Space Travel & Exploration

[plz delete account]

You seem to not understand that a lunar program based on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy would beat the pants off one based on SLS. Starship would be even better than that, but it's not necessary to make SLS irrelevant.

Let me know when either one has the hardware to launch a deep space capsule, much less a deep space capsule to even launch

[Osmeric]

Let me know when either one has the hardware to launch a deep space capsule, much less a deep space capsule to even launch

A proper cis-lunar program would involve propellant transfer in space. You don't need to launch a deep space capsule and all the propellant needed to get it to its final destination in one shot.

The senators who have pushed the pork barrel monstrosity of SLS have been careful to prevent NASA from working on in-space propellant storage and transfer, even if in situ manufacture of propellant (which would necessarily involve storing it and transfering it from storage tanks to vehicles) would be one of the stronger motivations for doing things on or around the moon. The senators know that with propellant storage/transfer, what flimsy justification for SLS that may seem to some people to exist would become entirely unsupportable.

[PACOX]

A proper cis-lunar program would involve propellant transfer in space. You don't need to launch a deep space capsule and all the propellant needed to get it to its final destination in one shot.

The senators who have pushed the pork barrel monstrosity of SLS have been careful to prevent NASA from working on in-space propellant storage and transfer, even if in situ manufacture of propellant (which would necessarily involve storing it and transfering it from storage tanks to vehicles) would be one of the stronger motivations for doing things on or around the moon. The senators know that with propellant storage/transfer, what flimsy justification for SLS that may seem to some people to exist would become entirely unsupportable.

You described what they plan to do with the Lunar Gateway and Starship...the provess and tech aren't yet though, but SLS is. And its important not just skip over SLS essentially paving the road so we no longer need to use Orion capsules.


Also dont know what you mean by NASA being against propellant transfer when the Lunar Starship is going to require anywhere between 7 to 15 fuel transfers to get to Moon just so NASA can use it as a lander. Thats not SpaceX doing its own thing, its NASA commissioning and signing off SpaceX to do the transfers. How can NASA be against it while signing SpaceX as government contractor?


Also Bill Nelson knows what hw is doing. Starship is specifically being used a lander so NASA can turn around get Congress to retire SLS in the name of saving money. Congress isn't going to do thar before theres a proof of concept, and as silly as Congress is when it comes to space I don't blame them on that principle.

[Osmeric]

You described what they plan to do with the Lunar Gateway and Starship...the provess and tech aren't yet though, but SLS is. And its important not just skip over SLS essentially paving the road so we no longer need to use Orion capsules.


Also dont know what you mean by NASA being against propellant transfer when the Lunar Starship is going to require anywhere between 7 to 15 fuel transfers to get to Moon just so NASA can use it as a lander. Thats not SpaceX doing its own thing, its NASA commissioning and signing off SpaceX to do the transfers. How can NASA be against it while signing SpaceX as government contractor?


Also Bill Nelson knows what hw is doing. Starship is specifically being used a lander so NASA can turn around get Congress to retire SLS in the name of saving money. Congress isn't going to do thar before theres a proof of concept, and as silly as Congress is when it comes to space I don't blame them on that principle.

I don't think you realize just how insanely ludicrous SLS is. It's an order of magnitude more expensive per kg to orbit than the Falcon launchers.

It's not important to not just skip over SLS. Quote the opposite. It's important, indeed vital, to shitcan this monstrosity ASAP. SLS is a roadblock to spending money in a way that could lead to something actually useful in space.

But go ahead. Support SLS and retard any progress toward making the manned space program worth doing.

It wasn't NASA that was against propellant transfer, btw. It was their masters in the Senate, those politicians who when they tell NASA to jump expect NASA to answer "how high?" NASA's original conception of getting back to the moon was using commercial launchers with in-space propellant handling infrastructure. But the senators didn't want that because to them the purpose of a space program is not doing things in space, but delivering $$$ to favored contractors, even if the system that results is programmatically absurd.

[cubby]

I don't think you realize just how insanely ludicrous SLS is. It's an order of magnitude more expensive per kg to orbit than the Falcon launchers.

It's not important to not just skip over SLS. Quote the opposite. It's important, indeed vital, to shitcan this monstrosity ASAP. SLS is a roadblock to spending money in a way that could lead to something actually useful in space.

But go ahead. Support SLS and retard any progress toward making the manned space program worth doing.

It wasn't NASA that was against propellant transfer, btw. It was their masters in the Senate, those politicians who when they tell NASA to jump expect NASA to answer "how high?" NASA's original conception of getting back to the moon was using commercial launchers with in-space propellant handling infrastructure. But the senators didn't want that because to them the purpose of a space program is not doing things in space, but delivering $$$ to favored contractors, even if the system that results is programmatically absurd.

You literally skipped over the rebuttal from @PACOX that proved your point is wrong. The SLS is now an integral part of propellant transfer, paving the way for SpaceX to launch their landers for the moon.

You keep beating this dead horse of "it's so expensive!" and no one is arguing with you about it. NO ONE. It is expensive, ludicrously so, but right now we need it. Literally so we don't need it in the future. The plan is to use SLS to get bootstrapped into Moon orbit operations, land on the moon, and by then SpaceX (or other) will be ready to take over.

[Osmeric]

You literally skipped over the rebuttal from @PACOX that proved your point is wrong. The SLS is now an integral part of propellant transfer, paving the way for SpaceX to launch their landers for the moon.

You keep beating this dead horse of "it's so expensive!" and no one is arguing with you about it. NO ONE. It is expensive, ludicrously so, but right now we need it. Literally so we don't need it in the future. The plan is to use SLS to get bootstrapped into Moon orbit operations, land on the moon, and by then SpaceX (or other) will be ready to take over.

That proved nothing of the sort. SLS is too expensive to make sense even if there is propellant transfer. SLS is also not needed for propellant transfer; indeed, propellant transfer eliminates need for large unitary launchers by allowing payloads to be launched unfueled.

SLS serves just one purpose: distribution of pork barrel $$$ to favored contractors at the expense of the country as a whole.

No, we do not need SLS. We'd be better off killing it dead and driving a spike through its black heart. Yes, that delays the current abomination of a program that depended on SLS. We'd be better off without that, too. It's fatally compromised by its main purpose, which was to provide a rationale for continuing with SLS.

You space fans need to stop getting all afraid of NASA budgets being threatened. NASA exists to serve the country, not vice versa. If NASA isn't doing something that's worth (to the country) the cost of doing it, if NASA is doing something which is an economic dead end, then too bad for them if they lose their gravy train.

[cubby]

That proved nothing of the sort. SLS is too expensive to make sense even if there is propellant transfer. SLS is also not needed for propellant transfer; indeed, propellant transfer eliminates need for large unitary launchers by allowing payloads to be launched unfueled.

SLS serves just one purpose: distribution of pork barrel $$$ to favored contractors at the expense of the country as a whole.

No, we do not need SLS. We'd be better off killing it dead and driving a spike through its black heart. Yes, that delays the current abomination of a program that depended on SLS. We'd be better off without that, too. It's fatally compromised by its main purpose, which was to provide a rationale for continuing with SLS.

You space fans need to stop getting all afraid of NASA budgets being threatened. NASA exists to serve the country, not vice versa. If NASA isn't doing something that's worth (to the country) the cost of doing it, if NASA is doing something which is an economic dead end, then too bad for them if they lose their gravy train.

Let us know when you comprehend that we all agree it's too expensive. After you've understood that, we can move onto the substantive conversation. Until then, you seem to be stuck on a record loop, just the same irrelevant and line over and over again.

The issue isn't expense right now. The issue is returning to the moon. Cost doesn't matter, really, because this is the only workable plan we have to execute at the moment. Once Artemis is in place, so to speak, we can talk about efficient upkeep of the orbital station and moon base. Until then, lift off!

