NASA Finally Shows Off Assembled 'Space Launch System' Megarocket (bbc.com) 77
Slashdot reader ytene writes:
The BBC are showing the first set of images of NASA's now-assembled "Space Launch System" (SLS) vehicle, noting that NASA intends to use it to launch a human crew back to the moon later this decade. Testing will take place before astronauts are expected to ride the vehicle to space some time in 2023.
It's enormous. From the BBC's report: On Friday, engineers at Florida's Kennedy Space Center finished lowering the 65m (212ft) -tall core stage in-between two smaller booster rockets... Nasa plans to launch the SLS on its maiden flight later this year. During this mission, known as Artemis-1, the SLS will carry Orion — America's next-generation crew vehicle — towards the Moon. However, no astronauts will be aboard...
The SLS consists of the giant core stage, which houses propellant tanks and four powerful engines, flanked by two 54m (177ft) -long solid rocket boosters.
In early 2020 the BBC reported that "Some in the space community believe it would be better to launch deep space missions on commercial rockets. But supporters of the programme say that NASA needs its own heavy-lift launch capability...
"The SLS was designed to re-use technology originally developed for the space shuttle programme, which ran from 1981-2011."
It's enormous. From the BBC's report: On Friday, engineers at Florida's Kennedy Space Center finished lowering the 65m (212ft) -tall core stage in-between two smaller booster rockets... Nasa plans to launch the SLS on its maiden flight later this year. During this mission, known as Artemis-1, the SLS will carry Orion — America's next-generation crew vehicle — towards the Moon. However, no astronauts will be aboard...
The SLS consists of the giant core stage, which houses propellant tanks and four powerful engines, flanked by two 54m (177ft) -long solid rocket boosters.
In early 2020 the BBC reported that "Some in the space community believe it would be better to launch deep space missions on commercial rockets. But supporters of the programme say that NASA needs its own heavy-lift launch capability...
"The SLS was designed to re-use technology originally developed for the space shuttle programme, which ran from 1981-2011."
Not complete (Score:4, Informative)
'Assembled' implies it's complete. The photos however show the first stage with the SRBs. Missing are the second stage and payload.
One strange fact (Score:2)
The lunar lander chosen for the project is actually a launch vehicle of comparable capabilities.
Re: (Score:1)
"astronauts are expected to ride the vehicle" (Score:2)
Erm, no. The vehicle will be thrown away after the first launch. It is not reusable. Despite being based on reusable tech from the seventies.
"SLS is designed with old-ass technology" (Score:2)
"The SLS was designed to re-use technology originally developed for the space shuttle programme, which ran from 1981-2011."
Can you think of another industry where a major player would think that bragging about using technology from 1981 would be a selling point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with that. It is thought we could not recreate the Atlas nozzles today. What is missing is payload capacity. Musk decided to use stainless steel and boosters, and seems tick all boxes. Unless SLS is way way ahead, then it is a financial failure.
I never grokked the idea that Musk ticking all boxes equates to financial success.
What are the re-entry characteristics of Starship and it's stainless steel skin? And what happens if it doesn't work? Falcon 9 success does not mean that Starship will be equally successful.
In a normal environment, there would have been a series of tests of SS re-entry vehicles before just deciding "Nah - It'll be fine!"
And this is what I fear will be Spacex's big problem. They are fixated on engines and landing, Buck R
Re:"SLS is designed with old-ass technology" (Score:5, Insightful)
...What are the re-entry characteristics of Starship and it's stainless steel skin? And what happens if it doesn't work? Falcon 9 success does not mean that Starship will be equally successful. In a normal environment, there would have been a series of tests of SS re-entry vehicles before just deciding "Nah - It'll be fine!"
What I find fascinating about SpaceX is the fact that they're learning by trying. If it doesn't work-- well, the faster they try it and fail, the faster they can move on to a different approach.
One thing to note is that the larger the vehicle, the easier the entry problem. It's a matter of surface area to mass, which is a cube-square problem. Surface area slows you down and dissipates energy, so big vehicles are easier to slow down.
