/sci/ - Science & Math

The sheer size of the RS-25 rocket engine that will power the SLS is often underestimated...
An image to put it into perspective.

There will be four of those beasts on every rocket.

>>10321013
>The SLS rocket will be the largest most powerful vehicle ever made
But that's wrong. Block 1 isn't the largest and won't have a test flight until 2020. Block 2 is so far away that it doesn't even have a planned launch date. Both BFR and New Glenn are launching before Block 2.

>>10321036
Payload capabilities of these proposed rockets are not yet confirmed.
The first block of the SLS can lift up to 95 metric tons to LEO making it the most capable vehicle since Saturn V.

>>10321013
>the most advanced rocket engines in existence
by what measure?
Raptors are looking fancier to me

>>10321058
>Payload capabilities of these proposed rockets are not yet confirmed.
How many levels of cope are you on? Block 2 is even less confirmed than BFR or New Glenn. To be honest I don't think they're actually ever going to fly B2 since they still have to design and build the B1B crew and cargo variants, but by that point B2 will be extremely outdated.
>no reusability
>lower cargo capacity
>more stages and boosters = more cost
Face it: SLS is a jobs program.

>>10321021
Isn't the SLS test going to launch with the SSMEs?

>>10321021
>There will be four of those beasts on every rocket.

Too bad they will end up in the ocean after one flight. What a waste..

Typical pointless incremental old space nonsense
Why not just start with the block 2 cargo? It is no more difficult than the block 1

>>10321124
the contractors would get less money that way, anon

>>10321013
Why are there three paper rockets next to the SLS?

>>10321091
SSME is the RS-25.

>>10321081
Incremental upgrades to performance especially straightforward ones such as larger upper stage are trivial. The current goal is to get the basic system going and moving cargo and let the optimizations come later as need arises. Block 1 is fully capable of fulfilling the currently planned Lunar missions. And everything is a jobs program. The SLS "jobs program" gives us an incredibly capable super heavy lift vehicle that hasn't been available for decades and makes scientists ecstatic about the possibilities it offers.

>>10321013

>>10321169
So you admit that it's going to be outdated by the time that it finally launches? And also that
>The SLS rocket will be the largest most powerful vehicle ever made
is total bullshit?

>>10321278
If you wish to see it that way it's okay. The SLS was always intended to begin with B1 and move toward more capable blocks.
Even so, Block 1's starting thrust exceeds both the Saturn V and Space Shuttle.

At this point they may as well just keep going with SLS. As many times as they have cancelled previous super heavy lift systems, it's easy to see that canceling shit doesn't get us anywhere in the end.

Honestly I only hope they don't cancel Orion. It could fly on a different vehicle

>>10321376
BFR's design thrust exceeds even Block 2 SLS by a large amount, what's your point?

So have they even tested a cluster of 4 RS-25 engines yet or are we going to see a 5 year delay while they figure out the start-up instability problems that make the engines shred themselves when fired together?

>>10321553
>BFR's design thrust
Cringey.

how butthurt do you have to be to think that expendable rockets aren't outdated

>>10321558
>implying people talking about SLS Block 2 performance isn't just as bad if not worse given the current track record

>8 years and tens of billions of dollars later
>They still can't shuffle around existing shuttle components

What a joke this is. Can't wait to see this piece of shit explode on the pad.

>>10321570
Paid shills usually aren't very attached to what they're shilling

>>10321555
Decades of shuttle experience and modern simulation methods should deal with that danger.

>The most advanced engines in the world
>Cant land propulsively
Fucking pointless money sink

>>10321013
This is a joke and will be outdated before it’s even finished

>>10321058
But NOT superior to Saturn V
What a shame the American space program is without the Nazis to push it along

>>10321013
It's 5 times over budget, 10 years behind schedule with technology that's 30 years out of date.

God I fucking hate the politics that destroyed venturestar and gave birth to this abhorrent mess... to think those fucking scumbags complained about the fuel tank not being 'built to experimental requirements' yet went on to build this hunk of junk...

>>10323120
I wish Venturestar was built so it could bury the SSTO spaceplane meme once and for all.

>>10323222
It will never die, because there's always uneducated retards that try to revive it

>>10321021
>>10321025
>one of the most complex, expensive and efficient engines ever built designed with reuse in mind
>lol just make it expendable bro

they couldn't even pull a ULA and recover just the engines and or boosters like the shuttle to give some credit in the face of BFR or New Armstrong

>>10323120
Correct on all fronts save budget. Only 40% (for now). The existence of the Jupiter family and the DIRECT program in general, as well as the fact that it got canned in favor of Ares made me mad as hell.
>>10324783
I ask my self "why not" about that very topic every time I see SLS.

>>10322941
Yeah and recently a test stand caught fire few seconds into the burn

>>10323222
Imagine if it was actually built and then they discovered they needed solid boosters....

>>10325141
That was a new model test engine with modifications to make it more expendable and cheap. The kinks will likely be worked out by the time the current stock is over and if not production of the original model can simply be continued.

>>10321013
The SLS Block 1b Crew is peak design. Everything else is garbage.

>>10321013
They still develope this shit ?

>>10321021
>BIG GOOD
>SMALL BAD

>>10326363
yes anon, literally
wanna know why the n-1 failed?

>>10326464
Communist niggers built it?

SLS would have been cool flying in the early 2000s. Now it just looks sad compared to what the private space is doing.

>>10326487
Literally nobody expected private space to be a thing (1 company so far).
Rumors say when Constellation was cancelled the butthurt reaction was to propose a ridiculous idea - commercial spaceflight taking the station supply role of the shuttle - that is doomed to failure just so that they can say "I told you so!" and get their program back using those political good boi points.

Commercial, space, flight? Ha. Private company making a rocket that gets to space? Haha. And doing it cheaper and faster than we can? Hahahahaha!

SLS would have looked like Manna from the sky if spacex didn't exist.

>>10326464
Korolyov died

redpill me on orion. is it just as bad as sls?

>>10326825
Won't ever fly

>>10326809
Nope.

The Party decided to scrap it out of embarrassment that the americans scored the pr points first and were already shutting down their space program after "winning". Few more flights and the kinks would have been sorted ironically giving the USSR a massive advantage over the US as far as access to space goes since Saturn V production had been halted already and there were no indications this will be reversed.

The last N-1 failure was literally a month before the last Lunar landing.

In essence, governments didn't give a shit about space it was just dick waving and when the heat died down so did the efforts.
Cooperation and cold war growing colder further sealed the deal.

>>10326825
It was literally made so fat and heavy that no ULA rocket could lift it. Then it turned out Ares 1 can't lift it either causing some fat trimming most notable of which the removal of the toilet, an important item for longer term "deep space missions". What Orion can do can be done on Starliner or Dragon 2. It lives for as long as the SLS lives for the two are tied through congressional backstage deals.

>>10323120
>technology that's 30 years out of date.

Oh nonono. Rocket tech is actually older than that. Try, 787 years out of date:

>The date reporting the first use of true rockets was in 1232. At this time, the Chinese and the Mongols were at war with each other. During the battle of Kai-Keng, the Chinese repelled the Mongol invaders by a barrage of "arrows of flying fire."

>>10321169
>Incremental upgrades to performance especially straightforward ones such as larger upper stage are trivial.
Same applies to other rockets in development, fa.m

>>10321558
>attacks something completely irrelevant.
How about an actual argument?

>>10327039
Of all the vehicles mentioned only BFR could be compared to the SLS. How a private company could fund the development and operational costs of SHLV on its own is anyone's guess. New Glenn is too small and no upgrades other than total redesign and maybe clustering could get close to SLS, even Block 1. Even Falcon Heavy with upgraded upper stage won't be able to achieve the B1 performance. There is of course man-rating the vehicles too before NASA astronauts may ride them.