"Behind the Scenes as NASA Tests the Most Powerful...." Topic

…Rocket Ever.

Wow!

link

Amicalement
Armand

Cool! Can't wait to see it really go!

It goes to show that given enough money, pork will fly…

And how many rockets is your country developing, Martin?

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

And how many rockets is your country developing, Martin?

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

As far as I know:0

When the SLS was first announced, I was impressed. However, times have changed. In many ways the SLS program is much like HMS Vanguard, or Jean Bart – the archetype pushed to it's logical extreme, only to be surpassed by the cutting edge of design.

If the Congressional Space Mafia would get out of NASA's way and let them design the best rocket possible without porkbarreling billions of dollars to legacy old space firms, the SLS might very have already flown.

Last I checked, the SLS can throw 70 to 145 tonnes to low earth orbit depending on the block/configuration. The Falcon Heavy (Scheduled for first launch in between Boxing day and the Epiphany can haul about 65 tonnes to LEO for a fraction of the price – and if all goes well, SpaceX is only writing-off 1 of 28 Merlin engines on that flight – compared to the 4 previously flown STS engines that are going to be thrown away on each SLS launch. Here's the kicker, Musk is selling the a full payload of a Falcon Heavy at a list price of 90mil plus extras. Nasa is going to be lucky to get SLS off the ground for less than a billion a pop :-/

IF you want to go on pure tonnage, the BFR is currently designed for 150 tonnes to LEO in the reusable configuration, and 250 tonnes in expendable configuration. Jeff Bezos's New Armstrong is going to be in the same ball park in terms of payload.

PDF link
Also, ESA's been running the numbers and they are slowly starting to realize that the only long term play in the space access market is having a partially reusable booster to help cut down on costs.

Musk may not be the most reliable person with regards to timelines, but by and large he does accomplish what he sets out to do.

Glad you enjoyed the news my friend!.

Amicalement
Armand

And how many rockets is your country developing, Martin?

Wow, that's not worthy of you.

Most rockets, satellites, shuttles, etc. are made from hundreds of varied small and large contractors. Some of those are actually Canadian. Even the well known Canadarm on the Shuttles was built by about 7-8 different Canadian contractors. In fact SPAR Aerospace even subcontracted US companies General Dynamics and IBM to complete the builds.

A small company about 30 minutes from me was in charge of the heat treating of the 27,000 tiles on the shuttle, especially the 3000 high heat FRCI tiles.

Another 30 minute drive from my house is the Oakville Ford plant that built my Lincoln MKX. How many foreign parts make up my "Canadian" car?

From the link:

…..NASA gave photographer Vincent Fournier exclusive access to the testing and preparations for the mission,…..

So that's what Alice Cooper is doing now!

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

My apologies. I had assumed (and the old saying applies to me in this instant) that Martin was among those who criticize space funding as taking money away from whatever social cause they think is more important. I stand corrected.

By the way, I have long criticized the "build it in my voting district" abuses that have plagued NASA, having had my own contribution to NASA's rocket production system clobbered by that very thing (would have saved considerable taxpayer dollars, too). I've also criticized the politicization of the ISS (which NEVER should have been "International," as that decision seriously crippled its utility for the science it was intended to perform), and expressed my disappointment with over-priced, over-budgeted, over-blown and over-hyped space-craft systems that NASA has developed in the past. Which is one of the reasons I appreciate what SpaceX, et. al. are doing in developing more cost effective heavy launch systems.

As for getting to Mars (or anywhere else), I favor reviving NERVA (or an equivalent) or just admitting that we had the solution 50 years ago with Project Orion, and finally blast our way to the stars!

So again, my apologies to Martin and Canadian space enthusiasts everywhere. (I'll also acknowledge it's kinda hard to develop a good orbital insertion vehicle when you can't take advantage of near-equatorial launch sites.)

Ad astra, per astra.

So again, my apologies to Martin and Canadian space enthusiasts everywhere.

I could have been more pointed in my snark, but I've been a critic of the SLS on this forum for quite some time, so I didn't really elaborate why.

(I'll also acknowledge it's kinda hard to develop a good orbital insertion vehicle when you can't take advantage of near-equatorial launch sites.)

Well, it does depend on the the intended final orbit of the payload. Vandy is almost perfect for sun sync orbits and going off of memory here, but doesn't Wallops in VA need less Delta V than the Cape for ISS missions due to better inclination? – But the ISS inclination is due to the need for the Russians launching out of Baikonur Cosmodrome and that's another kettle of fish.

…….my apologies to Martin and Canadian space enthusiasts everywhere.

No worries. We are an irascible bunch, eh?