-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SLS - On the Scent of Inevitable Capitulation
- Thread starter Nikxice
- Start date
Watts_Up
Well-Known Member
Similar video, but the author speculate that NASA is interested going to Venus instead of Mars using nuclear thermal propulsion.
Last edited:
I learnt a lot of things in that video. Starship is too ambitious and quite complex, I now fully understand the reason why NASA is not running headlong towards Starship and hedging towards SLS too. I didn't know that for a Moon or Mars mission, Starship would need in-flight refueling in LEO or in Mars orbit. So for every mission we need two rockets with an in-flight refueling. Not saying it is not doable, but for a manned missions this would take a decade or two to perfect it.
More than two are needed to refuel a Starship: up to five.
Not if Elon can help it. "Perfect", maybe so, but getting it to work is less than ten years.
Upto five? now that is crazy. If we can get this technology working at Elon's speed in ten years for non-human flight, that would be an amazing feat. For humans that would need many flights back and forth to prove the technology. If I were Jim Bridenstine, I would look to SLS for my upcoming manned moon mission in this decade.
Sure it doesn't push the technology far enough from Saturn V, but Starship taking humans anywhere outside of earth's gravity seems quite far away. I am guessing the first milestone for Starship should be point to point travel within earth, with 100% re-usability of all stages.
It’s not crazy when you understand that it is a fully reusable vehicle that can take over 100 tons to LEO, GTO, Moon, and Mars. See https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf
Sure it will take some number of flights to develop the vehicle and ensure it is sufficiently safe to take humans to space. So what? SLS has yet to launch a single test flight. It is years behind schedule and billions over budget. It will cost over ONE BILLION DOLLARS per launch and the entire rocket ends up in the ocean. How many test flights do you think will be required to certify SLS for human passengers and how many billions will that cost? Starship will cost far less and be more capable.
I don't want to come across as a pedant, but it is spelled ONE BEEELLION DOLLARS.
.. and so has Starship. SLS will fly one day with a ton of cost overruns, but the technology is not too far fetched. It is an evolution from Saturn V and Space Shuttle.
On the other hand, Starship at this time is more of a science/technology project. It is a revolutionary design from FH or anything that mankind has seen so far. I am sure it will see the light of day, ONLY because it is Musk's project. But I clearly understand why NASA is clinging on to SLS. If I were the NASA decision making body, I would take the same approach at this time, even though I am a SpaceX fanboi.
Apparently you missed the Starhopper and SN5 test flights. Which by the way, landed intact.
SLS is over a year away from getting off the ground and when it does the rocket will be trashed. On purpose.Starship is certainly a “project” though I’m unclear as to what you mean by using that word. SLS is a “project”.
The “revolutionary” part of Starship is the re-entry method, which is grounded in actual physics. This SpaceX video explain it.
The Super Heavy booster is a logical evolution of the F9 booster, so it is not particularly revolutionary, just bigger and with more engines.
The overall Starship vehicle is 100% reusable, as compared to the F9 being about 75% reusable. So in that sense Starship is the logical evolution of F9.
Starship is not an Elon Musk fantasy/vanity project. It’s development is proceeding rapidly and at a pace that makes SLS look like the world’s slowest snail.
Bridenstine seems a bright manager and he knows now that SpaceX can deliver. I think once the political life preserver for SLS is finally deflated it is going to sink like a billion dollar anchor and Bridenstine will switch to SpaceX for moon landings, while biting his lip to keep from grinning and breaking into his happy dance.
I'm not trying to be unkind but I believe you don't yet get Elon's ambition or what the SpaceX teams under his direction can accomplish.
It only took them a few years to design and build Raptor engine for a few tens of millions. How long would that have taken and cost if attempted by any of the old line rocket companies? They all act as if attempting a brand new engine would take them ten years and several billion tax payer dollars. Another example is solving booster reusability. Much faster in solving and making it very reliable than any of the established competitors would ever have believed.
There will be plenty more Starship prototypes blowing up between now and safe manned Starship missions to Moon and Mars. That is why they are going to happen years before you expect.
Apparently you missed the Starhopper and SN5 test flights. Which by the way, landed intact.
Starship is certainly a “project” though I’m unclear as to what you mean by using that word. SLS is a “project”.
The “revolutionary” part of Starship is the re-entry method, which is grounded in actual physics. This SpaceX video explain it.
Thanks for link to this video. It is two years old but still fascinating. Has SpaceX put out anything similar after changing the design and materials for Starship? When they do I hope they do one for Mars and a second for Earth deorbit, so those can be compared and contrasted. I would imagine quite different landing phases would be necessary given one is a landing from orbit while other is trying to bleed off even more velocity so no fuel need be expended to place ship into Mars orbit.
He knows SpaceX delivers but he is also a Trumpista ex Congressman. Thus his primary focus is politics ratehr than rational decisions. Still I am confident he'd rather have SLS. Just look at his video congratulating the new Astronaut arrives at ISA. He had only Republicans there and they ignored the Russian who provide ULA their motive force.
This is not intended to be political commentary but rather recognizing that SLS has gigantic political power whether it ever flies or not.
Apparently you missed the Starhopper and SN5 test flights. Which by the way, landed intact.
Starship is certainly a “project” though I’m unclear as to what you mean by using that word. SLS is a “project”.
The “revolutionary” part of Starship is the re-entry method, which is grounded in actual physics. This SpaceX video explain it.
The Super Heavy booster is a logical evolution of the F9 booster, so it is not particularly revolutionary, just bigger and with more engines.
The overall Starship vehicle is 100% reusable, as compared to the F9 being about 75% reusable. So in that sense Starship is the logical evolution of F9.
Starship is not an Elon Musk fantasy/vanity project. It’s development is proceeding rapidly and at a pace that makes SLS look like the world’s slowest snail.
Well, Starship is _intended_ to be fully re-usable. SpaceX hasn't built it yet. It's just in development and as Musk tweeted, they're just going to keep doing more hops for a while before they can go high.
But, SpaceX has one advantage in the process: it's its own customer due to Starlink.
As soon as SpaceX is confident in Starship, it can begin to launch Starlink satellites, and those launches will help prove the rocket to other customers.
If you want to make a wager and take the position that Starship will not be fully reusable — FH booster and entire Starship upper section — within 3 years...I will be happy to take your money.
Elon is determined that the entire Starship vehicle will be fully reusable. That is the design and the goal. It will happen, and soon.
Yup, Jim will take care of Jimbo first, along with the agenda of the hands that feed him. I think he supports both SLS and Starship, although he's unlikely to be Administrator if or when SLS/Orion ever successfully achieves a crewed Moon landing. He's still relatively young (45), so I could see him eventually running for a Oklahoma U.S. Senate seat, probably to replace the aging, raging, climate change denier James Inhofe (Be interesting to see how Bridenstine's views have evolved on that issue). Bridenstine should have plenty of support. In 2012 he beat a Republican incumbent and then ran unopposed in 2014. Therein lies a clue as to why I believe Bridenstine's suppressed persona might be a stronger supporter of Starship than many might imagine. He won his first race by running further right of his opponent, as a candidate on the fringe of the Tea Party (He gladly accepted those supporters, but didn't want to attach his name to that label).
A major focus of the Tea Party is their belief in smaller government coupled with decreased spending. Which clearly contradicts Jim's public support for funding the SLS black hole. I think he does so by biting his tongue and holding his nose. If Biden wins in November, having Bridenstine around for a couple more years could unmuzzle him. His stinging line last year to Elon and SpaceX, “It’s time to deliver", might get aimed at Boeing multiplied by 10.
e-FTW
New electron smell
I think it is important to all remember how radically different these two systems are/will be. Yes, one will be reusable, but that is only the beginning of the impact that choice makes.
Case in point: it takes 5 re-fuellings? Yep and all 5 could technically be done by a single Starship and Super Heavy combo. Maybe the same Super Heavy that launched the Starship waiting to be refuelled.
SH+Starship are built through an iterative process: which means they expect most to fail until they reach the design that works reliably.
The other is built though a process (that I assume has a name) that involves individually testing each component before assembling a complete rocket and flying it (yes, they are doing a green run test in the end, but that is not the full stack). This approach is costly.
Case in point: it takes 5 re-fuellings? Yep and all 5 could technically be done by a single Starship and Super Heavy combo. Maybe the same Super Heavy that launched the Starship waiting to be refuelled.
SH+Starship are built through an iterative process: which means they expect most to fail until they reach the design that works reliably.
The other is built though a process (that I assume has a name) that involves individually testing each component before assembling a complete rocket and flying it (yes, they are doing a green run test in the end, but that is not the full stack). This approach is costly.
That's exactly right. 'Fail-fast-and-iterate' vs 'it has to work perfectly the first time'.
There are a few legitimate reasons the latter may have been appropriate in the past, but clearly we've moved on.
There are a few legitimate reasons the latter may have been appropriate in the past, but clearly we've moved on.
In the past when Eric would write one these SLS to nowhere articles, a handfull of backers would show up in its defense. I just scanned the first 100 comments and didn't see one. Negativity prevailed. Unlikely, but a few individuals openly discussed (wishing) that if the "Green Run hot fire test" scheduled for late autumn resulted in a RUD, the program would be in serious jeopardy. Ten years ago such talk would have been universally condemned. Boy, has the world ever changed.
Similar threads
