ZooNamedGames

Members
  • Content Count

    5,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,038 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

12,660 profile views
  1. They're trying to. It's called Starship & Super Heavy. So far it won't stop exploding. That, along with SpaceX only flying for a short duration, makes NASA apprehensive to contract out flying crews to the moon.
  2. That had no funding. So that comparison is exceptionally poor. Falcon Heavy can only barely lift Orion, it certainly can't throw it past LEO, even in full expendable. Multiple rockets allows for more versatility & cheaper flights for non-crew flights. Outside of SLS, no booster is capable of sending payloads to the moon. Assembling Orion is not practical as previously mentioned, & Dragon 2 isn't capable of completing the journey in it's current iteration. Many of the components have been tested. Remember the Space Shuttle? What did it have on it's first stage? RS-25s & Solid rocket motors? What does SLS have on it's first stage? Oh why RS-25s & Solid Rocket Motors! Of the same design! Only with an extended segment which was already considered for the Shuttle program. ICPS? Flown on multiple Delta missions. AJ-10? Apollo & the Space Shuttle! NASA has made SLS available for commercial use. NASA doesn't expect it to be used due to the growing alternatives available, but it's more of a case of "we have this for you to use, it's a bit expensive but it can lift more than anyone else". Ok, time for the big reply... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3. It's not like those systems need testing Tater. They are ready, past tense. Notice how there are 0 plans for testing or experimenting with Artemis 2 ECLSS, none. Why? Because it is ready, not integrated true, but it is ready. NASA very well could stick LS onboard Orion, it's a choice to save time not to- it's not a matter of "Artemis not ready", it's a matter of what gets Artemis flown sooner. The decision is to skip ECLSS integration, not because it isn't ready but because that moves the launch time sooner. Saturn V wasn't meant to either by that logic. Atlas V, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy- all of these vehicles can't send Orion to the moon. It's nice to ponder on an assemblable Orion but that is not only extremely costly to develop (adding to the costs people already complain about), but also delay the program further. Not to mention that would add additional complexity, failure points (more testing), & also reduce Orion's abilities even further. Why not New Glenn? It's not man rated, has gone through 0 tests to be. We've been through this before, "but why is SLS man rated on the first launch?", for 2 reasons- 1) Most of SLS' major components have already flown 135+ times before thanks to the Shuttle program (RS-25s, Solid Rocket Motors, AJ-10 Engine on Orion Service Module, ICPS (not shuttle but whatever)) - 2) SLS has gone through the maximum amount of testing rigors possible to put an unflown rocket through. Pressure tests? Succeeded. Sound tests? Succeeded. Heating? Succeeded. Safety systems? Succeeded. Despite being unflown- and yes this is wholly an opinion but one I'd put legitimate money on- SLS is one of the safest rockets ever built in history. How can that be? Because again they've tested every facet, of every bolt, of every sheet of metal, of every integration system, with true flight tests to boot thanks to the Shuttle program. As a result, the vehicle will keep crews safe no matter the condition, before the crews ever step inside Orion. New Glenn? It's tests are just to prove it can fly, it has no specification for crew. It's made 0 progress to prove itself. Arguing cost on the topic of SLS is to argue with a scientist about philosophies- NASA doesn't care about cost. They get their funding from Congress which has a massive sum of money to dispense. When NASA successfully proposes a mission they like (notice, as much as I hear that SLS is just Shelby's initiative, it isn't- since SLS has support from both sides) (also note, NASA makes the missions, not Congress as often as I hear that as well), then Congress provides funding. How much funding is dependent on the scale of the mission they've proposed. "But Zoo! As a taxpayer I demand better results!" - Not even private citizens remotely have anything comparable to SLS. The only vehicle that remotely can compete is SpaceX's Super Heavy booster (New Glenn's GTO launch mass is 13,000kg vs Orion's full launch mass of 33,500kg). A booster that does not yet exist past an engine, & a render. SLS is frankly, the only vehicle available. "But why launch direct to the moon?!" Because long duration missions lead to greater strains on ECLSS, higher efficiency fuels, like hydrolox or metholox, run the issue of greater & greater boil off