• SpaceX to provide BFR Update + Lunar Tourist announcement at 1am UTC Tuesday
    67 replies, posted
Ignoring SLS, why do you believe that - other than being complicated and expensive - that SpaceX cannot develop and fly BFR?
Oh goody Gonna keep this very brief. There has never been a publicly developed plan for a Lunar Space Station outside of Gateway and the weird Russian one that is supposed to begin launching in the late 2030s. SLS/Orion is not powerful enough to facilitate exploration of any meaningful capacity beyond LEO. Not until Block 2 which is 8-10 years away by NASA estimates. It can just about do Gateway, and not even that without leaning on Commercial launch. Almost any mission that Block I SLS can launch can be made to use Falcon Heavy/Delta IV Heavy/Atlas 551, time isn't an issue for most NASA programs, Europa Clippers weight that is "only" within SLS performance is mainly just added fuel to slow down from direct trajectory. Any of the Aforementioned rockets could do Europa Clipper in an Earth Flyby delivery mode. LOP-G is just an extra step in what are complex and expensive missions to cislunar space. It offers nothing of value to anything except giving SLS something to do. Throwing away THE most capable reusable engines ever is tragic but you are technically correct that just using RS-25s is quicker than anything else would've been to develop. The fact that SLS is utilising all of this old hardware to is what is making the program go slow, all of that hardware was meant for vastly different use-cases and reconciling the two different systems they were/are going to be used on is what has led to this quagmire. BFR has just 4 more first stage engines than Falcon Heavy and doesn't split into three seperate landing entities. BFB is just a giant Falcon 9 style core, it's ambitious but not particularly more complicated than launch and landing of F9 is. Second stage is more a gamble and it's no surprise that that is where the focus on the design lies both from SpaceX and the people following the progress of this system. One of these rockets is designed from scratch with all brand new technology. The other is built from parts from the 80s and is pulling bits out of museums to actually fly. One of these things is "Kerbal", can you guess which one it is. SpaceX is a private company, if it wasn't making money, they'd go out of business. If reuse wasn't earning it's investment back they would not still be doing it and they certainly wouldn't be betting the entire company on a new system designed to take as much advantage of reuse as possible. SLS is a creature of congress, after constellation no-one at NASA wanted to touch the Mike Griffin tainted rockets (RIP "the stick"). It was ordered to be made by congress,. NASA has failed to make a rocket capable of enabling any significant beyond LEO exploration and it's not entirely their own fault. Political goals do not good space exploration goals make.
I was referring to the SLS in that sentence — hence the use of "its power." You mention yet again that the SLS has "no where to go" yet don't provide a reason as for why. Why can't the SLS lead the way for increased human presence beyond LEO? I said "Shuttle for beyond LEO" not in a literal sense, but in a metaphorical sense. They are both designed to do the same thing but for different regions of space. You say that the SLS can't do this but don't provide an explanation as to why. I mentioned a slew because of things like ATLAST, LUVIOR, Bigelowe 2100 module, a Uranus orbiter, Mars sample return mission, even stuff like an intersteller probe capable of reaching 400 AU in 10 years, all things proposed that benefit greatly from SLS's power. And no, because the Falcon Heavy has a weak second stage, it cannot preform the Europa Clipper direct mission, neither can stuff like the Delta IV Heavy. You mention yet again that the SLS is "jammed full of shuttle parts" when there's the RS-25s, SRBs, and uhh... some flight avionics? The RS-25s are the most efficient rocket engines ever built. Can you think of any rocket engine comparable to its power? Lets not also forget that they are already man-rated and that NASA already have decades of experience with them. What should NASA had done then, hmm? Spend an couple extra billion and delay the SLS by a couple years just so that they can brag that they're using brand new engines now? And no, Constellation wasn't nearly as close to what the SLS was when it got cancelled. The Ares I-X test flight was literally a 4 segment Shuttle SRB with some boilerplate strapped to the top, and the first test flight for Ares V was shaping up to happen in the 2030s. All the parts for EM-1 are done. They are sitting around awaiting final testing before the full scale green test fire next year. It would be political suicide for them to just laugh and stamp a Mars direct plan while completely ignoring LOP-G. That is not the way NASA funding works. It's also hilarious how you just completely disregard all of my grievances with Musky's boondoggle as "hating" while spending your entire post ragging on a completely different rocket. You are way, way, way, to jaded about NASA. Do you really expect SpaceX, a company that has yet to put a single man in space despite years of work and billions in federal aid to beat the largest and most well funded space exploration organization in the world? I have many reasons for why I think BFR will never be made, at least not soon, beyond the inherent complexity and extreme cost of such a rocket. Chief among them is that there's just no use for a massive rocket. The Delta IV Heavy launches once a year with top secret NROL payloads that don't weigh more than ~28 tons weight max. The Falcon Heavy, despite all the hype about "cheap mass to orbit" still only has the three contracts its had for years, one of which is an Air Force verification payload. There's just no demand for so much weight in orbit. Can SpaceX make the BFR if they really wanted to? Maybe. Can they make it without government funding and within a decade after the design finalization? I don't think so.
I keep saying SLS has no where to go because the only thing it's only being used for in crew configuration (right now) is to build and then use Gateway, that isn't "going anywhere" that's building a destination for yourself. This isn't a trailblazing accomplishment. If you wanted to build a space station around the moon you could do it using Commercial lift vehicles or SLS Cargo. We don't need to send astronauts out to NRLO to do what could be accomplished with autonomous docking. Beyond Gateway, how does SLS get us to Mars? Or the Moon Surface? If SLS requires Gateway to do these things then you are paying for maintaining and utilising Gateway on top of any other mission, and as prerequisite it means none of these can be accomplished until Gateway is finished (by NASA timelines) in 2026. Only then can you start delivering hardware to enable a Mars or Moon Surface mission by launching it to Gateway and then waiting a year to actually crew and utilise your investment. When the Space Exploration Initiative called for giant vessels constructed in LEO to enable Mars Exploration it never even got started. It added cost and time that isn't feasible on the timeline of US Presidential Administrations. I'll say again that Orion and Shuttle are incomparable, the Shuttle succeeded despite flaws and no overarching construction project until ISS, because it had the capability of the Remote Manipulation System and the ability to service things in space. Orion can do Apollo-style transposition and docking of host payloads, it's much less versatile. If SLS was starting at Block 2, I'd be able to bat more pro-SLS, that is a rocket able to do some shit, it's the absolute minimum required for meaningful exploration. Even then it would have to drop Orion because Orion cannot endure in deep space long enough to do Mars Missions without the addition of a dedicated Deep Space Habitat (scheduled for NET 2032 btw), Orion is the limiting factor on SLS's capabilities, it's simply too optimised for the Constellation era goal of extended Moon surface missions filling the role of the Apollo CSM. Orion has been development since 2004 and has flown once, when SLS was chosen by NASA they shouldn't have kept it for the above reasons. But because they had no destination in mind, they simply kept that Capsule with a rework, it's not optimised for anything other than Moon. Can't argue with SLS's capabilities at throwing large things at high speed. It's Hydrolox upper stage makes the only comparable system the Delta IV rocket family, which is conveniently where ICPS is coming from, it just has to do less work achieving orbit. EUS is another step in the right direction but again won't ready anytime soon. I also won't argue with the size of Block 2's fairing, that thing is huuuuge. However you are getting hung up on the Europa Clipper direct trajectory. It is being designed to fly on SLS. As with much of everything unmanned in spaceflight, you use the launcher you have. So the direct trajectory is made possible by SLS, the Europa Clipper mission is not. FH could launch Europa Clipper with a single Earth Assist, another rocket could do it with more assists, the question could be framed as being: is it worth an extra $350 million to get there 2 years faster? JPL think so (I agree, no reason not to) and there isn't much anyone can do to convince them. Features that SLS and Shuttle share: Common Main Engine (RS-25. Was reusable, now not) Common SRBS (Extra Segment admittedly. Were reusable, now not) Diameter and structure of Core Stage (External Tank structure) Spacecraft engines (OMS. Were reusable, now not) Hydrolox propulsion The only rockets in history to successfully share as much hardware was Saturn 1B and Saturn V (Ignoring extra core variants of existing rockets) and that was because S-1B was a testbed for S-V. Those were designed in tandem, Shuttle and SLS were not. It isn't a case where you are redesigning a rocket to take a common upper stage as was the case with Atlas/Titan - Centaur and it's storied history By comparison to pretty much every other rocket in the modern world, SLS is built using a lot of old technology that has been touched up, the fact that they are using old technology isn't the issue (Let me tell you how much the RL-10 makes me moist). It's the fact that this particular set of old tech wasn't fit for rapid ramp up of SLS and due to these parts being built as reusable components and made to last, they are expensive right now and require even more investment and time to become expendable and therefore cheaper to make. I won't debate the RS-25 thing to be honest, they