Re: (Score:3)
Easier if they don't rip themselves apart in the slowing down. Temperature goes up not only with speed, but also with the "degree of slowing", i.e. dissipated momentum (or perhaps kinetic energy, but the direction of change is the same, only the scaling differs). So saying larger is easier is only true if they're the same mass...and even then only if they've the same temperature resistance and tensile strength. Etc. It's not a straight-forwards comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
So saying larger is easier is only true if they're the same mass...and even then only if they've the same temperature resistance and tensile strength. Etc. It's not a straight-forwards comparison.
You're talking about mostly empty rockets, so they will have a high surface area to mass ratio. The requirement to land large payloads on earth from orbital velocities is quite a ways away.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you build a more twisted straw man?
Large is easier is only true if you don't change other variables to make it harder. Well duh. If you increased mass on a smaller vehicle it would ALSO have more energy to dissipate and less ability to do so. And while we're at it, stainless steel is significantly more resistant to strength loss from heating than Aluminum. IT's one of the fundamental reasons it was chosen in the first place.
You're talking like SpaceX (a successful space launch company) hasn't cons
Re: (Score:2)
Being larger almost always increases the mass, so you need special pleading to presume that it doesn't.
FWIW, I'm sure SpaceX has considered these variables. Even Boeing probably has. But the poster I was replying to didn't appear to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Being larger almost always increases the mass, so you need special pleading to presume that it doesn't. FWIW, I'm sure SpaceX has considered these variables. Even Boeing probably has. But the poster I was replying to didn't appear to have.
I don't have time to write a textbook on spacecraft theory in reply to a slashdot post; I was assuming that /. readers could do rudimentary calculations. The fundamental physics of reentry is well known, and can be found in any reasonable text of spacecraft design. I usually recommend Space Mission Analysis and Design, but really only because that's the text I used when I used to teach the subject, and so I'm familiar with it. (Or maybe I should recommend Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design inst
Re: (Score:2)
Being larger almost always increases the mass, so you need special pleading to presume that it doesn't. FWIW, I'm sure SpaceX has considered these variables. Even Boeing probably has. But the poster I was replying to didn't appear to have.
I don't have time to write a textbook on spacecraft theory in reply to a slashdot post; I was assuming that /. readers could do rudimentary calculations.
And it really wouldn't matter any way - the faithful have perfect faith. Witness his accusing his accusatino od you special pleading, immediately followed by the "hot hand" that Spacex has this all figured out therefore it will work.
While the faithful appear to believe that Spavex and Musk have a Midas touch, everything he says is a sure bet, and that since they have the Falcon 9 landing first stages, that they have it all figured out. But do they?
Let us remember that Carbon composite was the first ve
Re: (Score:2)
Could you build a more twisted straw man?
Large is easier is only true if you don't change other variables to make it harder. Well duh. If you increased mass on a smaller vehicle it would ALSO have more energy to dissipate and less ability to do so. And while we're at it, stainless steel is significantly more resistant to strength loss from heating than Aluminum. IT's one of the fundamental reasons it was chosen in the first place.
Stainless steel was not the first choice. Carbon Composite was. https://www.teslarati.com/spac... [teslarati.com]
Even so, Stainless isn't going to survive re-entry speeds unless there's a way to cool it. The plan is for the thing to bleed a cooling fluid. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com] https://www.teslarati.com/spac... [teslarati.com]
You're talking like SpaceX (a successful space launch company) hasn't considered these variables before spending millions of dollars building their second generation of rockets.
You are talking like having one success is proof that all other ideas will be successful. The "hot hand", as it were.
People assume that just because Spacex and Musk say it's so - it is so because th
Re: (Score:2)
In a normal environment, there would have been a series of tests of SS re-entry vehicles before just deciding "Nah - It'll be fine!"
If you look around, SpaceX's approach is becoming the normal environment. Besides, the next test is exactly what you're describing. They will launch a Starship to approximately orbital speeds (though it won't complete an orbit) and it will undergo the full re-entry profile. It's expected to do a 'soft' touchdown in the ocean like early Falcon 9 tests. If you're wondering why this was not the first step: this full stack test will require 35 engines. Each of their hop tests until now required at most 3.
And this is what I fear will be Spacex's big problem. They are fixated on engines and landing, Buck Roger's style.
