ZooNamedGames

Members
  • Content Count

    5,088
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,026 Excellent

About ZooNamedGames

  • Rank
    A Frequent Commenter

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array
  • Skype Array
  • Twitter Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

12,259 profile views
  1. I blame Musk since his excessively tight scheduling regime leaves little room for error, meaning every test, every inspection, every review has to be perfect. Humans aren’t. Though we don’t know the cause yet- it often is rooted in human error- and if it’s mechanical- that’s even more reason to panic as that’s a sign of ineptitude or an engineer’s design ignorance. Either way, this does not paint Musk in a good light.
  2. Orion still sends the crew home- as well as putting it into its near to lunar orbit. Not to mention will do it while protecting the crew from deep space radiation and keep it functional. If it completes its mission, does it safely, helps get man to the surface of the moon sooner rather than later- then I don’t see the issue. Especially since LOP-G helps us in ways that a Apollo style LOR would miss. Nothing to keeps us committed, there’s nothing to keep us there aside from moral commitment which as Apollo showed- can shift.
  3. According to Wikipedia, Artemis 2 is using B1, not B1B, so EUS is not required for A2.
  4. EUS isn’t in operation in atmosphere which is my point. During launch, the structure handles more load than any mission critical hardware. The only thing mission from A1 is life support hardware- and ok it’d be nice to have, but it won’t deplete- it would have no CO2 to cycle, the electrical charge would be minimal, basically just to keep the lights on, which can be simulated in A1 by making sure the electrical system stays above a set margin which accounts for the simulated power loss to crew lighting. Soon isn’t anytime soon. Right now Musk has a Delta Clipper. It can’t go to orbit, can’t ferry payloads, hell doesn’t even have room for payload. BO’s NG hasn’t even begun production as far as I know. Besides Starship hinges on Super Heavy to haul more than just LEO payloads. Again, structural issues need to be addressed. SLS is built (not a small scale to orbit version either which is where Starship is- but capable of going to the moon). I still don’t follow that logic. Orion isn’t to get near it but to support lunar orbit operations- it’s doing the same as the Apollo CSM, it only got close to the moon too- oh and it had to move into a separate lander too- what a surprise. Orion’s mission will only be to go to the moon when that’s what it’s designed to do- it won’t do LEO since commercialization is there and can’t go to Mars because that’d be stupid- there’s no where else to go except ARM but that doesn’t necessitate Orion and even if it did- we would need new EMU hardware to have crews properly operate on and around an asteroid. Orion is a transport. You don’t get rid of a taxi because the car didn’t drop you off in your house- you have to take yourself the rest of the way. nothing near the moon- what about LOP-G? Potential to assemble deep space missions. You complain that NASA shouldn’t use astronauts as test subjects but there are other things that can- just as animals, electronics, sensitive and complex science instruments that are best operated by someone closer than 2 light seconds away. Which is another major aspect of LOP-G. The ISS is watched like a hawk. We know what will happen to the ISS, before the crew onboard do. We don’t have that luxury with LOP-G and it forces us to survive in an environment where the crew are the only ones keeping them from encountering for example, micrometeorites. It’s a close to home test ground for us to survive in orbit where the ground can’t be the overseer all the time anymore. Situations where the crew may need to troubleshoot before ground can tell them what to do. In an emergency, 2 seconds is a lifetime.
  5. Developing an SLS core and EUS is completely different. The core has to handle massively greater thrust, atmospheric heating, vastly higher accelerations, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric drag- EUS only deploys once in space, where most of the stresses on the core are absent. I return to my earlier comment- if such dumb boosters are so simple, why is NASA the only one with a completed lunar capable vehicle in 2020? Blue Moon could launch on New Glenn, but that doesn't mean it will. If pressures mount, I don't see why Blue Origin would be against ULA launching their payload. Yes, it's money they have to pay to ULA that they could spend in house, but undoubtedly a half decent contract negotiator would be able to include that cash payment in any NASA contracts for developing lunar landers. By the logic of "SLS doesn't take us to the moon, Orion does" is utter nonesense. If a crew launches in a Space Shuttle and returns in a Soyuz, you don't say that the ISS carried them there, or the Soyuz. The Shuttle did the heavy lifting of crew into orbit, which is what is considered the start of a crewed mission. The ISS' crew habitation didn't start when it was launched, but when the first crews boarded the vessel. SLS is also the only SHLV capable of sending a vehicle designed to operate BLEO. There are other vehicles that could go to lunar orbit (Starliner, Dragon 2, Soyuz moreso technically), but none of them are rated to operate in deep space beyond LEO. Meaning, until a vehicle designed to protect crews from radiation, operate in those kind of radioactive environments (yes, new digital technology is more resilient to ionized radiation, but not immune). A vehicle needs to prove it can withstand deep space radiation and not suffer a major fault in coding since ionizing radiation has proven to cause serious potentially catastrophic faults on the ISS and it's onboard equipment- radiation and issues in deeper space will only get worse, not better. If the fault occurs with a mission critical system, the whole mission goes under- and Orion is built to survive in that kind of environment- D2 and Starliner are not built to the same spec. FH may have similar payload margins, but payload space is tiny, even smaller than that of the Atlas V. Eventually with payload sizes, you get to a point where the only way to utilize most, if not all, of the payload mass is by launching pure lead. A large payload margin is meaningless if you can't put enough spacecraft into the small fairing to utilize the size benefit. Not to mention, SLS at least has the promise of additional payload mass in the future once EUS is developed. FH is about as good as it'll get, price can drop, and maybe a ton or so of mass can be added, but SLS 1B and B2 will make those improvements moot. What can Orion do that a probe can't? Uhhh... return man to the moon? Manned exploration? Manned vs robotic exploration is a completely different topic with completely different merits. To which, I don't think really belongs here in this thread. From what I'm hearing- Boeing intends on making another SLS core just to launch their lander. Which has the promise of skipping LOP-G, but the cost of another core, the time it'll take to make it, and so forth. I don't really support that approach, as much as I like SLS- it isn't time conducive and doesn't utilize NASA's commercial assets. With that approach, the glory is largely heaped on only NASA and Boeing. Artemis should be a diverse and international (where reasonably feasible, ESA having proven to be a pain to get the Orion SM ready, but there are other nations that could develop NASA hardware). Artemis should be using all vehicles, ranging from SLS, to Falcon Heavy and the Atlas V. Though what will happen, is, as mentioned, up in the air. I say small scale, because my business sense (which I know means piddle here) suggests that I should put a new theoretical landing method to test on something that costs <$1000 before I spend millions on a larger scale version, not knowing if it will even work aerodynamically. Musk claims it will work, and he's given us CGI video feeds of it landing, but neither are even using real aerodynamic modeling indicating what the forces are, on what part of the vehicle, what stresses are involved, is it stable, if so, at what speeds. For example, what happens if fuel sloshes, and it becomes unstable in it's intended configuration; what if it becomes too stable in a nose down configuration (a fair point, since it is basically a dart with moveable wings, but a dart becomes aerodynamically stable in a nose down angle, not with fins down like Musk is proposing). So I'd like to see how it works with something small. Though progress is smooth, I am bearing in mind Musk scheduling, and adding a fair amount of time from whatever he claims. "Nothing on SLS has flown yet" Engines are literally from flown Space Shuttle missions Orion SM engine was flown on a Space Shuttle mission Solid rocket motors are merely lengthened Shuttle boosters Orion flew (albiet in a basic framework) in 2014 on EFT-1 Orion's LES has been flown multiple times on test flights Parachutes in drop tests ICPS engine is just a modified DCSS. Same engine design, unmodified I think many parts of SLS has flown. Some components are literally reused from other missions. Oh Zoo, but it's a waste their throwing out these amazing engines! It's a first launch, not even SpaceX or Blue Origin reused their first engines, they impacted the oceans and were lost. Artemis is not about reuse- although, with the development of other technologies, for example, ULA's SMART reuse, that could be applied to SLS' main engines. However, reuse is completely irrelevant if it never flies in the first place. So I think SLS is more ahead of the game than you think. Personally I think Grasshopper looks better than all of the Starship mockups. They all look like they're gonna do an Atlas and collapse in on themselves in a strong breeze. Granted, this is a personal opinion and I understand & respect that others like its look. Artemis 1 is a test flight to prove it can. I think it would be great to have crew, but if something did go wrong- NASA would be at the full brunt of government criticism for flying crews on a vehicle that's never been flown before. Some people still chastise NASA for flying crew on STS-1 rather than leaving it to a test launch. As a result, NASA's intent to appease, leaves it to test the vehicle solo. Artemis 2 puts the vehicle to task, get it to do things that a crew- not mission control want it to do. Crew may want to observe certain areas of the moon, alter their orbit to get precise altitude, speed or inclination. Yes, A1 could do this, but crew operation is different from MC operation, not to mention the additional loads of crew operation, crew LS, and so forth. It's a lot more intensive on the vehicle than flying empty. For Starship to compete still requires it to have Super Heavy since without it, it only reaches LEO. For delivering landers, Orion for LEO tests, or delivering space station modules, that's great- but without Super Heavy- SLS is operating in lunar orbit with Starship in LEO. If it's going to haul large stages inside, then it needs to prove it can support such large payloads since at that scale, new stresses and strains are imposed since (as I understand it)- payloads are mounted vertically, bolted down to the fairing base, but the taller you get, the more likely you are to have the payload shift off axis, meaning some sort of support above the base is necessary. What is that? How will it integrate with payloads, how will it disconnnect? All problems to making Starship handle bigger payloads. Personally I don't take Boeing's submission seriously. They don't have anyone else backing it. It's a cool idea, but it isn't cost effective, and not time conducive. It will cost us time and money. Which does nothing for Artemis. Blue Moon appears to be more viable and further along in development than Boeing's lander as well. I think they just threw a submission in to have a foot in the door to potentially get the contract, but know they don't really have an edge on the competition. Though that's my opinion.
  6. I can't trust anything from a political front since the current term is coming to a close and if the current administration has shown me, it's that you can't predict what they will do (granted that's always applicable to any administration). Right now they may in favor of delaying it another decade- but a new president and cabinet, a few inspirational launches, and direct discussion between NASA and the new administration may shift the current intention from 2028, to 2025. There's just too many ifs right now to say if it will go sooner or later. So I'm sticking it down the middle and say they miss their 2024 mark- but not by much. By like 2026 at the latest. This is only furthered by the fact that maybe the EUS isn't even built yet- but alike the lander- it's small and easily produced. In fact it's just 4 RL10C-3 engines modified to fit a SLS sized upper stage fuel tank. It's not insanely complex- just needing to simulations, testing and production to begin. Understandably Boeing is currently focused on Artemis 1 & 2 cores (after all 2 literally will carry crew, so their failure to produce it correctly could mean the lives of the crew onboard)- this doesn't mean that once they finish with Artemis 1, they can't take their RnD budget and shift it to EUS. It's not new technology, just new circumstances for existing hardware. The only thing new will be the fuel tank structure and the interstage it'll be housed in. Blue Moon can be launched on an Atlas V, not requiring an additional SLS to be built or be beyond the scope of the Artemis program. It just needs to begin production, and undoubtedly if NASA will continue it's trend to follow taking the fastest means to the moon (while keeping to their desires to be safe), then they are the best option since they have the most progress made so far. Of course, current designs of the lander lacks a crew module- which could be developed by Boeing, if NASA chose to pursue. I hear that building boosters like SLS is simple to comparison to SpaceX- but yet SpaceX nor any other corporation, or government has a rocket that can scale with SLS that currently has as much produced and as ready as Artemis does now. Assuming Boeing were to develop their SLS based lander that would surpass LOP-G, that would leave only Boeing to develop their lander and the EUS, then we'd be ready to land on the lunar surface. With the current mission architecture, we require LOP-G, however it only uses a few pieces of new technology like the AEPS engines being developed by AJ-RD, meaning LOP-G can be quickly developed and launched. Permitting quick development of Artemis, leaving only the lander and EUS needing to be developed (as per the earlier scenario), but in this instance, the lander can be developed by Blue Origin while Boeing develops the EUS leaving more of their budget to focus on the EUS. Starship is a great idea but without Super Heavy, they're just Delta Clippers that one day will glide before making a powered landing... something I remain skeptical of until I see it in small scale. Orion is ready for BLEO, Starship, is not. It currently isn't in any position to be ready for even orbital flight. Number of units being produced is great, but if they aren't ready to even enter LEO, then they can't compete. It's a larger Grasshopper. To begin to push SLS out of the launch market, it would not only need to have Super Heavy produced, but create a crew living space, life support, radiation shielding, and abort modes. Right now SpaceX is struggling to get D2 ready for it's only flight to orbit, meanwhile NASA, an agency with decades of manned spaceflight development, production and oversight experience is producing Orion. There may be mismanagement, but the vehicle is guaranteed to work to spec the first time since NASA has put it's best engineers and developers onto it. Those who have experience developing manned spaceflight systems. Also NASA can test a lunar lander in Earth orbit Apollo 9 style, which means it can be launched by any commercial launcher (Atlas V perhaps?), and if NASA was really determined to throw crew onboard, maybe they could work with SpaceX/Boeing to modify the docking node on their spacecraft to match that of the landers, and dock with the lander in Earth orbit, transfer crew, go out 100 miles, stop, turn back, redock and then return to Earth. It isn't in lunar orbit, but the only difference is radiation hardening. Even Apollo 10 only came within 10 miles of the surface, and we had little experience as to what challenges we had to expect having sent roughly a dozen spacecraft into deep space by the time Apollo 11 flew.
  7. There’s multiple landers- and it took 7 years for NASA to pick, Grumman to develop, test and then land the lunar module on the moon. That was completely foreign world for them overbuilding to keep the crew safe and completing the mission. Any lander now wouldn’t need to accommodate the same unknown variables since we know things about the moon from our last expeditions. Besides, there’s always Blue Moon. Not to mention NASA’s been testing new landing technologies for decades. Stuff like MORPHEUS. NASA is building their rocket which is more than SpaceX- and the vastly bigger task. A lander is much smaller, though more complex- just needing more testing- not more production time. So a lander could go from test article to flight article much more quickly.
