Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
The ISS is far from ideal as a launch platform. It's orbital inclination is not ideal. The inclination it has was to favour earth resource uses - rather than spaceflight further out. Also, politically, the ISS inclination was angled to make sure it passed overhead those countries that had funded it.
After all, those who have paid for the most expensive engineering project in history deserve to be able to get to see it every now and then.
I'm not knocking the ISS in any way - but it was not envisaged as a future launch pad for solar system exploration - so it has limitations if it was to be repurposed for something along those lines.
After all, those who have paid for the most expensive engineering project in history deserve to be able to get to see it every now and then.
I'm not knocking the ISS in any way - but it was not envisaged as a future launch pad for solar system exploration - so it has limitations if it was to be repurposed for something along those lines.
Globs - you obviously have your mind set on negativity when it comes to the future space exploration matters. It is pointless discussing things with you as all you can do is throw back at us all the things you think are wrong..
Life is too short for me to be involved with such pessimistic individuals.
I'm excited by what is happening now and what I expect to happen in the near future.
If you want to be miserable about these matters - that is your choice.
Enjoy your misery - you obviously revel in it.
Life is too short for me to be involved with such pessimistic individuals.
I'm excited by what is happening now and what I expect to happen in the near future.
If you want to be miserable about these matters - that is your choice.
Enjoy your misery - you obviously revel in it.
Well, we built the ISS using multiple launches because we didn't have true heavy lift capability. It took about 15 years to build the thing.
How quick could we have built a similar sized station if we had the use of upgraded Saturn V launch vehicles?
I would argue that it could have launched most of the components of the ISS using maybe ten Saturn V launches. I would also argue that it would have been cheaper to launch major components in one go rather than having to assemble lots and lots of smaller bits using multiple launches.
The other factor is that a heavy lift launcher allows loads which are bigger in volume and diameter. The maximum size of the habitable modules of the ISS were limited by the limits of the Shuttle cargo bay and by aerodynamic and lift capabilities of the Russian Proton rocket.
These constraints are far less severe if you have a big booster in the 7 to 10 million pound thrust range.
I've posted these pictures before.
The top image shows the internal size of one of the largest ISS modules.
The bottom picture shows the internal volume of the Skylab workshop - which was actually an entire SIVB stage of a Saturn V converted.
Bear in mind that the SIVB was the SMALLEST of the three Saturn V stages.
SLS or rockets with a similar thrust rating MIGHT allow us to regain this lost lift capability.
How quick could we have built a similar sized station if we had the use of upgraded Saturn V launch vehicles?
I would argue that it could have launched most of the components of the ISS using maybe ten Saturn V launches. I would also argue that it would have been cheaper to launch major components in one go rather than having to assemble lots and lots of smaller bits using multiple launches.
The other factor is that a heavy lift launcher allows loads which are bigger in volume and diameter. The maximum size of the habitable modules of the ISS were limited by the limits of the Shuttle cargo bay and by aerodynamic and lift capabilities of the Russian Proton rocket.
These constraints are far less severe if you have a big booster in the 7 to 10 million pound thrust range.
I've posted these pictures before.
The top image shows the internal size of one of the largest ISS modules.
The bottom picture shows the internal volume of the Skylab workshop - which was actually an entire SIVB stage of a Saturn V converted.
Bear in mind that the SIVB was the SMALLEST of the three Saturn V stages.
SLS or rockets with a similar thrust rating MIGHT allow us to regain this lost lift capability.
I thought the Saturn V was in that picture for size comparison only - as it often is in such pictures. I don't se the Saturn V being revived in any way now - although a few years ago elements of the V were on the table as an option for future NASA launchers.
I am by no means anti-Musk. I think what he is doing and what he proposes are fantastic and I wish his endeavours all the best luck.
I do think he overstates his case sometimes - but he is gradually meeting the targets he sets for SpaceX so I do reckon he will get to do most of what he plans. I think the timescales will be a bit longer than he sometimes states - but he has admitted that few of his target dates are set in stone.
I am by no means anti-Musk. I think what he is doing and what he proposes are fantastic and I wish his endeavours all the best luck.
I do think he overstates his case sometimes - but he is gradually meeting the targets he sets for SpaceX so I do reckon he will get to do most of what he plans. I think the timescales will be a bit longer than he sometimes states - but he has admitted that few of his target dates are set in stone.
A couple of hundred pounds.
