NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

publiusr said:
Modifications like I suggested to allow wet workshop conversion would also lend better access on the pad as well as orbit, with no MSS.
Click to expand...
That would be wrong.
Just stop with the wet workshop BS.
a. NASA isn't going to build another station after ISS
b. NASA isn't going to build another launch vehicle after SLS
c. Wet workshop is economically infeasible.
d. An MSS provides no benefit to dry or wet workshop. Skylab did not use MSS.
 
publiusr said:
There has been a push to simplify things over time:
Click to expand...
Which is the right move. Simpler is cheaper
publiusr said:
Hopefully that trend would reverse.
Click to expand...
Nope. That would be goin backward
publiusr said:
Wasn’t it New Spacers that didn’t want the Saturn LUT preserved?
Click to expand...
Huh? That is idiotic. Please provide proof instead of the usual mudslinging.
Preservation was not financially possible. Even the small Redstone tower was too expensive to maintain.
Again, deflection argument.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
IMO one of the big mistakes when the SLS project went ahead was NASA not designing and building a MSS.
Click to expand...
That would be wrong. It was the right move, just bad implementation . The "MSS" is the VAB, just like the VIF and hangars are for the other vehicles on the Cape. The mistake was not automating and simplifying the pad hookups with items such as autocouplers.

MSS does not guarantee access.
 
publiusr said:
And if Starship depots have leaks in orbit…howse around equipment going to help there?
Click to expand...
Same goes for SLS.
publiusr said:
SLS is Marshall. That didn’t leak the first time.
Click to expand...
Yes, it did. Too much hydrogen
publiusr said:
Last I heard, a Falcon upper stage had problems too (always the bloody upper stages).
Click to expand...
That is childish to use deflection argument. It is not relevant to the topic. It wasn't a problem, just an post mission enhancement did not work.
 
publiusr said:
If the United States can’t afford to preserve a little rinky-dink Redstone tower (that just sits there)—then I guess that Ford class carrier steaming across the ocean is an optical illusion. How was that paid for?
Click to expand...
And more deflection. US aircraft carriers and US defense budget are not the topic. Apples and oranges. This has been explained to you over and over. Your priorities have never been aligned with the nation's.

It has nothing to do with money, it is not just feasible. Plus there are more higher priority items.
 
publiusr said:
If the United States can’t afford to preserve a little rinky-dink Redstone tower (that just sits there
Click to expand...

NASA could've got the money to main the Redstone tower if it had had tours for tourists where one paid a small fee to visit it and other historic NASA sites at Cape Canaveral.
 
Byeman said:
It is not truth but deflection. You are great at doing it. What SpaceX leaks have delayed launches?
Click to expand...
That is deflection. Leaks and anomalies don’t just hurt launches:

Better to address a leak (or any issue) before launch than after, wouldn’t you say?

Depots, like that wayward Falcon upper stage—have NO WAY to address leaks in orbit—so why are you such a big apologist for them?

Leaks happen, and upper stages have always been a pain.

This is why I like the SLS approach in that it avoids refueling. Put most of your propellant in one big can and get rid of it. The EUS is to replace the D-IV upper stage later anyway.

They didn’t even need to charge a fee. Byeman hates Redstone for the sin of it being ARMY, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Depots, like that wayward Falcon upper stage—have NO WAY to address leaks in orbit—
Click to expand...
Wrong. EVAs can fix them
What Falcon leaks?

publiusr said:
This is why I like the SLS approach in that it avoids refueling. Put most of your propellant in one big can and get rid of it. The EUS is to replace the D-IV upper stage later anyway.
Click to expand...
Nope, not big enough. Again, you don't understand cost. EUS is a dead end liked the rest of SLS. Depots are the only way to explore.
Von Braun and MSFC were the originators of depots
 
China is way behind the US in terms of a Moon landing at present. I cannot see China landing on the Moon until the 2030s at least.
 
publiusr said:
Truth isn’t deflection. SpaceX assets leak, explode—and we aren’t supposed to notice?
Click to expand...
1. My tax dollars aren't paying for it. 2. Their method obviously produces real results faster than the NASA method. At this rate, SpaceX will have gone through Starship 2, built a new launch pad, and flown Starship 3 on the new launch pad, in the time between SLS 1 & 2.
 
publiusr said:
That is deflection. Leaks and anomalies don’t just hurt launches:

Better to address a leak (or any issue) before launch than after, wouldn’t you say?

Depots, like that wayward Falcon upper stage—have NO WAY to address leaks in orbit—
Click to expand...
How do the Chinese fix their lost upper stages? (BTW SpaceX did deorbit that stage.)
 
I'm not concerned about China--since their decision to clone Starship will be a stumbling block for them outside of LM-10
 
publiusr said:
I'm not concerned about China--since their decision to clone Starship will be a stumbling block for them outside of LM-10
Click to expand...
Not as much as SLS has been a millstone around the neck of the US space program. It has done more damage than William Proxmire ever did.
 
Last edited:
Great...now I'm going to have to start sawing up my Airfix to add a Centaur. A pill bottle scales well.
 
If the Centaur V is selected it will have to be modified, for one thing its' thrust-structure need to be modified to mount four RL10s instead of the usual two RL10s and the interstage will have to be replaced with a new design (The Centaur V is 18ft in diameter while the SLS first-stage is 27.6ft in diameter).​
 
NMaude said:
If the Centaur V is selected it will have to be modified, for one thing its' thrust-structure need to be modified to mount four RL10s instead of the usual two RL10s and the interstage will have to be replaced with a new design (The Centaur V is 18ft in diameter while the SLS first-stage is 27.6ft in diameter).​
Click to expand...
not going to add more engines. It is not a EUS replacement but an upgraded ICPS. As for the interstage, just some changes to the existing ICPS interstage. Slightly wider for Centaur and shorter to keep the Orion at the same height on the mobile launcher,
 
The EUS likely has/had four engines given that in addition to propelling the Orion CSM and its' OSA it also had to contend with the mass of the Universal Stage Adaptor (The EUS/Orion CSM interstage) and whatever payload it was carrying inside the interstage so no doubt that mean a four engine Centaur V.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
The EUS likely has/had four engines given that in addition to propelling the Orion CSM and its' OSA it also had to contend with the mass of the Universal Stage Adaptor (The EUS/Orion CSM interstage) and whatever payload it was carrying inside the interstage so no doubt that mean a four engine Centaur V.
Click to expand...
No. It is a fact that there isn't going to 4 engine Centaur V.
There isn't going to be a USA. There isn't going to be co-payloads anymore. Centaur V isn't replacing EUS, it is replacing the role of ICPS. EUS, USA and co-payloads are cancelled.

USA can't fit on Centaur V anyways.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom