/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10824704

190KiB, 2200x1650, C573389C-62FB-4083-922E-A2CFC4EA53C1.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

ITT: we attempt to fix the SLS without outright canceling it

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 14:10:21 2019 No.10824704 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10824746 >>10824749 >>10824790 >>10824923 >>10824982 >>10825344 >>10825605 >>10825807 >>10825975 >>10826321 >>10827243

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 14:15:22 No.10824711 Report

Quoted By: >>10824727 >>10825565

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this SLS thing literally just Shuttle SRB's strapped to Shuttle fuel tank that now has main Shuttle engines strapped to the bottom, with tricked out Apollo command module on top?

I mean what the actual fuck?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 14:24:21 No.10824727 Report

Quoted By: >>10824743 >>10825570

Completely drop the dumb SRBs. There’s a huge reason why Energia didn’t opt for such. It’s beyond me why they never ever considered the F-1E.
Either way, it’s doomed to die pretty soon considering it will only be used to launch the Orion now, something which in turn can be done by other and cheaper launchers already.
It’s designed just to keep Shuttle boomers happy and employed.

>>10824711
Yes. The only good thing is the tricked out Apollo command module

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 14:34:55 No.10824743 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824727
is it also using hydrogen as fuel?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images.jpg, 8KiB, 225x225

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 14:36:48 No.10824746 Report

Quoted By: >>10825805

>>10824704
Replace the SRBs with 4 falcon 9s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 14:38:06 No.10824749 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824704
Rename it to SSH. Starship Super Hopper. Move the $40 something billion that will go into SLS in the next 4-5 years to Starship development.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 15:07:52 No.10824790 Report

Quoted By: >>10824854

>>10824704
Fire all the limp wristed management responsible for SLS and replace them with management who actually cares about spaceflight and who are willing to put pressure on contractors to get stuff done on time and on budget. Anyone who's arguing for changes in technical details on SLS are forgetting the orginal reason for the existence of it, to quickly and cheaply develop a large launch vehicle by reusing Shuttle parts.

>But what about the crew killer SRBs?
The only time those have killed crew (on Challenger) was because they were used in conditions outside what they were designed for. The SRBs didn't kill those 7 astronauts, management did.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 15:43:58 No.10824854 Report

Quoted By: >>10824872

>>10824790
>”dude, let’s just reuse parts of the Space Shuttle so we save alot of money and time instead of developing a completely new system”
>billion dollars overbudget and years delay later
What went wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 15:51:15 No.10824872 Report

Quoted By: >>10824880

>>10824854
>Contractor: "Hey NASA, sorry, we can't make the milestone for this quarter."
>NASA: "No problem, here's your milestone reward money anyways."
>Much later
>Contractor: "Hey NASA, sorry again, we can't produce what we were asked for but if you still pay us billions then we extra promise that we'll finish this."
>NASA: "Alright, if you say so, already had the check signed."
>Repeat

This actually happened. This is like a professor adding points to a student's final grade with the hope to encourage him to get his assignments done on time. All it's going to to is encourage more lazyness. Something as simple (or radical) as withholding milestone rewards until milestones were met could have helped with the SLS's chronic lateness big time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 15:55:58 No.10824880 Report

Quoted By: >>10824892

>>10824872
>Contractor: "Hey NASA, sorry, we can't make the milestone for this quarter."
>NASA: "Looks like fantastic work 10/10, here's your milestone reward money. Oh and we'll give you extra money for uhh yeah."
>Much later
>Contractor: "Hey NASA, sorry again, we can't produce what we were asked for but if you still pay us billions then we extra promise that we'll finish this."
>NASA: "Another fantastic job, 10/10. Here's your check. Also a bonus check for being 10/10 perfect."
>Contractor: "Uhh we need uhh more money"
>NASA: "I figured as much, the check is already preprinted on the table over there. Feel free to take however amount you need"
>Much later
>NASA: "We need more money, we can't do science when we're only matching Apollo mission funding. We need 100x more so we can pay 90% of it to our our SLS partners"

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1553292902593.webm, 3MiB, 800x1026

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 15:58:22 No.10824888 Report

Quoted By: >>10824912

step 1

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO sadcat01.jpg, 23KiB, 446x473

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 15:59:30 No.10824892 Report

Quoted By: >>10824896

>>10824880
I was so fucking pissed when the OIG report revealed this. How the hell was this blatant corruption allowed especially considering that there are alot of people out there looking to cut NASA's funding?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 16:01:15 No.10824896 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824892
Its a systematic issue that needs to be cleaned out entirely.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1491287587005.jpg, 4KiB, 249x180

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 16:07:33 No.10824912 Report

