/sci/ - Science & Math

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?

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

>>10824727
is it also using hydrogen as fuel?

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

>>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"

step 1

>>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?

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

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

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

>>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.

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>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"

>>10825344

>>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

>>10824727
Shuttle boomers were already fired

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

>>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.

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>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.

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

>>10825659
>wider payloads

>>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.

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

>>10825674

>>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

This could be a possible improvement.

>>10825768

>>10825770

>>10825773

>>10825770
>>10825773
>>10825776
MUH
DICC

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

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

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

>>10824746
based

>>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.

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

>>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.

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

>>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.

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

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

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

>>10824704
Remake a Saturn V then rename it SLS

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.

bump

Can we fix is be cancelling it?

>>10827254
>the absolute state of spacex fans