On the Shuttle, that was critical as everything hinged on cargo capability - especially for commercial customers which is what was hoped would fund the Shuttle programme.
That was why they eliminated the white paint from the 3rd mission on.
The Shuttle External Tank also features external insulation. The Saturn V had (limited) internal insulation. It is the external insulation that gives the ET than slightly rough texture and is naturally a pinky/orange shade. Sunlight causes the colour to change over time which is why no two ETs were identical in colour.
On the Shuttle, that was critical as everything hinged on cargo capability - especially for commercial customers which is what was hoped would fund the Shuttle programme.
That was why they eliminated the white paint from the 3rd mission on.
The Shuttle External Tank also features external insulation. The Saturn V had (limited) internal insulation. It is the external insulation that gives the ET than slightly rough texture and is naturally a pinky/orange shade. Sunlight causes the colour to change over time which is why no two ETs were identical in colour.
Because -
a) limited funds
b) it's not a simple conversion.
Just because they are basing the new rocket on an existing set of technologies does not mean that it is a straightforward bolting together of existing components.
For a start, the External Tank and the Solid Rocket boosters are enlarged versions of what was used on the Shuttle. This means that the structure and the loads it experiences during launch will be very different to a Shuttle launch.
The SLS will use FOUR Space Shuttle Main engines. The Shuttle had three. No one has ever fired four SSMEs together, so that requires a lot of new engineering and testing to make all that work correctly. In addition, the SSMEs are now to be placed directly below the main tank, turning the ET into a rocket in its own right. The SSMEs were originally designed to apply their thrust slightly off centre (they were mounted at an angle on the Orbiter to avoid damage to the Shuttle ET and solid boosters. On SLS they will fire directly downwards - again, this is new and requires a certain amount of simulation and testing.
The SSME s will not be reused on SLS so they have had their thrust rating upgraded to a higher level. This allows the SLS to carry more payload than it otherwise would if they were attempting to recover and reuse the main engines.
a) limited funds
b) it's not a simple conversion.
Just because they are basing the new rocket on an existing set of technologies does not mean that it is a straightforward bolting together of existing components.
For a start, the External Tank and the Solid Rocket boosters are enlarged versions of what was used on the Shuttle. This means that the structure and the loads it experiences during launch will be very different to a Shuttle launch.
The SLS will use FOUR Space Shuttle Main engines. The Shuttle had three. No one has ever fired four SSMEs together, so that requires a lot of new engineering and testing to make all that work correctly. In addition, the SSMEs are now to be placed directly below the main tank, turning the ET into a rocket in its own right. The SSMEs were originally designed to apply their thrust slightly off centre (they were mounted at an angle on the Orbiter to avoid damage to the Shuttle ET and solid boosters. On SLS they will fire directly downwards - again, this is new and requires a certain amount of simulation and testing.
The SSME s will not be reused on SLS so they have had their thrust rating upgraded to a higher level. This allows the SLS to carry more payload than it otherwise would if they were attempting to recover and reuse the main engines.
The concept is not new. However, the actual hardware that is being used has not been assembled and configured in that exact configuration so that part of it is new. Wiith these triple booster arrangements, estimating the structural and aerodynamic loads is extremely difficult and takes time.
In fact, the concept is PRETTY new in that the other "triple parallel booster" rockets used in the US space programme have been quite different.
The Titan III family used a liquid fueled core with two solid fuel boosters. But its liquid fuels were hypergolic and storable and did not have to be chilled prior to loading.
The Delta IV Heavy has three liquid fuel boosters, all using liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen
The SLS has a liquid hydrogen/oxygen central core booster with solid rocket boosters
Musk has admitted that the calculating of the loads and stresses on the Falcon 9 Heavy has turned out to be much more difficult than they anticipated
The Falcon 9 heavy uses three boosters all fueled with kerosene and liquid oxygen..
They are all different.
In fact, the concept is PRETTY new in that the other "triple parallel booster" rockets used in the US space programme have been quite different.
The Titan III family used a liquid fueled core with two solid fuel boosters. But its liquid fuels were hypergolic and storable and did not have to be chilled prior to loading.
The Delta IV Heavy has three liquid fuel boosters, all using liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen
The SLS has a liquid hydrogen/oxygen central core booster with solid rocket boosters
Musk has admitted that the calculating of the loads and stresses on the Falcon 9 Heavy has turned out to be much more difficult than they anticipated
The Falcon 9 heavy uses three boosters all fueled with kerosene and liquid oxygen..
They are all different.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff