SLS MIGHT BE CANCELLED!

@Skye93 autocorrect strikes again “we’ll”

@Toinkove lol, we’ll, they have 9 brains (sorta)!

*yro’ue (I kid, I kid)

And yes, I am indeed. Comparing the nearly done launch system with the half-done LS is my point. I’m saying that Starship, despite being half-done, is, we’ll, I don’t like to say “better”, but SS is objectively better than SLS (or it will be, once it’s done, but it’s not far off, considering they’re going for cargo in 2025). It has more payload to LEO and can do it for just $2m as opposed to $4b per launch. SLS looks cool, but it’s stuck in the past. The obvious advantage that SS has over SLS is that it’s fully reusable, whatever we dispute or debate on, we can agree that reusable = good, I’m sure of that. You are right, we will have to see when the time comes, and I await with bated breath. However, it does look like SLS will be cancelled soon, what with Elon in DoGE, and Isaacman soon to be administrator of NASA. Plus, even at NASA right now, it seems to have shifted from 50-50 to 75-25 (in favour of cancellation). Dunno tho, we’ll see soon :)

@Insanity Ok, fair enough. R&D is expensive. SLS worked perfectly** (Orion Heatshield). Payload to orbit is a useless metric, considering the Starship test launches weren’t meant to put anything in orbit in the first place, kinda a moot point. $2m per launch is reasonable, as with a FRLV, all you have to pay for is ground support (minimal), worker time (like, 10-20k max), very brief refurbishment costs (minimal) and fuel. The fuel is nowhere near $2m, that’d be absolute insanity. It’s roughly 200k. Admittedly, there is some unproven tech left for Starship such as a ship catch, but that’s been reinforced by booster catch being proven. Not to mention, they can just use small landing legs like we saw on the 15km hops if they abandon ship catches. Orbital prop transfer was shown in IFT-3 when they transferred some prop from the header tanks to the main tanks and back during the coast phase. I, personally, can absolutely see Starship fully replacing SLS. With Isaacman (extremely pro-SpaceX) as head of NASA and Elon as head of DoGE, it’s likely SLS will be cancelled sooner rather than later. Starship has better payload capacity, and even if it ends up costing $20m per launch, it’ll still be far cheaper than SLS. And may I remind you that SLS was meant to be cheap? It used old shuttle hardware, the entire idea with that was to basically just slop ‘em together and go (simplified) in a few years (first flight meant for 2015, block 1b meant for 2017), and for a low cost at that. Instead, it took them 11 years just to get a single rocket in the air, and their next one is facing a 4-5 year delay. As for HLS, 29 is far too many. Starship V2 can hold ~1600t of propellant. Assuming 1 launch for HLS and another for a Depot, and assuming each tanker can hold 130t of fuel (Starship V2 has a payload capacity of 100-150 tons to LEO, but it has been hinted at that it’s in the upper range of those numbers). 1600 / 130 = 12.308. 1 launch for HLS, one for a Depot and 13 tankers, since you can’t have 12.3 rockets. The extra 0.7 of fuel can account for boiloff, I suppose, even though it’s only 3 weeks until HLS is completely empty. That’s 15 launches. 20 is a bold overstatement.

@Skye93 first of all, the total cost for starship including r&d seems to be closer to $5b (which mind you was in large parts payed for by nasa), additionally sls worked perfectly and flew orion around the moon on its first flight, starship has yet to put a single kilogram of useful payload into orbit, so just going off the number of launches is super disingenuous, especially since the first 2 didnt even get close to orbit. Also the $2m price per launch for starship is completely delusional, even if every aspect worked perfectly, thats like the price for fuel alone. I think its very impressive what spacex has been able to achieve so far but the amount of unsolved problems and unproven tech that starship relies on makes it difficult for me to imagine that it should be used as a complete replacement for sls. Sure sls is expensive and expandable but it has been proven to work, which cant be said for starship. And dont even get me started on hls, launching 20 starships to land on the moon once is ridiculous.

@Toinkove fair

@Toinkove indeed, however

SLS:

Cost (Including stuff like R&D): ~$10b

Cost per flight: ~$4b

First flight intended date: 2015 (believe it or not, this was the intended first flight date!)

First flight actual date: Nov 2022

Number of flights: 1

Progress since first flight: Orion heat shield problem somewhat fixed

Starship:

Cost (including stuff like R&D): ~$1-2b

Cost per flight: ~$100m (test flights) $2m (operational)

First flight initial date (after design was mostly finished): 2022

Actual first flight date: April 2023

Number of flights: 6, 7 in January

Progress since first flight: engines advanced hugely, prop slosh and clogging issues fixed, heat shield evolved, successfully survived reentry 3 times, successfully performed 4 propulsive landings (3 flights + SN15), caught booster, working on catching ship, new ship version undergoing testing

That’s quite a lot

@Toinkove I suppose, but it might be better to not use it as a crutch due to the $4b per launch cost

@Toinkove I suppose, but now that they have gotten a good grip on the Starship design, they’re moving at absurd rates. Just look at the upper stage, for instance. As soon as they got data on the flight 4 damage, they fixed the issue (mostly), and on Flight 5, the damage was minimal, and on flight 6, practically nonexistent. (Aside from the place where they removed tiles, but the damage from that was expected) They iterate so fast, i fully expect them to meet the uncrewed mars landing date of 2026, and if all goes well, I expect them to meet the manned landing date in 2028. If they can do an uncrewed Mars landing by 2026, and get the crew version finished in, let’s say, mid-2027, they can do a crewed lunar landing by late ‘27 or early ‘28. Considering Artemis II is currently scheduled for ‘26 or ‘27, that’s much earlier than the current Artemis III plan.

@Toinkove although Starship pace (development and launches) has been growing exponentially

@Toinkove sensible, even as a musk supporter

@Toinkove i mean, they’re aiming for 2026-27 for an uncrewed test of a crewed starship variant, then another with crew onboard. Shouldn’t be too bad, plus, they’re SpaceX. They can (and will) spend 2025 working on reusability and orbital refilling, presumably with life support and stuff in the background. NASA will likely help with life support systems, since it will play into Artemis (HLS or not). These factors will likely mean that Starship Crew is ready by ‘27. Plus, even if it does get delayed to ‘29-30, they may still beat China. Hopefully the US gov will wake up and realise space is important. Maybe when they see China is a threat. They don’t seem to think that (morons). Orion can be used, but… let’s be honest, it’s not great. A small capsule for 6 days travel time. Maybe we can go for a sort of Falcon Heavy / Orion deal for Artemis II? It could just barely work if the side boosters are expended. Honestly, I’m just happy SLS is probably done