5 ms·

SLS is such a strange beast. So many weird things about it. Its design looks like someone tried to literally combine a Saturn V and the Space Shuttle: in an alt

SLS is such a strange beast. So many weird things about it. Its design looks like someone tried to literally combine a Saturn V and the Space Shuttle: in an alternate universe, it might be the design we got in the 70s instead of the Shuttle. They're using rockets that were used on previous shuttle launches for the first few planned missions -- and instead of reusing then, they're dumping them. It just doesn't feel like....an advancement. It's not something that can get the general public excited about space. Edit: it turns out today is the 40th anniversary of the first firing of those rockets while attached to the orbiter (the 'SSME' - space shuttle main engines). https://www.nasa.gov/feature/40-years-ago-two-months-away-from-sts-1-the-first-space-shuttle-mission https://www.nasa.gov/feature/40-years-ago-two-months-away-fr...

vwoolf 6y ago
It's not something that can get the general public excited about space Space is like a sports team: the public gets excited when there are wins. The public is excited about SpaceX because of the company's many wins. All ULA needs to do is post some wins to generate excitement.
- _coveredInBees 6y ago
  While you are not wrong, that doesn't feel entirely true. Every single time I watch some version of the 2 Falcons landing back on earth [1], I get chills and have a tear or two in my eyes. It feels right, it feels like progress and it is awe inspiring. Not that I don't have an immense amount of admiration and respect for everything that has come before and was achieved in the past. But it feels like time to move forward with newer designs, ideas and technology. Especially when SpaceX, BO and others are achieving success with these new ideas and showing that we can take that next step forward. [1] - https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8?t=189 https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8?t=189
ncmncm 6y ago
Not just SLS. The whole notion of a "Lunar Gateway" makes even less sense. Like, absolutely none at all. Its original purpose seems to have been a place SLS would be able to get to, and then SLS would have the purpose of getting to it, in the same weird way that the ISS was a place the Shuttle could get to, and the Shuttle was needed to resupply ISS. Until it wasn't; and now the ISS has no purpose or value. Don't need SLS to get to ISS, so make a "Gateway" that does. Make no mistake, a "Lunar Gateway" is much worse than completely useless. If you want to go to the moon, go to the moon. If you want to go to Mars or an asteroid, go there. Stopping at lunar orbit, effectively halfway, just costs a huge amount of extra fuel to stop and then start again.
- pavelrub 6y ago
  I think this is in general how NASA often operates. Dr. Robert Zubrin has made the same criticism multiple times. Missions are invented in order to provide rationale for previous decisions, instead of it being the other way around.
- sep_field 6y ago
  I play a lot of Kerbal Space Program. It saves a LOT of fuel and mechanical complexity to break up space missions into specialized components. Engines that are able to perform well in atmosphere do not perform well in space, or vice-versa. So Having a launch vehicle that does a rendevous with a LEO space station, then transfer the astronauts to a vehicle that is optimized just for the function of shuttling back and forth between an Earth space station and a Lunar space station, then have them board another craft that is optimized for landing on the Moon and taking off again, using minimal fuel because it doesn't need to carry the weight of the other components.. It makes designing a mission a lot more complex but at the savings of a lot of components and fuel, makes a lot more reusable components as well. Then when you add the ability to refuel in orbit by capturing asteroids, it really pays off.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Apollo used specialised vehicles too, you don’t need gateway stations for that. Conversely using a gateway station means you cannot choose optimal orbits and timings for your mission, you have to use the pre-established orbits and timings whether it suits you or not. Suppose I want to send a mission to land on the moon at a site not on the orbital plane of the gateway station. For an all in one mission this is no problem, I can match my Earth launch plane and transfer plane to line up with the destination. With a gateway station the lander has to do two plane change burns, on on landing and again on ascent back to the gateway. If you play KSP you know just how expensive plane change manoeuvres can be. ISU is a great opportunity for sure, but we don’t have it yet. That would be a great reason for building a way station and a great reason for going to it on other missions. But without that reason what’s the point?
    - 6y ago

vwoolf 6y ago

It's not something that can get the general public excited about space Space is like a sports team: the public gets excited when there are wins. The public is excited about SpaceX because of the company's many wins. All ULA needs to do is post some wins to generate excitement.

_coveredInBees 6y ago
While you are not wrong, that doesn't feel entirely true. Every single time I watch some version of the 2 Falcons landing back on earth [1], I get chills and have a tear or two in my eyes. It feels right, it feels like progress and it is awe inspiring. Not that I don't have an immense amount of admiration and respect for everything that has come before and was achieved in the past. But it feels like time to move forward with newer designs, ideas and technology. Especially when SpaceX, BO and others are achieving success with these new ideas and showing that we can take that next step forward. [1] - https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8?t=189 https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8?t=189

ncmncm 6y ago

Not just SLS. The whole notion of a "Lunar Gateway" makes even less sense. Like, absolutely none at all. Its original purpose seems to have been a place SLS would be able to get to, and then SLS would have the purpose of getting to it, in the same weird way that the ISS was a place the Shuttle could get to, and the Shuttle was needed to resupply ISS. Until it wasn't; and now the ISS has no purpose or value. Don't need SLS to get to ISS, so make a "Gateway" that does. Make no mistake, a "Lunar Gateway" is much worse than completely useless. If you want to go to the moon, go to the moon. If you want to go to Mars or an asteroid, go there. Stopping at lunar orbit, effectively halfway, just costs a huge amount of extra fuel to stop and then start again.

pavelrub 6y ago
I think this is in general how NASA often operates. Dr. Robert Zubrin has made the same criticism multiple times. Missions are invented in order to provide rationale for previous decisions, instead of it being the other way around.
sep_field 6y ago
I play a lot of Kerbal Space Program. It saves a LOT of fuel and mechanical complexity to break up space missions into specialized components. Engines that are able to perform well in atmosphere do not perform well in space, or vice-versa. So Having a launch vehicle that does a rendevous with a LEO space station, then transfer the astronauts to a vehicle that is optimized just for the function of shuttling back and forth between an Earth space station and a Lunar space station, then have them board another craft that is optimized for landing on the Moon and taking off again, using minimal fuel because it doesn't need to carry the weight of the other components.. It makes designing a mission a lot more complex but at the savings of a lot of components and fuel, makes a lot more reusable components as well. Then when you add the ability to refuel in orbit by capturing asteroids, it really pays off.
- simonh 6y ago
  Apollo used specialised vehicles too, you don’t need gateway stations for that. Conversely using a gateway station means you cannot choose optimal orbits and timings for your mission, you have to use the pre-established orbits and timings whether it suits you or not. Suppose I want to send a mission to land on the moon at a site not on the orbital plane of the gateway station. For an all in one mission this is no problem, I can match my Earth launch plane and transfer plane to line up with the destination. With a gateway station the lander has to do two plane change burns, on on landing and again on ascent back to the gateway. If you play KSP you know just how expensive plane change manoeuvres can be. ISU is a great opportunity for sure, but we don’t have it yet. That would be a great reason for building a way station and a great reason for going to it on other missions. But without that reason what’s the point?
  - 6y ago