Which really just happens to be the trivial part of the whole plan. We know we have the engine abilities, we have the computing power to land these things upright. Beyond that? Crickets.
There
Re: (Score:2)
In a normal environment, there would have been a series of tests of SS re-entry vehicles before just deciding "Nah - It'll be fine!"
If you look around, SpaceX's approach is becoming the normal environment. Besides, the next test is exactly what you're describing. They will launch a Starship to approximately orbital speeds (though it won't complete an orbit) and it will undergo the full re-entry profile. It's expected to do a 'soft' touchdown in the ocean like early Falcon 9 tests. If you're wondering why this was not the first step: this full stack test will require 35 engines. Each of their hop tests until now required at most 3.
How many stainless steel hulls have survived reentry? You're too busy saving up for your ticket with the other million people that you've already decalred it a success.
And this is what I fear will be Spacex's big problem. They are fixated on engines and landing, Buck Roger's style. Which really just happens to be the trivial part of the whole plan. We know we have the engine abilities, we have the computing power to land these things upright. Beyond that? Crickets.
There is nothing trivial about rocket engines and these are especially complicated engines that still clearly have bugs to work out.
Just technology. It's pretty obvious that we can make honkin' big engines. We had some pretty good ones almost 60 years ago. At this point,it's all just refinement. So how about the trip to Mars, how about the radiation issues, how about the self sustainment, how about the landing on other than flat sites, how about the oxygen production onc
Re: "SLS is designed with old-ass technology" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All that is true, but irrelevant to a comparison between Starship and SLS as a means of returning to the moon, which is what people are talking about.
Well, sue me. I was responding to a person who brought Musk and his rocket into the conversation. Can I see your internet cop badge? In comments about relevancy, you are the offender here, muchacho.
Re: (Score:2)
But, the bread and Circus atmosphere around the Spacex Starship launches is just that. Somehow, the plan appears to be Launch and Land Starship in Texas, and the job is done.
It's a matter of cart and horse, and which goes before which. Many of the people exulting in the progress of Starship are acutely aware of problems like radiation and in-situ resource utilization and all the other challenges, but they recognize it's all academic if nobody has a reasonable shot of getting there in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
But, the bread and Circus atmosphere around the Spacex Starship launches is just that. Somehow, the plan appears to be Launch and Land Starship in Texas, and the job is done.
It's a matter of cart and horse, and which goes before which. Many of the people exulting in the progress of Starship are acutely aware of problems like radiation and in-situ resource utilization and all the other challenges, but they recognize it's all academic if nobody has a reasonable shot of getting there in the first place.
Weirdly enough - the folks I know who exult the most are just escapists, who want to abandon earth, with an idea that they'll be going full Oregon trail, intrepid pioneers leaving earth on the start of colonizing the Universe. Or was that a 21st Century version of the Donner Party.
And they get really pissed at me for not sharing their enthusiasm. Of which I'm actually enthusiastic of the concept of going to Mars - I'm just curious why we haven't seen much else but what we've seen so far.
Re: (Score:2)
But, the bread and Circus atmosphere around the Spacex Starship launches is just that. Somehow, the plan appears to be Launch and Land Starship in Texas, and the job is done.
It's a matter of cart and horse, and which goes before which. Many of the people exulting in the progress of Starship are acutely aware of problems like radiation and in-situ resource utilization and all the other challenges, but they recognize it's all academic if nobody has a reasonable shot of getting there in the first place.
Weirdly enough - the folks I know who exult the most are just escapists, who want to abandon earth, with an idea that they'll be going full Oregon trail, intrepid pioneers leaving earth on the start of colonizing the Universe. Or was that a 21st Century version of the Donner Party.
And they get really pissed at me for not sharing their enthusiasm. Of which I'm actually enthusiastic of the concept of going to Mars - I'm just curious why we haven't seen much else but what we've seen so far.
Well Spacex are definitely thinking about problems beyond just getting a rocket to orbit, [greenhouse.io] if it makes you feel better.
"Support research including health data collection before, during, and after human spaceflight missions focusing on effects of long-duration spaceflight within the context of a widening range of passenger health issues"
Re: (Score:2)
Well Spacex are definitely thinking about problems beyond just getting a rocket to orbit, [greenhouse.io] if it makes you feel better. "Support research including health data collection before, during, and after human spaceflight missions focusing on effects of long-duration spaceflight within the context of a widening range of passenger health issues"
Yeah - thinking about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Without people like you to explain all the reasons something can't be done, companies have gone on and just done them. I'm glad you can't speak to bumblebees, they might realize it's not possible for them to fly either.
Your comparison of rocket engines from the 60s with modern ones shows how completely uneducated you are on this topic, to the point that the rest of your nonsense sky-is-falling claims aren't worth addressing.
Enjoy your sad, only-problems outlook on life.
Re: (Score:2)
Without people like you to explain all the reasons something can't be done, companies have gone on and just done them. I'm glad you can't speak to bumblebees, they might realize it's not possible for them to fly either.
The irony in your thinking that I think that there is physics that proves bumblebees can't fly is blood fortifying. This is not unusual for muscovites.
Your comparison of rocket engines from the 60s with modern ones shows how completely uneducated you are on this topic, to the point that the rest of your nonsense sky-is-falling claims aren't worth addressing.
Enjoy your sad, only-problems outlook on life.
Oh hoh! Educate me - tell me all about my lack of knowledge of rocket engines, Hopefully you'll edumacate
Re: (Score:2)
The irony in your thinking that I think that there is physics that proves bumblebees can't fly is blood fortifying. This is not unusual for muscovites.
Older theories of aerodynamics did not, in fact, allow for bumblebees to fly. The existence of bumblebees simply showed that those models of aerodynamics were incomplete. There's a long history of people declaring things to be impossible due to limited understanding. The same thing applies to things that clearly exist being called unexplained mysteries. Examples include claims like Sturgeons and Kangaroos not consuming enough food to sustain themselves due to the energy they expend. This is simply due to a
Re: (Score:2)
The irony in your thinking that I think that there is physics that proves bumblebees can't fly is blood fortifying. This is not unusual for muscovites.
Older theories of aerodynamics did not, in fact, allow for bumblebees to fly. The existence of bumblebees simply showed that those models of aerodynamics were incomplete. There's a long history of people declaring things to be impossible due to limited understanding.
And exactly what did I declare impossible? I really trigger people, when I don't say that Musk and Spacex have it all worked out, don't worry about a thing.
I do say that Spacex has a show stopping problem if they create this rocket that can't survive re-entry. The Stainless steel fuselage with tiny holes that exude fluid to keep the fuselage from overheating and breaching the hull, which destroys the rocket.
Impossible? Possibly not - but your premise is that my understanding is limited and wrong. Okay
Re: (Score:2)
And exactly what did I declare impossible? I really trigger people, when I don't say that Musk and Spacex have it all worked out, don't worry about a thing.
Well, I will grant you that you're good at being negative without making many explicit claims. That's really what I would like you to do, make explicit claims and back them up with factual information that can actually be discussed. Otherwise what exactly is your post? Just character attacks? You say that you "really do trigger people". Is that your goal? Are you just trolling then?
I do say that Spacex has a show stopping problem if they create this rocket that can't survive re-entry. The Stainless steel fuselage with tiny holes that exude fluid to keep the fuselage from overheating and breaching the hull, which destroys the rocket.
I'm not aware that SpaceX actually committed to transpiration cooling. Musk may have talked up the idea at one point, but it do
Re: (Score:2)
How many stainless steel hulls have survived reentry? You're too busy saving up for your ticket with the other million people that you've already decalred it a success.
100% of the stainless steel Starship prototypes that have attempted reentry have survived. All zero of them. Which is the not-so-subtle answer you're alluding to, but it's also dishonest - they haven't tested that until now, because they wanted to make sure that the entire purpose of the vehicle was based on something that works - landing and being able to refurbish and refuel to turn around and launch again. If you can't prove that's possible, building a new booster that can shove 100t to orbit isn't a
Re: (Score:2)
100% of the stainless steel Starship prototypes that have attempted reentry have survived. All zero of them. Which is the not-so-subtle answer you're alluding to, but it's also dishonest - they haven't tested that until now, because they wanted to make sure that the entire purpose of the vehicle was based on something that works
It's not being dishonest. It's the entire Starship concept. If they can't make this SS vehicle work, there really isn't anything in reserve - although if you know of plan B, let me know
You seem to think that nobody at SpaceX was thinking about reentry survival when they were picking the materials to make the damn thing out of? In your mind did they just go for the shiniest?
Relax a little would ya?
The concept for re-entry as I understand it is that StarShip will carry liquid that will flow out of the SS hull to cool the rocket down upon re-entry. I don't really care if it's made of something shiny.
But what happens if just one nozzle gets plugged. Any hull breach is fatal. And do they real
Re: (Score:3)
In what way does my overall premise of "they are still testing" equate to "zeal of the faithful" in your mind?
They are still testing. Testing is what you do when you have an idea that should work, and you want to make sure it actually does work. Why must it be absolute skepticism or fanboy with you?
Re: (Score:2)
In what way does my overall premise of "they are still testing" equate to "zeal of the faithful" in your mind?
They are still testing. Testing is what you do when you have an idea that should work, and you want to make sure it actually does work. Why must it be absolute skepticism or fanboy with you?
Two parts going on here There are some people in this world who are yes men. They hate me with a passion because I question things.
They don't understand it when the big guy listens intensely when I speak. They think I'm being negative when the big guy knows my motivation is to make things work. Eventually they figure things out, although some can't. Those who believe their job is to agree with everything. Those who assume that everything is thought of, so it must be working. If not, we can make it work
N
Re: (Score:2)
I love that you think you know me, when you really do not. in order to be triggered, you would need to matter to me in the slightest. You do not - you are a random pseudonymous soul on the Internet, whose approval I do not need or require. Just like you don't need or require my approval. In fact, I can guarantee that after I hit submit on this comment, you will be completely out of my mind because you don't have the import that you seem to think you do.
Thanks for showing that you really aren't a very go
Re: (Score:2)
I have long considered Musk as a slightly off center guy who is trying to do good things with his money. Sort of Edisonesque, if you will.
But he is starting to show signs of being surrounded by too many yes men and women, and his fans who have pretty much deified him at this point. Damn, when everyone around you tells you that eveything that comes out of your mouth is awesome, it will affect you.
Having no less than four prototype landing attempts result in giant fireballs will take the piss out of you like nobody's business. From the feel of Elon Musk's tweets, he takes those failures personally. A little too personally, at times in the past. Nothing reduces arrogance like a heap of rubble surrounding the sad remains of your dream, lying like a collapsed bladder on the pavement of the landing pad.
And then it worked. That is not a sign of an organization made of yes men. Organizations infested
Re: (Score:2)
I love that you think you know me, when you really do not. in order to be triggered, you would need to matter to me in the slightest.
And your post simply indicates that I do trigger you. That's okay - I do trigger yes men and women - It's a matter of if you totally agree with everything the boss says, you are redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a sign of an organization made of yes men. Organizations infested with useless people who only tell the boss what they want to hear never build orbital class rockets in the first place. It's impossible to conceal important issues and still succeed. The physics of rocketry is not that forgiving.
Yes, you are right - 100 percent - great idea there, I am reformed to never question Spacex now - I was wrong to do that. So I won't question any of what Spacex obviously has figured out now.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the re-entry characteristics of Starship and it's stainless steel skin? And what happens if it doesn't work? Falcon 9 success does not mean that Starship will be equally successful.
There's a decent argument to be made that even if Starship somehow failed in its intended design, it would *still* be a massive improvement on Falcon 9 so it would still replace it (for example by ditching reusability of the upper stage and replacing it with a shortened upper stage and a payload fairing).
Re: (Score:2)
What are the re-entry characteristics of Starship and it's stainless steel skin? And what happens if it doesn't work? Falcon 9 success does not mean that Starship will be equally successful.
In a normal environment, there would have been a series of tests of SS re-entry vehicles before just deciding "Nah - It'll be fine!"
And this is what I fear will be Spacex's big problem. They are fixated on engines and landing, Buck Roger's style.
Which really just happens to be the trivial part of the whole plan. We know we have the engine abilities, we have the computing power to land these things upright. Beyond that? Crickets.
