Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
Interesting.
They were obviously concerned about the man-hours (and cost) involved in the old Apollo era methodology of injecting the ablator material into individual honeycomb segments.
I presume it's therefore a one shot heatshield which will have to be replaced before each Orion flies again
They were obviously concerned about the man-hours (and cost) involved in the old Apollo era methodology of injecting the ablator material into individual honeycomb segments.
I presume it's therefore a one shot heatshield which will have to be replaced before each Orion flies again
Possibly. It really depends on the gap between the the instigation of SLS missions and the "rivals". If SLS can get going within two years, it will have a purpose. If the gap narrows, it will look increasingly outdated.
I still think Orion itself and the either payloads slated for SLS should proceed - because they could be adapted for launch on whatever heavy lift boosters come along.
I still think Orion itself and the either payloads slated for SLS should proceed - because they could be adapted for launch on whatever heavy lift boosters come along.
There is a case for a heavy lift booster. That's why the Saturn V was designed and is the thinking behind SLS, BFR and New Armstrong. We have been limited over the past 45 years by not having a single heavy lift booster.
Yes, multiple launches of smaller or medium lift boosters can do some of the job but it does restrict the size of single cargoes and also spreads out the time scale of assembling large structures. The International Space Station would have been assembled a lot quicker - and probably more cheaply - if a heavy lift booster had been available 20 years ago. The modules would also have been much bigger and more versatile (imagine a number of Skylabs bolted together).
Lack of a decent heavy lift booster has done more to hold us back in space exploration over the past four decades than anything else.
Yes, multiple launches of smaller or medium lift boosters can do some of the job but it does restrict the size of single cargoes and also spreads out the time scale of assembling large structures. The International Space Station would have been assembled a lot quicker - and probably more cheaply - if a heavy lift booster had been available 20 years ago. The modules would also have been much bigger and more versatile (imagine a number of Skylabs bolted together).
Lack of a decent heavy lift booster has done more to hold us back in space exploration over the past four decades than anything else.
And you need a capable big booster to do all that. Werrner Von Braun was not stupid.
Big boosters are what we need to be doing - and there are 3 to 4 in the offing. I don't really care which of the new big boosters get built and flown first. I just want one up and running and available.
Big boosters are what we need to be doing - and there are 3 to 4 in the offing. I don't really care which of the new big boosters get built and flown first. I just want one up and running and available.
MartG said:
Eric - that was his point. Compared to a mars mission ...
I responded to the wording in his comment - rather than the quote he included. I assumed he was talking about flights to the moon rather than Mars.So what if a rescue mission takes years. It's no worse than trying to get to Australia in the late 18th Century. We need to readjust out time scales and expectations to a pre mid 19th century setting.
Prior to the advent of the railway and the telegraph (mid 19th century) travel and communications took months and even years. Space travel reintroduces us to something we have kind of forgotten - but which was the norm for most of humanity's history.
Flooble said:
http://www.anmm.gov.au/Learn/Library-and-Research/...
109 days for the earliest regular trips to Australia
And most of those passengers were never coming back.109 days for the earliest regular trips to Australia
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff