[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[sevenperforce]

10 minutes ago, Terwin said:

If cost competitiveness was a real concern it would not have been designed or built as it was.

For good or ill, so long as it has sufficient backing in the halls of government, SLS need not worry about any sort of cost-based competition.

It doesn’t have to worry about cost-based competition until it has capability competition. SLS is enormously expensive for its payload to orbit, but it has the highest capability of any launch vehicle. Its supporters in Congress will continue to justify it as “expensive but necessary” until a vehicle comes along that can match or exceed its capability.

[tater]

@Terwin, as @sevenperforce said, it's a capability issue. As soon as Starship is even lightly operational, it obviates... everything else. SpaceX getting the LSS contract makes them part of Artemis—but LSS existing means SLS is pointless.

LSS requires refilling ops. So if LSS fails, SLS is still the only way. If they can refill LSS in Earth orbit, at that point, even if Orion was required, Orion need only be in LEO. LSS could take Orion with it from LEO to LLO, leave it there, return to LLO, then Orion heads home. Spending 2 billion to send Orion to a high lunar orbit seems pretty wasteful, when it could go to LEO on perhaps a Vulcan Heavy or NG.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, tater said:

As soon as Starship is even lightly operational, it obviates... everything else.

As soon as it's operational, it will force the development of national starships around the world.

When it has been proven, it's not a rocket science, it's mostly a copypasting.

[tater]

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

As soon as it's operational, it will force the development of national starships around the world.

When it has been proven, it's not a rocket science, it's mostly a copypasting.

True, it'll be a fast follower, or be irrelevant situation.

 

[Terwin]

15 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

It doesn’t have to worry about cost-based competition until it has capability competition. SLS is enormously expensive for its payload to orbit, but it has the highest capability of any launch vehicle. Its supporters in Congress will continue to justify it as “expensive but necessary” until a vehicle comes along that can match or exceed its capability.

But the primary capability of SLS has nothing to do with space, it's primary capability is in securing jobs in 'key districts'.

As such, Starship cannot replace the primary capability of SLS.  

Once Starship is human rated to be *safer* than SLS, and has *all* other capabilities(including horizontal integration should SLS offer that option), I expect SLS to be re-designed(and possibly renamed)  to provide some purported capability that would be counterproductive to add to SS.

SLS will only truly die when those 'key districts' are no longer 'key districts'.

Even as a tax-payer I can't say that I mind too much.  SLS is a trivial part of the budget and part of what it(and it's predecessors) does is to keep some space related specialist knowledge active and available.

(I would be surprised if SpaceX and other 'new space' companies did not benefit in some way from the knowledge and experience kept alive in these post-shuttle projects)

[tater]

 

Nothing I could find on cost.

We already know that each pair of SLS 5 segment boosters costs something like $970M (I did the math up the thread, that's from memory, quite possibly wrong). That's not dev cost, that was for the first few production boosters (35 segments, so Artemis I - III plus one for the static test they did). This clearly throws MORE dev money at them, then whatever cost these are. We can be hopeful they are not just better, but what, 10X less expensive, maybe? A pair would be totally reasonable at $100M, each is a decent sized rocket. More than that?

[linuxgurugamer]

The "New" in the subject is a bit off, given that this thread is more than 2 years old

 

[Beccab]

According to people working on SLS at Jacobs on r/SpaceLaunchSystem, due to issues with integrating ICPS and LVSA November launch is no longer possible and december is all but certain, partly also because in every industry hardly anything mayor is on schedule in december due to the holidays. I can't find where I read this anymore, but I am pretty sure that if the launch slips beyond 2021 some component (the SRBs?) need to be certified again delaying further the launch. JAXA cubesats still not installed on Orion

Edited August 2, 2021 by Beccab

[Beccab]

More SLS news from Orion workers:
The collar is being stacked now, the mass simulator next week. Launch is targeting late december but completely expected to slip to january. The SRB certification goes up to february, so hopefully not a problem. Still no news of the JAXA cubesats

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 7/12/2021 at 12:23 AM, kerbiloid said:

When it has been proven, it's not a rocket science, it's mostly a copypasting

s'Truth

[RCgothic]

SLS will never now hold the title of most powerful rocket ever assembled (a dubious claim in any case).

 

 

 

[SpaceFace545]

3 hours ago, RCgothic said:

SLS will never now hold the title of most powerful rocket ever assembled (a dubious claim in any case).