[plz delete account]

A proper cis-lunar program would involve propellant transfer in space. You don't need to launch a deep space capsule and all the propellant needed to get it to its final destination in one shot.

The senators who have pushed the pork barrel monstrosity of SLS have been careful to prevent NASA from working on in-space propellant storage and transfer, even if in situ manufacture of propellant (which would necessarily involve storing it and transfering it from storage tanks to vehicles) would be one of the stronger motivations for doing things on or around the moon. The senators know that with propellant storage/transfer, what flimsy justification for SLS that may seem to some people to exist would become entirely unsupportable.

"Don't need a deep space capsule"

HERE, LETS JUST THROW THE ASTRONAUTS INTO A SPACECRAFT NOT DESIGNED FOR DEEP SPACE MISSIONS WITHOUT RADIATION SHIELDING OR LONG TERM LIFE SUPPORT! ITS CHEAPER AND THEREFORE THE MOST PRACTICAL! -Osmeric
@cubby can we get a video of Osmeric not knowing basic rocketry for ten minutes and thirty eight seconds?

With the one song that sounds funny that was originally intended to be an anthem for victorious warriors and heros?

[cubby]

"Don't need a deep space capsule"

HERE, LETS JUST THROW THE ASTRONAUTS INTO A SPACECRAFT NOT DESIGNED FOR DEEP SPACE MISSIONS WITHOUT RADIATION SHIELDING OR LONG TERM LIFE SUPPORT! ITS CHEAPER AND THEREFORE THE MOST PRACTICAL! -Osmeric
@cubby can we get a video of Osmeric not knowing basic rocketry for ten minutes and thirty eight seconds?

With the one song that sounds funny that was originally intended to be an anthem for victorious warriors and heros?

The real irony is that even I was huge opponent of SLS, constantly hazing it after it failed to prep or launch or [other]. But after seeing the full plan, and also realizing that while it is a huge money waste, it's critical to the Artemis project of returning to the Moon - which, imo, blankets every other concern.

What I don't understand is that Osmeric can't seem to grasp that we all know it's too expensive and a complete waste of tax payer money, and more than likely a huge pork barrel initiative - and while all of that is true, it's entirely irrelevant to the reality we find ourselves in now. SLS and SpaceX were paired by NASA (other agencies will help as well, of course) to blaze a path back to the moon. We need ginormous rockets to get those pieces back up. SLS is ready. SpaceX's Starship is not.

So let's use what we already have, and get the ball moving.

[Osmeric]

"Don't need a deep space capsule"

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...s-complicated/

Crew Dragon could be modified for use to/from moon with relative ease. And the cost for this mission would be an order of magnitude lower than using SLS. We could launch 10 of these missions for the price of one SLS launch.

Why do you want to waste so much money? Are you trying to sabotage America in space?

- - - Updated - - -

The real irony is that even I was huge opponent of SLS, constantly hazing it after it failed to prep or launch or [other]. But after seeing the full plan, and also realizing that while it is a huge money waste, it's critical to the Artemis project of returning to the Moon - which, imo, blankets every other concern.

What I don't understand is that Osmeric can't seem to grasp that we all know it's too expensive and a complete waste of tax payer money, and more than likely a huge pork barrel initiative - and while all of that is true, it's entirely irrelevant to the reality we find ourselves in now. SLS and SpaceX were paired by NASA (other agencies will help as well, of course) to blaze a path back to the moon. We need ginormous rockets to get those pieces back up. SLS is ready. SpaceX's Starship is not.

So let's use what we already have, and get the ball moving.

What you fail to understand is that "making Artemis work" is not a goal you should be devoted to. This sort of lame logic has been used over and over during the space program. "Yes, this is expensive and ludicrous, but we need it for our program." The end result of this is never that it was a good idea. What happens instead is that the crap overwhelms anything good that could have been accomplished, and the program eventually fails due to its own internal dishonesty. The manned space program has gone for decades achieving very little precisely because of the kind of lack of integrity you SLS apologists are displaying.

