SLS

SLS isn't going to go to the moon or anywhere else because it has no real payload. Full development of SLS was started back in 2014, and they won't even be ready to fly their cobble job block 1 before 2020 at the earliest, so you can only imagine how long it would take NASA to develop any sort of lander for moon mission, or god orbit a transfer stage, habitat, lander, and ascent vehicle for Mars that could launch on SLS. This is a 35 billion (with a B) dollar program that's already obsolete today. Even accounting for maximum Elon time, there will be more than one vehicle that could launch heavy payloads in segments and do missions piecemeal, and this is absolute worst scenario where BFR never flies at all. There is no legitimate use for a billion dollar per launch vehicle built by NASA that would only fly a couple times a year. And even if it ever makes it to orbit, it'll suck NASA dry so that they can't afford an actual moon or Mars mission.

>rocket cost 40+ billion dollars to develop
>despite almost all of the expensive parts(engines, fuel tank, SRB's), except orion having been designed, tested, and shown reliably(ish) to work decades ago
>the oldest part is a fucking engine designed in the 1960's used on the atlas rockets
>Uses the exact same rs-25 engines, and fuel tank from the shuttle
>they literally just stapled them onto the bottom of it, instead of on the shuttle
>it will still cost the same per launch as the shuttle, despite no refurbishments needed
>despite us already having all of the parts designed and tested, they have yet to build a rocket, even after 20 years of development
>the massive launch capacity will still be over shadowed by the massive cost per kg
>the thing still uses the less efficient, and less reliable SRBs, which can't be throttled or turned off
I hope they finish this clusterfuck of a project

>does he have a plan
yeah, it's the BFR, and possibly ITS, but ITS may never be built

I agree with you, but just to be pedantic, solids are throttled by working it into the propellant grain, and do actually throttle in flight, it just can't be actively controlled.

this seems fucking retarded. so what do you anons think is the better alternative?:
NASA getting a budget double or triple the size they currently have
or
more hope in SpaceX

Block 1 SLS has the same capacity as Falcon Heavy Block 5, or it will when it is completed in 2021.

the wall won't keep anyone out of the USA, so does that mean SLS will actually manage to put Americans on the Moon?

couple times a year is a fantasy
They won't get to 1 launch a year ever

if NASA can't do a launch vehicle, why would they be able to do the more difficult things like space craft?

SLS Block 1 will be able to do lunar stuff pretty well, but Block 2 will probably be needed for any crewed Mars stuff.

That said NASA isn't working on any sort of lander, so the whole thing is kind of pointless.

No one knows, it isn't built and flown yet.

apparently NASA's full shtick is that they aren't planning on manned missions to the Moon until the late 2020s. and even their manned missions to Mars projected for the 2030s won't even include actual landings.

Why not both? Or better yet, other companies doing it at the same time?

Gotta milk those grants and funding for all they are worth for as long as possible.

Somebody explain this lifting capacity meme to me. The shuttle, which had a smaller fuel tank, less powerful engines, and smaller Solid Rocket Boosters, had a maximum payload to orbit of 120 tons. This is only 20 tons less than the Saturn V, which is very impressive. Now the SLS is basically just a larger shuttle stack that gets rid of the orbiter in favor of a second stage. The basic Block I SLS has an extended shuttle fuel tank, extended Solid Rocket Boosters, more powerful engines, and an extra second stage as well. However, the SLS only has a payload of 70 tons to orbit! This makes no fucking sense to me, how does a smaller, less poweful rocket which is presumably WAY less mass efficient as well have a payload that exceeds the larger SLS by 50 tons? I know the SLS is designed to send a large payload on interplanetary trajectories rather than putting huge payloads into LEO, but I still can't wrap my head around this.

They have no lunar lander and are working on no lunar lander
What they intend to do is some fly bys and a pointless "deep space gateway" station

I imagine no actual work is being done on any of this and its just paper program until these people retire.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Shuttle's had a payload capacity of 24 tons.

Don't know where you're getting your numbers.
Shuttle had about 1/5th the payload to LEO as Saturn V.

the first SLS launch is just some gerryrigged shitfest that they are slapping together to satisfy the "requirement" that they launch in 2016

It will explode on the launch pad.

