4 ms·

Just build a second Falcon Heavy. If there was a genuine possibility of SLS being competitive, that's one thing. It's another when it's worse in basically ever

Just build a second Falcon Heavy. If there was a genuine possibility of SLS being competitive, that's one thing. It's another when it's worse in basically every way.

ginko 1y ago
Falcon Heavy as a TLI payload of 16,800kg. A fully decked Orion spacecraft weighs 33,446kg. Really the only alternative to SLS for Artemis would be Starship but that hasn't even achieved orbit yet (meanwhile SLS already did a successful lunar orbit and return).
- fn-mote 1y ago
  I’m not happy with this argument because the Orion comes in two modules. It’s designed to go in SLS but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. In view of the launch economics, this argument still doesn’t make sense of SLS. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
  - ginko 1y ago
    >but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. How do you know that they can feasibly be launched separately? Do you think NASA would have asked for a launch vehicle the size of SLS if could have done a manned lunar mission with something less then half its size?
    - ACCount36 1y ago
      Oh, they know it. Saturn V was less powerful than SLS - but it could send an entire mission in a single launch. Capsule, lander and all. A lot of what NASA has been doing with SLS is just trying to... rationalize its existence. This is what gave us NRHO, Gateway and others. Reportedly, some of the people at NASA just believe that having an inefficient, wasteful and corrupt space program is better than not having it.
      - ginko 1y ago
        >Saturn V was less powerful than SLS - but it could send an entire mission in a single launch. Capsule, lander and all. That's just not true. Saturn V had a paylod of 43,500kg to TLI. Only the largest configuration of SLS(Block 2) exceeds that with 46000kg. A Falcon Heavy is far below that.
        ACCount36 1y ago
        Huh, I overestimated SLS? My bad - I think I must have used Block 2 numbers by accident. Thanks for the correction. My point stands though: no Artemis mission has plans to launch a full Apollo style capsule + lander stack. Artemis HLS, SpaceX and Blue Origin versions both, flies entirely on its own. So what's required of both SLS and any would-be SLS replacement is a far less demanding mission than what Saturn V has done in the past. Which calls into question: what SLS is even for? Does it add value to the mission, or is the mission subtracted from to justify adding SLS to it?
- mastermage 1y ago
  Add to that the fact that to my knowledge while falcon heavy claims it can achieve TLI it has never actually done so.
  - perihelions 1y ago
    What?? It's launched multiple missions at energies significantly greater than TLI—Europa Clipper for one.

Just build a second Falcon Heavy. If there was a genuine possibility of SLS being competitive, that's one thing. It's another when it's worse in basically every way.

ginko 1y ago

Falcon Heavy as a TLI payload of 16,800kg. A fully decked Orion spacecraft weighs 33,446kg. Really the only alternative to SLS for Artemis would be Starship but that hasn't even achieved orbit yet (meanwhile SLS already did a successful lunar orbit and return).

fn-mote 1y ago
I’m not happy with this argument because the Orion comes in two modules. It’s designed to go in SLS but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. In view of the launch economics, this argument still doesn’t make sense of SLS. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
- ginko 1y ago
  >but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. How do you know that they can feasibly be launched separately? Do you think NASA would have asked for a launch vehicle the size of SLS if could have done a manned lunar mission with something less then half its size?
  - ACCount36 1y ago
    Oh, they know it. Saturn V was less powerful than SLS - but it could send an entire mission in a single launch. Capsule, lander and all. A lot of what NASA has been doing with SLS is just trying to... rationalize its existence. This is what gave us NRHO, Gateway and others. Reportedly, some of the people at NASA just believe that having an inefficient, wasteful and corrupt space program is better than not having it.
    - ginko 1y ago
      >Saturn V was less powerful than SLS - but it could send an entire mission in a single launch. Capsule, lander and all. That's just not true. Saturn V had a paylod of 43,500kg to TLI. Only the largest configuration of SLS(Block 2) exceeds that with 46000kg. A Falcon Heavy is far below that.
      - ACCount36 1y ago
        Huh, I overestimated SLS? My bad - I think I must have used Block 2 numbers by accident. Thanks for the correction. My point stands though: no Artemis mission has plans to launch a full Apollo style capsule + lander stack. Artemis HLS, SpaceX and Blue Origin versions both, flies entirely on its own. So what's required of both SLS and any would-be SLS replacement is a far less demanding mission than what Saturn V has done in the past. Which calls into question: what SLS is even for? Does it add value to the mission, or is the mission subtracted from to justify adding SLS to it?
mastermage 1y ago
Add to that the fact that to my knowledge while falcon heavy claims it can achieve TLI it has never actually done so.
- perihelions 1y ago
  What?? It's launched multiple missions at energies significantly greater than TLI—Europa Clipper for one.