Why is SLS NON Reusable?

This is the first part in a two part series on why NASA's space launch system is an expendable rocket!

Part 1 delves into why SLS cant be reused in the typical sense, and Part 2 will cover reuse on the final frontier! Hope you enjoy!

Socials:

Credits:
NASA
SpaceX
Blue origin
ULA
Myself (for some of the renders)

Music:
Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0
Music promoted by Audio Library
• Mood – Peyruis (No Copyright Music)

Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0
Music promoted by Audio Library
• Rebirth – Peyruis (No Copyright Music)

Track: Perseverance — Land of Fire [Audio Library Release]
Music provided by Audio Library Plus
Watch: • Perseverance — Land of Fire | Free B...

Fallen Kingdom - Silent Crafter

Intro (0:00)
Why Rockets are Reusable (0:47)
SRB Reuse (3:49)
Core Stage Reuse (6:14)
Engine Section Reuse (7:50)
Conclusion (11:39)
Outro (12:43)

#SpaceLaunchSystem #Artemis #NASA

[AluminumOxide]

A simple but excellent and effective video detailing why SLS cannot be recycled. Now I know. Many thanks!

[pygzig]

Skylab II using a wet workshopped SLS core stage would be nuts.

[zettas]

Im subscribing finally someone who talks about SLS in a respectable and logical unbiased manner. Re-usability is a tradeoff not an abject upgrade. Im so sick of that argument being beaten against SLS like a dead horse. If it didn't have a purpose NASA wouldn't have put so much effort in bringing it together despite having to deal with Boeing's BS. Jim Bridenstein in kinder words basically had to tell Boeing to get their heads out of their Glasses (Not an auto-correct completely intentional) to get the core-stage ready on a timely manner. I more than understand the frustration with Boeing as a whole but lets not take that out on SLS itself. SLS is going to be a marvel to behold and I can't wait to finally see it fly.

[innosam]

Note that all proposals that assume reuse on more than just the core engine are optimized for LEO, with large second stages that do most of the heavy lifting.

This is why Starship proposes to use tens of refuelling flights for missions to the Moon and Mars, as it’s completely impractical beyond LEO otherwise (and honestly still iffy even WITH refuelling… the method makes more sense when you have some way of bringing in propellant from a lower-energy gravity well than Earth.)


I do still think core engine reuse may make sense at decent launch rates (say, 4x a year), considering the RS-25s are designed to be reused anyways (Shuttle-C proposed a method like this at similar launch rates.)

[GamerTayhong]

I am amazed how much intro is needed to justify SLS! It's really amazing.

[bpeng]

How aren't you making these videos at a loss? These are such high quality and underrated

[xycrypt]

This really changed my opinion on the SLS, I loved your point on the SRB, which was my main criticism before.

[_mikolaj_]

Now, here is good deal: put docking port on SLS core, and send dragon with some fancy tools.
We make new space station out of it.


EDIT: Wait a minute. Smart reuse with ablative heatshield is problematic. But... Why use ablative?

So i got this idea moment ago. Origami+ shuttle tiles.

We already are looking at different ways of folding solar panels. What if we could do same thing with heatshields? Have it fold out like a sheet of origami paper.

Id say far bigger challenge than heatshield is plumbing and actually separating engine section

[debott]

The thing with SLS is that it's a strategic asset for the US government. It is not designed to be economical. It has to do one task, at maximum effectiveness, and it cannot fail or prove to be unreliable. In that regard, it's much more similar to a military asset.

[SpaceXCountdown]

Congrats on 1k keep up the good SLS excuses🤣👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼🚀

[thejimmydanly]

Neat video, though the freestyle Eric Berger diss track went on a little long and I'm not quite sure it even belongs in the middle of the video.

[Jomads]

i feel like you're kind of forgetting that developing reuse is expensive and challenging, heavily reliant on launch cadence to be worth it, and that expendable launchers are able to match reusable ones in price (for example the H3)

[J.Astorga]

Great video! Just a note at 10:15, are your referring to heat or temperature?

[weebgrinder-AIArtistPro]

My rant aside this is a great video and I saw you post it on Reddit after watching. Hope you make more.

[aidantawney]

I personally feel like the reason that nasa should look at reuse for SLS is to try and increase the launch rate. If we don’t need to throw away the whole core stage, or heck even if we can get back some of the engines that could help and increase the number of launches. I agree that price is not a issue but I do have issue with the 1 launch a year. So if we can re use some parts and get to 2 launches a year that would be worth it for me.

[nagarjunkashyap]

Never knew you made such good videos. Subbed.

[nilsdohrmann]

2 things I would like to critisize:

1) While the music is quite funky I actually think it is a bit loud and distracting at times.

2) Your calculations regarding reentry heating seem a bit off. Sure, total heat load goes up with the cube of the velocity, bit this does not translate linearly to peak heating. Radiative heat transfer goes up with the temperature to the power of four, meaning you'd loose energy fairly quickly, the hotter it gets. Another concern is how that total heat load is being distributed troughout reentry, which can be influenced by flight profile. In this regard I would expect the near orbital flightpath of SLS's engine section to allow for a much shallower approach than for Vulcan, meaning longer breaking time and even lower peak heating. You might even end up with lower peak heating, despite higher entry velocities. Although I will say, that I have not done any proper calculations on this.

[divedevil]

It's a heavy lift. Reusability limits lift. SLS is maximum performance.

[Globovoyeur]

Today marks 36 years since the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger. The space shuttle was a magnificent vehicle, but it was not designed to be fully reusable. I hope everyone remembers the original design concept, pitched by the major aerospace companies in the competition: an orbiter would sit atop a carrier aircraft (a 747 or equivalent), be cut loose at 40, 000 feet or so, and thrust the rest of the way to orbit. Both vehicles would fly back to landing sites. Of course, that orbiter was smaller than what we got, being intended for crew transport but minimal cargo.

Due to government skimping on development money, design compromises made the STS more expensive and more dangerous than it might have been.

[jacobdaniel]

0:04 what are you talking about?.... If you are talking about using propellant to land a booster, only 2 companies do this (iirc). And Rockets have been recovered via parachutes for decades now....