You're not really paying attention. Starship prototypes have been flying with a small patch of SpaceX's heat shield tiles installed on the ventral surface. "Beyond that" is very much being considered. Starships will not be exposing their stainless steel skins directly to reentry heating. They're moving fast and breaking things but they're not stupid. They literally invented the heat shielding used on the Dragon capsule, and in consequence have the only substantial orbital cargo return capability operat
Re:"SLS is designed with old-ass technology" (Score:4, Informative)
Well, this was a selling point at the beginning where using an old and established technology was supposed to make stuff cheaper and faster to develop, and neither happen, it ended up costing a whole lot more to develop and the schedule seem to be in an eternal delay.
And to make stuff even more expensive they took the re-usable characteristic of the old thing and basically threw it out, the RS-25 engines that will be flown were actually used several times during shuttle era and now will be discarded on every flight.
Re: (Score:2)
The SLS was a welfare project for incumbent aerospace contractors. Hence the nickname the "Senate Launch System".
Re: (Score:2)
The SLS was a welfare project for incumbent aerospace contractors. Hence the nickname the "Senate Launch System".
They need something like Spacex, who has never taken a pennt form the guvmint - 100 percent privately funded.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"The SLS was designed to re-use technology originally developed for the space shuttle programme, which ran from 1981-2011."
Can you think of another industry where a major player would think that bragging about using technology from 1981 would be a selling point?
While we so often orgasm over "brand new! Never before evah!", that so seldom ever happens. I've worked on cutting edge systems that have their roots in the 1930's.
Which just by chance, so does rocketry. And once the Germans hit a home run with the V2, it has been incremental ever since.
Even Elon Musk, for all his sycophants believing that he's inventing technology that never existed before - yeah, just incremental.
And then there are the Russians. They do have something to brag about with their launch
Re: (Score:2)
And then there are the Russians. They do have something to brag about with their launch technology. Not new, but damn good.
Also "invented" by Germans.
The lesser well kown rocket engineers/technicians were abducted by the Russians.
The more well known, like Werner von Braun, by the Americans.
Re:"SLS is designed with old-ass technology" (Score:4, Informative)
And then there are the Russians. They do have something to brag about with their launch technology. Not new, but damn good. Also "invented" by Germans. The lesser well kown rocket engineers/technicians were abducted by the Russians. The more well known, like Werner von Braun, by the Americans.
The Germans as well, stood on the shoulders of others to see far. The first so called modern Rocket was when Robert Goddard attached a De Laval Nozzle onto the base of a liquid fueled rocket. Then there is solid rocketry, which was probably discounted until we started using them regularly on prominent vehicles like the Space shuttle, Ariane V, and Atlas V. Although they have been in use on many other less well known rockets. Of course, solid rockets have also been in use for centuries.
Now what the Germans did was create the basics for modern rocketry that have been in use ever since. The V1 was pretty much a one off thing, but the V2 set the stage with things like the fuel/oxidizer turbopump - in this case a dual turbopump run by the reaction between Hydrogen peroxide and Sodium Permanganate to create steam, and regenerative cooling - a bit of genius there. Most all modern engines are refinements of what they did.
Where people get to thinking that anything new is groundbreaking is just the technology catching up with the times. The results of tweaks can result in the engine disassembling itself.
If we take the mighty F1 as an example, early versions were prone to that. Instabilities in combustion were causing the engines to destroy themselves. And we didn't have the CFD tools we have now. But they figured out to add copper dividers to counteract that. And to prove that it worked, they set off a bomb to disrupt the combustion, and the F1 more or less ignored it. And in the process became a mighty fine monster rocket engine, with a 100 percent success rate.
So while the faithful get really pissed at me when I say that modern engines - all of them, are refinements, well too bad, they really are. Werner Von Braun or his Russian counterparts would find nothing they couldn't quickly figure out if transported from 1945 to today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you think of another industry where a major player would think that bragging about using technology from 1981 would be a selling point?
How about jet airplanes? The engine technology used in aviation today is basically the high-bypass turbofan engine, demonstrated by the TF39 on the C-5 Galaxy, first flight 1964.
Cars? The most recent significant change in car engines was the move of turbochargers from an exotic technology used on a few sports cars, to something in pretty much every engine in every car. This dates roughly to 1978, when Buick introduced the turbocharged V6 on the Regal.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is lots of tried and true tech that is still used. But few industries BRAG about using the old tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is lots of tried and true tech that is still used. But few industries BRAG about using the old tech.
If it is reliable, why not? Would Russia have the reliablilty of their launch systems if they felt the need to re-invent things all the time?
But more of interest - tell us the never before done tecnology used on the spacex engines? The parts of a Rocket that are 100 percent new, never used before.
THere might be some, but in reality, the basics of modern LF fueled rockets were worked out by the Nasties with the V2.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you think of another industry where a major player would think that bragging about using technology from 1981 would be a selling point?
How about jet airplanes? The engine technology used in aviation today is basically the high-bypass turbofan engine, demonstrated by the TF39 on the C-5 Galaxy, first flight 1964.
I was floored when I got to see a cutaway ME-262 jet engine. Every single part was there - an engineer for that engine could name everything if they saw one of today's high bypass engines - and would has an AHA! moment when seeing the turbofan.
This fits in with my position that people who think that "breakthroughs" are formed instantly just haven't followed the technology. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants who went before us.
I've been on two "breakthrough" projects in the past. One was con
Re: (Score:2)
We've been living in the future (or 21st century) since 1960: Productivity software, email, mouse and networking were invented then. Tablet computers, handwriting and voice recognition were predicted then, too. Video-telephones were invented in 1955 but still aren't reliable, although they've been replaced by Zoom and Skype. Even earlier, they predicted accurate weather forecasts and natural language robots: We're still waiting but most of the pieces now exist. (eg. Apple's Siri & Boston Dynamics'
Re: (Score:1)
"The SLS was designed to re-use technology originally developed for the space shuttle programme, which ran from 1981-2011."
Can you think of another industry where a major player would think that bragging about using technology from 1981 would be a selling point?
The Senate Launch System reused existing technologies in order to preserve jobs in certain locations. So the senators in all those states are bragging about that to those who now owe them a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Found the software developer!
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair the RS-25 engines used on the Shuttle are still quite capable and in some ways still head of their class. Until Raptor came along RS-25 was and is still considered a top class rocket engine. The difference is RS-25 was designed like a hypercar, with performance at all costs, thus it uses hydrolox as fuel compared to the easier to manage methalox of the new modern engines and while it is re-usable it was never really going to be the type of thing that can come back down and you can just re-fly t
Re: (Score:2)
Any new device that is developed that connects to the Internet is reusing technology that was originally developed in the 80's (which also includes even older tech). Just because you reuse old technology doesn't mean that the whole unit is made up of old tech. You can reuse tech where it is appropriate and use newer tech or develop new tech where the old tech no longer holds up.
There are literally hundreds of other industries that still use decades old tech.
I'm confused (Score:2)
Are they betting on the first one working? It usually takes several tries just to not explode it on the pad.
Re: (Score:2)
It usually takes several tries just to not explode it on the pad.
Not really. [wikipedia.org] Of course Wernher von Braun isn't running American programs anymore.
Re-use? (Score:5, Informative)
That's some sleight of hand -- the SLS is designed to re-use "technology"... but, no, it's not designed to re-use any actual hardware. In fact, the SLS takes hardware that was meant to be re-used -- Space Shuttle Main Engines -- uses them ONCE, and then throws them away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
yes, aerojet rocketdyne is supposed to be build 18 new ones, but given that it is very possible that the SLS will see only a couple of flights maybe these may well end up in storage. There are 16 engines that can be used by SLS right now, which would be enough for 4 flights.
Re: (Score:1)
Only prototype (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are rich (Score:2)
I never knew we are so wealthy we can afford disposable rockets that go for a $1 billion each. Or can congressmen be purchased easily?
What a boondoggle (Score:2)
For the cost of one of those rockets, you calls buy several commercial flights. Their it's no end to government waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
For the cost of one of those rockets, you calls buy several commercial flights.
And you'd need several to match the payload.
Falcon heavy can put maybe 20 ton into TLI, but SLS is aiming for more than double that.
I'm no fan of SLS, but there is no commercial option yet that comes close. Hopefully Starship will change that.
So 20th century (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)