6 if you want to be pedantic), NASA plans to set boots on the moon. By comparison, the Saturn V flew 2 uncrewed missions, with an additional 4 crewed missions before attempting the landing. Even the Soviet N1 had 4 test flights planned, yes- it failed but there were multiple tests of the vehicle before it did 1 crewed mission. SLS is going to be the fastest vehicle to enable us to not only fly a crewable spacecraft to the moon, but to set boots on the moon.

There is not even lander hardware, don't even talk about Artemis III until money is allocated and the landers are actually being built. Congress was making noise for that at 2028, anyway.

 

Quote

"But Zoo- why use SLS?! Orion ok, but why SLS?!" To reiterate- it's because SLS is the only launcher that is proven to be safe, passed all tests, & is ready to fly. Orion may not carry crew, but it's not a matter of "it isn't ready" as it is, just not opting to spend time implementing ECLSS.

SLS is "proven" to be nothing at all yet. You could at least be honest enough to say "will be proven after the Green Run test."  Literally nothing about it is proven. It's designed to work, and it probably will, but "proven" requires actually flying it.

As to Orion, it's either flight article with total system integration testing over the course of the mission, or it isn't. How does the computer system talk to the ECLSS? Does the ECLSS use power? Is there ANY possible interaction between ANY Orion subsystem and life support? It;s just like Starliner. Complete testing is valuable, and Artemis I is about EDL from the Moon, and little else.

Edited March 12, 2020 by tater

[RCgothic]

Yup, a barely useful mission has been designed for SLS because it can't do anything more useful with the throw weight and capsule it has.

It will require multiple launches of other rockets to complete that mission, so why not just go the whole way and just use other rockets?

SLS can't do anything that a falcon 9 and a falcon heavy can't do much cheaper and much more often just by working together.

Falcon 9 is man rated. Astronauts will literally be on the next dragon flight.

Edited March 12, 2020 by RCgothic

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, tater said:

NG is man rated from the first flight, just as Vulcan is, and Atlas V is. This is not debatable, it's a fact. The day NG flies they can put a capsule on it (ditto Vulcan).

Do they plan their own capsule (to be modded in KSP in its time) or use some existing, say, CST-100?

[Shpaget]

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

Falcon 9 is man rated. Astronauts will literally be on the next flight.

Well, to be frank, I count three or four F9 flights before crew launch.

March 14 Starlink 5
March 30 SAOCOM 1B
April 29 GPS 3 SV03
TBD Anasis 2
May 7 Crew Dragon Demo 2

On topic, I've seen mostly discussion about crewed flights on SLS, but what about deep space probes, space telescopes or future space stations in LEO? IIRC SLS has a bit larger diameter than NG or Starship. Is this a meaningful size difference when it comes to bulky cargo?

[Flavio hc16]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

On topic, I've seen mostly discussion about crewed flights on SLS, but what about deep space probes, space telescopes or future space stations in LEO? IIRC SLS has a bit larger diameter than NG or Starship. Is this a meaningful size difference when it comes to bulky cargo?

SLS block 2  (10m)has a bigger fairing than starship ( 9 m), block 1 is at 8.4m, NG at 7 meters.

And i think we won't see block 2 until 2028, if we will ever see it.

[tater]

3 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:

SLS block 2  (10m)has a bigger fairing than starship ( 9 m), block 1 is at 8.4m, NG at 7 meters.

And i think we won't see block 2 until 2028, if we will ever see it.

SLS is worse than you suggest. Block 1B is 8.4m, Block 1 (the only SLS that actually exists) is just a 5m fairing (ICPS diameter).

Anything that SLS can launch before they build and test the EUS can be launched by existing vehicles from a size standpoint. NG is substantially bigger as you say. I'll bet money NG flies as scheduled in 2021. There is every chance both NG and Vulcan are flying before Artemis I flies.

[Shpaget]

I was thinking about Block 2. How useful would that be for cargo, considering the huge cost per launch?

[RCgothic]

Does SLS Block 1 even have a cargo version?

Block 1B is so far over the horizon it might as well be a paper rocket. Block 2 even more so.

Edited March 12, 2020 by RCgothic

[.50calBMG]

57 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Block 1B is so far over the horizon it might as well be a paper rocket. Block 2 even more so.

This is what Tater and I have repeated over and over again. While SLS components exist, they haven't been fully tested together, and the only useful versions of SLS are still nothing but PowerPoints right now, and for the foreseeable future, seeing as IIRC Boeing is the one "building" EUS

[Dirkidirk]

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

Does SLS Block 1 even have a cargo version?

yes, but it will probably never be built.

 

 

[Wjolcz]

14 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

though the next presidency would likely want to secure that chance to send humans back to the moon so an acceleration in pace could be expected

Remember Constellation?

