Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
Beati Dogu said:
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a full stacked Starship is on its pad, also getting ready for a full wet dress rehearsal. As big as SLS is, Starship is even larger. The booster alone comes up to about the white ring on the tapered section of the SLS pictured above.
Are you saying NASA rolled the SLS out at this moment because of what SpaceX is doing?Flooble said:
I am sure there is an element of truth in it, ULA themselves say they employ 2700. Now, whether all 28000 working "on" SLS are working only on SLS, or if that counts people who work for suppliers to the program, who knows. Equally does ULA do everything with those 2700 or are vast chunks sub contracted and could be counted as additional staff.
That's what I was thinking. ULA need to be careful about bad mouthing one of their customers.
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.Get the Saturn V plans out, multiply everything by 15% and call it Saturn VI... well maybe upgrade the computer a bit.
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.
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.
Whatever about SLS and Orion - at least they exist. The lunar lander project is barely started.
Nothing to do with technology but everything to do with political will, adequate funding, good leadership and a clear goal with an unmovable timetable.
Apollo had all of those factors in play.
SLS/Orion/Artemis did not.
Artemis (or it's original version, called Constellation) began under a directive from George W Bush back in 2004. It went through a number of permutations in boosters and goals.
Boosters - initially Shuttle based, called Ares, and then a look at Saturn and then back to Shuttle again. This revised Shuttle component based booster set-up became the Space Launch System or SLS.
As for goals, the moon, asteroids, Mars and finally the moon again were all visited by various Presidents and NASA hierarchy. The only part of the technology that more or less remained constant was the manned spacecraft, initially called the Crew Exploration Vehicle or CEV but later re-christined Orion.
Apollo had all of those factors in play.
SLS/Orion/Artemis did not.
Artemis (or it's original version, called Constellation) began under a directive from George W Bush back in 2004. It went through a number of permutations in boosters and goals.
Boosters - initially Shuttle based, called Ares, and then a look at Saturn and then back to Shuttle again. This revised Shuttle component based booster set-up became the Space Launch System or SLS.
As for goals, the moon, asteroids, Mars and finally the moon again were all visited by various Presidents and NASA hierarchy. The only part of the technology that more or less remained constant was the manned spacecraft, initially called the Crew Exploration Vehicle or CEV but later re-christined Orion.
The issue with Trump was that he hadn't appraised himself as to where the programme actually was at the moment he made his "2024" announcement. In 2017 nobody had started work on the actual lander that would be needed - no specifications had been issued and no tenders had been requested from interested aerospace companies.
In fact, even now, it's the lander that is going to push the landing date further away. I expect that it will be 2030 before we will have a lander ready to actually put people on the surface.
This is not a "crash" programme like Apollo was. There is no perceived national urgency for the US to do this. Back in 1961 it seemed to many that it was a situation of national survival if the US could not counter and eventually better what the Soviet Union was achieving in space at that time. That sense of urgency and panic does not exist today when it comes to manned spaceflight achievements.
That may change in the future - especially if China starts making some genuine strides in the manned exploration of space.
In fact, even now, it's the lander that is going to push the landing date further away. I expect that it will be 2030 before we will have a lander ready to actually put people on the surface.
This is not a "crash" programme like Apollo was. There is no perceived national urgency for the US to do this. Back in 1961 it seemed to many that it was a situation of national survival if the US could not counter and eventually better what the Soviet Union was achieving in space at that time. That sense of urgency and panic does not exist today when it comes to manned spaceflight achievements.
That may change in the future - especially if China starts making some genuine strides in the manned exploration of space.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff