Why do you have to speculate about this?Shouldn't there be an actual design for the SLS by now?Shouldn't you be able to just read these numbers from a report?
Why should there be a finalized design and numbers from a final design spec to cite when the program was only officially announced 15 months ago?Demonstrating your disapproval for the program by asking rhetorical questions that you already have answers to is unbecoming.
Oh, I'm sorry, it's only been 15 months.. you're obviously right, they couldn't possibly have a design ready in such a short amount of time.
So ~30 months before PDR is normal?
I want to understand how SLS compares to the shuttle stack. They use the same hardware so adding more thrust should make a more capable system.
Make the core so powerful that DCSS is useful?
Would it be cheaper to just keep upgrading DCSS rather than building the 8.4m upper stage? I guess NASA needs it to get to 130mt.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 12/12/2012 10:46 pmWhy should there be a finalized design and numbers from a final design spec to cite when the program was only officially announced 15 months ago?Demonstrating your disapproval for the program by asking rhetorical questions that you already have answers to is unbecoming.Oh, I'm sorry, it's only been 15 months.. you're obviously right, they couldn't possibly have a design ready in such a short amount of time.
While you mean this in a deeply sarcastic sense, you could be surprised just how many things happen in the real world that are built around 18 month milestone schedules, and there is still work to do before finalizing the design of the SLS core. This isn't Apollo; NASA doesn't have an essentially unlimited budget to throw at it, a clear purpose for the endeavor, or a firmly established deadline to maximize the efficacy of their jobs.
As these kinds of things go, STS has a miniscule budget and the design is far ahead of where many other programs are after only such a few months.
Phlease!!! The amount of half-truths (aka "lies") in your post is insulting - you think we are all dumb here?"after only such a few months". You think we aren't aware that NASA worked on a Shuttle derived LV, Ares-V, for SIX YEARS by now (and horribly failed)?"STS [sic] has a miniscule budget". Tell that to SpaceX, who spent just one billion TOTAL (not "per year"!) to successfully develop two new LV's, one capsule and five new rocket engines; and is well on the way to field a 50-tons-to-LEO heavy LV, to borrow your phrase, after only a few years from now?
Phlease!!! The amount of half-truths (aka "lies") in your post is insulting - you think we are all dumb here?"after only such a few months". You think we aren't aware that NASA worked on a Shuttle derived LV, Ares-V, for SIX YEARS by now (and horribly failed)?
"STS [sic] has a miniscule budget". Tell that to SpaceX, who spent just one billion TOTAL (not "per year"!) to successfully develop two new LV's, one capsule and five new rocket engines; and is well on the way to field a 50-tons-to-LEO heavy LV, to borrow your phrase, after only a few years from now?
It's very difficult to get a good picture of what a directly shuttle derived system should be capable of.
Anybody got the figures on what the highest shuttle lift off weights have been?
I scanned this thread, but didn't see some info that seems quite relevant to the original poster's questions. Quoting first from Written Statement for Testimony, Jim Chilton, Boeing Space Exploration Vice President, Program Manager, Space Launch System Stages, September 12, 2012: "To further reduce production costs, Core stage will use conventional rather than exotic materials for primary structure (AL2219 instead of AL2195)." As I understand it, this means tank masses more like the Shuttle LWT rather than the SLWT. NASA says AL2195 allows mass reduction of "large liquid propellant tanks by 25 percent." The SLS core dry mass makes quite a difference in overall performance.