 

 

 

actually starship is the best rocket in the world and is biggest

 

But in all seriousness, what was the purpose of this reply?

 

[sevenperforce]

5 hours ago, RCgothic said:

SLS will never now hold the title of most powerful rocket ever assembled (a dubious claim in any case).

 

 

 

Yesterday:

• Tallest rocket in history: Saturn V
• Most powerful rocket in history: N1
• Highest operational LEO payload: Energia
• Largest reusable lower stage: Shuttle Boosters
• Largest reusable upper stage: Shuttle Orbiter

Today:

• Starship (all of the above)

[tater]

14 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Today:

"Today" with an *, anyway.

When it flies, then yes. The chances of them not making the first 4 a reality in some few months is zero though. (booster reuse minus legs might take a while, however).

The 5th one?Also might take a while, but I'd bet money they get it working.

[RCgothic]

I was about to reply that some of those categories still required qualification. ;-) But yes, as of now Starship Superheavy gets the the *ever assembled* qualifier on all of those.

What makes it relevant to this thread is that NASA continuously puts out "SLS, world's most powerful rocket ever" PR. As stated, that was always dubious. But as of now a full Starship Launch System stack has been assembled before a full SLS stack.

It remains to be seen whether SLS briefly gets an *ever to reach orbit* qualifier (N1 didn't) before Starship does. I suspect the FAA are going to work through the details of giving Starship permission to launch before SLS/Orion is ready, but there's still at least a small amount of doubt about that.

[tater]

This thread is for both SLS, and Orion. While married (Orion was literally fattened up back in the Constellation days so it could not launch on a commercial LV), this need not be true.

SLS is a dead end, it's just a matter of when. SS/SH is no longer a paper rocket, once they do a static fire it's as real as SLS, and more real than any SLS past Block I.

An expendable SS is easier than EUS at this point. Same thrust structure, use thinner steel (2-3mm). Exceed SLS Block 2 with ease. This is actually available before SS/SH becomes operational, as they could throw all of it away, and it's still grossly cheaper than the marginal cost of a single SLS, even using the most SLS-fanboy numbers quoted. In fact, grossly cheaper than the almost $1B that the 2 SRBs cost.

Someone smart at Lockheed should look into putting Orion on top of "not SLS." They should do this right away.

DIVH can lift it.

Vulcan can get Orion to LEO—and the LES could actually be reduced for any commercial vehicle because it doesn't have to pull away from SLS with 2 SRBs blazing away.

NG, assuming it ever gets done can easily loft Orion, and some other payload (maybe an orbital module or lunar ascent stage?) into the bargain.

FH can do it if they crew rated it, though it would be as ugly as Starliner on top of Atlas.

If they crew rated SH, SH with some expendable stage could lift it.

This would allow them to try and improve Orion, and develop systems based on it for cislunar missions. The work is done, why not actually try to fly it more than every year?

All the commercial options then use distributed launch. Maybe ULA and BO put Orion in LEO, and SpaceX builds an expendable upper stage as a transfer tug?

[RyanRising]

 

14 hours ago, RCgothic said:

SLS will never now hold the title of most powerful rocket ever assembled (a dubious claim in any case).

 

 

 

I know this has been said before, but even without Starship it never would have held that title.

[SpaceFace545]

On 8/6/2021 at 3:45 PM, tater said:

This thread is for both SLS, and Orion. While married (Orion was literally fattened up back in the Constellation days so it could not launch on a commercial LV), this need not be true.

SLS is a dead end, it's just a matter of when. SS/SH is no longer a paper rocket, once they do a static fire it's as real as SLS, and more real than any SLS past Block I.

An expendable SS is easier than EUS at this point. Same thrust structure, use thinner steel (2-3mm). Exceed SLS Block 2 with ease. This is actually available before SS/SH becomes operational, as they could throw all of it away, and it's still grossly cheaper than the marginal cost of a single SLS, even using the most SLS-fanboy numbers quoted. In fact, grossly cheaper than the almost $1B that the 2 SRBs cost.

Someone smart at Lockheed should look into putting Orion on top of "not SLS." They should do this right away.

DIVH can lift it.

Vulcan can get Orion to LEO—and the LES could actually be reduced for any commercial vehicle because it doesn't have to pull away from SLS with 2 SRBs blazing away.

NG, assuming it ever gets done can easily loft Orion, and some other payload (maybe an orbital module or lunar ascent stage?) into the bargain.

FH can do it if they crew rated it, though it would be as ugly as Starliner on top of Atlas.

If they crew rated SH, SH with some expendable stage could lift it.

This would allow them to try and improve Orion, and develop systems based on it for cislunar missions. The work is done, why not actually try to fly it more than every year?

All the commercial options then use distributed launch. Maybe ULA and BO put Orion in LEO, and SpaceX builds an expendable upper stage as a transfer tug?

Or we just use SLS (the highly capable and existing rocket what was purpose built for the job of lofting payloads to TLI and is already crew rated(not entirely sure but it probably is)) 

The SLS's 2 billion dollar price tag is a lot but considering the technology put into it, it's a bargain. SLS is also a rocket built off of heritage tech with heritage contractors sitting at the helm of it all. SLS is sure to work. 

Ya'll love your starship and maybe it's the most capable but other than that little landing that barely worked it is entirely paper. 

 

[Beccab]

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Or we just use SLS (the highly capable and existing rocket what was purpose built for the job of lofting payloads to TLI and is already crew rated(not entirely sure but it probably is)) 

The SLS's 2 billion dollar price tag is a lot but considering the technology put into it, it's a bargain. SLS is also a rocket built off of heritage tech with heritage contractors sitting at the helm of it all. SLS is sure to work. 

Ya'll love your starship and maybe it's the most capable but other than that little landing that barely worked it is entirely paper. 

 

Please explain me how exactly you can consider SLS an "existing rocket" and starship a "paper rocket"

[RCgothic]

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

The SLS's 2 billion dollar price tag is a lot but considering the technology put into it, it's a bargain. 

Yes it is and no it's not. If the end goal is ever increasing human presence beyond LEO, SLS/Orion is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

For cost and manufacturing reasons it will never be capable of more than one or two flights a year and that will never result in a permanent offworld presence. Nothing beyond a token advancement can be made whilst this collective boondoggle of SLS and Orion swallows the exploration budget.

In the complete absence of Starship upper stage reuse, the marginal cost of one Starship flight is going to be in the region of 65x less than one SLS/Orion flight. Starship's engines cost under $6m total *now*, stainless steel and methane are cheap, and as it has a proper production line Starship is going to be well under $40m per upper stage. (There's no serious obstacle to Superheavy reuse, even if it has to sprout legs to enable that).

With full rapid reusability there could easily be 400+ Starship flights per SLS.

That's what's needed for a permanent offworld presence.

I personally am prepared to wait a little longer for a NASA human exploration program as it refocuses itself on something more sustainable post-cancellation of SLS/Orion, in the context of the rapid advancement of private exploration.

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by RCgothic

[tater]

35 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Or we just use SLS (the highly capable and existing rocket what was purpose built for the job of lofting payloads to TLI and is already crew rated(not entirely sure but it probably is)) 

The only existing SLS is Block 1 with the ICPS upper stage. This can only barely get Orion to TLI. It's such a poor stage it takes multiple burns (Oberth maneuver) so that the crew is exposed to multiple trips through the van Allen belts. I'd not call it "highly capable."

My point was that SLS is self-evidently a dead end, but maybe Orion could be salvaged. Starship/Super Heavy is far more capable than SLS, even as an expendable or partially expendable vehicle (SH recovery, expended upper stage). It's also grossly cheaper. The expensive bits of SS are the engines, and an expendable version might only need 3-4 Rvac engines. My guess is that you could buy 8-10 disposable starship-based stages for the cost of a single RS-25E ($99M)

35 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

The SLS's 2 billion dollar price tag is a lot but considering the technology put into it, it's a bargain. SLS is also a rocket built off of heritage tech with heritage contractors sitting at the helm of it all. SLS is sure to work. 

It's not a bargain.

If I could buy a Bugatti Chiron for $300,000, that would certainly be a bargain vs the usual $3M. Would it make sense for me to buy it? It gets like 4 mpg or less driven in a way you'd want to drive one, or 11 mpg EPA combined driving granny-style. If I ever used the speed it is capable of, I would need to replace the $42,000 tires after 15 minutes of driving. I have to have the tires worked on every 18 months or so, regardless. So about $60k/yr in tires and gas (min), and likely some thousands in service annually. Is that still a bargain, when for the cost of the annual consumables I could buy a regular car, and pay the operating costs?

What if I got the Chiron for the full $3M, but was only allowed to use it for 1 journey, then it gets destroyed? Is there any trip I can drive on a tank of gas worth $3M?

 

35 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Ya'll love your starship and maybe it's the most capable but other than that little landing that barely worked it is entirely paper.

You have an odd definition of "paper."

You forget that Starship doesn't need to do everything it is hoped it can do to obviate SLS.

The instant they do a static fire on the booster, it's exactly as real as the untested SLS.

Edited August 8, 2021 by tater

[Lewie]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Or we just use SLS (the highly capable and existing rocket what was purpose built for the job of lofting payloads to TLI and is already crew rated(not entirely sure but it probably is)) 

The SLS's 2 billion dollar price tag is a lot but considering the technology put into it, it's a bargain. SLS is also a rocket built off of heritage tech with heritage contractors sitting at the helm of it all. SLS is sure to work. 

Ya'll love your starship and maybe it's the most capable but other than that little landing that barely worked it is entirely paper. 

 

Starship is just as real as SLS...mark our words, the ‘paper’ rocket will launch before the ‘real’ one. 

The technology put into SLS was designed in the 60’s and 70’s...yes, the RS-25 is a good engine, but it’s easy to argue Raptor is better. One instance for example, is how Spacex can swap a Raptor out in a matter of HOURS. (Also installed 29 in ONE night!) to replace ONE valve on an RS-25 took what, a month?

I do not doubt that SLS won’t work, but I do know that it will never be an economical rocket. Hell, it already is. It was supposed to launch what, 5 years ago? The same time Spacex announced the ITS? And now Spacex is going to make SS work....

SLS will work, but will be overshadowed by Starship. 

’maybe it’s the most capable, but other then that landing that barely worked it’s entirely paper’

*deep breath, count to ten*

Yes, when SS/SH is up and running it will be the most capable, most powerful rocket ever built. It can (and will) blow SLS out of the water. It will be cheaper (SLS costs what, $3 billion per LAUNCH? Please, tell us how that is sustainable!) Vs. Starship which will cost a mere fraction of that price. 

‘That little landing’ is one of (if not the most) audacious concepts in spaceflight history. Except it’s not a concept....Spacex has demonstrated it. They will continue to pull it off, and will only refine it in the near-future to the point SS is human rated. 

In a few weeks (Elon time, so probably a month/ month and a half) SS/SH will launch....something that SLS has supposed to have done half a decade ago. 

Look, SLS is laughable, Starship....not so much. It’s the most ambitious project in decades (actually, ever!) and from what we have seen so far,  I have full confidence in it and the success of the project.

cheers!

-Lewie

Edited August 8, 2021 by Lewie
Took out a silly mistake

[Spaceman.Spiff]

20 minutes ago, Lewie said:

Look, SLS is laughable, Starship....not so much. It’s the most ambitious project in decades (actually, ever!) and from what we have seen so far,  I have full confidence in it.

oh, let’s not forget that SS/SH has already been fully stacked, yet another thing that SLS has failed to do.

cheers!

-Lewie

Overall this is good. 
I disagree with the last two points. 
 

SLS has significant value as something that NASA can use. It’s pointless comparing the two in that capacity because politics would never allow something as out there and ambitious as SS to be developed with government money. (Excluding the recent HLS funding)

SLS (the rocket) was fully stacked well before SS/SH.  It just doesn’t have the payload installed yet. I wouldn’t consider a rocket without a payload installed not stacked. 

[Lewie]

5 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Overall this is good. 
I disagree with the last two points. 
 

SLS has significant value as something that NASA can use. It’s pointless comparing the two in that capacity because politics would never allow something as out there and ambitious as SS to be developed with government money. (Excluding the recent HLS funding)

SLS (the rocket) was fully stacked well before SS/SH.  It just doesn’t have the payload installed yet. I wouldn’t consider a rocket without a payload installed not stacked. 

All good points!

whoops...well. I thought they were still on the ICPS. Better go make some edits!

[RCgothic]

20 minutes ago, Lewie said:

In a few weeks (Elon time, so probably a month/ month and a half) SS/SH will launch....something that SLS has supposed to have done half a decade ago. 

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.