Can I not get a retard to reply to my post? The Shuttle itself weighed almost 100 metric tons, combine that with a 20 metric ton payload and you have 120 metric tons to LEO. This isn't difficult to understand.

>muh weight

SLS core stage is considerably heavier than the shuttle's external tank was, and it has to lift the extra weight of the stage adapters, escape tower, and a 4th RS-25.

Also you should consider the upper stage as part of the payload if you're comparing it to the total shuttle mass, which adds another ~8000lbs to SLS payload.

Man I wish project Orion was allowed to fully develop. Fucking chemical rockets are so shitty and useless.

Nuclear pulse was never really practical. There's been renewed interest in nuclear thermal though.

it's a matrix meme and won't die out any time soon

BFR is ITS. They had to scale it down for it to be feasible both cost wise and size wise. Some of the SpaceX team have suggested that the idea isn't dead quite yet, just hidden in a closet.

Only issue with that is the BFR will already be flying by then. The second stage/SSTO/payload part will be starting suborbital hops next year with the full stack in 2020. After how the Falcon 9 FTs performed, they decided that the BFR architecture is the way to go. Elon said that after last Tuesdays launch, the Falcon Heavy is practically done with R&D, and that the only changes they're even going to look into are necessary ones. Falcon 9 and Heavy are done, and its full steam ahead for BFR.

The issue here is that the shuttle itself isn't considered part of the payload. On stat sheets and in general, the orbiters were part of the "launch platform" since they used mounted engines for thrust. When people talk about the shuttles payload, the weight of the orbiter is not included, only what they could carry in payload bay.

that's the point, shuttle weighs 140 tons ie orbiter and cargo. With a tank so small and only 2 boosters, just like sls, it achieves basically double the payload to LEO. Now the shuttle carries it's own engines but still, I'm confused. I'm going to look at the dimensions now

lol The shuttle doesn't count as payload. It is just the reusable section of the rocket that happened to have wings for reentry. Only the payload itself is the weight you count for lift, in this manner. Here are the correct numbers:

Shuttle
Mass 2,030 t (4,470,000 lb)
Payload to LEO 27,500 kg (60,600 lb)
Payload to ISS 16,050 kg (35,380 lb)
Payload to GTO 3,810 kg (8,400 lb)
Payload to Polar orbit 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)
Payload to Earth return 14,400 kg (31,700 lb)

That mass of 4,470,000 lb is to put up a max of 60,600 lb is absurd. Compare that to the Falcon Heavy, (140,700 lb)

Falcon Heavy
Mass 1,420,788 kg (3,132,301 lb)
Payload to LEO (28.5°) 63,800 kg (140,700 lb)
Payload to GTO (27°) 26,700 kg (58,900 lb)
Payload to Mars 16,800 kg (37,000 lb)
Payload to Pluto 3,500 kg (7,700 lb)

Go back to you newnigger

>capsules don't count as payload

the orbiter only weighed like 75 tons, totaly payload to orbit maybe 100 tons

Rockets can still go to space without the capsule on them. Take the shuttle off of its launch stack, and you've just got a tank with two boosters that can only drop it in the ocean.

Shouldn't we try to send americans to the moon and keep them there tho?

According to wikipedia the total weight of the shuttle and payload during the Cassandra mission was 122 tons.

Splitting hairs I see.

That's not "splitting hairs". The shuttle orbiter is part of the launch vehicle. It contains the engines, the cargo bay, the deployment hardware, the guidance instruments, and the recovery hardware, including the accommodations for the human pilot and copilot, deemed by the designers to be necessary for recovery.

None of this is payload.

That’s an interesting idea. If BFR is fully successful it would be a good next step in my opinion to build a full sized ITS. Since it’s theoretical lift capacity dwarfs that of BFR. It would allow some truly awesome payloads to LEO and beyond.

You'd think so, but some congress critters are more interested in turning their constituents into high-class welfare queens.

Well I guess its more like 100+ tons then

They're probably counting the external tank to get that number.

Ah, no, they were counting the propellant in the OMS. Note that it burns some of that propellant to get to orbit, after dropping the external tank, so less mass than they're claiming actually reached orbit.

And NASA is filled with those welfare queens collecting their 6 figure paychecks producing effectively nothing
It is NASA's fault foremost, not congress or /we

It is payload no matter how you twist it. How hard is it to comprehend? Whether you find that payload useful or not is irrelevant.

Just pretending to be stupid isn't clever trolling, it's being a different kind but equal level of stupid and not realizing it.

>hurr the orbiter is not payload its fairy dust
>you are trolling
I know this is Veeky Forums but you can do better.

no its not payload
just because your orbiter weighs 10 times what it needs to doesn't mean you can count all that as payload

The shuttle doesn't have a capsule. If it did, it would be part of the payload.

The theoretical max Elon time is infinity after one of his toy rockets gets someone killed and he gets sued back to Africa.

jef pls go

It carried people, life support, power, maneuverability. It was payload, one that was permanently tied to the system without the freedom to replace with something else as is possible in other rocket systems. All these things, in any other system, would be considered "payload" because that is what they are. Liking the STS or not doesn't change the fact it carried 100 or so tons into leo.

Pic related would have offered more possibilities to the shuttle stack. And seeing how things developed after it was retired, it would have been the right choice.

It's a job program.
It'a all about recycling Shuttle components, so people keep their jobs.
They didn't even bother building a second stage for it, they fucking outsourced it to the EU.
If you look at your picture, remove the upper part, put the orbiter on the back of the orange tank, and have the engines be 3 intead of 4 and placed on the orbiter, voilà, that's the fucking space shuttle.
decades to develop it for some reason.

>it carried 100 or so tons into leo
Holy fuck, how retarded can you be

You do realize the SR-25 engines were stapled on the shuttle, and not on the fuel tank, the fuel tank and SRB's would never reach orbit without the shuttle, also the shuttle isn't payload you fucking idiot, it was designed to act as a reusable third stage, with the payload bay acting to hold the payload.
The first stage boosters would be reusable, the second stage sr25 engines would be reusable, and the third stage orbiter and payload delivery device would be reusable

Pic is how mars is meant to happen instead of sls cramming 4-6 astronauts into a worthless cannister with no construction modules once they reach mars. 20years of spaceshuttle and nasa turns back the clock to apollo. Spacex is the only in(sane) shot at mars rn.

No it was dryweight
Same as every other launch vehicle has some amount of dryweight in the upper stage or in a pressurized vessel
The shuttle was the upper stage for the STS, it had the LH2/LOx engines.

Just because its needlessly heavy and they bring 4/5ths of that mass back to Earth doesn't make it payload

Shuttle was an expensive piece of shit that killed two crews. I'd spit on its grave if I could.

>the shuttle
>lol this unreliable, bloated, piece of garbage that couldn't even leave LOE because it wasn't designed to could totally go to mars
>just ignore the issue of dv, or deadweight since the SR-25 boosters would be effectively useless in orbit, or the fact that the frame couldn't withstand G forces when entering orbit at the speeds you reach returning from the moon/mars, or that the thing flew like a brick when it'd glide back to the landing pad
>also ignore the fact that 14 people died, and two of it's orbiters failed, one from unreliable SRB's, and the other literally just fell apart during reentry.
>Also ignore the 1 billion dollar launch cost, despite poor kg/loe prices

also ignore that you can't store LH2 for any significant duration

Sorry I meant Chandra mission

space.stackexchange.com/questions/13657/whats-the-largest-single-object-payload-ever-lifted-into-space

meanwhile, in real life:

twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977

SLS keeps getting pushed back and back and back, at the cost of billions.

The idea with the Shuttle-C plan was to launch 80 ton modules to LEO, basically like building an ISS that flies to another planet.

It's not terrible as pre-SpaceX Mars concepts go. You just keep adding storable-propellant propulsion modules until you can get where you're going. Four modules should be able to push one to Mars, so at four launches per year, you get to throw one 80 ton payload to Mars per year and a half, or once every two year launch window cycle plus one module to test in orbit, and one lighter launch of ~30 tons to Mars.

You could plausibly get the first man on Mars after 6-10 years of that, if things went well.

>muh design
>speeds/g's
Apollo 11: 25k mph
Shuttle: 17.5k mph
>muh $
$$$$ canister or $$$$ spaceship with flight surfaces, livable quarters

>Eric Berger
>Literal SpaceX shill who constantly creates articles sucking them off.
>Reliable source.
Nice try shill.

>shill shill shill

nigga we've known about this potential 2020 slip since last year spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/20/nasa-expects-first-space-launch-system-flight-to-slip-into-2020/

...

bruv

d

>yfw this will be the SLS

If SpaceX manages to not only get BFR off of paper and into reality, but ALSO the original ITS concept, likely all before 2030-2035… hoooly fuck. BFR being real alone would turn the game upside down, but having ITS too the doors of space access would officially be blown off. I can't even imagine everything that would not only possible but also *feasible* with that monster.

Don't let me down elon.

NON-MASS RESTRICTED PROBES EVERYWHERE

TITAN GETS A PROBE
CALLISTO GETS A PROBE
HYDRA GETS A PROBE
EEEEEEVERYONE GETS A PROBE

Not to mention far more frequent manned missions (even just fly-by's) and space stations large enough to make the ISS look like a happy meal toy. Those things could carry enough equipment to make bootstrapping belt mining started not a total boondoggle.

I'm worried that the launch industry won't grow enough to allow SpaceX to do everything they want to do.

We'll see how it plays out, but honestly I don't think it'll be an issue. SpaceX already has a backlog worth $20B and they'll be creating their own demand with their LEO satellite internet grid.

I think you're being silly about what constitutes "payload" but you have a point. Shuttle-C would have had a similar capability to SLS Block I so you have to ask what the point of all the extra stuff on SLS is. I guess it's because Block I is just a shitty design with a useless upper stage, if SLS was just a pure cargo lifter with a good upper stage like the old Ares V concept it would probably be useful but ironically that will be the version that will never fly.

The SLS _IS_ the Ares V in a more sane and "practical" scale
It's all the same people, same contractors, same budget, same goals, etc
And it would be on the same schedule even if Ares V had not been "cancelled"

Orbiter was 67 tons with 23 ton payload, do you have a fucking argument?

>Redpill me
GTFO pill-popping /pol/esmoker pls

Yes, it will link up with Adolf Hitler's space armada (Hitler's brain has been saved in an A.I. robot) where it will then launch an attack on Earth

>2021
So a year before Musk plans to send two cargo BFR missions to Mars? Great job.

Block 1b or 2 maybe. I just don't really understand why block 1 has an extra RS-25, upgraded SRBs, a stretched tank and an entire additional upper stage compared to Shuttle-C, but the exact same capability.

>slipped again
The SLS might turn out to be a disaster.

That date (the BFR one) will likely slip but I'm still confident the BFR will fly before the SLS launches men into space.

>The Block 2 version is twice as powerful
no it isn't, it can put 130 tons into LEO on paper but structural limits mean it can't launch more than ~115 tons maximum, however it can get a light payload much further.

Reminder that nasa spent 500 mil on refurbishing the crawler for SLS. Same as the entire FH program.

The best part is they plan to use the refurbished crawler FUCKING ONCE

It's part of the launch vehicle, which means it is objectively NOT payload. It does count towards the total mass put into orbit, obviously, but that number doesn't matter so much as the fraction of the total mass which is payload, the object or objects being brought up to serve a purpose other than simply getting up into space.

Other rockets do not count the mass of their upper stage as payload mass, why should Shuttle?

Yeah, that 67 tons came back.
Do you count the mass of the Falcon 9 second stage when discussing how much payload the rocket can put into orbit? If you do, you're retarded for the same reason you're retarded for calling the Shuttle itself a payload. The Shuttle went up by default, it was a part of the launch vehicle. Buran, the Soviet space shuttle that launched on Energia, actually WAS a payload because it was a separate and optional component of the Energia vehicle. In that case Energia was the rocket, and could carry any payload up to ~100 tons, and Buran was a specially designed payload which would only be sent up when needed. The reasoning behind this was that the Soviets could clearly see the Shuttle was retarded, but thought the US may have come up with some important use for it to justify building it, so the Soviets wanted their own. However, they weren't convinced completely, so they designed their orbiter and launch vehicle to be separate craft, so that if Buran turned out to be useless they could scrap it and keep a super heavy lift launch vehicle.

It's not payload, if it doesn't stay up there.
Do you have a fucking brain?