3 ms·

What's a more practical system that matches its capabilities and flight readiness?

bottlepalm 4y ago
That’s my point, NASA could have used the money to build a reusable heavy lift system that is reusable and can launch more than once per year. Everything SLS is not. An incapable system that was billed as being flight ready in 2016. Who knows when the next one ever will be. What a disaster.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Such a reusable system would have to be built from scratch. It would delay the return to the moon by a decade or more. It may not even be cheaper. And it would be frought with massive engineering insecurity. Also you could say NASA is supporting SpaceX and others in doing something similar, which is better than having one single program in-house. SLS is the safest bet for a soonish return to the moon. Anything else is just speculation.
  - bottlepalm 4y ago
    If the problem is getting to the moon ‘soon’ then yes SLS is your answer. If the problem is getting to the moon cheaply and frequently then the SLS is most definitely not. Therefore we need SLS out of the way to fund real sustainable solutions for space exploration.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      "Soon" could be a factor of decades. NASA can't entirely depend on SpaceX nailing it with Starship, and I suspect the first launch with Humans on board is still years away, let alone launching to the moon. Also, if you look closer at the SLS program, there will be replacements which will make the launches cheaper eventually. Not reusable though.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        And as for now we still don't know for sure whether or not reusable rockets are actually more cost efficient than single use ones.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        I think SpaceX has shown that they can be, at least for Falcon 9. But it took quite a while and there is on the order of a hundred times more demand for what Falcon 9 can do than what SLS can do.
hoseja 4y ago
Three Falcon Heavies in a sequence.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Have you tried this in Kerbal Space Program? Refueling is one thing, but once you start assembling stuff in orbit, things get more complicated.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Yes, this analyses has been done. And unlike Kerbal we literally already have very good certified software for docking in orbit and its something that has been done for literally 60 years. 2 Falcon Heavies for 140M each, would give you literally 1.5 billion in extra budget to change your in space assets and for operations. Are you seriously gone argue that docking a capsule and a service module in LEO costs 1.5 billion? This is juts a kniejerk response. If you actually seriously sit down and you do the analysis, no sane person would ever use SLS. Seriously, go try it with realistic numbers and see what architecture you end up with. Nobody that is not forced would include SLS in any architecture.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      Have you done the serious analysis and realistic numbers? It sounds very handwavy.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        I mean the prices listed are not hand wavy. We know the cost of SLS/Orion from public numbers and Government Budget Service. We know the commercial prices for SpaceX launches. Of course I have not done a full analysis of the cost of mating a service module and capsule in LEO. That would be far to much effort for a person that is not paid to do it. But given that the difference is 3.5 billion, I don't think anybody could argue that this wouldn't be within that margin. I would only hint at comparable programs cost. 3.5 billion is more then the complete Crew Dragon program, and we are talking about a dumb service module that consists of mostly things that already exists. And that 3.5 billion $ is just the first launch, over the next 10 launches it would go up to about 15 billion $. Suggesting that it would cost more then 2 billion $ per launch to push a capsule from LEO to moon orbit is a bit absurd anyway you look at it. There would essentially be no new technology needed. Some people have made series Artemis alternatives plans over the years, such as moon direct for example. But those of course change far more then my 'minimal' example. But I of course have not paid millions of $ to do a complete study on an alternative architecture. That's what NASA should do, but they don't because they are not allowed to. And they aren't allow to because everybody knows it would be beyond embracing. The only initial attempt to do a minimal study on just an alternative for Artemis 1 almost got the NASA Administrator fired.
panick21_ 4y ago
Man that we still have to argue this is so sad. This has been explained over and over again since 2011 when congress forced NASA into SLS. Launching a moon mission on standard commercial rockets is absolutely possible. Many different architectures have been proposed to do that. Its really not a question at all. Its not about 'matching capabilities' because Artemis is currently designed such that it requires SLS. So of course if you design to program to the rocket you were forced to use, then of course its the only option. When the NASA Administrator in 2019 proposed to shift to Falcon Heavy he was almost fired and was given a mouth guard on the topic. NASA was not allowed to invest single $ into any program that could threaten the existence of SLS/Orion. NASA is barley even allowed to make studies that suggest an alternative. Just in very simple terms a few possible architecture: 1. This is if you are forced to keep Orion. You need to change Orion so Orion and a slightly larger Service Module can dock in orbit, rather then launch together. Each one can launch on a Falcon Heavy. This alone would give you 3.5 billion to invest into the service module and other related cost. And over the 2020 would save about 15 billion $ or more. 2. You can throw away both SLS and Orion if you add extension tank into the cargo trunk of Dragon then it could do basically the same as Orion/SM does now. That would literally save 5 billion a year and would easily be enough to make a real service module. 3. The Artemis architecture already requires a moon lander. Instead of SLS/Orion you can launch people into LEO with Crew Dragon or Starliner, there they would transition into the moon lander. And the journey to moon and back would be in the lander. There are many other way. Almost every other way is cheaper then SLS/Orion. Try to do the math yourself. But of course the problem is, NASA is simply not allow to advocate or design such missions architectures. Any architecture that cuts out SLS or Orion is stillborn because of politics.
- killyourcar 4y ago
  I'm arguing that we have the SLS today and we don't have another compatible option. Is SLS the best outcome? Of course not, if we had a time machine would we go do it differently, of course. But it's sitting on the pad today and nothing else is.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    We don't have 'the SLS' as a viable rocket. We have a single SLS, when this one launches. SLS will not exist anymore for many years to come, hopefully launching again in 2024 more likely 2025. So SLS really doesn't exist practically. That is the problem with incredibly low launch rates. > But it's sitting on the pad today and nothing else is. Falcon Heavy has been ready to use for 3 years and you could easily design a moon mission around Falcon Heavy. Hell you could even use Atlas or Falcon 9.

That’s my point, NASA could have used the money to build a reusable heavy lift system that is reusable and can launch more than once per year. Everything SLS is not. An incapable system that was billed as being flight ready in 2016. Who knows when the next one ever will be. What a disaster.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Such a reusable system would have to be built from scratch. It would delay the return to the moon by a decade or more. It may not even be cheaper. And it would be frought with massive engineering insecurity. Also you could say NASA is supporting SpaceX and others in doing something similar, which is better than having one single program in-house. SLS is the safest bet for a soonish return to the moon. Anything else is just speculation.
- bottlepalm 4y ago
  If the problem is getting to the moon ‘soon’ then yes SLS is your answer. If the problem is getting to the moon cheaply and frequently then the SLS is most definitely not. Therefore we need SLS out of the way to fund real sustainable solutions for space exploration.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    "Soon" could be a factor of decades. NASA can't entirely depend on SpaceX nailing it with Starship, and I suspect the first launch with Humans on board is still years away, let alone launching to the moon. Also, if you look closer at the SLS program, there will be replacements which will make the launches cheaper eventually. Not reusable though.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      And as for now we still don't know for sure whether or not reusable rockets are actually more cost efficient than single use ones.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        I think SpaceX has shown that they can be, at least for Falcon 9. But it took quite a while and there is on the order of a hundred times more demand for what Falcon 9 can do than what SLS can do.

hoseja 4y ago

Three Falcon Heavies in a sequence.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Have you tried this in Kerbal Space Program? Refueling is one thing, but once you start assembling stuff in orbit, things get more complicated.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Yes, this analyses has been done. And unlike Kerbal we literally already have very good certified software for docking in orbit and its something that has been done for literally 60 years. 2 Falcon Heavies for 140M each, would give you literally 1.5 billion in extra budget to change your in space assets and for operations. Are you seriously gone argue that docking a capsule and a service module in LEO costs 1.5 billion? This is juts a kniejerk response. If you actually seriously sit down and you do the analysis, no sane person would ever use SLS. Seriously, go try it with realistic numbers and see what architecture you end up with. Nobody that is not forced would include SLS in any architecture.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Have you done the serious analysis and realistic numbers? It sounds very handwavy.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      I mean the prices listed are not hand wavy. We know the cost of SLS/Orion from public numbers and Government Budget Service. We know the commercial prices for SpaceX launches. Of course I have not done a full analysis of the cost of mating a service module and capsule in LEO. That would be far to much effort for a person that is not paid to do it. But given that the difference is 3.5 billion, I don't think anybody could argue that this wouldn't be within that margin. I would only hint at comparable programs cost. 3.5 billion is more then the complete Crew Dragon program, and we are talking about a dumb service module that consists of mostly things that already exists. And that 3.5 billion $ is just the first launch, over the next 10 launches it would go up to about 15 billion $. Suggesting that it would cost more then 2 billion $ per launch to push a capsule from LEO to moon orbit is a bit absurd anyway you look at it. There would essentially be no new technology needed. Some people have made series Artemis alternatives plans over the years, such as moon direct for example. But those of course change far more then my 'minimal' example. But I of course have not paid millions of $ to do a complete study on an alternative architecture. That's what NASA should do, but they don't because they are not allowed to. And they aren't allow to because everybody knows it would be beyond embracing. The only initial attempt to do a minimal study on just an alternative for Artemis 1 almost got the NASA Administrator fired.

panick21_ 4y ago

Man that we still have to argue this is so sad. This has been explained over and over again since 2011 when congress forced NASA into SLS. Launching a moon mission on standard commercial rockets is absolutely possible. Many different architectures have been proposed to do that. Its really not a question at all. Its not about 'matching capabilities' because Artemis is currently designed such that it requires SLS. So of course if you design to program to the rocket you were forced to use, then of course its the only option. When the NASA Administrator in 2019 proposed to shift to Falcon Heavy he was almost fired and was given a mouth guard on the topic. NASA was not allowed to invest single $ into any program that could threaten the existence of SLS/Orion. NASA is barley even allowed to make studies that suggest an alternative. Just in very simple terms a few possible architecture: 1. This is if you are forced to keep Orion. You need to change Orion so Orion and a slightly larger Service Module can dock in orbit, rather then launch together. Each one can launch on a Falcon Heavy. This alone would give you 3.5 billion to invest into the service module and other related cost. And over the 2020 would save about 15 billion $ or more. 2. You can throw away both SLS and Orion if you add extension tank into the cargo trunk of Dragon then it could do basically the same as Orion/SM does now. That would literally save 5 billion a year and would easily be enough to make a real service module. 3. The Artemis architecture already requires a moon lander. Instead of SLS/Orion you can launch people into LEO with Crew Dragon or Starliner, there they would transition into the moon lander. And the journey to moon and back would be in the lander. There are many other way. Almost every other way is cheaper then SLS/Orion. Try to do the math yourself. But of course the problem is, NASA is simply not allow to advocate or design such missions architectures. Any architecture that cuts out SLS or Orion is stillborn because of politics.

killyourcar 4y ago
I'm arguing that we have the SLS today and we don't have another compatible option. Is SLS the best outcome? Of course not, if we had a time machine would we go do it differently, of course. But it's sitting on the pad today and nothing else is.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  We don't have 'the SLS' as a viable rocket. We have a single SLS, when this one launches. SLS will not exist anymore for many years to come, hopefully launching again in 2024 more likely 2025. So SLS really doesn't exist practically. That is the problem with incredibly low launch rates. > But it's sitting on the pad today and nothing else is. Falcon Heavy has been ready to use for 3 years and you could easily design a moon mission around Falcon Heavy. Hell you could even use Atlas or Falcon 9.