Form Sls: Fill & Download for Free

Why is Elon's Starship expected to be better than the SLS, if they will get the same amount of payload to orbit?It’s true that both the SLS and Starship have similar payload capacity to low Earth orbit, but that’s where the similarities end. In terms of outright ability, the Starship simply crushes anything the SLS can do thanks to orbital refuelling.As an example, consider the abilities of the SLS in it’s design role as a lunar supply vehicle for the Artemis missions. In block 1 configuration, the SLS can deliver 26 tonnes to the lunar surface, now compare that to a Starship, which can deliver 100 tonnes to the moon’s surface.Each SLS mission will require the construction of a complete new vehicle, with only the tiny Orion capsule at the top of the stack being re-used. The Starship is designed to be fully reusable, with nothing being discarded between missions.The SLS uses 1980s technology, and can best be described as a Space Shuttle without the orbiter part (you know, the cool space plane that flew back to Earth each time). The Starship is a new concept that uses revolutionary Raptor engines of a type that have never been flown before (nobody could build one until now, although the Russians came very close), and uses the concept of orbital refuelling to basically reset the rocket equation at LEO, thus giving the Starship its amazing capabilities.Before orbital refuelling, the rocket equation demanded multiple staging events, which boiled down to “throwing away the bits as you used the fuel up”, which confined you to ever decreasing payloads as your altitude increased. This was a solution that allowed us to get to the moon if you didn’t mind the hideous expense involved, but it’s not a sustainable answer for any sort of long term efforts.Which brings us to the price difference between the two systems. Here the difference is simply huge. Each and every SLS launched will cost over $1 billion (close to $2 billion at first, then dropping to under $1 billion after several flights), which makes for a very expensive payload price. A Starship on the other hand is expected to cost 1/10 of that (with the price dropping sharply as the production facilities at Boca Chica become more developed), and the best part is that the entire system will be used over and over again. Now the price per launch drops to just $2 million (fuel and ground services), which is 100 times cheaper than a SLS, for 4 times the payload.Which seems a better way forward?

The SLS is using 1970’s-1980’s shuttle technology. It’s basically a Space Shuttle tank, equipped with Space Shuttle engines, and using Space Shuttle boosters. The difference is that instead of a space shuttle on the side, the SLS has a 2nd stage rocket on top.The SLS could have been a good system had it been developed in the 1980’s, and operated since then. With its greater payload capacity, it would have been a better alternative to the Space Shuttle. And now, after 25–30 years in service, when new disruptive space technologies are becoming available, it would be a good time for it to retire.The SLS has no technological or cost advantage at all when compared to SpaceX existing and already operational rockets. It will have a slightly better capacity than the Falcon Heavy. When the SLS will be operational in 2021 (if you believe there will be no further delays), it will be able to lift 95 tons to Low Earth Orbit, while the Falcon Heavy can only lift 64 tons. Having said that, the extra 30% capacity doesn’t really justify paying 10 or 20 times more per launch. There is no mission the SLS will be able to perform that can’t be re-design at a much lower cost by using a combination of the already available Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.And once SpaceX’s future system, the Starship / SuperHeavy become available, then the SLS will be totally and absolutely obsolete. Starship will be 100% reusable, and it will be able to lift to LEO more than the SLS, at about 1% of the SLS launch cost. Additionally, customers will be able to use it at a much higher frequency. i.e. While NASA will be able to use the expendable SLS perhaps once per year, it will be able to use the reusable Starship hundreds or thousands of times per year.Moreover, the way both projects progress now, the Starship may be operational BEFORE the SLS. It may reach orbit in 2020 while the SLS will not fly before 2021.In conclusion:Developing the SLS in the 1980’s or the 1990’s would have made sense. Developing it today at an extremely high cost using obsolete concept and obsolete technology make no sense at all other then what other Quoran already wrote about - a political job creation program at certain districts favored by certain politicians.

Because those readily available rockets you are referring to are not capable of performing the missions for which SLS is intended. SLS will be man rated and will lift large payloads far beyond low Earth orbit. It will give NASA the capability to propel a crewed vehicle and/or supplies to the Moon, an asteroid, or to Mars.The Space Launch System (SLS) is planned to come in two versions. First will be built a 70 ton version and hopefully after that will come a 130 ton version.The 70 ton SLS will allow us to send an Orion capsule as far as an Earth-Moon Lagrange point. The 130 ton version will be able to go to Mars.The SLS uses tried and tested propulsion technology. The first stage consists of four Space Shuttle main engines (RS-25) and two solid rocket boosters. The upper stage uses the J2-X engine - an advanced version of the J2 that powered the upper stages of the Saturn V.