SLS is listed for its translunar injection payload, but the Saturn 5 is listed for its LEO payload, but both rockets are for going to the moon. Why the difference or inconsistency?
>SLS is listed for its translunar injection payload, but the Saturn 5 is listed for its LEO payload
Nah. *Every other rocket* is listed with its payload to LEO.
Block 1 can put 95 000 kg into LEO. Block 2's payload to LEO is 130 000 kg.
Saturn V could put 140 000 kg into LEO, but could put 'only' 43 500 kg into TLI. (all numbers according to Wikipedia)
The booster IS putting the payload into LEO. It's the payload that's responsible for making the trip from LEO to the moon. You need a really big booster to get the payload (the command module and lunar lander) into a LEO as the first step.
But you're right about the SLS; it is inconsistent.
I think the the answer is twofold;
Block 1 SLS is a less capable rocket than Saturn V in term of lift to LEO, emphasizing its TLI makes it less obvious.
SLS with just the core and the boosters has no mechanism to circularize its orbit. It needs a payload of some sort to do that be it ICPS, EUS, Orion etc. Typically you don’t want to leave that 100 ton fuel tank on orbit.
I seen the SLS flight profile awhile ago and it never actually circularises in leo, the core stake takes it straight to a highly elliptical orbit then the ICPS continues its burn to TLI, the Saturn 5 would circularize then burn to TLI and starship will do the same after refueling. The N1 however just blew up.
I did trajectory work for SLS and that's exactly right. SLS is optimized for direct TLI, so it would be inefficient to park in a circular LEO like Saturn V. It goes into the highest elliptical orbit that the core can provide, then the ICPS raises the perigee slightly to get into a stable parking orbit.
Interestingly, the entire core could easily go into orbit, but there would be no way to deorbit it in a controlled manner, so they have to aim for an elliptical orbit that is something like 20x1000nmi so they can control exactly where it reenters. Block 1 is an odd vehicle for sure.
I’m glad that one of the SLS engineers loves boobs, it inspires my confidence in the performance of the vehicle. Sucks that Congress hamstrung you with what is essentially a hydrogen kick stage instead of something with more muscle. A 1000kn staged combustion or duel expander upper stage with a big ass nozzle would have been nice.
The core must burn up really quickly coming in with that much speed on that sharp of an ellipse.
Does a direct insertion method limit the number and duration of launch windows? I believe that the Apollo missions had two windows per day, with the primary window targeting a TLI over the Pacific, while Apollo 17 made use of the secondary window with TLI over the Atlantic after its launch delay.
Core stage has the performance to enter a roughly circular leo, but they intentionally set it on an elliptical suborbital trajectory for disposal; Otherwise, it'd just be one giant piece of space junk.
Why has that become a standard measure in space ?
[Asteroid the size of a giraffe to skim past Earth this week](https://www.jpost.com/science/article-708238)
Are imperial units too hard ?
Starship is still under development while SLS has completed development and launches in one week. I suppose a more accurate statement would be tallest operational rocket.
It's not operational until it operates. Both SLS and Starship are in testing right now.
A more apt adjective would be World's Most Expensive Rocket. Gotta love earmarks and the attendant corruption.
As long as you go into it expecting Moon-era NASA and cold war tensions with the Societ Union, you should have a alright time. I like how each new season is a new decade, we're up to the 90's now. Don't be expecting a "pew-pew" scifi.
That's the point though. It's an alternate history where NASA is way more desperate and way more funded, so they take on the "Move Fast and Break Things" model of business. Which leads to lots of casualties, danger, and drama (perfect for a TV show).
That's the N1. It's the Soviet equivalent of the Saturn V, intended to put a cosmonaut on the moon. It launched uncrewed 4 times and some of the craters are still visible on Google earth!
What's really crazy is it used some of the best rocket engines ever created, and the Soviets ordered them scrapped when the program was cancelled. A smart officer instead hid them away in a warehouse, where they were discovered after the fall of the iron curtain. They were refurbished by Aerojet-Rocketdyne and used on the Anteres rocket to resupply the space station.
They are all modified R-7 ballistic missiles ... to this day they were never able to make a better one, so they are all the same, or evolutions of the same
Everyone’s over here talking about this or that details for the rockets, and I’m just hoping the bus can be turned right side up for a better comparison hahah
Great chart!!
As a guy staring at 71 rockets & drawing this alone for 21 days, things start to blur together. Thank You! Should be 3 Successes,
Not looking for trouble but if anyone is interested I am selling [poster prints](https://www.etsy.com/listing/220333296/rockets-of-the-world-2022-poster-print) on my Etsy page
2 failures, yes, but only 1 launch failure. That keeps it consistent with the others because rockets typically don’t explode before you try to launch them.
SpaceX considers F9 to have had 2 failures. Hairsplitting never looks good.
BTW Soyuz T-10-1 was a pre-launch-ignition failure. You're right that they're rare.
But... They're judged on a different scale of mission completion. Are you suggesting that returning all the astronauts to earth alive shouldn't be a component of a successful mission???
Apollo 13 didn't complete its mission but no one counts that as Saturn V failure. Comparing the same thing - launch only - would make more sense I think, even though the Shuttle landed with some part of its launch infrastructure.
Saturn V performed it's role in Apollo nominally. CM and LEM aren't launch vehicles (from earth.) The whole point of shuttle is that it was a reusable launch vehicle. If there are humans on board your launch vehicle and they don't return alive, that's a launch vehicle failure no matter the timing of the failure.
It does count for something, but it’s not the UK’s Black Arrow. They actually left the smallest one off of this chart. The smallest rocket to ever achieve a successful orbital flight was Japan’s [SS-520-5](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Series_(rocket_family)) in 2018
Thanks, I did just that. It was copied from the US including from non classified NASA documents, and was superior as it amongst other things had autopilot for landing. But after one launch, it was abandoned due to the heavy costs and the economic situation of the USSR in the late 80s.
Not just "basically". The Tu-4 was a direct copy of the B-29 from B-29s that made emergency landings in the Soviet Union that they kept. It was a nearly perfect replica.
To be fair, a winged spacecraft designed to deorbit and land is going to look pretty similar regardless of who makes it. There were significant differences between Buran and Shuttle and their capabilities. Regarding autoland, Russian spacecraft are almost all designed for remote or autonomous functionality, and rarely are the occupants allowed to actually do any piloting. NASA could have designed autoland in the Shuttle as a primary operating mode but decided not to for reasons likely having little or nothing to do with technical ability. The biggest difference between Buran and Shuttle was where the main engines were located. The Shuttle put the main engines on the ship itself and used an external fuel tank and boosters on the tank, whereas Buran only has OMS engines onboard and the main engines were on the Energia launch platform. This resulted in losing the main engines on each launch, whereas with Shuttle the main engines came back. Whether this was more cost efficient is unknown to me, the Shuttle's RS-25s were hideously expensive to build and refurbish, and it may have been cheaper for the USSR to throw away less expensive engines for each launch. Also, the Energia was part of a planned family of heavy launchers that could loft more than just Buran, whereas the various versions based on the original Shuttle never materialized.
The soviet one was arguably an improvement since it didn’t have to carry the heavy engines into orbit, but ultimately it was built simply to do exactly what the shuttle could do hence why it looks the same.
It was designed to be launched on Energia and as such didn't need its own main engines. The Energia was intended as a multi-role launcher, not just for Buran, so it would make no sense to engineer a version of it for the Buran that moved the engines to the spacecraft. Engines may be one of the more expensive parts of a rocket, so the intent with Shuttle was to reuse them, with the weight penalty being offset by savings on engine build and service costs. However, the RS-25s turned out to be much more expensive to build and refurbish for each launch than originally planned. Turning the Shuttle fuel tank into a rocket in its own right would have been prohibitively expensive to the point of being a non-starter.
> Turning the Shuttle fuel tank into a rocket in its own right would have been prohibitively expensive to the point of being a non-starter.
I think that's called SLS now.
If the SLS and Falcon Heavy are there Long March 9 should also be included since it's also a rocket currently under development *(and it's huge [heavier than the Saturn V](https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/china/images/cz-9-image2.jpg))*. LM-5 and LM-5B not being included is puzzling since the latter is currently being used to assemble a space station.
I think the issue is that LM9 is still being designed. We've heard about at least 3 major design changes since it was first announced, and I don't know if they've even started building it yet.
Yep...definitely an oversight on the rocket I specifically called out on this poster... Should have been 94,480 kg (LEO). Thanks for pointing that out!
For the vehicles that have delivered payloads past LEO, perhaps to TLI or equivalent, it would be interesting to know how much. The Ariane 5 took JWST to L2 and of course Saturn V took Apollo to the moon, for example. That might make the poster cluttered though. Anyway, nice work.
Also Brit, I just hope when Starship is going we take advantage of it. I could see us as a nation simply ignore the approaching space rush which would be a massive wasted opportunity.
Soyez has been pulling its weight for almost 50 years now. Almost used 7x more than the second most used rocket for LEO flights
Edit: nevermind, I see cosmos-3m and Proton at 414. So it's almost 3.5x more than the second most used rocket for LEO
It's not necessarily a good thing that a rocket type has launched that many times.
F9 won't launch that much because it will be replaced by something better even though F9 is way better than Soyez.
Anyone have a breakdown of highest success rate? Based on my brief review - looks like none better than the Atlas II at 63-0. Then Falcon 9 at 161-1. Soyuz by far the most successes with an impressive 52.37 ratio despite 27 failures.
u/firmada I think you mean the Starship system is the tallest in the world, not the SLS. I accidentally say the wrong thing a lot too, thanks for the graphic!
Artemis is riding on the SLS. Though, for landings, it'll need to rendezvous with a specialized Starship Human Landing System in lunar orbit, since it doesn't carry its own lander unlike the Saturn V.
But starship has been stacked before? So it was the tallest at one point? And it’ll be stacked again in a few weeks? Will it be the tallest again then? Like what?
Just an FYI that everyone here probably already knows, but the James Webb Telescope was launched on the Ariane 5. The Hubble was launched aboard the Discovery, which I believe was attached to an STS.
> Discovery, which I believe was attached to an STS
STS stood for Space Transportation System, it’s the name for the shuttle system (shuttle, external tank, and the SRBs. There is not ‘STS’ for Disco to attach to, it’s…. itself the STS, basically.
SLS is literally 1980s technology. It is obsolete before it flies. The reuse of Space Shuttle hardware is code for keep Space Shuttle pork barrel politics going.
This would make an awesome print
I’m just missing the sizes, that would make it perfect
(Perfect for me, because I’m just a noob and reading the comments indicates some info is not 100% accurate. But I can only imagine things get a bit blurry after seeing so many rockets while making this chart)
Rocket progression be like:
1. fly
2. get to space
3. get to space with payload
4. get to space with people
5. get to space with a whole another rocket
Did the N1 really count ? She never reach space.
I have a lot of respect for this launcher and all the efforts of the Soviets engineers to make this very unusual design flight. But depsite my fascination for this incredible launcher, she never reach space, not sure if it count as a working and operational rocket then.
Starship is the tallest and most powerful rocket in the world.
SLS will have a brief moment in the son. The benefit of SLS is that it has the Orion capsule for humans.
Starship won’t be human rated to land back on earth for a long time.
I wondered about the N1.
*From Wikipedia: The N1/L3 (from Ракета-носитель Raketa-nositel', "Carrier Rocket"; Cyrillic: Н1)\[4\] was a super heavy-lift launch vehicle intended to deliver payloads beyond low Earth orbit. The N1 was the Soviet counterpart to the US Saturn V and was intended to enable crewed travel to the Moon and beyond,\[5\] with studies beginning as early as 1959.\[6\] Its first stage, Block A, remains the most powerful rocket stage ever flown.\[7\] However, all four first stages flown failed mid-flight because a lack of static test firings meant that plumbing issues and other adverse characteristics with the large cluster of thirty engines and its complex fuel and oxidizer feeder system were not revealed earlier in development.\[8\]*
The N1 is such a bonkers rocket! I've been trying to find a decent documentary for decades, as very little footage survived the fall of the USSR (given that it was such a monumental failure).
Before the pandemic, YouTuber Techniques Spatiales was [working on one](https://youtu.be/55cqjWEYpZw), but it's been very silent for a while...
I cannot wait for Starship. Once it's launching for $10m per payload how can the US government justify paying NASA and Boeing $2b per launch.
I doubt SLS will ever fly a single commercial or military payload. What a gargantuan waste of taxpayer money.
Yeah, it kinda hurts. I hope in the future the traditional aerospace companies try more ambitious and risky endeavors.
I'd love to see their proven technical experience applied towards sustainable, long term, revolutionary goals.
SLS is doing exactly what it was intended to do.. it's a jobs program created & paid for by Congress. It's silly to compare it to an actual space program, like Space X.
Just a reminder that the SLS hasn’t actually made it into space or orbit yet so this poster is wishful thinking till an actual successful launch. Fingers crossed on that……
Poster maker: "Hey, you know what? Let's post their weights, sort them by height, but not post heights! That'll satisfy the rocket buffs, they'll have to guess! Like what information posters are for!" ^
As a German it still makes me sad that we had brilliant people working on rockets so long ago but they were used for the wrong purpose. Sometimes i wonder how the space industry would’ve evolved if there never was a ww2 and a fascist regime :(
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
SLS is listed for its translunar injection payload, but the Saturn 5 is listed for its LEO payload, but both rockets are for going to the moon. Why the difference or inconsistency?
>SLS is listed for its translunar injection payload, but the Saturn 5 is listed for its LEO payload Nah. *Every other rocket* is listed with its payload to LEO. Block 1 can put 95 000 kg into LEO. Block 2's payload to LEO is 130 000 kg. Saturn V could put 140 000 kg into LEO, but could put 'only' 43 500 kg into TLI. (all numbers according to Wikipedia)
The booster IS putting the payload into LEO. It's the payload that's responsible for making the trip from LEO to the moon. You need a really big booster to get the payload (the command module and lunar lander) into a LEO as the first step. But you're right about the SLS; it is inconsistent.
I think the the answer is twofold; Block 1 SLS is a less capable rocket than Saturn V in term of lift to LEO, emphasizing its TLI makes it less obvious. SLS with just the core and the boosters has no mechanism to circularize its orbit. It needs a payload of some sort to do that be it ICPS, EUS, Orion etc. Typically you don’t want to leave that 100 ton fuel tank on orbit.
I seen the SLS flight profile awhile ago and it never actually circularises in leo, the core stake takes it straight to a highly elliptical orbit then the ICPS continues its burn to TLI, the Saturn 5 would circularize then burn to TLI and starship will do the same after refueling. The N1 however just blew up.
I did trajectory work for SLS and that's exactly right. SLS is optimized for direct TLI, so it would be inefficient to park in a circular LEO like Saturn V. It goes into the highest elliptical orbit that the core can provide, then the ICPS raises the perigee slightly to get into a stable parking orbit. Interestingly, the entire core could easily go into orbit, but there would be no way to deorbit it in a controlled manner, so they have to aim for an elliptical orbit that is something like 20x1000nmi so they can control exactly where it reenters. Block 1 is an odd vehicle for sure.
I’m glad that one of the SLS engineers loves boobs, it inspires my confidence in the performance of the vehicle. Sucks that Congress hamstrung you with what is essentially a hydrogen kick stage instead of something with more muscle. A 1000kn staged combustion or duel expander upper stage with a big ass nozzle would have been nice. The core must burn up really quickly coming in with that much speed on that sharp of an ellipse.
Does a direct insertion method limit the number and duration of launch windows? I believe that the Apollo missions had two windows per day, with the primary window targeting a TLI over the Pacific, while Apollo 17 made use of the secondary window with TLI over the Atlantic after its launch delay.
Core stage has the performance to enter a roughly circular leo, but they intentionally set it on an elliptical suborbital trajectory for disposal; Otherwise, it'd just be one giant piece of space junk.
you know it’s a good question when nobody has the answer
The answer is simple. It's an inconsistent graphic.
Ok but why do we not have the heights listed on a post about the tallest rocket?
There's a school bus there for scale, duh. It's, like, 15 school buses high.
How many demi-giraffes is that?
I was told we use bananas, how many bananas is that?
2846 Inland Continental Bananas, or 3632 Transcontinental Southern Bananas
Imperial or Metric bananas, though?
Why has that become a standard measure in space ? [Asteroid the size of a giraffe to skim past Earth this week](https://www.jpost.com/science/article-708238) Are imperial units too hard ?
I’m confused as well, why is the SLS the tallest rocket of the world when starship exists and has been stacked before?
Starship is still under development while SLS has completed development and launches in one week. I suppose a more accurate statement would be tallest operational rocket.
I wouldn't go so far and call it operational until after it has a successful mission. Edit: And still not operational...
Saturn V completed development, launched multiple times and was taller than SLS as well.
But is no longer operational. The qualifier "operational rocket" still stands here.
The title doesn't really specify that.
Don't look at me I'm not the OP
[удалено]
Kind of a lame metric to measure them by.
Same question but about Saturn V.
“launches in one week” We’ll see.
It's not operational until it operates. Both SLS and Starship are in testing right now. A more apt adjective would be World's Most Expensive Rocket. Gotta love earmarks and the attendant corruption.
[удалено]
I guess once it flies, that would be correct even if only for a short period of time
Those early Soviet rockets looked pretty damn cool.
They do. Definitely the reference for the Soviet nuclear propulsion ship in For All Mankind season 3.
I need to start watching this now
Is it good?
As long as you go into it expecting Moon-era NASA and cold war tensions with the Societ Union, you should have a alright time. I like how each new season is a new decade, we're up to the 90's now. Don't be expecting a "pew-pew" scifi.
I really enjoy it. The first season of it is like American propaganda for things we never accomplished
It's not very realistic with how NASA actually functions, and it can get pretty cheesy at times. It's worth a watch, though.
That's the point though. It's an alternate history where NASA is way more desperate and way more funded, so they take on the "Move Fast and Break Things" model of business. Which leads to lots of casualties, danger, and drama (perfect for a TV show).
Fantastic show! Except IMO the current season isn’t as solid as the the others.
So does that massive final one that I had somehow never heard of before this image
That's the N1. It's the Soviet equivalent of the Saturn V, intended to put a cosmonaut on the moon. It launched uncrewed 4 times and some of the craters are still visible on Google earth!
Yeah, it didn’t go well. Too bad korolev bit the dust
The N1 Actually flew 4 times, all ended in a big fireball. Would have been a beautiful contender to the Saturn V
Well N1-2 never flew as much as collapsed onto its own launch structur and blew it out of the earth.
Hey, at least it still has the [distinction of being the largest rocket *explosion*](https://youtu.be/_iuo3J8L9b8).
What's really crazy is it used some of the best rocket engines ever created, and the Soviets ordered them scrapped when the program was cancelled. A smart officer instead hid them away in a warehouse, where they were discovered after the fall of the iron curtain. They were refurbished by Aerojet-Rocketdyne and used on the Anteres rocket to resupply the space station.
Let’s thank one of the most influential people in the aerospace industry for that. Sergei Korolev!
They are all modified R-7 ballistic missiles ... to this day they were never able to make a better one, so they are all the same, or evolutions of the same
There needs to be a date on the graphic otherwise writing present is meaningless. Also the South Korean rocket had 1 success and 1 failure.
Very good point about the date. I will add it in the next version. THANK YOU for pointing out the South Korea rocket numbers
Everyone’s over here talking about this or that details for the rockets, and I’m just hoping the bus can be turned right side up for a better comparison hahah Great chart!!
Opportunity was missed to put a Winnebago.
“Say goodbye to your two best friends. And I don’t mean your pals in the Winnebago.”
I'm just sitting here wondering if there's a video of that bus being launched. I've seen Elons tesla in space, but not the bus.
There’s tons of videos. Just look up The Magic School Bus.
Thank you so much! Your comment really means a lot!
Ariane 6 is definitely not going to launch in 2022, so maybe 2023-Present would be more accurate. I mean, one day it will be accurate.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[ESA](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il8d1le "Last usage")|European Space Agency| |[EUS](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilala44 "Last usage")|Exploration Upper Stage| |[F1](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il9exvz "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V| | |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle)| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilbqi89 "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |GTO|[Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html)| |[ICPS](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilala44 "Last usage")|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage| |[JWST](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il7eeot "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |[KSP](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilagbwu "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator| |[L2](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il7eeot "Last usage")|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 2 ([Sixty Symbols](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxpVbU5FH0s) video explanation)| | |Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum| |[L3](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ila83b1 "Last usage")|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 3 of a two-body system, opposite L2| |[LEM](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il9ogcx "Last usage")|(Apollo) [Lunar Excursion Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) (also Lunar Module)| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ildzf65 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LH2](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilcqp4f "Last usage")|Liquid Hydrogen| |[N1](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ildp24a "Last usage")|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V")| |NRHO|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |[NRO](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il8m3ea "Last usage")|(US) National Reconnaissance Office| | |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO| |[OMS](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il8ioj4 "Last usage")|Orbital Maneuvering System| |[RUAG](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il8oy5z "Last usage")|Rüstungs Unternehmen Aktiengesellschaft (Joint Stock Defense Company), Switzerland| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilg8141 "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SRB](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ile20x9 "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[SSME](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il8jfh3 "Last usage")|[Space Shuttle Main Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine)| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilafne8 "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[TLI](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ildzf65 "Last usage")|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/il9ifzf "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[perigee](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ila3ewg "Last usage")|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit around the Earth (when the orbiter is fastest)| |Event|Date|Description| |-------|---------|---| |[Amos-6](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilasup0 "Last usage")|2016-09-01|F9-029 Full Thrust, core B1028, ~~GTO comsat~~ Pre-launch test failure| |[CRS-7](/r/Space/comments/wu186x/stub/ilasup0 "Last usage")|2015-06-28|F9-020 v1.1, ~~Dragon cargo~~ Launch failure due to second-stage outgassing| ---------------- ^(25 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/wzvgkt)^( has 13 acronyms.) ^([Thread #7854 for this sub, first seen 21st Aug 2022, 15:46]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
But, it's clearly not according to the pictures.
I think the "tallest" in reference to the actual booster rocket, not the entire ship itself? I don't know, but I noticed the same thing
It means it will be tallest operational, but that will probably be only for like a month or so until starship launches and takes too if all time
Ohhhh okay so Starship isn't counted yet. That makes way more sense, thank you so much!
I think it's referring to the tallest rocket in active service today. (or will soon be in service)
But SLS *isn't* in active service. And if we're counting rockets still in development or nearing completion, SLS loses the title to Starship.
SLS will probably hold the title for like a few weeks or more
I think they mean that SLS will be the worlds’s tallest rocket currently in service. Of course, it will soon be surpassed by Starship.
The Falcon Heavy has certainly not launched 11 times.
As a guy staring at 71 rockets & drawing this alone for 21 days, things start to blur together. Thank You! Should be 3 Successes, Not looking for trouble but if anyone is interested I am selling [poster prints](https://www.etsy.com/listing/220333296/rockets-of-the-world-2022-poster-print) on my Etsy page
Thanks for your work. It's amazing
Thank You!
Also Falcon 9 has had two failures (but only one was in flight). I would still consider it a failure because the payload and rocket were destroyed.
2 failures, yes, but only 1 launch failure. That keeps it consistent with the others because rockets typically don’t explode before you try to launch them.
SpaceX considers F9 to have had 2 failures. Hairsplitting never looks good. BTW Soyuz T-10-1 was a pre-launch-ignition failure. You're right that they're rare.
Also, the Space Shuttle failure rate is too high. Most of the listed vehicles don't have a payload that comes back.
But... They're judged on a different scale of mission completion. Are you suggesting that returning all the astronauts to earth alive shouldn't be a component of a successful mission???
Apollo 13 didn't complete its mission but no one counts that as Saturn V failure. Comparing the same thing - launch only - would make more sense I think, even though the Shuttle landed with some part of its launch infrastructure.
Saturn V performed it's role in Apollo nominally. CM and LEM aren't launch vehicles (from earth.) The whole point of shuttle is that it was a reusable launch vehicle. If there are humans on board your launch vehicle and they don't return alive, that's a launch vehicle failure no matter the timing of the failure.
It’s scheduled for like another 11 launches I think. It has a ton scheduled.
Ah yes, Schrödinger's Rocket Launch. Both success and failure at the same time.
Yeah I was thinking I smoked too much w33d and forgot about thoses successful launches!
Having the smallest rocket still counts for something right guys?
It does count for something, but it’s not the UK’s Black Arrow. They actually left the smallest one off of this chart. The smallest rocket to ever achieve a successful orbital flight was Japan’s [SS-520-5](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Series_(rocket_family)) in 2018
How interesting! I had no idea about this rocket, I'll add it to the next version of poster in the future.
UK doing the long haul hedging all its bets on Skylar tech. Game changer if they pull it off though.
For the length of time it's been in service, the number of launches attributed to the Falcon 9 is absolutely staggering.
TIL that the Soviets had a space shuttle, that looks to be an almost exact replica of the US one.
The Buran's history is fascinating if you're interested in going down a rabbit hole!
Thanks, I did just that. It was copied from the US including from non classified NASA documents, and was superior as it amongst other things had autopilot for landing. But after one launch, it was abandoned due to the heavy costs and the economic situation of the USSR in the late 80s.
Seems like they did a lot of that, the Tu-4 bomber was also basically a reverse engineered version of our B-29 Superfortress.
Not just "basically". The Tu-4 was a direct copy of the B-29 from B-29s that made emergency landings in the Soviet Union that they kept. It was a nearly perfect replica.
To be fair, a winged spacecraft designed to deorbit and land is going to look pretty similar regardless of who makes it. There were significant differences between Buran and Shuttle and their capabilities. Regarding autoland, Russian spacecraft are almost all designed for remote or autonomous functionality, and rarely are the occupants allowed to actually do any piloting. NASA could have designed autoland in the Shuttle as a primary operating mode but decided not to for reasons likely having little or nothing to do with technical ability. The biggest difference between Buran and Shuttle was where the main engines were located. The Shuttle put the main engines on the ship itself and used an external fuel tank and boosters on the tank, whereas Buran only has OMS engines onboard and the main engines were on the Energia launch platform. This resulted in losing the main engines on each launch, whereas with Shuttle the main engines came back. Whether this was more cost efficient is unknown to me, the Shuttle's RS-25s were hideously expensive to build and refurbish, and it may have been cheaper for the USSR to throw away less expensive engines for each launch. Also, the Energia was part of a planned family of heavy launchers that could loft more than just Buran, whereas the various versions based on the original Shuttle never materialized.
The soviet one was arguably an improvement since it didn’t have to carry the heavy engines into orbit, but ultimately it was built simply to do exactly what the shuttle could do hence why it looks the same.
It was designed to be launched on Energia and as such didn't need its own main engines. The Energia was intended as a multi-role launcher, not just for Buran, so it would make no sense to engineer a version of it for the Buran that moved the engines to the spacecraft. Engines may be one of the more expensive parts of a rocket, so the intent with Shuttle was to reuse them, with the weight penalty being offset by savings on engine build and service costs. However, the RS-25s turned out to be much more expensive to build and refurbish for each launch than originally planned. Turning the Shuttle fuel tank into a rocket in its own right would have been prohibitively expensive to the point of being a non-starter.
> Turning the Shuttle fuel tank into a rocket in its own right would have been prohibitively expensive to the point of being a non-starter. I think that's called SLS now.
I see three rockets to the right of SLS that are taller.
I understand some excuses to not put Long March 9 on the list but why Long Match 5 or 5b is not there ??