  8. I’ve said since the beginning that SLS isn’t a permanent solution, just a stop gap until commercial can pick up the slack with developments like Starship. SLS is a guarantee- the government isn’t going to let it go since they spent so much on it during development. Starship could lose funding as SpaceX loses profit margins, or Musk may get bored of the idea and go for something bigger. After all he did spent like 5-6 years boasting about how amazing Falcon Heavy would be and how it would be the heavy lifter of choice and It’s only flown three times and he doesn’t even talk about it anymore. Anything can happen on the commercial field. A disaster or any sort of game changer could shift what’s being developed from commercial organizations. They don’t have absolute legal commitments like NASA does. As a result- the SLS is a guarantee. Of course when better is made, NASA will use it (once it’s proven safe & reliable). Until then, NASA uses SLS. For everyone claiming that alternatives would work- bare in mind that Musk has been talking about Mars vehicles like ITS since 2014, and as of yet he’s only got what amounts to a flying water tower and a larger version more inline with Delta Clipper. Not even remotely on par with any portion of SLS, and where’s its booster in all this? Even a full starship can only barely get into orbit. It takes super heavy to haul it anywhere else. Let’s also not forget that it’s just a shell with no work even started to make it crew ready. No work on this new orbital reuse program (I would still like to see it tested even in small scale), the entire program is conceptual at this point with as much uncertain promise as SLS ever has. I’ve heard Earth to Earth thrown around, pictures of it docked to the ISS, going to moon, landing on the moon, going to Mars, landing on Mars. Starship is labeled as “versatile & multifunctional” when Orion has had dozens of missions proposed- almost all it could do on paper (which is as far as Starship is right now). Yet SLS and Orion is “missionless” & “built without any goal in mind”. Which makes no sense to me. SLS gets us to the lunar surface by 2025- Starship gets us there at a minimum, a decade later. That’s not even speculation- that’s just the time it will take to develop the missing and nonexistent systems and designs which are necessary to land crews on the moon. No space suits, no BLEO radiation shielding, no life support systems, no crew space, no launch abort options, Starship just can’t compete with SLS when it comes to timescale. Starship easily can beat price, but at a decade or more just to get it to the moon, that seems like a vastly less desirable option to me.
  9. Well NASA has been pushing for a SLS & Commercial Artemis development. We’ll have to see what the next term members will decide.
  10. Yeah, those stands aren't part of the engines so I really don't factor them in.
  11. Well tubing in particular in aviation refers to the material the piping is made of. Red for copper(?), blue for aluminum and black for steel. Any color or symbolic icons on an aircraft can imply what fluid its moving. Again, this is aircraft rules- anything goes with rockets, but perhaps this has some sort of indication of what they mean. The red undoubtedly refers to "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT" and are lock out banners preventing operation of a certain part.
  12. I can't speak for rockets, but I do know that when mechanics in aviation want to lock out a part and or label it for "Do Not Operate" they attach a red REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT tag that is commonly seen on aircraft and rockets. Often those tags actually plug into some piece of hardware like a joint or a pivot point (in aircraft, often the flaps, slats, spoilers, elevators, rudder, ailerons, landing gear, cockpit canopy... basically anything that moves). By plugging these in, they physically lock the parts movement, ensuring nobody could be injured by the accidental operation of that part. Sometimes it can even go so far as to disable the parts electrical system as well (cutting a break, circuit, etc). Though that's aircraft. I expect that it'd likely be more symbolic showing that the engine is not yet checked out for flight and will be checklist item #233 when they begin the green run at stennis. " #233 - Remove DO NOT OPERATE tags. "
  13. All of those involve crew onboard the vessel being docked. Progress docks to the crewed ISS, Apollo is obviously crewed. Hence why I said docking EU would be trickier than anything we've done before. And what's the acceleration of an ISS reboost? And what would EU experience when being accelerated by a FH upper stage after being docked together? Yes it can handle one thing, that doesn't make it universally capable of handling any and all forces thrown at it.
  14. Almost everything we’ve docked by has involved crew in some fashion onboard the vehicle. Soyuz to the ISS, shuttle to Mir, Apollo to Skylab, Gemini to Agena, CSM to LM. We’ve never built a rocket assembly in space. Docking adaptor would have to be new and strong enough to withstand the thrust generated, any slipping action, dampen any movement between the two vehicles- especially enough to protect the onboard instruments, and also devise a guidance system to handle two separate vehicles during burns and maneuvers. Until 2030 (at the soonest SpaceX can compete in lunar space) NASA’s SLS is the only vehicle ready for BEO flight.