Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-10-2022, 07:15 AM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,309
Default

We've launched "rockoons" into space before. Why not go large scale?!?!
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-24-2022, 08:35 AM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,309
Default

The four spaced out RS-25's hanging under SLS look like four little teats on a heifer's udder after years of drooling over the five massive F-1's on the Saturn V and even the tight cluster of 9 Merlins on the Falcon-9. However, this shot up close looks pretty cool.

__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-04-2022, 11:36 AM
Winston2021's Avatar
Winston2021 Winston2021 is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 185
Default

Finally, we know production costs for SLS and Orion, and they’re wild
Someone finally said the quiet part out loud.
3/1/2022


https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-unsustainable/

Martin broke down the costs per flight, which will apply to at least the first four launches of the Artemis program: $2.2 billion to build a single SLS rocket, $568 million for ground systems, $1 billion for an Orion spacecraft, and $300 million to the European Space Agency for Orion's Service Module. NASA, Martin said, had checked and confirmed these figures.

What is striking about these costs is that they do not include the tens of billions of dollars that NASA has already spent developing the Orion spacecraft since 2005 and the Space Launch System rocket since 2011. If one were to amortize development costs over 10 flights of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, the $4.1 billion figure cited by Martin would easily double.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-04-2022, 02:14 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,051
Default

Ouch, ouch, and ouch!!

Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-04-2022, 02:22 PM
Scott_650 Scott_650 is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 569
Default

I’m thinking that the SLS will be a one and done - maybe two launches at the most - so if they really do get the first one ready we’re planning on making a dash to FL.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-04-2022, 02:23 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,309
Default

And that's with used shuttle engines and SRB segments! Wait until they have to start using new ones!

(We won't have to wait. It will be canceled by then.)



.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-04-2022, 02:53 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,051
Default

This is all hard to swallow in the face of *successful* flights (and I DO hope they succeed). But how bad does it look if Artemis 1, for whatever reason(s) is a failure? Yikes!

Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-04-2022, 07:06 PM
frognbuff frognbuff is offline
Aggressor Aerospace
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_650
I’m thinking that the SLS will be a one and done - maybe two launches at the most - so if they really do get the first one ready we’re planning on making a dash to FL.


I predict three. Let's see who wins!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-04-2022, 07:51 PM
Scott_650 Scott_650 is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frognbuff
I predict three. Let's see who wins!


I hope you’re right - three gets us, per NASA’s current schedule, at least to a manned lunar landing though I won’t be surprised to see Artemis III hauling the first Gateway module instead while SpaceX does the manned lunar landing mission. Still an obscene amount of money spent for what we’re getting - LBJ’s decision (which Nixon happily carried out) to cut Apollo sure looks like one of the most boneheaded and shortsighted decisions ever made by the POTUS!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-04-2022, 08:58 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdracer
That's a big reason why they used kerosene for Saturn V first stage. Fuel weight isn't as critical for the first stage, and the size rocket needed to carry that much H2 was simply too much (remember what a stretch the size of the Saturn V was at the time - H2 fueled first stage would have made it massively bigger).

SLS has been going on for over a decade in one form or another - with vastly improved technology over what we had in the 1960's - and still hasn't flown. The Saturn V went from concept to taking men around the moon in ~7 years. Oh how the mighty have fallen...

ABSOLUTELY!!

Just read an article yesterday that the Inspector General of NASA, testifying before a Congressional committee, started per his research as IG of NASA that EVERY SL S launch is going to cost over $4 BILLION dollars, JUST for the rocket and ground hardware! Even shared for inflation, that is OVER TWICE the cost per launch of Saturn V!! It's insane! The Saturn V used NO preexisting hardware, everything in it was all new and had to basically be invented or engineered for the purpose from scratch, from the engines to structures, materials, processes, electronics, guidance, navigation, stability, you name it. The whole point of SLS was supposedly by using PREEXISTING shuttle engines, boosters, and ET tooling they'd save years of development and billions of bucks. All the engines are reused shuttle engines, reused shuttle boosters, only the core structure and avionics/ control is new, and the capsule which has only flown once 8 years ago on EFT-1 on Delta IV Heavy. Even the service module for Orion is adapted from the European ATV resupply vehicle that used to fly to ISS, provided under agreement to NASA by the Europeans. SLS was formally "approved" in the wake of Obama's very correct cancellation of Ares I and the rest of the Constellation Program in 2010, because after 6 years and over $9 BILLION dollars in development, the Ares I was still underperforming and incapable of performing the mission it was being designed for, and was dragging down Ares V with it because the extra stuff Ares I couldn't carry was being shoved onto Ares V, causing its design to hot the performance ceiling. SLS was "Ares V lite" so basically back burner with had been done on it since 2004-5, and then full tilt from 2011 on, and here we are 11 years later and it STILL hasn't flown! It's utterly pathetic! All this PREEXISTING stuff, plus 60+ years of experience, data, all the new computer design and simulation capability now, the experience and existing data, and it's taking longer and costing over twice as much as guys who had to invent everything from scratch using slide rules and 1960's technology...

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:26 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2022