What do you think of the SLS?

[BadRocketsCo.]

I think, that the SLS is a rather interesting launcher. I just hope, that NASA will be able to complete it with their supertiny budget. Anyways, does anyone know,what kind of a lander will the new Lunar missions use?

[cantab]

Jumping back a page or two...

I think at best the SLS will provide two truly spectacular demo flights. I'd dearly love to be wrong but I just don't think the funding will be there to support the kind of missions that it makes sense to launch on the SLS.

I'm actually far more excited about SpaceX, although again, I'm not at all sure they'll do much beyond LEO other than a couple of publicity stunt flights around the Moon (which wouldn't stop me getting ridiculously excited about them ) My gut feeling is that the SpaceX approach of reusability and commonality is the right one, although there are some good contradictory arguments to that on this thread.

If I had to bet on any organisation to kick off an era of cool space stuff though, it would surely be SpaceX.

SpaceX by themselves aren't going to do much cool space stuff beyond launching. It'll be down to others to do the inspiring missions, perhaps contracting SpaceX for the launches.

The problem then I fear is whether political interests would let SpaceX take a high-profile "prestige" mission from a foreign country. Unmanned stuff is one thing, but let's say the Indians want to do a manned lunar orbit mission launching on a Falcon Heavy, I can't see the powers that be in America letting that happen, certainly not if there's any chance they'll beat NASA to it.

[R0cketC0der]

I think, that the SLS is a rather interesting launcher. I just hope, that NASA will be able to complete it with their supertiny budget. Anyways, does anyone know,what kind of a lander will the new Lunar missions use?

Which lunar missions? Currently the only funded missions for the SLS will get into orbit around the moon, but not land on it.

[Red Iron Crown]

The problem then I fear is whether political interests would let SpaceX take a high-profile "prestige" mission from a foreign country. Unmanned stuff is one thing, but let's say the Indians want to do a manned lunar orbit mission launching on a Falcon Heavy, I can't see the powers that be in America letting that happen, certainly not if there's any chance they'll beat NASA to it.

That sounds sadly accurate to me. Which is too bad, heavy launch is a difficult challenge for budding space programs, it would lower the bar for accessibility if it was commercially available without political interference.

[BadRocketsCo.]

Darn, I have understood it all wrong then! What a shame...

[Woopert]

I think, that the SLS is a rather interesting launcher. I just hope, that NASA will be able to complete it with their supertiny budget. Anyways, does anyone know,what kind of a lander will the new Lunar missions use?

Lunar landing missions aren't planned by NASA, IIRC, but Boeing has a concept for a re-usable lunar lander that could later evolve into a Martian lander. Link to the PDF file!

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604643main_2-Panel%202_Donahue_Final.pdf

It's from 2011, so the designs might have changed (and the SLS design has changed a bit, different engine set-up of 4 engines rather than 5)

[BadRocketsCo.]

Lunar landing missions aren't planned by NASA, IIRC, but Boeing has a concept for a re-usable lunar lander that could later evolve into a Martian lander. Link to the PDF file!

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604643main_2-Panel%202_Donahue_Final.pdf

It's from 2011, so the designs might have changed (and the SLS design has changed a bit, different engine set-up of 4 engines rather than 5)

Oh, thank you very much! I will have to educate myself on the newer stuff a bit more. My rocketry interestes are quite far in the past (Mercury missions to Apollo missions time). And since I am still only 14, I have a LOT to learn.

Edited May 4, 2014 by BadRocketsCo.

[wasmic]

I actually like the SLS quite a lot. I can't really decide if it's a better choice than DIRECT Jupiter, but it's definitely better than Constellation. However, if SpaceX ever gets around to making the Falcon 9 Heavy, it would look quite bleak for SLS, as it just won't be able to compete with a 50-tons-to-orbit reusable rocket.

[SargeRho]

However, if SpaceX ever gets around to making the Falcon 9 Heavy,

It's planned to fly later this year or early next year. It already has flights contracted.

[R0cketC0der]

It's planned to fly later this year or early next year. It already has flights contracted.

The current plan is to launch the demo falcon heavy Q1 or Q2 next year.

[Woopert]

I actually like the SLS quite a lot. I can't really decide if it's a better choice than DIRECT Jupiter, but it's definitely better than Constellation. However, if SpaceX ever gets around to making the Falcon 9 Heavy, it would look quite bleak for SLS, as it just won't be able to compete with a 50-tons-to-orbit reusable rocket.

It's not 55 mT when re-usable. It loses like 20 mT when they recover the stages, 55 mT is max when they go expendable. SLS Block II will lift 3 times as much as the Falcon Heavy if the use the F-1B boosters by Dynetics. That being said, SpaceX still continues to impress with their low costs and quality of design. (NASA makes great quality stuff as well)

Edited August 26, 2014 by Woopert

[Red Iron Crown]

I wonder what the timeline for Falcon XX is, and how that will affect SLS payload demand.

[Tiberion]

The SLS and any private rocket are not competitors. NASA wouldn't actively seek to sell SLS launches to private entities as SpaceX would, nor would they consider launching their own missions on something like the XX when they have their own heavy launcher.

Falcon Heavy and the SLS are in no way competitors, any more than the Delta IV launching the 1st Orion is competing with the SLS. On paper a Falcon XX might have SLS-range payload ability, but it would be targeted at private or foreign space program launches, not NASA. And it's still a paper rocket - SpaceX will undoubtedly still research the technology intended for it, but we'll only see the actual rocket if SpaceX sees potential payloads for it (or if the Dragon Rider is successful and Elon continues to push for Mars, they might just go on their own.) Either way, thats more than a decade away, and if SLS survives until then, it should be mostly complete, matured and in service in NASA exploration missions.

[R0cketC0der]

I wonder what the timeline for Falcon XX is, and how that will affect SLS payload demand.

The Falcon XX is currently just a concept and doesn't have any funding until there is customer demand for a super-heavy lift vehicle.

[Woopert]

The SLS and any private rocket are not competitors. NASA wouldn't actively seek to sell SLS launches to private entities as SpaceX would, nor would they consider launching their own missions on something like the XX when they have their own heavy launcher.

Falcon Heavy and the SLS are in no way competitors, any more than the Delta IV launching the 1st Orion is competing with the SLS. On paper a Falcon XX might have SLS-range payload ability, but it would be targeted at private or foreign space program launches, not NASA. And it's still a paper rocket - SpaceX will undoubtedly still research the technology intended for it, but we'll only see the actual rocket if SpaceX sees potential payloads for it (or if the Dragon Rider is successful and Elon continues to push for Mars, they might just go on their own.) Either way, thats more than a decade away, and if SLS survives until then, it should be mostly complete, matured and in service in NASA exploration missions.

Yes, you're very correct Tiberion. I always get slightly aggravated when people claim "SpaceX is going to put NASA down!!!". SLS is clearly suited for a different purpose.

[Red Iron Crown]

I always get slightly aggravated when people claim "SpaceX is going to put NASA down!!!". SLS is clearly suited for a different purpose.

I think of SpaceX and NASA as complementary programs. I think it would be great if NASA could afford to depend on the private sector for lift capability, they could focus more on payloads and exploration then. It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship, SpaceX is funded in part by NASA contracts, NASA is able to focus on bigger projects like SLS and Orion while leaving medium and small lift to SpaceX.

At any rate, it's a great time for space enthusiasts.

[ScallopPotato]

I think of SpaceX and NASA as complementary programs. I think it would be great if NASA could afford to depend on the private sector for lift capability, they could focus more on payloads and exploration then. It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship, SpaceX is funded in part by NASA contracts, NASA is able to focus on bigger projects like SLS and Orion while leaving medium and small lift to SpaceX.

At any rate, it's a great time for space enthusiasts.

I have a feeling that a lot of the cargo payloads in the 2020s (ion tugs, lunar station pieces, logistics for the station, lunar landers) will be launched by rockets like the Falcon Heavy and tugged out to lunar orbit, but the cis-lunar orion will be launched by the SLS to provide direct Hohmann transfers. (versus the months long spiraling outwards by solar electric tugs).

