Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:10 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default Bad (good) SLS news

Hello All,

Many years ago, I never thought I'd find myself rooting for the demise of a U.S. launch vehicle, but as my understanding of what the Space Shuttle did to the planetary exploration program--unmanned and manned--grew, so did my opposition to that winged monstrosity. Today there is another such NASA budget glutton, called the SLS (which officially stands for "Space Launch System," but whose abbreviation is often used derisively to mean "Senate Launch System," because its contractors have powerful allies in that body). But today I came across some bad news (bad for SLS's supporters, but good for just about everyone else in astronautics) on Scott Manley's vlog (under which I just posted a comment): www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3pGNTIC4c . Also:

While--as tbzep pointed out elsewhere--we are paying (via government grants and anchor tenancy agreements) for the hardware that SpaceX developed and is producing for NASA and DoD use, we are [1] actually getting hardware, and [2] it is very competitively priced. Despite claims to the contrary in their publicity literature, the Space Shuttle was really developed in order to keep employed--and maintain the size of--the standing army that NASA created to build, support, and launch the Apollo-Saturn vehicles, and the SLS's purpose for existing is the same (it isn't only the legacy Shuttle contractors who want to keep that particular gravy train running). If an earthquake destroyed the RS-25 (ex-SSME) factory (with no casualties), and/or a leaky roof resulted in the SRB motor case tooling rusting away beyond repair, I would not celebrate (those people would lose their current jobs, after all), but I wouldn't mourn the loss of that outdated space hardware (and the ability to make more of it), either.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:33 AM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

When Apollo and the Saturn family were shut down, I hated the shuttle.
When I saw the first launch without the slow majestic liftoff and the smoke obscuring exhaust instead of 1000 ft of kero-lox flaming awesomeness, I hated the shuttle.
When I realized we would never go back to the moon because it was LEO only, I hated the shuttle.
When we were earthbound between the Apollo and shuttle eras, I hated the shuttle.
When we were (are) earthbound or hitching rides with Russians, I hated the shuttle.

When we fixed the Hubble, I loved the shuttle.
When we returned satellites and payloads from space, I loved the shuttle.
When it glided into Edwards and Canaveral and absolutely dwarfed the T-38 chase planes, I loved the shuttle.

My love hate relationship with the shuttle is considerably one sided, but I grew more fond of it in the later years and hated to see it end knowing we had absolutely nothing to replace it.

I loathe the SLS, Constellation and all the other stupid SRB based ideas developed solely to keep Thiakol/Orbital ATK running at full capacity.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:11 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

The Saturn could have done everything Shuttle did, 10 years sooner, 2-4x as frequently, for 1.5x as long in history, and with vastly more mass to LEO. You know, that's all.

These days BFR should replace SLS ASAP. BFR is doing a test flight in late 2019. SLS despite having the motor cases, crew capsule, hydrogen tanks, etc IN STOCK will not see a flight for at least 4 years and in the mean time will eat close to $1B (correction. >$2B) a year.

BFR will be done by a private company in 2-3 years to actual mission launch, at under 1/3 the cost and vastly more capacity to LEO.

Is there an echo in this room?

How can I "redress my grievances?"

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 03-14-2019 at 04:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:14 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
The Saturn could have done everything Shuttle did, 10 years sooner, 2-4x as frequently, for 1.5x as long in history, and with vastly more mass to LEO. You know, that's all.

These days BFR should replace SLS ASAP. BFR is doing a test flight in late 2019. SLS despite having the motor cases, crew capsule, hydrogen tanks, etc IN STOCK will not see a flight for at least 4 years and in the mean time will eat close to $1B a year.

BFR will be done by a private company in 2-3 years to actual mission launch, at under 1/3 the cost and vastly more capacity to LEO.

Is there an echo in this room?

How can I "redress my grievances?"


I'm with you with one exception. The shuttle could retrieve and land with cargo such as a satellite or the ESA lab (pre ISS). Retrieval was only done a few times and the lab became redundant with the launches of the first couple pieces of ISS. An SIVB based ISS would have been quick, easy, and very roomy!

Edit: The ISS has a little less than 33,000 cubic ft of pressurized space, including all those docking modules, etc. Three Skylab modules would be around 36,000 cubic ft, plus whatever common docking core that would have connected them. Four modules would have been awesome!

The big Saturn is a platform that should still be operating today. The 1B has fairly recently been matched or eclipsed in lifting capacity and efficiency by several boosters, but it would have been interesting to see how long it would have hung around as the only LEO man rated booster. There is no telling what the big V would be capable of today with well thought out incremental updates over the last 50 years as our technology has grown.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:34 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
I'm with you with one exception. The shuttle could retrieve and land with cargo such as a satellite or the ESA lab (pre ISS). Retrieval was only done a few times and the lab became redundant with the launches of the first couple pieces of ISS. An SIVB based ISS would have been quick, easy, and very roomy!

Edit: The ISS has a little less than 33,000 cubic ft of pressurized space, including all those docking modules, etc. Three Skylab modules would be around 36,000 cubic ft, plus whatever common docking core that would have connected them. Four modules would have been awesome!

The big Saturn is a platform that should still be operating today. The 1B has fairly recently been matched or eclipsed in lifting capacity and efficiency by several boosters, but it would have been interesting to see how long it would have hung around as the only LEO man rated booster. There is no telling what the big V would be capable of today with well thought out incremental updates over the last 50 years as our technology has grown.
Philip Bono's and Kenneth Gatland's book "Frontiers of Space" (see: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sea...Space&kn=&isbn= ) covers the proposed Saturn V improvements--a recoverable & reusable S-IC first stage and a recoverable S-IVB third stage (via three methods [parachute/helicopter, ballute/parachute/crushable impact absorbers/forward landing legs, SSTO]). Dennis Jenkins' Space Shuttle books (in several editions, see: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sea...e+Shuttle&isbn= ) cover--among all of the various designs--the ASSC (Alternate Space Shuttle Concepts) ones that utilized expendable and reusable ballistic recovery and reusable winged Saturn V S-IC first stages, boosting straight-winged and delta-winged orbiters fitted with one or two jettisonable LOX/LH2 tanks (one version even had such a delta-winged orbiter atop a Titan core with six 120" diameter Titan III solid motors).
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:35 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

The V can launch a huge BG. Retrieval no prob. Imagine a scaled up Apollo capsule for cargo and stolen black satellites the diameter of the 2nd stage (33 feet)? Hmmm? The V being deprecated was a national tragedy.

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 03-14-2019 at 06:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:46 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
The V can launch a huge BG. Retrieval no prob. Imagine a scaled up Apollo capsule for cargo and stolen black satellites the diameter of the 2nd stage? Hmmm? The V being deprecated was a national tragedy.
Hopefully the BFR will become what the Saturn V could have been (being designed to be reusable at the beginning is a definite advantage for BFR).
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-13-2019, 02:09 PM
shrox's Avatar
shrox shrox is offline
Master: Dark Art of Model Rocketry
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
...There is no telling what the big V would be capable of today with well thought out incremental updates over the last 50 years as our technology has grown.


Grid fins.
__________________
Shrox

Master of the Dark Art of Model Rocketry

www.shrox.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:01 PM
bernomatic's Avatar
bernomatic bernomatic is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,174
Thumbs up

In his statement on the 2020 FY NASA Budget, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine (as posted on the Sagitta Cantina here, No real mention is made of the SLS.

It almost sounds like they want to go to the Moon, then on to Mars using commercial supplied equipment.

Quote:
“Beginning with a series of small commercial delivery missions to the Moon as early as this year, we will use new landers, robots and eventually humans by 2028 to conduct science across the entire lunar surface.


One additional thing, while Mr. Musk is garnering a lot of the headlines with his bold usae of our tax dollars, there is that other company owned by another well to do person using the snail's slow and steady method to compete.

And while SpaceX's BFR may overwhelm Blue Origin's New Glenn for now, at least in design parameters, BO's New Glenn is likely to launch in 2020 whereas BFR will be in the late 2020's. Also, I just shudder to think what Blue Origin's New Armstrong will be capable of doing.

The future is looking a lot brighter than it has in many a year for Rocketry.
__________________
Bernard J. Herman Ohio RLS

Starport Sagitta Rockets
email bherman@sagittarockets.com

NAR # 97971 SR

What's your idea on the best way to change Washington D.C.?
Let us know at the Cantina
Sagitta Cantina

We're looking for a few good Catos, please tell us about any you may have had. Survey of Anecdotal Malfunctioning Engines or S.A.M.E.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:51 PM
bernomatic's Avatar
bernomatic bernomatic is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,174
Default

BTW GH, I think Blue Origin is more in line with your philosophy on recovery ships.

Stena Freighter

It will be interesting to see it after it's been modified.

There will be one additional difference, Blue Origin's recovery ship is supposed to be underway during recovery
__________________
Bernard J. Herman Ohio RLS

Starport Sagitta Rockets
email bherman@sagittarockets.com

NAR # 97971 SR

What's your idea on the best way to change Washington D.C.?
Let us know at the Cantina
Sagitta Cantina

We're looking for a few good Catos, please tell us about any you may have had. Survey of Anecdotal Malfunctioning Engines or S.A.M.E.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024