NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
NMaude said:
I just stumbled across this three-month old video about the FSB-2 SRB test:


I always find watching these tests interesting (I'd love to be physically present for one of these tests in Utah).
Click to expand...

Having been to a number of them... it's a hell of a show.
 
Michel Van said:
current state on situation

Another Hurricane is moving toward Florida
This time NASA decides to let SLS stay on launch pad 39B and delay launch to 16 November...
Click to expand...

Oh help not again, though let’s wait and see what part of Florida the Hurricane is due to hit before NASA has to take action and pulls the SLS back to safety.
 
sferrin said:
Does make one wonder how much wind it would take to see SLS laid out on the ground.
Click to expand...

Does make you think that for safety’s sake NASA should pull the SLS back into the VAB and away from the strong winds from the hurricane, then concentrate on the next available launch window.
 
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
Does make one wonder how much wind it would take to see SLS laid out on the ground.
Click to expand...

Does make you think that for safety’s sake NASA should pull the SLS back into the VAB and away from the strong winds from the hurricane, then concentrate on the next available launch window.
Click to expand...
I think they don't want to have to restack the SRBs but I don't know how many trips they can do before they have to do that. (And the time as well.)
 
Forest Green said:
What they need is a moving shelter.
Click to expand...

They need something like the Apollo programme's Mobile Service Structure (MSS):

605px-Mobile_Service_Structure_retracts_from_Apollo_11_Saturn_V_%2848230193216%29.jpg
 
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
Does make one wonder how much wind it would take to see SLS laid out on the ground.
Click to expand...

Does make you think that for safety’s sake NASA should pull the SLS back into the VAB and away from the strong winds from the hurricane, then concentrate on the next available launch window.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the rollout puts stresses on the rocket. They've designed the rocket for 5 rollouts, and they're at 4 now. The SRBs can't be left stacked indefinitely either.
 
Hobbes said:
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
Does make one wonder how much wind it would take to see SLS laid out on the ground.
Click to expand...

Does make you think that for safety’s sake NASA should pull the SLS back into the VAB and away from the strong winds from the hurricane, then concentrate on the next available launch window.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the rollout puts stresses on the rocket. They've designed the rocket for 5 rollouts, and they're at 4 now. The SRBs can't be left stacked indefinitely either.
Click to expand...

So that will be one more roll out (then what), will NASA have to disassemble the rocket and the SRBs?
 
not sure, this is based on comments over at nasaspaceflight.com which I can't find now.
 
There are many different SLS / Artemis threads out there, with lot of people posting (some of them... oh well, better not to talk about them).
 
NMaude said:
Sherman Tank said:
I, uh, think it worked.
Click to expand...

It's in orbit.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s a start. Never thought too much about the SLS in its current form. I think of it as a Frankenstein monster of rockets. Not too keen about throwing away those shuttle engines. All that effort in design and testing just to be garbage. They should go to a museum for proper retirement.
 
Last edited:
The K2 said:
NMaude said:
Sherman Tank said:
I, uh, think it worked.
Click to expand...

It's in orbit.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s a start. Never thought too much about the SLS in its current form. I think of it as a Frankenstein monster of rockets. Not too keen about throwing away those shuttle engines. All that effort in design and testing just to be garbage. They should go to a museum for proper retirement.
Click to expand...

When you see what they paid for the new-built "cheap" disposable ones, you'll probably change your mind.
 
_Del_ said:
The K2 said:
NMaude said:
Sherman Tank said:
I, uh, think it worked.
Click to expand...

It's in orbit.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s a start. Never thought too much about the SLS in its current form. I think of it as a Frankenstein monster of rockets. Not too keen about throwing away those shuttle engines. All that effort in design and testing just to be garbage. They should go to a museum for proper retirement.
Click to expand...

When you see what they paid for the new-built "cheap" disposable ones, you'll probably change your mind.
Click to expand...
According to NASA, the new production ones are supposed to be 30% cheaper. They at least could have one or two of the original SSMEs donated to a museum.
www.nasa.gov

Space Launch System RS-25 Core Stage Engines

NASA.gov brings you the latest images, videos and news from America's space agency. Get the latest updates on NASA missions, watch NASA TV live, and learn about our quest to reveal the unknown and benefit all humankind.
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
 
Last edited:
The K2 said:
According to NASA, the new production ones are supposed to be 30% cheaper. They at least could have one or two of the original SSMEs donated to a museum.
www.nasa.gov

Space Launch System RS-25 Core Stage Engines

NASA.gov brings you the latest images, videos and news from America's space agency. Get the latest updates on NASA missions, watch NASA TV live, and learn about our quest to reveal the unknown and benefit all humankind.
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
Click to expand...
The money spent for refurbishment of the six old engines, and the 18 new build engines under contract came out to $140+ million per engine... Presumably, the lion's share is dominated by the new-builds.

Even at a future 30% savings based on that conservative figure including the refurbished engines, you're looking at more per disposable engine than it costs to buy a Falcon Heavy launch.... One SLS launch, four engines, and you've got seven Falcon Heavy launches. That's just the engines. Not including all the other costs, tanks, srbs, etc.


Assuming they want to keep throwing money away like this, refurbing, using and then dumping the old stock in the ocean looks like huge savings on the bottom line.
 
Cassini’s cost was up there, for a much smaller payload. Collides, rockets and carriers are rather similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom