/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12777829
Bro’s I’ve been doing some digging on the early history of SLS/End of Constellation. Anyways it seems like NASA had its hands tied.
1) Ares V was way too big and wouldn’t have flown until the 2030s.
2) DIRECT seems like it was a great idea until you realize that it suffers the same issue as SLS: Requiring a redesign of the shuttle external tank into a core stage, which is damn near impossible, sadly.
3) Shuttle-C seemed like the best approach. It required nearly zero work whatsoever and it was versatile. It could actually place 35 tons onto a trans lunar injection (more than SLS Block I). However, it had zero growth options and could only do about 80 tons to LEO, while having payload hang off the side. This is tricky for Mars missions, which have very voluminous landers. It also threw away 3 SSME’s on every flight, while DIRECT and Ares V had the option of using RS-68s instead.
4) Shuttle-B apparently is Shuttle-C but with RS-68’s. It could only put like 40 tons into LEO.
If you were NASA and you had to choose one of these, what would you do?