Andrew1233 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 hmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 There are insufficient Starship flights for a meaningful response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 SLS never wasn't obsolete. F9, Falcon Heavy and Vulcan are all perfectly capable of supporting lunar Earth Orbit Rendezvous mission modes. It'd would have been better cheaper and more frequent to spend SLS's budget on the surface mission rather than the marginally useful rocket to nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Missions requiring large numbers of launches in close succession Rocket can only fly 0.5 times per year at best Costs much more than Apollo for a rocket with less performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) It's kinda funny that we have the SLS, a single0use rocket with reusable engines while SpaceX is working on a bigger vehicle that is fully reusable. And I'm not surprised if the total development cost of that SpaceX program is actually less than the SLS cost of a single launch. Edited February 1 by Kerbart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, DDE said: There are insufficient Starship flights for a meaningful response. Not really. SLS was never designed to complete a useful mission by itself. Once the mission architecture requires distributed launch, the mission profile could be optimized for distributed launch. Given the outrageous evn the marginal cost of an SLS/Orion launch, distributed launch with planned/existing commercial vehicles at the time SLS started would still have been cheaper. Throw the what, $40+ billion of SLS/Orion dev costs at commercial, and we'd have even more to choose from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFUN Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 "outdated" implies it was ever good to begin with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew1233 Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 31 minutes ago, NFUN said: "outdated" implies it was ever good to begin with good if it was built in the old days, not the 31st century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Built in the 2020's using 1980s (70s, really) technology? Um yeah, outdated. Not including Orion, I suppose the tankage alloy is newer, and the engine controllers, but that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFUN Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Andrew1233 said: good if it was built in the old days, not the 31st century yeah. point stands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 As a launch vehicle it is undoubtedly outdated. As a tool to keep jobs for people and votes for politicians it is not good, it is brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) no, but ask me again when starship makes orbit. falcon is nice and all until you need to launch something that wont fit in its fairing. its great for satellites and probes, but it wont take humans beyond leo. can it? maybe. with multiple launches and a modular spacecraft and it might end up costing more than a single throwaway launch. Edited February 2 by Nuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 No. The solid rocketeers need food in any case. The solid space rocket can be overridden only by another solid space rocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Nuke said: with multiple launches and a modular spacecraft and it might end up costing more than a single throwaway launch. I feel like it'd have a hard time doing even that when the throwaway launch has the same price tag as 20 Falcon launches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 The payload envelopes Falcon and Vulcan can fit any crewed capsule ever flown and every space station module bar skylab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) 7 hours ago, RCgothic said: The payload envelopes Falcon and Vulcan can fit any crewed capsule ever flown and every space station module bar skylab. capsule yes. service module and lm too? fuel? consumables for more than a few hours visit? besides the competition isnt who makes orbit first, its who gets man-rated. Edited February 3 by Nuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) In its current state, it's outdated. It has a place politically, to maintain overall support for Artemis, but for creating and maintaining a long-term presence on the Moon, SLS isn't the answer, and I hope alternatives are put forward and more importantly, funded and approved by the powers that be. Commercial Lunar Crew when? Now, if SLS/Orion had a much higher cadence, if it was cheaper to fly (cheaper than the shuttle at least)? It would honestly be pretty good, even in this emerging 'NewSpace' launch market of reusable rockets. SLS being able to send humans to the Moon multiple times a year for continous presence, with additional yearly flights for semi-continuous Mars missions, or deep space probes, would be great! But SLS can't do that, it can barely launch once per year. It's okay for a return to the Moon until it can pass the baton imo, but beyond that, it has no future. Edited February 3 by Spaceception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 7 hours ago, Nuke said: capsule yes. service module and lm too? fuel? consumables for more than a few hours visit? besides the competition isnt who makes orbit first, its who gets man-rated. Yes, easily. That's the power of rendezvous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 5 hours ago, RCgothic said: Yes, easily. That's the power of rendezvous. I see crew launching separately on well proven craft as becoming the defacto norm on any mission requiring refilling. For two reasons, 1) crew rating for launch is complicated and expensive and 2) refilling will always be best done with no human presence. I can't see the first changing anytime soon, or the second ever changing except very reluctantly under extreme circumstantial duress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) as far as space goes the dragon capsule has plenty of leg room, but it has endurance limits, iirc, as with any other orbital station wagon. it was designed for leo, not lunar operations after all. it could probibly be retrofit for the job though. you could probibly launch with a service module (replacing the trunk) in the heavy config just fine. and a second heavy can bring up the lander. possibly all without expending a stage. whats the maximum cadence for the heavy, can two be launched at a short enough interval? does spacex even need nasa to go to the moon? i still dont think the sls is useless though, it still can launch a lot of payload and thus has a place. even if it is more of a governmental flex than a launch platform. Edited February 3 by Nuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew1233 Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 On 2/3/2024 at 10:52 AM, Nuke said: as far as space goes the dragon capsule has plenty of leg room, but it has endurance limits, iirc, as with any other orbital station wagon. it was designed for leo, not lunar operations after all. it could probibly be retrofit for the job though. you could probibly launch with a service module (replacing the trunk) in the heavy config just fine. and a second heavy can bring up the lander. possibly all without expending a stage. whats the maximum cadence for the heavy, can two be launched at a short enough interval? does spacex even need nasa to go to the moon? i still dont think the sls is useless though, it still can launch a lot of payload and thus has a place. even if it is more of a governmental flex than a launch platform. yeah, but there's starship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 47 minutes ago, Andrew1233 said: yeah, but there's starship until it makes orbit its just a lawn ornament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 5 hours ago, Nuke said: until it makes orbit its just a lawn ornament. *beach ornament Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 10 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: *beach ornament "really expensive fireworks" could have also been used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 18 hours ago, Andrew1233 said: and a second heavy can bring up the lander. I still think Lunarized Crew Dragon as lunar lander, LEM, is compelling when paired with a service module. So no separate LEM. Lugging a heat shield to the lunar surface and back to orbit annoys, but what if the heat shield stayed with the service module in lunar orbit, but coupled to Dragon and detached from SM upon return? I'm just trying to get mileage out of what exists. If that is a crime, then SLS is a war crime, ha 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.