Aethon

Blue Origin Thread (merged)

9351 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Claiming that Orion is a key part of a Mission to Mars is like saying that the dinghy carried on the Santa Maria was a key part of Columbus' expedition. If they are serious about going to Mars, they need to start designing the Santa Maria, not the dinghy.

NASA is serious about going to Mars, but they're even more serious about keeping Congress happy and the money flowing.  Congress wants a dinghy, Congress gets gold plated diamond encrusted dinghy.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, munlander1 said:

So right now, the only rocket in development for manned U.S flight is the Orion and sls? 

And Dragon, and Dreamchaser, and Starliner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DerekL1963 said:

And Dragon, and Dreamchaser, and Starliner.

Sorry I meant by NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

NASA is serious about going to Mars, but they're even more serious about keeping Congress happy and the money flowing.  Congress wants a dinghy, Congress gets gold plated diamond encrusted dinghy.

Very good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, munlander1 said:

So right now, the only rocket in development by nasa for manned U.S flight is the Orion and sls?

 

Well, Nasa is chipping in hundreds of millions to SpaceX and Boeing to help develop Commercial Crew vehicles. Congress has only approved around half of what has been requested, slowing development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I THINK a few missions after it had ejection seats.

Enterprise and Columbia were built with ejection seats for the commander and pilot.  Columbia flew with them for STS-1 through STS-4, all of which carried only two crewmembers.  On her next two flights, STS-5 and STS-9, the crew size was increased and the seats, while still installed, were disabled.  By Columbia's next mission, the orbiter had been overhauled and the seats were removed.

 

3 hours ago, munlander1 said:

Don't quote me on the last part though.

Too late.

Edited by razark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, razark said:

Too late.

:mad:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

There is hardly any Shuttle hardware in SLS. The only thing I can think of is the engines, and even those are modified.

According to wiki/internet, its solid boosters and main orange tank are shuttle's.

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That would probably put a final nail in the coffin of the whole program though.

Or a roulette chance, if otherwise it can be just closed... again.
Every time I hear about the asteroid mission, it shrinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

According to wiki/internet, its solid boosters and main orange tank are shuttle's.

Pretty much in name only.  Large parts of them had to be redesigned for SLS.  Find a better wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

According to wiki/internet, its solid boosters and main orange tank are shuttle's.

They added a fifth segment to the SRBs, changed the nozzle, added some different materials for different burn rates, and a few other changes. Those SRBs are NOT Shuttle SRBs. They are derived from Shuttle SRBs, but they've changed quite a lot.

As for the ET: it's plumbing and structure have essentially been redone. It's basically completely different, at least in the ways that matter. Vertical stacking is quite a bit different from side stacking.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

Makes me wonder what they'll do for EM-2 though. Maybe an Inspiration Mars-style mission?

If it can get to a NEO ( as planned for EM-2, http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats ) then it probably has the deltaV for a Venus Mars flyby ( assuming you can jam enough LS into it by dropping crew size etc etc etc ). This Venus Mars flyby I found using @PLAD's Flyby Finder passes Mars during Trump's ( potential ) second term and returns to Earth a couple days before the next President is sworn in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DBowman said:

If it can get to a NEO ( as planned for EM-2, http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats ) then it probably has the deltaV for a Venus Mars flyby ( assuming you can jam enough LS into it by dropping crew size etc etc etc ). This Venus Mars flyby I found using @PLAD's Flyby Finder passes Mars during Trump's ( potential ) second term and returns to Earth a couple days before the next President is sworn in.

Except Orion would be useless for that. It has a maximum flight duration of 30 days.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Except Orion would be useless for that. It has a maximum flight duration of 30 days.

one of the 'etc's? - they are not going to get to a NEO and back in 30 days - oh duh it's flyby of a captured one in cislunar space.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid question, but I wasn't following issue for some time... did they finally launched retrieved booster??

Doesn't matter, found the answer

Edited by dino1984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I know that STS-1 had ejection seats and I THINK a few missions after it had ejection seats. Don't quote me on the last part though.

The eventually removed the ejection seats. They were always entirely wishful thinking, however. There were 2 shuttle failures. The second would not have been survivable regardless, though I suppose ejection seats (if automated) might have saved crew in Challenger (the crew compartment clearly survived, but it is unclear if anyone, even with an ejection system could have initiated it due to the forces involved---automation in this regard is worrisome, since any failure in that system (wrongly initiating it) could be catastrophic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with SLS is, and has always been launch cadence. I just watched the House Committee meeting (with my old prof, Jack Schmitt as one of the guests), and they also talked about wanting a 2 launch per year cadence---the issue is they have no payloads, of course. I doubt they could bang out 2 Orions (with SM) by 2018 even with massive effort, and to do a manned flight, they'd presumably want an all-up, unmanned test. I suppose the Shuttle model is possible (all up, manned test), but it's clearly more risky than unmanned (though with a LES, it's considerably safer than Shuttle ever was, frankly).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Except Orion would be useless for that. It has a maximum flight duration of 30 days.

Well isn't it supposed to work in tandem with some kind of spacecraft? The point that makes the Orion interesting is that it can reenter from beyond low earth orbit  so that a spaceship wouldn't need to decelerate into earth orbit for the crew to be picked up. Reentering straight from an interplanetary trajectory reduces mission complexity a lot.

Edited by Canopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

Indeed! Looking slightly more favourable, however, if the launch is postponed, it will not bode well with the already infested backlog of delayed contract launches. Iridium Next was delayed recently. Let us hope for clear skies on the day, and manageable jet streams. :) 

Edited by Oliverm001x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tater said:

The eventually removed the ejection seats. They were always entirely wishful thinking, however. There were 2 shuttle failures. The second would not have been survivable regardless, though I suppose ejection seats (if automated) might have saved crew in Challenger (the crew compartment clearly survived, but it is unclear if anyone, even with an ejection system could have initiated it due to the forces involved---automation in this regard is worrisome, since any failure in that system (wrongly initiating it) could be catastrophic).

The two ejection seats were always only for the two-man test flights. The crew members behind the pilots and on the lower deck would have had no way of getting out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

The two ejection seats were always only for the two-man test flights. The crew members behind the pilots and on the lower deck would have had no way of getting out.

So if there was an emergency would they use the ejection seats? If they did eject the others would be doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, munlander1 said:

So if there was an emergency would they use the ejection seats? If they did eject the others would be doomed.

There were no other crew on the flights with the seats fitted.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.