[Nibb31]

I think of SpaceX and NASA as complementary programs.

SpaceX is not a program. It's a commercial launch provider that works for NASA, DoD, and whoever is ready to pay for their services.

You don't call Boeing or ULA a "space program", yet they are in exactly the same business. SpaceX is not going anywhere unless if somebody pays for the ticket.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Nibb31

[Red Iron Crown]

SpaceX is not a program. It's a commercial launch provider that works for NASA, DoD, and whoever is ready to pay for their services.

You don't call Boeing or ULA a "space program", yet they are in exactly the same business. SpaceX is not going anywhere unless if somebody pays for the ticket.

You're right, that's true. I do think of NASA and SpaceX as complementary, though, rather than competitors as some seem to think.

[Nibb31]

You're right, that's true. I do think of NASA and SpaceX as complementary, though, rather than competitors as some seem to think.

Yes, but NASA and Boeing or NASA and Lockheed Martin are equally complementary. The only difference is that we don't see many Boeing or LM fanboys.

[KSK]

It's not 55 mT when re-usable. It loses like 20 mT when they recover the stages, 55 mT is max when they go expendable. SLS Block II will lift 3 times as much as the Falcon Heavy if the use the F-1B boosters by Dynetics.

I'm not sure that's right. The SpaceX website is saying 53 tons to LEO and that appears to be for the reusable variant, judging by the big F9H picture complete with landing legs on each 1st stage core. Admittedly that's with propellant cross-feed working which has yet to be proven - maximum payload without cross-feed is 45 tons.

Anecdotally, I seem to recall that early plans for the F9H had it lifting 50ish tons to LEO. Just speculating here but perhaps the current version uses F9 1.1 cores (rather than the original F9) and the increased performance there compensates for the payload penalty imposed by reusability, thus keeping the maximum payload at around 50 tons?

The point still stands though - SLS Block II will clearly be capable of lifting far more than F9H whichever numbers you use!

[R0cketC0der]

I'm not sure that's right. The SpaceX website is saying 53 tons to LEO and that appears to be for the reusable variant, judging by the big F9H picture complete with landing legs on each 1st stage core. Admittedly that's with propellant cross-feed working which has yet to be proven - maximum payload without cross-feed is 45 tons.

Anecdotally, I seem to recall that early plans for the F9H had it lifting 50ish tons to LEO. Just speculating here but perhaps the current version uses F9 1.1 cores (rather than the original F9) and the increased performance there compensates for the payload penalty imposed by reusability, thus keeping the maximum payload at around 50 tons?

The point still stands though - SLS Block II will clearly be capable of lifting far more than F9H whichever numbers you use!

53 tons is definitely the expendable version, not the reusable. I don't know the payload capacity of a reusable one, but Musk once stated that the impact on the payload capacity will be about 30 percent for a reusable falcon 9. However, the middle core needs more fuel to return than the booster cores because it will be going both further and faster before it returns, resulting in more fuel needed for the return. I think that we can expect something like a 40-60% impact on the payload capacity for a reusable falcon heavy vs an expendable falcon heavy.

[Nibb31]

I wouldn't count on a fully reusable F9H any time soon. The F9-R first stage can only be recovered because it's a first stage booster that is jettisoned at a lower altitude than the non-reusable F9. It then uses part of its dV potential to perform the throwback burn, which puts it on an RTLS trajectory.

On the heavy, the lateral boosters will probably use a similar profile. But I wouldn't count on ever returning the core stage, because it will be flying much higher and faster. It would need some serious dV to bring it back as well as some kind of TPS. This would all seriously cut into the payload capacity.

[KSK]

Ouch - 60% would be quite a hit. And that's a good point about the F9H core that I hadn't considered.

Hmmm, the SpaceX website is a bit misleading then. Not to their customers I'm sure but to me it does give the impression that all the quoted performance numbers are for the reusable version.

[mdatspace]

Yes, but NASA and Boeing or NASA and Lockheed Martin are equally complementary. The only difference is that we don't see many Boeing or LM fanboys.

What can I say. SpaceX PR is better then Boeing PR.