SLS first launch was supposed to be no later than December 31, 2016, as specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.
QuoteSLS first launch was supposed to be no later than December 31, 2016, as specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. I never realized before they had fixed a date to fly that beast... And I'm pretty shocked by that said date. December 2016 WTH ? Quite a long time ago...!!!Unbelievable how the politics behind that 2010 SLS deal were insane and dishonest at the same time. Sickening, really sickening.
Quote from: Archibald on 03/21/2019 05:58 amQuoteSLS first launch was supposed to be no later than December 31, 2016, as specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. I never realized before they had fixed a date to fly that beast... And I'm pretty shocked by that said date. December 2016 WTH ? Quite a long time ago...!!!Unbelievable how the politics behind that 2010 SLS deal were insane and dishonest at the same time. Sickening, really sickening. When the date of December 2016 was put into law it took NASA just a few months to announce that they wouldn't be able to make that date. December 2017 was the earliest NET they could give.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/21/2019 08:10 amQuote from: Archibald on 03/21/2019 05:58 amQuoteSLS first launch was supposed to be no later than December 31, 2016, as specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. I never realized before they had fixed a date to fly that beast... And I'm pretty shocked by that said date. December 2016 WTH ? Quite a long time ago...!!!Unbelievable how the politics behind that 2010 SLS deal were insane and dishonest at the same time. Sickening, really sickening. When the date of December 2016 was put into law it took NASA just a few months to announce that they wouldn't be able to make that date. December 2017 was the earliest NET they could give.note that I blamed especially politics and not NASA. And you confirm even NASA felt the politics were insane or absurd or both.
Sure, the commercial EM-1 is not going to happen, but anyone who believes that SLS is safe and unchanging "because the senate" is in for a rude surprise.----If the administration wants to cancel SLS and/or Orion, one of them will likely be cancelled and/or scaled back. Whatever survives will be in a diminished state. Many SLS backers remain in Congress, but many have also left office.
....I do have hopes for the SLS, but I will be disappointed if they don't at least get to the Block IB stage; I already figured Block 2 would be impossible but the EUS' lift is vital; Block I was always a joke flight.
Many SLS backers remain in Congress, but many have also left office.
4) No flight for Europa Clipper, although perhaps either another Outer Planet or Astronomy mission flies via SLS
Falcon Heavy expendable can send 7.7 t directly to Jupiter.
Quote from: clongton on 03/26/2019 11:46 amFalcon Heavy expendable can send 7.7 t directly to Jupiter. That number does not hold water.
Quote from: ugordan on 03/26/2019 12:00 pmQuote from: clongton on 03/26/2019 11:46 amFalcon Heavy expendable can send 7.7 t directly to Jupiter. That number does not hold water.Agree. Even with a STAR-48, the best case is 5.5 t to a C3 of 80 km2/s2, assuming SpaceX's advertised 26.7 t to GTO-1800 is accurate and the upper stage burnout mass is also 5.5 t.
Agree. Even with a STAR-48, the best case is 5.5 t to a C3 of 80 km2/s2, assuming SpaceX's advertised 26.7 t to GTO-1800 is accurate and the upper stage burnout mass is also 5.5 t.
The breakthrough referenced by Goldstein involved the addition of a Star 48 "kick stage" to the Falcon Heavy rocket, which would provide an extra boost of energy after the rocket's upper stage had fired. With this solid rocket motor kick stage, Goldstein said Clipper would need just a single Earth gravity assist and would not have to go into the inner Solar System for a Venus flyby.
Destination dv1 (m/s) mc1 (t) vmGTO 2440 26.7 0.775554Mars 3600 16.8 0.824244Pluto 8360 3.5 0.726665
Quick question: why is Falcon Heavy being discussed in a thread that is about SLS?