Quoted By: >>10824979

>>10824888
holy fucking shit, is each screw and cable in that fucking thing created by different company?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 16:09:36 No.10824923 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824704
>ITT: we attempt to fix the SLS
just canc....
>without outright canceling it
okay, I pass

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 16:25:09 No.10824979 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824912
>The steel was forged in Pennsylvania
>The bolt heads were machined in Arkansas
>The face was made in Nebraska
>The threads were cut in Florida
>The final testing was done in Alaska
Truly these are American bolts.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO LessShitLaunchSystem.png, 783KiB, 795x615

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 16:25:43 No.10824982 Report

Quoted By: >>10825032 >>10825640

>>10824704
Scrap the propulsion system for the booster stages. Use two or four (depending on payload size) keroLOX flyback boosters powered by something similar to an F1-B with a methaLOX flyback core stage running two M1-like methaLOX burning high thrust engines. The upper stage will be one large spacecraft running a smaller vacuum optimized methaLOX engine drawing from four conformal tanks which can be discarded whenever necessary, the only parts of this that would be discarded entirely would be the conformal tanks and final stage engine although even that could probably be worked into the upper stage spacecraft so that only the tanks will be discarded and the entire craft can return to Earth, ideally with enough propellant to perform a propulsive landing but if that's impossible than a ground landing at a specially prepared site using shock absorbing bags would be preferable, fuck splashdowns and fuck rust.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 16:39:15 No.10825032 Report

Quoted By: >>10825051

>>10824982
soo... a flyback booster equipped Soyuz?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 16:44:59 No.10825051 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825032
Sort of, but bigger and taking advantage of methaLOX as the vehicle gets higher and the atmosphere thins out for higher ISP without the need to spend as much mass and volume as hydroLOX and with reuse/refurbishment of most components in mind, and with a "true" spacecraft as the final working stage as opposed to these faggy composite capsule+propulsion module abominations. Better in my opinion to simply roll all of it into one vehicle, both to simplify staging and so it all comes together at once instead of being made in pieces that have to be mated together after they're done, which also allows you to bring the whole thing back to Earth for refurbishment once it's done instead of throwing hundreds of millions of dollars of service module in the trash every launch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 18:31:26 No.10825344 Report

Quoted By: >>10825355

>>10824704
Add a $5 million SLS Rocket Conversion Attachment System(RCAS). The RCAS attaches to whatever commercial rocket and lander is available through a standard interface. Parts of it are assembled in all 50 states, but really just Alabama. It consists of a plaque made of the most advanced materials possible that flashes "THIS SLS ROCKET WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM THE RESPECTABLE SENATOR RICHARD SHELBY"

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1487623932117.jpg, 41KiB, 594x388

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 18:33:57 No.10825355 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825344

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 19:54:54 No.10825565 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824711
no, it's a clean sheat design that's supposed to look like that, but it's not, because that wasn't enough of a jobs program

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 19:55:55 No.10825570 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824727
Shuttle boomers were already fired

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:08:35 No.10825605 Report

Quoted By: >>10825617

>>10824704
Falcon heavy can do the same job for less and is already tested.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:14:36 No.10825617 Report

Quoted By: >>10825629 >>10825656

>>10825605
Not really. The Falcon Heavy can't match the payload to TLI as the SLS (at least in reusable mode, I can't find a solid source on this). The Falcon Heavy is also restricted in the payload sizes it can carry due to its core diameter of 3.66m, the SLSs core diameter of 8.4m will enable it to carry physically larger payloads. Does that mean that the SLS should be used over Falcon? In my opinion yes if it first launched before or even shortly after the first Falcon Heavy launch, but right now its usefulness is questionable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:19:27 No.10825629 Report

Quoted By: >>10825648 >>10825659

>>10825617
The SLS being able to launch larger payloads is kind of a moot point now because Artemis and the cancellation of the EUS has relegated it to carrying only Orion, with everything else flying on commercial lifters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:26:26 No.10825640 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824982
can't do VTVL with one big engine

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:30:15 No.10825648 Report

Quoted By: >>10827220

>>10825629
I guess you have a point, but I still think that it's a good idea to keep SLS around for now until the next generation of super heavy launchers (Like New Glenn, or BFR) start flying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:33:47 No.10825656 Report

Quoted By: >>10825671

>>10825617
Larger payload size due to diameter is purely a logistics issue, not an engineering issue. They're being blocked from buying one by ULA/Ruag agreement. If they really want to they can either make one or pay an extortion fee.

>TLI
FH can do atleast 20k(probably bit more with optimization) KG for TLI in expendable.
SLS B1 is advertised as ~26k KG for TLI.