Fundamentally, NASA and the politicians who exploit it for pork distribution need to be told that killing the program is a real possibility if they don't shape up. You folks suffering from Space Stockholm Syndrome need to say enough is enough. You are enabling the dysfunction by defending the indefensible.

[cubby]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...s-complicated/

Crew Dragon could be modified for use to/from moon with relative ease. And the cost for this mission would be an order of magnitude lower than using SLS. We could launch 10 of these missions for the price of one SLS launch.

Why do you want to waste so much money? Are you trying to sabotage America in space?

- - - Updated - - -




What you fail to understand is that "making Artemis work" is not a goal you should be devoted to. This sort of lame logic has been used over and over during the space program. "Yes, this is expensive and ludicrous, but we need it for our program." The end result of this is never that it was a good idea. What happens instead is that the crap overwhelms anything good that could have been accomplished, and the program eventually fails due to its own internal dishonesty. The manned space program has gone for decades achieving very little precisely because of the kind of lack of integrity you SLS apologists are displaying.

Fundamentally, NASA and the politicians who exploit it for pork distribution need to be told that killing the program is a real possibility if they don't shape up. You folks suffering from Space Stockholm Syndrome need to say enough is enough. You are enabling the dysfunction by defending the indefensible.

SpaceX is indefensible?

Or are you arguing that the entire structure is "indefensible"? I love that you call us apologists and other names, when it's clearly you who are just unhinged about using any part of a structure and system to advance space exploration.

If we lack so much "integrity" (a word I don't think you understand, as you misuse it above), how would you plan to reach the Moon and then Mars? Because so far all we've seen from you is "let's use stuff we don't have and that doesn't work to make magic in space!", like some child who can't face reality.

[plz delete account]

SpaceX is indefensible?

Or are you arguing that the entire structure is "indefensible"? I love that you call us apologists and other names, when it's clearly you who are just unhinged about using any part of a structure and system to advance space exploration.

If we lack so much "integrity" (a word I don't think you understand, as you misuse it above), how would you plan to reach the Moon and then Mars? Because so far all we've seen from you is "let's use stuff we don't have and that doesn't work to make magic in space!", like some child who can't face reality.

It's really funny that Osmeric has united Team SpaceX, Team All The Space Things, and Team NASA against him, and yet *we're* apologists who hate space apparently. It's clear he's arguing in bad faith. I'm starting to wonder if we should just block him muto style until he shapes up

[Voidwielder]

hey MODS, unban @Skroe cowards

[plz delete account]

hey MODS, unban @Skroe cowards

This is not the thread to ask for people to be unbanned.

[PACOX]

This is not the thread to ask for people to be unbanned.

I think they are kidding.

[cubby]

I think they are kidding.

I think so too. But he is sorely missed around here.

[luc54]

Let's start with some comments here

SpaceX is indefensible?

Where did he suggest that? He's complaining about SLS and not spaceX look what he's suggesting here:

You seem to not understand that a lunar program based on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy would beat the pants off one based on SLS. Starship would be even better than that, but it's not necessary to make SLS irrelevant.

How can he call spaceX indefensible if he suggests to use the very said spaceX for launches instead.

I lost the text I had been writing earlier, but I'll write briefly what I wanted to put before. I do suggest to read this piece for people defending these systems: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022...le/?comments=1 You can see that Falcon heavy launch costs ~$100M or $150M as opposed to $2200M of SLS. SLS is larger granted, but it has only twice the capacity of falcon heavy so with just 2 launches you can launch same mass to orbit(LEO).

SLS is more of trying to keep ex space shuttle contractors happy than anything else. You should understand that burning money to keep contractors happy shouldn't be the point of space programs. How about develop more efficient systems with actual comptition instead the kind of farce they have right now?

[plz delete account]

[cubby]

Let's start with some comments here
Where did he suggest that? He's complaining about SLS and not spaceX look what he's suggesting here:
How can he call spaceX indefensible if he suggests to use the very said spaceX for launches instead.

What I was responding to:

Fundamentally, NASA and the politicians who exploit it for pork distribution need to be told that killing the program is a real possibility if they don't shape up. You folks suffering from Space Stockholm Syndrome need to say enough is enough. You are enabling the dysfunction by defending the indefensible.

1. His statement here references the entire program, which includes SpaceX.
2. SpaceX was and is heavily subsidized by the government in general and NASA in specific.

SpaceX and SLS are all part of the same system for returning to the moon. NASA and others put together a plan, using what was available or should become available, to get to the moon, a moon orbital station, and a moon base.

[ringpriest]

The real irony is that even I was huge opponent of SLS, constantly hazing it after it failed to prep or launch or [other]. But after seeing the full plan, and also realizing that while it is a huge money waste, it's critical to the Artemis project of returning to the Moon - which, imo, blankets every other concern.

What I don't understand is that Osmeric can't seem to grasp that we all know it's too expensive and a complete waste of tax payer money, and more than likely a huge pork barrel initiative - and while all of that is true, it's entirely irrelevant to the reality we find ourselves in now. SLS and SpaceX were paired by NASA (other agencies will help as well, of course) to blaze a path back to the moon. We need ginormous rockets to get those pieces back up. SLS is ready. SpaceX's Starship is not.

So let's use what we already have, and get the ball moving.

The problem with the SLS from a "return to the moon" perspective is that's it is too expensive (and too slow to launch, which is connected to its cost). The most you're ever going to get out of SLS (and I'm skeptical it will ever even get this far) is a repeat of Apollo: land a handful of astronauts, do a little science (that will be incredibly inefficient from a "science per dollar" viewpoint) and then leave. SLS is too expensive to be sustainable, and it's never not going to be too expensive. As Osmeric quite correctly pointed out, it exists because because Congress wanted to avoid shutting down the shuttle contractors and support completely (it's effectively a shuttle stack, minus the orbiter, but instead having a Delta IV stuck on top) and this also puts the program in a bizzare place, because the first handful of SLS missions are using re-tooled Space Shuttle hardware - SRB segments and RS-25D engines. Once that hardware is used up (because they're throwing it away with every launch, even though it was originally designed to be re-usable) over the first three launches (which are likely the only launches there will ever be), the "plan" is to use newly manufactured SRBs, RS-25E's and F's, and replace the DeltaIV with an Exploration Upper Stage - none of which exist yet.

The actual plan is pretty clear - launch 3 SLS missions using legacy hardware (if they can manage to make it work - they've got enough spare parts for one "extra" mission): SLS mission 1 is the test flight (replicating Apollo 4, 5 & 6, SLS mission 2 is lunar orbit (replicating Apollo 7 to 10), and SLS mission 3 is Apollo 11 redux (and existing plans call for doing all this using the legacy booster hardware, which is a big tip-off). And then they're done, unless the new hardware designs miraculously all pan out perfectly, on time and on budget (roflmao). And even if they do, what plans beyond Apollo redux Artemis are for Lunar Gateway assembly, not for any more landings. And the production rate is going to be 1/year at best - it will be all the downsides of the Shuttle, with none of it's benefits, as NASA spends a huge chunk of its budget building a tiny supply of heavy lift vehicles that it throws away.

The SLS is a sunk cost. There might be a a worthwhile tradeoff to using the remaining hardware for launching a handful of heavy deep-space missions over the next couple years. But that doesn't mean the US should keep throwing money into that particular pit. Right now, it and Starship (and its super-heavy booster) are in very similar places: waiting on an initial test flight - of course, development of the SuperHeavy by SpaceX started after the SLS's original launch date in 2016. It's been eight years since I initially criticized the Senate Launch System on this site - I will be very shocked if the next eight years seen more than 4 SLS launches.