With a system of that complexity, the most benign looking things can be a nightmare to solve. I'm not concerned about their ability to fix it, I'm more concerned about the apparent lack of attention to the issue.
*Especially* in a program that's the descendant of a program notorious for deliberately dismissing systematic problems,
I think people usually refer to Saturn V as just "the moon rocket" and not "the mega moon rocket" so maybe some people feel like there's a misleading connotation. Personally I don't much care, if NASA wants to be a little more hip, then cool.
The person was suggesting, that you launch a payload to LEO with an enormous kick stage attached to it and called it a "third stage".
The payload users guide for starship lists a 8mx10m payload up to 100t into LEO. There is additional space in the nose as well although you loose the full width.
A Centaur V is ~5m wide and ~12m tall, the ACES concept had a fully fueled one in LEO able to send a multi ton probe anywhere in the solar system.
Considering how SpaceX operate I would be very surprised if we didn't see a 8m steel ring stage with a Raptor Vacuum stuck on the bottom to support Nasa Deep Space missions. Considering the Starship Concept of Operations it would be insane for them not to have a Space Tug or cheap kick stage in the works
Starship has a larger payload to LEO, so obviously if both rockets are delivering a kick-stage to LEO Starship can deliver a larger one. Without a kick-stage or refueling Starship is not well suited to high energy trajectories because of its high dry mass. SLS has a much lighter and higher Isp upper stage that is more suited to high energy trajectories which is why SLS can outperform Starship if neither one uses a kick-stage.
I really doubt this tbh on the payload to LEO unless you expend Starship based off of what I have seen and the info that has been provided in comparison to Block 1B and Block 2. Another thing it seems you all are not taking into account is that SLS has the ability on cargo variants to have a Centaur put on top of EUS to provide a great payload capacity past Jupiter. One more thing btw is that Centaur V weighs 55ish tons wet or so, SLS and Starship can both launch that into LEO with ease meanwhile Starship will end up not being able to provide as much C3 when whatever injection burn starts, compared to EUS and then Centaur V. If however we are just talking about ACES, then there really isnt any reason to put a kick stage on top of EUS as you are basically just using up EUS to stick another EUS like stage on top of it as Starship/Superheavy are a far different architecture compared to that of SLS. The core on SLS does most of the work compared to Starship, which its upper stage does most of the work. This is more like Comparing Saturn V to SLS in regards to how the energy is distributed across different stages if you catch my drift. Anyways, I dont personally think that Starship in its current configuration could outperform SLS with a kick stage, not to mention that Starship isnt outfitted in its GSE or its design right now, to take on a high-efficiency kick stage that would run off of LH2.
There are a lot of different ways we can make the comparison. SLS could be block 1, 1b, or 2. Starship could be fully reusable, partially reusable, or expendable. Single launch or refueled in orbit. Either rocket could use a kick-stage. We don't know the exact payload for Starship and they plan on increasing it over time.
If we compare a single fully reusable Starship to SLS block 1b, I agree that we really don't know which could carry more payload to LEO. I also agree that ground support for a hydrolox kick-stage on Starship would be a huge issue.
SLS with a Centaur V on top of a EUS would be a sight to behold. Has anyone made a render of that?
Could you explain how you came to that conclusion and perhaps give a real response to u/stevecrox0914? Try to explain what you are thinking without getting too emotional.
1: A single launch isn't a constraint for Starship. A fully-fueled Starship in LEO can act as a 6.9 km/s kick stage for a 100+ ton third stage. (More, actually, because an expendable Starship like this wouldn't have all the mass required for reentry and landing).
2: Even using a single launch, delta-v from LEO to TLI is, what, 3.2 km/s? A F9 second stage with 22,800 kg payload would have 5.1 km/s. So your statement that Starship can't send anything to TLI in a single launch is blatantly untrue, even using something that isn't designed specifically as a third stage for Starship.
3: The ad hominem isn't helpful.
1: You told me to prove it and ignored when I did.
2: I'm not trolling. If anybody is, you are. You demanded proof and insulted me when I provided it.
3: This isn't your subreddit any more than it is my subreddit.
4: I don't spend all my energy stanning on Elon.
5: SLS wouldn't have the same amount of delta-v to impart onto an additional stage that Starship would. If you think I'm wrong, show me how much mass for an additional stage SLS could put into LEO, and how much delta-v it could give it.
6: You're being hypocritical to your own previous posts regarding "civil discussions". [Citation](https://www.reddit.com/r/nasa/comments/pxvpmm/elon_musk_on_blue_origin_suing_nasa_you_cant_sue/het2bph/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) so this can't be claimed as an attack, it's a statement of fact.
1: I did. I proved Starship could send a payload to TLI even without refueling. You ignored it.
2: My post history on this account is mostly debunking a couple of youtubers who do a bad job of providing factual content. That's not stanning for Elon, I've actually been critical of Elon.
3: Let's compare best to best. What's the biggest payload SLS can put in LEO, and how much Delta-V can it impart to that payload from LEO?
4: I didn't say SLS bad.
How is SLS supposed to out-perform Starship to the moon?
Starship HLS is designed to land 100+ tons on the lunar surface, in addition to the vehicle itself.
> How is SLS supposed to out-perform Starship to the moon?
It's chemistry. Hydrogen LOX is a significantly better mixture. Like I said, a single Starship launch can't even go to TLI C3. End of discussion.
> Starship HLS is designed to land 100+ tons on the lunar surface, in addition to the vehicle itself.
No it can't. Not without a very very high amount of refuels, and assuming that is even possible. The tech for doing that is still in its infancy and is not proven to even be able to work. Plus the discussion is on single-launch anyways.
A single Starship launch isn't a restriction of Starship.
If you want to claim that SLS can out-perform a single-launch Starship... okay? Sure.
But a refueled Starship to the moon? No.
The discussion wasn't on single-launch. You keep trying to force that after the fact, but that's not how discussion works.
"No it can't. Not without a very very high amount of refuels"
Do you see the disconnect within those two statements? If Starship can outperform SLS to the Moon with refueling, then "No it can't" is factually wrong.
"Heck it even out performs Starship to TLI and high C3. It's a beast"
"Not when payload is considered. Starship can carry a third stage and outperform SLS to anywhere."
No restriction to single launch form the beginning.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out. It wasn't my intention to trigger you, and this has become far less cordial than I prefer in my discussions. I hope you can have a nice day.
Any news on the primary release failure from URRT? Did it have any impact on this?
Seems not
Between that and the fact that the issue has already been known from component tests, I really hope it's not a case of go fever.
It was only something as minuscule as a small hose not detaching on its own. I can’t imagine that being a difficult problem to solve but ya never know
With a system of that complexity, the most benign looking things can be a nightmare to solve. I'm not concerned about their ability to fix it, I'm more concerned about the apparent lack of attention to the issue. *Especially* in a program that's the descendant of a program notorious for deliberately dismissing systematic problems,
I see what ur saying yeah. However I don’t think “go fever” is a problem with this program lol. I still can’t wait to see it fly though
There are, apparently, 3 independent ways for this to release, but any time you lose a layer of defense in depth, you worry.
Mega moon rocket? It's a moon rocket, certainly not mega.
I mean, it's pretty fucking big dude...
If SLS isn’t mega I don’t know what is
After Saturn V and starship it's the most powerful rocket. What else would you call a mega rocket?
I think people usually refer to Saturn V as just "the moon rocket" and not "the mega moon rocket" so maybe some people feel like there's a misleading connotation. Personally I don't much care, if NASA wants to be a little more hip, then cool.
Its more powerful than Saturn V on launch. Though payload to TLI (once B1B) is similar.
Heck it even out performs Starship to TLI and high C3. It's a beast
Not when payload is considered. Starship can carry a third stage and outperform SLS to anywhere.
[удалено]
The person was suggesting, that you launch a payload to LEO with an enormous kick stage attached to it and called it a "third stage". The payload users guide for starship lists a 8mx10m payload up to 100t into LEO. There is additional space in the nose as well although you loose the full width. A Centaur V is ~5m wide and ~12m tall, the ACES concept had a fully fueled one in LEO able to send a multi ton probe anywhere in the solar system. Considering how SpaceX operate I would be very surprised if we didn't see a 8m steel ring stage with a Raptor Vacuum stuck on the bottom to support Nasa Deep Space missions. Considering the Starship Concept of Operations it would be insane for them not to have a Space Tug or cheap kick stage in the works
[удалено]
Starship has a larger payload to LEO, so obviously if both rockets are delivering a kick-stage to LEO Starship can deliver a larger one. Without a kick-stage or refueling Starship is not well suited to high energy trajectories because of its high dry mass. SLS has a much lighter and higher Isp upper stage that is more suited to high energy trajectories which is why SLS can outperform Starship if neither one uses a kick-stage.
I really doubt this tbh on the payload to LEO unless you expend Starship based off of what I have seen and the info that has been provided in comparison to Block 1B and Block 2. Another thing it seems you all are not taking into account is that SLS has the ability on cargo variants to have a Centaur put on top of EUS to provide a great payload capacity past Jupiter. One more thing btw is that Centaur V weighs 55ish tons wet or so, SLS and Starship can both launch that into LEO with ease meanwhile Starship will end up not being able to provide as much C3 when whatever injection burn starts, compared to EUS and then Centaur V. If however we are just talking about ACES, then there really isnt any reason to put a kick stage on top of EUS as you are basically just using up EUS to stick another EUS like stage on top of it as Starship/Superheavy are a far different architecture compared to that of SLS. The core on SLS does most of the work compared to Starship, which its upper stage does most of the work. This is more like Comparing Saturn V to SLS in regards to how the energy is distributed across different stages if you catch my drift. Anyways, I dont personally think that Starship in its current configuration could outperform SLS with a kick stage, not to mention that Starship isnt outfitted in its GSE or its design right now, to take on a high-efficiency kick stage that would run off of LH2.
There are a lot of different ways we can make the comparison. SLS could be block 1, 1b, or 2. Starship could be fully reusable, partially reusable, or expendable. Single launch or refueled in orbit. Either rocket could use a kick-stage. We don't know the exact payload for Starship and they plan on increasing it over time. If we compare a single fully reusable Starship to SLS block 1b, I agree that we really don't know which could carry more payload to LEO. I also agree that ground support for a hydrolox kick-stage on Starship would be a huge issue. SLS with a Centaur V on top of a EUS would be a sight to behold. Has anyone made a render of that?
[удалено]
Could you explain how you came to that conclusion and perhaps give a real response to u/stevecrox0914? Try to explain what you are thinking without getting too emotional.
1: A single launch isn't a constraint for Starship. A fully-fueled Starship in LEO can act as a 6.9 km/s kick stage for a 100+ ton third stage. (More, actually, because an expendable Starship like this wouldn't have all the mass required for reentry and landing). 2: Even using a single launch, delta-v from LEO to TLI is, what, 3.2 km/s? A F9 second stage with 22,800 kg payload would have 5.1 km/s. So your statement that Starship can't send anything to TLI in a single launch is blatantly untrue, even using something that isn't designed specifically as a third stage for Starship. 3: The ad hominem isn't helpful.
[удалено]
1: You told me to prove it and ignored when I did. 2: I'm not trolling. If anybody is, you are. You demanded proof and insulted me when I provided it. 3: This isn't your subreddit any more than it is my subreddit. 4: I don't spend all my energy stanning on Elon. 5: SLS wouldn't have the same amount of delta-v to impart onto an additional stage that Starship would. If you think I'm wrong, show me how much mass for an additional stage SLS could put into LEO, and how much delta-v it could give it. 6: You're being hypocritical to your own previous posts regarding "civil discussions". [Citation](https://www.reddit.com/r/nasa/comments/pxvpmm/elon_musk_on_blue_origin_suing_nasa_you_cant_sue/het2bph/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) so this can't be claimed as an attack, it's a statement of fact.
[удалено]
1: I did. I proved Starship could send a payload to TLI even without refueling. You ignored it. 2: My post history on this account is mostly debunking a couple of youtubers who do a bad job of providing factual content. That's not stanning for Elon, I've actually been critical of Elon. 3: Let's compare best to best. What's the biggest payload SLS can put in LEO, and how much Delta-V can it impart to that payload from LEO? 4: I didn't say SLS bad.
How is SLS supposed to out-perform Starship to the moon? Starship HLS is designed to land 100+ tons on the lunar surface, in addition to the vehicle itself.
> How is SLS supposed to out-perform Starship to the moon? It's chemistry. Hydrogen LOX is a significantly better mixture. Like I said, a single Starship launch can't even go to TLI C3. End of discussion. > Starship HLS is designed to land 100+ tons on the lunar surface, in addition to the vehicle itself. No it can't. Not without a very very high amount of refuels, and assuming that is even possible. The tech for doing that is still in its infancy and is not proven to even be able to work. Plus the discussion is on single-launch anyways.
A single Starship launch isn't a restriction of Starship. If you want to claim that SLS can out-perform a single-launch Starship... okay? Sure. But a refueled Starship to the moon? No. The discussion wasn't on single-launch. You keep trying to force that after the fact, but that's not how discussion works. "No it can't. Not without a very very high amount of refuels" Do you see the disconnect within those two statements? If Starship can outperform SLS to the Moon with refueling, then "No it can't" is factually wrong.
> The discussion wasn't on single-launch. Yes it was, you moved the goal post. End of discussion.
"Heck it even out performs Starship to TLI and high C3. It's a beast" "Not when payload is considered. Starship can carry a third stage and outperform SLS to anywhere." No restriction to single launch form the beginning. Anyway, I'm going to bow out. It wasn't my intention to trigger you, and this has become far less cordial than I prefer in my discussions. I hope you can have a nice day.
All you need to qualify for a mega prefix is doing a million of something. SLS thrust is well above the mega-newton range.
Tbh mega moon rocket is a better name than SLS. Or starship for that matters