So they're 75% there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:34:52 No.10825659 Report

Quoted By: >>10825668

>>10825629
It the coming years though we might suddenly have a need for wider payloads

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 056adf7aaba3391637d413f027df757c.jpg, 45KiB, 640x480

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:37:18 No.10825668 Report

Quoted By: >>10825674

>>10825659
>wider payloads

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:38:40 No.10825671 Report

Quoted By: >>10825686

>>10825656
>They're being blocked from buying one by ULA/Ruag agreement
Thats pretty shitty of ULA desu.

>FH can do atleast 20k(probably bit more with optimization) KG for TLI in expendable.
Source? I've heard so many different values for both reusable and expandable that I think its best to try to get this sorted out and prevent spreading wrong numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:39:42 No.10825674 Report

Quoted By: >>10825676

>>10825668
Yes, your mother want's to be an astronaut someday.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO b1440e39f79005b60e434870d73a5107.png, 427KiB, 853x480

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:41:07 No.10825676 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825674

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 20:44:56 No.10825686 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825671
>Thats pretty shitty of ULA desu.
Its business. Its not pretty.

>different values
The values change because SpaceX keeps improving their Falcon lineup.

>source
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/26155/what-is-falcon-heavys-payload-capacity-to-trans-lunar-injection

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO f1b_01.jpg, 492KiB, 1313x1080

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:23:57 No.10825768 Report

Quoted By: >>10825770

This could be a possible improvement.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO f1b_02.jpg, 55KiB, 400x545

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:24:59 No.10825770 Report

Quoted By: >>10825773 >>10825777

>>10825768

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO f1b_03.jpg, 22KiB, 400x182

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:26:00 No.10825773 Report

Quoted By: >>10825776 >>10825777

>>10825770

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO f1b_04.jpg, 23KiB, 294x408

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:27:05 No.10825776 Report

Quoted By: >>10825777 >>10825779 >>10825945

>>10825773

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:27:38 No.10825777 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825770
>>10825773
>>10825776
MUH
DICC

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:27:59 No.10825779 Report

Quoted By: >>10825802

>>10825776
>ARES 1
>But with a liquid fuel booster
I hate solids so fucking much

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:37:13 No.10825802 Report

Quoted By: >>10825804

>>10825779
A liquid booster Ares 1 would've solved the vibration issues that it had, I think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:38:09 No.10825804 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825802
it also would have solved the "trying to put a crew on top of a big firework" problem it had

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:38:25 No.10825805 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824746
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:40:14 No.10825807 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824704
It's a fool's errand OP. 99% of people who have a hate-boner for the program couldn't even tell you the most basic details about it - much less figure out how to fix the actual issues that've popped up during development.

The people who got mad about NASA awarding overly-generous amounts compared to actual performance are the only ones with a legitimate criticism in this thread, and even they don't know that the OIG checked back in with NASA later and found that NASA was no longer being so generous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:50:25 No.10825945 Report

Quoted By: >>10825952 >>10825981

>>10825776
wait...are those SLS drawings? Are these actual considerations or just wishful thinking?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:52:39 No.10825952 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825945
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/
It was considered as an upgrade over the SRBs. I'm pretty sure that they're now dropped due to the reduction of scope for possible upgrades for SLS until it starts flying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 23:03:23 No.10825975 Report

Quoted By: >>10825984

>>10824704
Wait did they remove the launch abort system?
What on earth I wouldn't go on top of that thing

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO BOLE.jpg, 510KiB, 1091x824

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 23:05:55 No.10825981 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825945
The dynetics proposal was one of the options for the advanced boosters for Block 1A and Block 2.

The contest got called off when Block 1A was replaced by Block 1B, which uses the STS-derived 5-segment solids, and the advanced boosters were no longer needed so soon.

Now it's a bit confusing because you have the Booster Obsolesce and Life Extension (BOLE) program working on replacing the 5-seg SRBs with the OmegA SRBs once they run out of old shuttle casings after 8 SLS flights, but those are considered to be a different thing than the advanced boosters.

I've heard from a reliable source at MSFC that the advanced booster design would be brought into consideration for a Mars campaign with Block 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 23:06:57 No.10825984 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825975
They didn't. The ones on the right are showing the cargo SLS variants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:04:23 No.10826321 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824704
Make the boosters flyback and land like spacex and make it actually reusable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 11:15:50 No.10827220 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825648
At this rate even New Glenn might outpace SLS

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 11:26:49 No.10827243 Report

Quoted By:

>>10824704
Remake a Saturn V then rename it SLS

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 11:31:26 No.10827254 Report

Quoted By: >>10828506

Where is the SLS engineer who kept shitting on SpaceX? Fucking dumbshit nigger you're pretty smart faggot. I guess you aren't as smart as you thought nigger. kys.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:09:54 No.10828478 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:11:09 No.10828483 Report

Quoted By:

Can we fix is be cancelling it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:24:21 No.10828506 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827254
>the absolute state of spacex fans

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches