Space Launch System - Orion

[Baron Greenback]

So if it not science what is it weegie board, 4 leave clover wishes or genie wishes?

[Eric Mc]

As far as liquid fuelled rockets are concerned, it’s heavy duty plumbing

[Simpo Two]

Eric Mc said:

It’s based on 70s/80s technology- as are many current rockets. But it has lots of new stuff in it too - so it is a new rocket with lots of unknowns.

Why add new unknown stuff? Rockets are pretty intolerant of things going wrong, and the fact it uses 'shuttle technology' doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either.

Get the Saturn V plans out, multiply everything by 15% and call it Saturn VI... well maybe upgrade the computer a bit.

[Turtle Shed]

Simpo Two said:

Why add new unknown stuff? Rockets are pretty intolerant of things going wrong, and the fact it uses 'shuttle technology' doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either.

Get the Saturn V plans out, multiply everything by 15% and call it Saturn VI... well maybe upgrade the computer a bit.

Wouldn't that be a Saturn V.LXXV?

[Robmarriott]

AW111 said:

This isn't science, it's engineering. SLS is based on 70's / 80's Shuttle technology. No new science at all.

The definition of engineering includes the word science in every source you can find.

[Dog Star]

MartG said:

Next available window is Friday

And there’s another window after that - 5th? However it won’t fly then. And it probably won’t fly in October. I’ll stick my neck out and state that I bet it doesn’t fly this year.

Don’t get me wrong - I want to see it go, what a spectacle! But can anyone really tell me, with a straight face, that SLS is “progress” or in any way financially sustainable or environmentally acceptable. It’s yesterdays tech - in fact a lot of it is yesteryears tech. Billions and billions on this, how long? Two decades almost? Probably longer if you carry it back to Orion/Aries or whatever it was. Meanwhile tech has moved on.

Anyway - back to the VAB it will go.

[Beati Dogu]

Time for NASA to tow it back to the barn and dig out the relevant Haynes manual.

I’m sure any discussion sounds something like this classic:

https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w

[MartG]

Dog Star said:

And there’s another window after that - 5th? However it won’t fly then. And it probably won’t fly in October. I’ll stick my neck out and state that I bet it doesn’t fly this year.

Don’t get me wrong - I want to see it go, what a spectacle! But can anyone really tell me, with a straight face, that SLS is “progress” or in any way financially sustainable or environmentally acceptable. It’s yesterdays tech - in fact a lot of it is yesteryears tech. Billions and billions on this, how long? Two decades almost? Probably longer if you carry it back to Orion/Aries or whatever it was. Meanwhile tech has moved on.

Anyway - back to the VAB it will go.

Yup - and current estimates put it at around $4Bn per launch more expensive than a Falcon Heavy

[Dog Star]

MartG said:

Yup - and current estimates put it at around $4Bn per launch more expensive than a Falcon Heavy

Bonkers isn’t it?

I love the farce that is (I’ve mentioned this before) that using the proposed system that the astronauts will fly to the moon on an SLS in their (relatively) tiny, single use spacecraft (that has cos billions) and once in lunar orbit they will transfer to a huge, super spiffy, bells and whistles, reusable Starship to effect the lunar landing etc.

Er… hello… hello McFly… can anyone see what’s wrong with this picture?

And while I’m on about Starship - I wonder if “something” will happen if SLS is delayed for months that also stops Starships orbital launch? Or am I just paranoid?

[AW111]

Eric Mc said:

It’s based on 70s/80s technology- as are many current rockets. But it has lots of new stuff in it too - so it is a new rocket with lots of unknowns.

Lots of new stuff, but what science is there in Artemis that hasn't already flown? The engines are literally shuttle engines and the SRB's are lengthened shuttle ones.

[Beati Dogu]

I’m pretty sure that if and when SpaceX get Starship operational, NASA will transition to it.

Don’t forget that SpaceX was awarded nearly $3 billion for Starship development after NASA gave them the sole lunar lander contract. Quite the vote of confidence.

The reality distortion field around Washington DC will be the only thing stopping it.

[Turtle Shed]

I'm not quite so negative.

Whilst I agree about the 'old technology' thing the fact remains that you need bloody great rocket engines to get into space and they already he as some which had proven themselves time and time again.

To me Artemis is partially a statement of intent, and it really is time we went back to the moon. Should the USA have built something from scratch, starting a decade ago, a totally new system? Yes, but they didn't. I'm not up to speed with what went before and got scrapped, but we are where we are.

Also, I think there really will be a generation of inspired young people, and a feel good factor about something in the news that isn't doom and gloom. Yes, it cost a lot of money but I'll say it again, the money creates jobs and ends up in the wider economy. (Please refer to the Sam Seaborn quote in my earlier post).

[Eric Mc]

Simpo Two said:

Why add new unknown stuff? Rockets are pretty intolerant of things going wrong, and the fact it uses 'shuttle technology' doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either.

Get the Saturn V plans out, multiply everything by 15% and call it Saturn VI... well maybe upgrade the computer a bit.

Because it is designed for new types of missions with new types of spacecraft. It isn’t a warmed over Apollo.
They did actually look at re-using Apollo/Saturn components and engines but they decided that this would be far more difficult than using the more recent Shuttle systems.

[RizzoTheRat]

MartG said:

Dog Star said:

And there’s another window after that - 5th? However it won’t fly then. And it probably won’t fly in October. I’ll stick my neck out and state that I bet it doesn’t fly this year.

Don’t get me wrong - I want to see it go, what a spectacle! But can anyone really tell me, with a straight face, that SLS is “progress” or in any way financially sustainable or environmentally acceptable. It’s yesterdays tech - in fact a lot of it is yesteryears tech. Billions and billions on this, how long? Two decades almost? Probably longer if you carry it back to Orion/Aries or whatever it was. Meanwhile tech has moved on.

Anyway - back to the VAB it will go.

Yup - and current estimates put it at around $4Bn per launch more expensive than a Falcon Heavy

Falcon heavy can put 63 tonnes to low earth orbit Block 1 SLS is a bit over 100 tonnes, and block 3 should be over double the payload of a Falcon Heavy. Starship is what it needs to be compared to and that's not flying yet either.

Agree it's yesterdays technology, but in theory it's a lot less risky than relying on new and unproven stuff.

[outnumbered]

Is all the stuff in the press about landing people on the moon in 2025 some sort of PR fantasy, or based on any sort of engineering reality ?

[Eric Mc]

Trump announced in 2017 that NASA would have men on the moon by 2024. That was just silly and typical Trump ignorance of reality. However, it at least gave NASA a date to work to - even if it was unrealistic. 2025 is also unrealistic. I would say 2030 is a better bet.
Whatever about SLS and Orion - at least they exist. The lunar lander project is barely started.

[Ian974]

With regard to using existing engines etc, the theory of what was planned made sense. If you have proven working engines, it would make more sense to use them than develop something new for the job, likewise with the solid boosters.
Whether it should have taken so long and cost so much is a completely different matter, but just from a technical point of view I can understand the idea behind using a lot of the old tech.

[MartG]

[skeeterm5]

The thing that amazes me is the elapsed time of development of this when compared to the Saturn V programme. Surely with the advances in technology the development cycle should be faster than the 1960s…….

[Zumbruk]

skeeterm5 said:

The thing that amazes me is the elapsed time of development of this when compared to the Saturn V programme. Surely with the advances in technology the development cycle should be faster than the 1960s…….

We're much more risk averse now than we were.