are truly remarkable engines. They just aren't what is ideal for a single stick heavy launch vehicle. There is truth to what we are both saying w/regards to the engines. Constellation was seeing delays at a rate of progression of natural time, so one year down the line in that program could result in a year delay (or even more, constellation requires a whole post of critique), in order to make it seem like the program was progressing they threw something together that could be launched quickly in order to bolster public support. EM-1 since 2016 (2 years) has been delayed from Late September 2018 (lol, look at that) to 2020 and I'll shove a model of SLS up my asshole if that date holds. SLS is going to be 2 years away in the sense that Falcon Heavy was been 6 months away for years before it finally launched. The way NASA funding works means that if Gateway actually comes about means that current NASA is fucking over future NASA to the tune of several billion dollars a year worth of funding. Obama had no problem knifing Constellation, Nixon had no problem funding a tenth of what shuttle was meant to work within leaving just the albeit very versatile Orbiter. All NASA programs are subject to the whims of US Congress and that is an impairment that will mean SLS will optimistically only ever be used for Gateway, the path we're on right now doesn't take us beyond Lunar Orbit. I don't want to rag on SLS, but the longer that the rocket isn't flying and the longer it takes to actually accomplish anything worthy of NASA the sentiment against it is only going to grow, I've watched NASASpaceflight go from Pro-SLS to ignoring it because it is just too slow a program, considering where that site was when I first joined that forum in terms of opinions that is truly startling. You've got ex-shuttle guys over there now in disbelief at how SLS is being run and more excited for SpaceX activity than NASA. BFR is ambitious, it's going to utilise so many things that have never been done before and to be honest there is a non-trivial chance the rocket never makes it to service. It's exciting, it's disrupting how people think about spaceflight. BFR isn't safe, it requires all new thinking and technologies and disciplines on a scale not seen since Shuttle first came to service. That rocket has a clear goal and plan in mind, to get people from Earth to Mars. Whatever it does before or after is a bonus. It relies on unproven ways of conducting missions using construction techniques that aren't fully tested. The frontier isn't just how far into space you go, it's how you get there. The difference between SLS and BFR is the same kind of revolution in thinking that you'd find between Gemini and Shuttle. SLS looks like a dinosaur in comparison to existing launch systems like Falcon 9 and Heavy, in the public eye who don't understand space as intimately as you do, why doesn't SLS land? why have we started throwing away the spacecraft after every mission? why does SLS launch less often than shuttle? why does it look and feel like NASA has gone backwards? SLS can't stand up to the pace of innovation that is currently underway. It needs to be launched ASAP, achieve the goals laid out for it ASAP. Otherwise we may well see a BFR landing cargo on the moon before EM-2. To be fair however, we may also see Gateway completed before BFR does anything of note. That's the way these things can go. SLS needs to be executed better than it has starting right now. I just don't forsee SLS maintaining support from the public all the way to the presidency of the US if/when BFR is flying regularly. A long time ago I loved SLS and thought it was the right direction, there was a time before reusable rockets and commercial LEO cargo and crew during which SLS was absolutely what was required, big payloads, a push out from LEO, ambitious plans that were back to doing things that were daring and exciting. The Paradigm has started to shift, if it starts getting cheaper to launch Falcon Heavy, Vulcan or New Glenn (or yes, BFR) rockets to execute what SLS is planned to do then NASA won't be able to continue the program, the political support is going to drop out from underneath it and kill it dead. I am absolutely not jaded about NASA, that isn't what I said, again, don't put words in my mouth. I'm jaded about SLS. NASA's purpose driven and goal-orientated Earth Science, Robotic Exploration and Astrophysics (despite JWST's eternal dev hell) are exactly what I admire, no-one can do what they do on those fronts. They push the boundaries and accomplish new milestones with regular cadence. Outside of SLS and Gateway, NASA