/sci/ - Science & Math

Boeing's vision for space exploration Edition
Previous >>16067566

>>16056806
>>16056804
now take away Orion R&D and manufacturing costs from that

>>16004941

>>15999194
1. Mass produce it. Cost goes down with economies of scale (Deep Space Transport LLC)
2. ICPS needs to go. J-2X EUS with ACES tech or nothing. Centaur/ICPS could be the third stage.
3. RS-25s need to go. Rocketdyne still has those RD-0120s (aka expendable SSMEs) in storage?
4. Replace SRBs w/ Castor 1200s.
SLS fills a niche in the launch market no other rocket can.
SLS has a clear advantage in the high energy orbital plane due to its insane efficiency using hydrolox, coupled with safety and precision.
We must keep flying SLS if we are to earn back what we invested.
Starship, frankly, does not compete with SLS for the applications they are built for.
Does Starship get higher to LEO? Yes, but they're not built to go to LEO.
SLS wins out by having an incredible efficiency, 366 sec at launch, 452 in space, and 468 in S2.
Starship? 330 at launch and (a goal of) 380 in space.
For an idea of how badly this affects a rocket, have a look at this graph provided by NASA LSP comparing Delta IV Heavy to Falcon Heavy.
Remember that FH launches significantly more to LEO than DIVH.
12 is the energy to get to Mars, 80 is to Jupiter. Saturn and Uranus need ~147 direct, and Parker Solar Probe needed 108.
Even Atlas V 551 beats Falcon Heavy to Mars.
While Expendable FH beats Delta IVH most of the way - based on extrapolation, DIVH wins for outer solar system.
SLS can do 10 Parker Solar Probes.