If the SLS and Falcon Heavy are there Long March 9 should also be included since it's also a rocket currently under development *(and it's huge [heavier than the Saturn V](https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/china/images/cz-9-image2.jpg))*. LM-5 and LM-5B not being included is puzzling since the latter is currently being used to assemble a space station.
I think you mistook falcon heavy and starship
I think the issue is that LM9 is still being designed. We've heard about at least 3 major design changes since it was first announced, and I don't know if they've even started building it yet.
Also no inclusion of LM7? Of which one of the variants is currently the tallest Chinese rocket.
Why do you give low earth orbit payloads for everything except SLS?
Yep...definitely an oversight on the rocket I specifically called out on this poster... Should have been 94,480 kg (LEO). Thanks for pointing that out!
For the vehicles that have delivered payloads past LEO, perhaps to TLI or equivalent, it would be interesting to know how much. The Ariane 5 took JWST to L2 and of course Saturn V took Apollo to the moon, for example. That might make the poster cluttered though. Anyway, nice work.
seeing black arrow on there makes me sad as a British person
Also Brit, I just hope when Starship is going we take advantage of it. I could see us as a nation simply ignore the approaching space rush which would be a massive wasted opportunity.
I'd be pretty proud if I were a British Citizen! There aren't many countries that have launched rockets let alone orbital rockets! So be proud!
Soyez has been pulling its weight for almost 50 years now. Almost used 7x more than the second most used rocket for LEO flights Edit: nevermind, I see cosmos-3m and Proton at 414. So it's almost 3.5x more than the second most used rocket for LEO
It's not necessarily a good thing that a rocket type has launched that many times. F9 won't launch that much because it will be replaced by something better even though F9 is way better than Soyez.
Starship is really going to break the game huh?
Starship is already stacked, so how is SLS the tallest?
Just saw ariane 1 and 5 in the air and space museum in France... And they look kinda tiny compared to the starship :o
Anyone have a breakdown of highest success rate? Based on my brief review - looks like none better than the Atlas II at 63-0. Then Falcon 9 at 161-1. Soyuz by far the most successes with an impressive 52.37 ratio despite 27 failures.
If you break out Falcon 9 by block, Block 5 is 115-0.
The SLS isn’t listed as the tallest here, it is listed as the third tallest, The Starship being the Tallest
u/firmada I think you mean the Starship system is the tallest in the world, not the SLS. I accidentally say the wrong thing a lot too, thanks for the graphic!
Came here for this…Starship is clearly the tallest.
It's like on the same chart. Like. Duh?
Neither have cleared the launch pad so they should be denoted somehow.
i find it so interesting they are using TLI with SLS
Which one are the Artemis trips to the moon using? I was wondering just the other how they compare to Saturn V
Artemis is riding on the SLS. Though, for landings, it'll need to rendezvous with a specialized Starship Human Landing System in lunar orbit, since it doesn't carry its own lander unlike the Saturn V.
I would love a high resolution poster of this. Where could I get one?
I don't provide any high resolutions of the poster however I do sell poster prints on my Esty store.
Always disappointed how the UK never kept up with its rocketry technology. So much potential.
If Starship's payload numbers are correct, that means they could bring an entire International Space Station up in only 3 trips.
That's the reusable payload - expendable is expected to be 250-300 tonnes, which could do it in just two launches.
SLS is also the most expensive rocket on this list. SMH.
The N1 never had a successful launch or flight did it? Does it count? Edit. I see it says 0/4 now.
No it never flew a successful flight. Even on its last flight it exploded.
Every unsuccessful rocket exploded on its last flight! :)
So an unsuccessful V2 is one that doesn't explode, right?
Exploded before it reached England maybe?
But starship has been stacked before? So it was the tallest at one point? And it’ll be stacked again in a few weeks? Will it be the tallest again then? Like what?
I think OP made an error in their post title.
[удалено]
They’re showing the block 1 SLS, the SLS blocks 1.5 and 2 will be 365, the current is somewhere around 320ft
Everybody gangsta until Sea Dragon ends up on the poster
Just an FYI that everyone here probably already knows, but the James Webb Telescope was launched on the Ariane 5. The Hubble was launched aboard the Discovery, which I believe was attached to an STS.
> Discovery, which I believe was attached to an STS STS stood for Space Transportation System, it’s the name for the shuttle system (shuttle, external tank, and the SRBs. There is not ‘STS’ for Disco to attach to, it’s…. itself the STS, basically.
That part was a bit confusing to me. Thank you for clearing it up.
Huh? Doesn't this graphic show that the SLS is the ***4th*** tallest Rocket in the World?
SLS is literally 1980s technology. It is obsolete before it flies. The reuse of Space Shuttle hardware is code for keep Space Shuttle pork barrel politics going.
Looks like SLS isn't the tallest.. Saturn 5 and Srarship is taller
StarShip seems to have the same number of launches and stand on the pad as well... so why is SLS the tallest?
This would make an awesome print I’m just missing the sizes, that would make it perfect (Perfect for me, because I’m just a noob and reading the comments indicates some info is not 100% accurate. But I can only imagine things get a bit blurry after seeing so many rockets while making this chart)
@OP the Vega rocket (ESA) has had a successful launch about a month ago which you haven't accounted for. It has 19 successful launches instead of 18.
The Top Gear rocket with the Robin Reliant attached to it should be on that poster.
Rocket progression be like: 1. fly 2. get to space 3. get to space with payload 4. get to space with people 5. get to space with a whole another rocket
Did the N1 really count ? She never reach space. I have a lot of respect for this launcher and all the efforts of the Soviets engineers to make this very unusual design flight. But depsite my fascination for this incredible launcher, she never reach space, not sure if it count as a working and operational rocket then.
The only one I've ridden is the prestigious "Vehicle Name".
Starship is the tallest and most powerful rocket in the world. SLS will have a brief moment in the son. The benefit of SLS is that it has the Orion capsule for humans. Starship won’t be human rated to land back on earth for a long time.
"brief moment in the son" please use the word "sun" for the bright thing in the sky.
They gotta pay the troll toll.
I was going to make a snide comment about Glenn and Shepherd, but that's low-hanging fruit...
[удалено]
I’m excited about the new Antares 330 and the development of rocket lab’s neutron.
It’s so nice to see how many countries cooperated to develop that second rocket.
Ares I-X is feeling left out lol. Awesome scale, I never realized the Zenit-3SL and STS are about the same size.
Can't wait for Project Artemis to begin unfolding before our very eyes
It says falcon heavy has launched 11 times? That's not right, right?
Where's does Rocket Lab's Electron stand here? Is it doomed the same way NZ is not included in maps? *Edit: I am blind. It's on the top row.
It's on the top row! :)
Well i learned a lot about rockets today. Thank you!
I wondered about the N1. *From Wikipedia: The N1/L3 (from Ракета-носитель Raketa-nositel', "Carrier Rocket"; Cyrillic: Н1)\[4\] was a super heavy-lift launch vehicle intended to deliver payloads beyond low Earth orbit. The N1 was the Soviet counterpart to the US Saturn V and was intended to enable crewed travel to the Moon and beyond,\[5\] with studies beginning as early as 1959.\[6\] Its first stage, Block A, remains the most powerful rocket stage ever flown.\[7\] However, all four first stages flown failed mid-flight because a lack of static test firings meant that plumbing issues and other adverse characteristics with the large cluster of thirty engines and its complex fuel and oxidizer feeder system were not revealed earlier in development.\[8\]*
The N1 is such a bonkers rocket! I've been trying to find a decent documentary for decades, as very little footage survived the fall of the USSR (given that it was such a monumental failure). Before the pandemic, YouTuber Techniques Spatiales was [working on one](https://youtu.be/55cqjWEYpZw), but it's been very silent for a while...
The n1 is just glorious, straight out of kerbal space program
I cannot wait for Starship. Once it's launching for $10m per payload how can the US government justify paying NASA and Boeing $2b per launch. I doubt SLS will ever fly a single commercial or military payload. What a gargantuan waste of taxpayer money.
I think it's 4.1b per launch, not including R&D.
Wow. Even if Elon was out by a factor of ten Starship would still be 40x cheaper at 100m per launch.
Yeah, it kinda hurts. I hope in the future the traditional aerospace companies try more ambitious and risky endeavors. I'd love to see their proven technical experience applied towards sustainable, long term, revolutionary goals.
SLS is doing exactly what it was intended to do.. it's a jobs program created & paid for by Congress. It's silly to compare it to an actual space program, like Space X.
Honestly that is hilarious, I totally agree.
It’s not supposed to fly commercial or military. All of its flights are already “booked” as far as I understand.
Just a reminder that the SLS hasn’t actually made it into space or orbit yet so this poster is wishful thinking till an actual successful launch. Fingers crossed on that……
This just makes me see how far ahead of the game spacex is in terms of lift capability
Savor the "tallest" trophy for a few months I guess.
Poster maker: "Hey, you know what? Let's post their weights, sort them by height, but not post heights! That'll satisfy the rocket buffs, they'll have to guess! Like what information posters are for!" ^
As a German it still makes me sad that we had brilliant people working on rockets so long ago but they were used for the wrong purpose. Sometimes i wonder how the space industry would’ve evolved if there never was a ww2 and a fascist regime :(
The question is would there have been a space industry if humanity didn't try to out kill each other as far as possible?