is a tremendously exciting organisation doing awe-inspiring things. I have faith in SpaceX because they have that purpose driven and goal orientated approach to BFR and their wider Mars plans. NASA's HSF program since shuttle ended has been adrift, no purpose, no end goal and I'm bored of repeating this point. Why have SpaceX not launched a single man yet? Because the company is 16 years old and the commercial crew contact was confirmed for Spacex 4 years ago, this isn't an easy program for either them or Boeing, both have done really well with working with NASA as they delegate the responsibility of US Human Spaceflight to private entities for the first time ever. As it stands, SpaceX are looking to win the Commercial Crew race against Boeing, a storied and gargantuan titan of the Aerospace industry. All the while the two of them have developed the two best LEO human transport spacecraft in history. Doubting that SpaceX can do something is a dangerous game, they continue to innovate at a pace unheard of since the 60s, the amount "firsts" that SpaceX has accomplished is going to keep growing and very soon that will include "Human Spaceflight by a private company on a private vehicle". As for federal aid, SpaceX are a private company being paid by the US Government to provide a service, something they have done and will continue to do, without those massive contracts SpaceX wouldn't not just have reusable F9, the company wouldn't exist at all, what SpaceX spend their profits on is their own business. It's a helluva lot better than watching Boeing crawl through building SLS or LM building Orion picking up far bigger paychecks. The vast majority of accomplishments in spaceflight lie ahead of us, not behind. NASA, not SpaceX, will be the one to answer the greatest questions currently facing us, they might not build the rocket that takes us to where the answers are, they sure as hell are going to fly on it. That rocket may not be BFR, I seriously deeply doubt that rocket is SLS, it may well not be built for another 20 years. What's important is that someone is trying to build it. SpaceX aren't going to do the scientific legwork to answer the questions we have about Mars, they want to build the rocket to get people there to do it though. That is the express "mission" of SpaceX, it has been since 2002. The future could well remember the moment NASA saved a struggling company with a moment of faith that returned rewards far more exciting than if they had not. The future could also remember the SLS as another step in NASA's steady walk to Mars and further beyond. It's not ours to see what the future holds, we can only pin our hopes on the most exciting prospects that appear. P.S. Why am I unable to make these posts more concise? I'm just spouting walls of text and I can't help but feel that it's not fair to leave this much to address whilst debating something.
Why isn't 95tons to LEO with 26 tons to TLI on Block 1 and 105tons to LEO with 37 tons to TLI not sufficient for a drastically increased manned presence beyond LEO? How powerful does it have to be? Block 1 missions cannot be preformed with commercial vehicles because they are not man-rated in addition. And yes, any commercial rocket can do the Europa Clipper mission in a traditional fly-by style, but only the SLS can do it directly and shave years off the travel. That's the whole point of using it. You act as if "brand new technology" means anything when it comes to rocketry. Things are constantly being iterated and improved upon. I've linked a PowerPoint detailing how Rocketdyne are updating the RS-25s to make them cheaper and simpler to build. Just because they were first designed decades ago doesn't mean they can't be just as capable as modern engines. I never questioned SpaceX turning a profit, I questioned his statement that SpaceX are earning massive profits from their rockets since he mentioned that the launch only costs SpaceX 1/10 of the customer's price. Unless he has access to SpaceX's private financial documents, I'm going to assume that SpaceX operate under the same razor thin profit margins the rest of the industry do. There are legitimate criticisms to be had about the SLS and NASA in general, and you are right in the assertion that they are beholden to Congress, but its the best we got and we just have to deal with it. And honestly, criticizing NASA and the SLS so heavily while taking all of SpaceX's and Musk's words at face value seems disingenuous at best. I would love to believe that SpaceX can do all the hair brained schemes Musk comes up with, but I just can't believe they can.
