Talk:Space Launch System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Block III/3?[edit]

The user generated table in this article includes mention to a Block III and its payload capabilities, however as it is only briefly mentioned in a single (non-NASA)reference, I think that shows that it is not, as far as I'm aware, even past the conceptual design stage. So if this table allows the inclusion of conceptual vehicles without any sign of official confirmation that it is even being studied, then Sea Dragon should definitely be included, as that did actually pass the brain-storming, concept stage.

So unless someone has new info on Block 3, I recommend its complete removal, either that, or the table becoming much-much bigger.

(Correction, I found another article that mentions this "Block III" and its dubiously* high payload lift capabilities of 150 metric tons to low earth orbit. However as it is also an old article, it describes SLS as having five RS-25 core engines, but we now know they dropped that idea entirely. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/sls-studies-focusing-sd-hlv-versus-rp-1-f-1-engines/ Even still, I'm highly skeptical of this 150 ton figure as the following source states that this very arrangement could lift only 138 tons "gross". http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30862.0;attach=515287;image )

Anyway, this has all got be thinking about the liquid rocket booster(LRB) variant of SLS block II, that surely should be included in the table as that arrangement might actually come to fruition at some stage(~2030), unlike this Block III/3 concept, which is out of the running as far as I can see? The Irish IP/185.51.72.3 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Block 2(II) includes advanced rocket booster, probably with liquid engines. Block II is listed in the table just above the Saturn V entry. I removed the Block III entry since it is speculative and not a planned version. Thanks for pointing this out. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that 150 tonnes to LEO is not 'dubiously high' for the SLS. With the advanced solid boosters, SLS Block II could probably do ~140 tonnes to LEO (zero inclination change, etc). With the advanced liquid boosters it would be in the 160 tonne to LEO range. SLS block II will never be developed for political and funding reasons, but it's certainly possible that they could hit 150 in block II, never mind some hypothetical not-even-a-paper-rocket block III. — Gopher65talk 23:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but that's back when they were estimating 70 to LEO for the block 1, ~94 tonnes for the block 1B, and 130 for the block 2 with solids. Since then the core stage estimate has been uprated, leading to greater estimated payloads on all versions. The most recent estimates floating around are ~140 for the block 2 with solids, and almost 160 with liquids. — Gopher65talk 03:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Gopher65 I haven't read anything that even remotely supports your suggestions here. Particularly the following: The most recent estimates floating around are ~140 for the block 2 with solids - Can you corroborate that with a reference?
Boundarylayer (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I've read it in a few different places, IIRC. Here is an estimate of the performance of the advanced solids. That was my 45 second long attempt to find a source on the first page of a google search, so I don't know if it's satisfactory or not. I know I didn't read it from that source, I think I got it from a few news articles a couple years ago, but I have no idea which ones. In addition to Block II's payload being bumped up, I seem to recall that the most recent version of Block 1 (the version of Block 1 that will actually fly) can do almost 90 tonnes to LEO (again, 200km circular orbit with zero inclination change). The Block 1B will be able to do ~108 tonnes to LEO. And that's without advanced boosters or anything:). Just an uprated second stage. — Gopher65talk 02:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Block I[edit]

Will Block I only fly one time before switching finally to Block IB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.86.172 (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed that seems to be the plan.
Boundarylayer (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Block I will only fly once before being decommissioned in favour of Block 1B. The original plan was to do at least two flights with Block 1, but the second flight would have been a crewed test flight. This would have meant man-rating Block 1 for use in a single crewed flight, which would have cost a great deal of money. If they'd gone that route, they'd *still* have needed to man-rate Block-1B anyway. Instead they chose to retire Block 1 after one test flight, and move directly on to Block 1B, skipping over the expensive certification of Block 1 altogether. — Gopher65talk 02:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Comparable: Falcon Heavy[edit]

SpaceX just updated FH payload to LEO to 64mT, which is about 10% less than SLS Block I payload to LEO. So I added Falcon Heavy to the "Comparable" list. Greg (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Payload mass to various orbits is unreadable[edit]

I think it would be great if payload mass per orbit had separate columns, also it should make sortability possible -- SpacePotatoe (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)