Edited March 12, 2020 by Wjolcz

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, Wjolcz said:

Remember Constellation?

That had no funding. So that comparison is exceptionally poor.

11 hours ago, RCgothic said:

Yup, a barely useful mission has been designed for SLS because it can't do anything more useful with the throw weight and capsule it has.

It will require multiple launches of other rockets to complete that mission, so why not just go the whole way and just use other rockets?

SLS can't do anything that a falcon 9 and a falcon heavy can't do much cheaper and much more often just by working together.

Falcon 9 is man rated. Astronauts will literally be on the next dragon flight.

Falcon Heavy can only barely lift Orion, it certainly can't throw it past LEO, even in full expendable. 

Multiple rockets allows for more versatility & cheaper flights for non-crew flights. Outside of SLS, no booster is capable of sending payloads to the moon. Assembling Orion is not practical as previously mentioned, & Dragon 2 isn't capable of completing the journey in it's current iteration.

2 hours ago, .50calBMG said:

This is what Tater and I have repeated over and over again. While SLS components exist, they haven't been fully tested together, and the only useful versions of SLS are still nothing but PowerPoints right now, and for the foreseeable future, seeing as IIRC Boeing is the one "building" EUS

Many of the components have been tested. Remember the Space Shuttle? What did it have on it's first stage? RS-25s & Solid rocket motors? What does SLS have on it's first stage? Oh why RS-25s & Solid Rocket Motors! Of the same design! Only with an extended segment which was already considered for the Shuttle program. ICPS? Flown on multiple Delta missions. AJ-10? Apollo & the Space Shuttle!

10 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Well, to be frank, I count three or four F9 flights before crew launch.

March 14 Starlink 5
March 30 SAOCOM 1B
April 29 GPS 3 SV03
TBD Anasis 2
May 7 Crew Dragon Demo 2

On topic, I've seen mostly discussion about crewed flights on SLS, but what about deep space probes, space telescopes or future space stations in LEO? IIRC SLS has a bit larger diameter than NG or Starship. Is this a meaningful size difference when it comes to bulky cargo?

NASA has made SLS available for commercial use. NASA doesn't expect it to be used due to the growing alternatives available, but it's more of a case of "we have this for you to use, it's a bit expensive but it can lift more than anyone else".

Ok, time for the big reply...

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

 

[RCgothic]

Give SpaceX half the cost of a single all up Orion SLS to develop a means to send a crew to NRHO as soon as possible and actually do so and I'd bet £100 they beat SLS Orion by an embarrassingly large margin.

Edited March 12, 2020 by RCgothic

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Give SpaceX half the cost of a single all up Orion SLS to develop a means to get to NRHO as soon as possible *and do so* and I'd bet £100 they beat SLS Orion by an embarrassingly large margin.

They're trying to. It's called Starship & Super Heavy. So far it won't stop exploding. That, along with SpaceX only flying for a short duration, makes NASA apprehensive to contract out flying crews to the moon.

[Dirkidirk]

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

They're trying to. It's called Starship & Super Heavy. So far it won't stop exploding. That, along with SpaceX only flying for a short duration, makes NASA apprehensive to contract out flying crews to the moon.

it just stopped exploding as they found out how to weld the tank properly, and are proceeding with sn3. I don't know how much SpaceX has spent on starship, or will spend on starship, but it is probably less than how much nasa spent on sls on year one.

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

That, along with SpaceX only flying for a short duration, makes NASA apprehensive to contract out flying crews to the moon.

ok

Edited March 12, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[MinimumSky5]

16 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

They're trying to. It's called Starship & Super Heavy. So far it won't stop exploding. That, along with SpaceX only flying for a short duration, makes NASA apprehensive to contract out flying crews to the moon.

Unfair comparison.

SpaceX are developing their hardware by deliberately pushing their hardware to the edge of what it can do, and then far beyond, to see where the limits lie, not by simulating it to heck and back to find all of the possibly failure modes. There is nothing wrong with that approach, it's messy, and has very public failures, but it means that SpaceX won't invest in true production unless and until their hardware is flight proven, rather than hoping that they have coded in all of the variables right before they test their software.

The exploded vehicles were (mostly, admittedly) built to be destroyed, so it's a bit unfair to say that those failures reflect badly onto SpaceX. Only do that if you know how many virtual SLS's Boeing has sacrificed in simulations.

[tater]

What in this post isn't wrong?

 

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Falcon Heavy can only barely lift Orion, it certainly can't throw it past LEO, even in full expendable. 

True, though as @sevenperforce has shown a number of times a "naked" FH stage 2 can (dock Orion to S2, and go).