The problem with SLS isn't the power. It's the launch cadence and cost. The most optimistic estimates for the per-flight cost of SLS are about $500M, with more realistic NASA estimates being in the $1B range. That means launches are going to be few and far between, unless NASA gets some serious funding. Even if all the R&D budget for SLS gets turned into launches in future years, that's two to four launches per year - and that leaves no money to develop and construct the actual payloads, except Orion itself. So a more realistic estimate is one or two launches per year, comparable to the Saturn V launch cadence. No rocket currently being designed can give a "drastically increased manned presence beyond LEO" with two launches a year. SLS, BFR, New Glenn, LM9, none of them would be able to establish any sort of permanent or even semi-permanent presence with that sort of tempo. Even just doing an ISS-like space station would require an entire SLS mission annually just to supply it (ISS requires about 40Mg/yr). You might argue that we currently have zero manned presence beyond LEO, but I really don't think SLS justifies itself as an Apollo 2.0, going out there and doing short missions and coming back. It certainly isn't being pitched that way. That is what BFR promises - not just brute lifting ability, but tempo. Elon, crazy motherfucker that he is, is talking about BFS fleets in the dozens, making convoy flights to Mars. Even without reusability, the estimated unit cost is $300M - that alone, with NASA's current SLS budget, would provide six to seven flights a year. The (quite optimistic) estimates for per-flight costs are $7M. Even if that goes up an order of magnitude, NASA could afford thirty a year.
While what gman003-main said is true. The crux of my issue with SLS is that it has to launch Orion. Orion just isn't anything like good enough, it's too heavy and not capable of doing much beyond Gateway. The efficiency of the rocket launching it isn't in question. The fact that Orion can support 4 crew for 3 weeks (where can it get to in that time?) while only having 1800m/s DeltaV of power (~1000m/s is required for Lunar Orbit Insertion in the Apollo architecture e.g. from higher energy free return trajectories). If SLS were launching a lighter (Fully Fueled Orion is potentially up to 20 tons) Spacecraft with more DeltaV which could endure deep space longer I would have way fewer issues. I could look past the flaws of the system because the ends would justify the means. In an ideal world SLS would be more powerful (or any other rocket for that matter) but Orion would be less shitty at enabling beyond LEO travel first and foremost. Block 1 is actually going to be man-rated when it wasn't meant to, up until recently Block 1 would launch EM-1 and only the man-rated Block 1B would launch crew. ICPS (literally just a Delta 4 upper stage with tweaks) isn't man-rated right now, don't be surprised if this knocks EM-2 slightly down the line. Gateway Modules on Commercial rockets launched unmanned would require Category 3 certification, of which the US has two flying (Delta 4 Heavy, Atlas 5) with Falcon 9 following soon. If PPE were to be launched, it'll likely be one of those or FH should it be certified in time (it would also need this for Europa Clipper). Brand new technology is required to achieve things further beyond what we've done before. It means everything, there is a reason that we aren't using Jupiter rockets today, it's because new technology is better, SLS is a victim of the circumstances of the time of it's design, I won't argue that. Jump back to 2011 and tell NASA it ain't going well in 2018 and they'd shrug and design it much the same again. It's a frustration that goes back further than SLS, NASA just weren't interested in developing new engine tech since the RS-25 anyway, when Constellation was underway there were efforts to restart production of improved designs of old engines, not all of them came out too well (RIP J-2X). Making old engines good enough (and cheap enough) for the modern day isn't easy, Aerojet Rocketdyne have done well in updating the RS-25 but the real credit should go to their work on the RL-10. That engine is old as shit and continual development has made it not just the best at what it does, but cheaper than most of the competition now too. If RS-25 had had the RL-10 treatment (and it may well in future) I'd have fewer issues again. You are completely correct though, the RS-25 hasn't become less effective as an engine since they were launching shuttles. SpaceX are earning massive profits, their commercial prices are slowly dripping down but they are making shit-tons of money from the USG. On the commercial market they have to compete with everyone, that's why their prices are comfortably lower than everyone else in the same Payload bracket. But for USAF or NASA missions they only have to compete with ULA or NG's rockets. That's their biggest money maker, they can raise their price by $30-40 million and still easily beat them. That's just free money. How we can tell that SpaceX don't operate under razor-thin profit margins is that their price is too flexible. ULA weren't operating under thin profit margins either until SpaceX came along, as soon as the Falcon 9 could start competing in the same bracket as Atlas V the price of Atlas V miraculously started to drop by millions of dollars, we see the limit of ULA pricing because they won't go below certain prices. We see this with Falcon 9 as well. Reuse again is only going to cut costs, if it wasn't saving them money they wouldn't have invested in developing the Block 5. They are selling 2nd and 3rd flights of Block 5 at $50 Million, a drop in $11.2 million since block 4. That's not a move they would make unless A) They felt the competition was becoming too close to their previous prices and B) That they have that amount of profit to lose while still being able to fund the development of products at the company. SpaceX are making good money out of their Commercial launch services, but the big bucks are coming from USG and NASA. I have had concerns about SLS for god knows how long, recent news like this just pushed me over the edge, I don't like the fact that NASA's HSF program has again had a massive gap in the ability to launch astronauts. Do you know who the next (not Russia) entity to put astronauts in space again are going to be? SpaceX, a 16 year old company that is going to beat mature aerospace titan Boeing to the kick for almost half the cost. SLS is not the best we've got because we don't have it yet. It hasn't launched yet, it could get delayed again and again like it has been for the past few years. It's great to talk about what SLS is going to do in the future. Here's a little disclaimer before I go any further, I think Musk is a colossal egotistical tit. I think he gets caught dreaming years ahead of where his focus should be, this is why Tesla is under the cosh (shoo, shoo Morgen) unlike at Tesla however, SpaceX has people like Gwynne Shotwell, Tom Mueller and Hans Koenigsmann. By reducing the work of some of the current greatest talent of Aerospace down to "Musk and his hair-brained schemes" you are missing the point entirely. SLS is not going to be utilised in a goal-orientated way, it may be used to launch great science missions, the product of NASA's other departments which do operate in goal-orientated ways. The crewed program that SLS is going to be used for is not purpose-driven or goal-orientated, the Saturn V was created to go to the moon, the N-1 was created to go to the moon, shuttle was created to make spaceflight quick and easy. SLS didn't have a comparable goal at it's inception, NASA has been spending it's human spaceflight budget on a launch vehicle, not a program to achieve anything worthy of NASA. This is why people say Gateway is make work, it's a stitched together "program" to give the rocket something to do and the crews it will launch something to do. So perhaps I should reconsider what I want to drive home. SLS is a symptom of NASA no longer being capable or willing of pursuing ambitious HSF projects. It won't ever take humans to Mars, as NASA plans it right now, it will be used to build an architecture around the moon that could maybe one day be used to depart to Mars from. It could maybe host a reusable crewed lunar lander that won't be developed for another 10 years, Orion's greatest accomplishment would be dropping off humans to a Mars Vehicle, so why do it around the moon? Why is NASA's HSF program so keen to needlessly rely on extraneous hardware in a useless location to accomplish anything? We don't need Gateway to go back to the moon, and we definitely don't need to use it to go to Mars. Mars Direct was written in 1990 and didn't need a Gateway, 28 years later the most viable looking plan to get to Mars is SpaceX and they also don't seem to think they need Gateway. The rocket is designed to go to Mars, the payload is designed to go to Mars. The BFR "program" is goal-orientated and purpose-driven with a laser-guided focus to get to Mars. Just like SLS could feasibly launch something to LEO if the need arose so can BFR. It is the manner in which the rockets are intended to be used that really irks me. NASA's HSF program or the SLS development program hasn't advanced the art of space travel since 2011. Since then SpaceX has upgraded Falcon 9 to be a workhorse rocket, made it reusable, competed and won the Commercial Crew Contract and will launch Astronauts soon, the sheer low cost of SpaceX launch vehicles have enabled new players to access space and help accomplish growth of space utilisation. They've successfully developed a series of vehicles that has lowered the cost of heavy lift to just under $3000/kg to LEO. that covers payloads from 3 tons all the way up to 63 tons. SpaceX and their "hair-brained schemes" have been a roaring success, they've upended a status quo that was dragging it's feet. Is BFR really that much more ambitious than landing rockets from space? All the same, at this point I'm not invested in SLS, just like you may not be invested in BFR. I know that I will tune in and watch as SLS launches for the first time, I have all these misgivings about it but in the end, I won't be riding on it, I'm not pinning actual life changes on SLS or BFR. So I'll kick back and enjoy the show, I'll just be expecting BFR to be more successful because I believe that it is the superior system. If you don't like BFR or SpaceX or Musk then whatever, I'm sure you'll be watching if/when the first BFR launches just like so many other people. Just because our subjective opinions have settled on two opposing view points doesn't mean that both vehicles are not objectively magnificent machines. We'll disagree on just what makes one system better than another and why that is exactly but doesn't need to kill the excitement and inspiration of space exploration, I'm still able to watch a Delta II launch without foaming at the mouth about how Falcon 9 could do it better. I'm a space fan, I want to see great things happen as often as possible and I just don't believe SLS is the vehicle that will do that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.