 

Quote

Multiple rockets allows for more versatility & cheaper flights for non-crew flights. Outside of SLS, no booster is capable of sending payloads to the moon.

This is simply nonsense. Electron is sending a payload to the Moon soon. What do you mean here? FH can send ~20t to TLI. F9 can send tons to TLI. NG, Atlas V, Vulcan, DIVH... yeah they can all send slightly less than they send to GEO to TLI. All the rockets can send payloads to the Moon.

 

Quote

Assembling Orion is not practical as previously mentioned, & Dragon 2 isn't capable of completing the journey in it's current iteration.

Docking Orion is either trivial, or it's very poorly designed.

 

Quote

Many of the components have been tested. Remember the Space Shuttle? What did it have on it's first stage? RS-25s & Solid rocket motors? What does SLS have on it's first stage? Oh why RS-25s & Solid Rocket Motors! Of the same design! Only with an extended segment which was already considered for the Shuttle program. ICPS? Flown on multiple Delta missions. AJ-10? Apollo & the Space Shuttle!

So what? All the Starliner stuff was tested, too. The first (of several) failures was 2 already tested bits not talking to each other. An all-up test is critical. SLS and Orion are both untested. We'll see what happens when it actually flies.

 

Quote

NASA has made SLS available for commercial use. NASA doesn't expect it to be used due to the growing alternatives available, but it's more of a case of "we have this for you to use, it's a bit expensive but it can lift more than anyone else".

Where "a bit expensive " is defined as "two orders of magnitude more."

The only SLS that exists is Block 1, and it has a 5m fairing, with the bulk of what the payload is being the ICPS itself.

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

They're trying to. It's called Starship & Super Heavy. So far it won't stop exploding. That, along with SpaceX only flying for a short duration, makes NASA apprehensive to contract out flying crews to the moon.

Musk has rightfully said that it will be easier to land Starship on the Moon than to convince NASA it's a thing.

Edited March 12, 2020 by tater

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

That had no funding.

OK.

[tater]

A friend of mine actually worked on Constellation. He'd be surprised he didn't have a job then.

[RCgothic]

3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

They're trying to. It's called Starship & Super Heavy. So far it won't stop exploding. That, along with SpaceX only flying for a short duration, makes NASA apprehensive to contract out flying crews to the moon.

Ok.

Dragon 2 is 9500kg dry. Throw out the normal payload to ISS and give over to propellant. Stretch the trunk, give it some superdracos at 235 SL ISP. Call it +2000kg lunar dry weight, some of which is consumable but we'll ignore that, and 11000kg of propellant.

Starting mass: 22500kg, Dry 11500kg. Superdraco can push that through 1550m/s and do both the lunar insertion and return (~1400m/s) with margin.

Falcon 9 can launch 22.8t expendable. Falcon 9 is man-rated.

Falcon Heavy can put S2 (~4000kg) plus a notional 1000kg docking module into LEO expendable, with 58000kg of residual propellant. MVac has 348s.

Starting Mass: 85500kg, Dry 27500. MVac can push that through 3870m/s, which is again easily enough for a lunar intercept (3260m/s).

The only new engineering here is a stretched trunk with superdracos on, plus a docking target on S2. And it goes to LLO, which is better than NLHO.

Tell Musk: Get crew to LLO by the end of 2021 for half the price of an SLS or the world ends and I'd back him to succeed.

Edited March 12, 2020 by RCgothic

[RCgothic]

Alternatively instead of expending 4 cores, Falcon 9 reusable can put a 16t dragon 2 that could do the TEI into LEO, and Falcon Heavy (centre core expended) can put S2 into LEO with enough propellant to do both TLI and LLO  requiring only mods to increase endurance to 3 days.

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

Alternatively instead of expending 4 cores, Falcon 9 reusable can put a 16t dragon 2 that could do the TEI into LEO, and Falcon Heavy (centre core expended) can put S2 into LEO with enough propellant to do both TLI and LLO  requiring only mods to increase endurance to 3 days.

We really need a less efficient but more modular ACES.

[jadebenn]

NASA has decided to use the LH2 and LOX tanks that were originally fabricated for the first core stage (and subsequently sidelined due to welding issues) in the construction of the third core stage. NASA believes they can repair the welds to make the tanks safe for flight (likely aided by the data gleaned from the testing of the LH2 and LOX STAs).

Image source

If you want some speculation from yours truly: This is probably being done in order to cram another SLS flight into the manifest prior to 2024. That way they can move straight on to fabricating the tanks for CS-4.

If NASA ends up going with an integrated SLS-launched lander after all, they'll probably launch it off the CS-3 core that uses these tanks.

Edited March 14, 2020 by jadebenn