issues, which would require a new vehicle to be built that again, does not exist. But Zoo- I specifically said- what is SLS for?? - It's for launching crews to NHRO to send a crewable vehicle to LOP-G to enable lunar missions. "But Artemis 1 won't send crew to the moon!" - No, since NASA got enough flak for their decision to fly crew on STS-1 in 1981. This mission is to test every component, every part & every module. Past Artemis 1, Artemis 2 will send crew to the moon. Something no other entity, government, private, or otherwise can do within the same timeframe. Starship is said to perform Dear Moon by 2023 though this is extremely unlike as there's 0 work done to make that possible aside from multiple self destructing water towers; Though Artemis 2 will experience some delays as well (I say late 2023/Early 2024- though the next presidency would likely want to secure that chance to send humans back to the moon so an acceleration in pace could be expected), it won't be nearly as severe since most, if not debatably all the testing work has already been completed, meaning only production & assembly must be completed. After that, Artemis 3, will land crew on the moon which is the whole point of Artemis. In 3 missions (2 half missions with pad aborts & 1 of EFT-1, so in total 6 if you want to be pedantic), NASA plans to set boots on the moon. By comparison, the Saturn V flew 2 uncrewed missions, with an additional 4 crewed missions before attempting the landing. Even the Soviet N1 had 4 test flights planned, yes- it failed but there were multiple tests of the vehicle before it did 1 crewed mission. SLS is going to be the fastest vehicle to enable us to not only fly a crewable spacecraft to the moon, but to set boots on the moon. "But Zoo- why use SLS?! Orion ok, but why SLS?!" To reiterate- it's because SLS is the only launcher that is proven to be safe, passed all tests, & is ready to fly. Orion may not carry crew, but it's not a matter of "it isn't ready" as it is, just not opting to spend time implementing ECLSS.
  4. Orion is as tested as possible, they even are throwing dummies on board like SpaceX to test radiation shielding. A study was even launched to make it crewed so it's not that distant from a final vehicle- especially when the very crewed vehicle we're comparing it to, is in production right now. Orion is just as ready as SLS. Of course SLS isn't going to do a Apollo mission ever- it isn't meant to. (like saying Vulcan can't do a powered landing, it isn't meant to). It's going to launch crew & only crew. Though there are discussions of including station modules, even those are sliding off the table in favor of commercial launches to maximize SLS use towards crew. Which is SLS' mission; crew to LOP-G. It isn't meant to carry a lander.
  5. How about a fully built rocket? With progress nearing completion on the Artemis 2 core stage, with work starting on Artemis 3 hardware (now confirmed). Orion is fully tested & awaiting the green run of the Artemis 1 core stage. Once burned, refurbed, inspected then packed (as far as I can tell, it has finished the burns, so I'm guessing we're in the refurb stage), it can be shipped back to the cape for assembly & integration with the rest of the components which are, as said before, fully built. Thankfully Artemis 2 will not need the same expansive testing regime so once it finishes production & Artemis 1 lands, Artemis 2 will have the green light for the first flight to the moon since 1972. Also, careful about cost- since that's still 1/5th the budget needed for the development of the Saturn V, & developed in 10 years (upper estimated age) to Saturn V's 7 which had vastly more funding behind it.
  6. Is there a reason for why the green-run can't be performed earlier this year? CS-1 is already mated to the stand and CS-2 is almost complete. At this rate CS-3 will also be ready if we wait too much longer. I just saw a picture of a A3 component a few weeks ago. Maybe part of the Orion but who knows at this early stage. Regardless there seems to be no reason for this delay. Artemis 1 is funded, it's mounted into the test stand. So I'm curious what reasoning they have to delay the flight now. Berger cited funding issues but that doesn't make sense since Bridenstine has already confirmed A1 funding has been secured.
  7. Hmmm... Many EM missions have kept their structure under a new mission name.
  8. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/nasa-evaluates-em-2-launch-of-space-gateways-ppe/
  9. Plan I've heard is that they would ferry an additional LOPG element on A3 with the lander commercially launched.
  10. The current plan is to use a comanifested cargo, the use of a different platform is undecided. As far as I'm aware, there will be a functional life support.
  11. A3 is required to have a EUS, but seeing as the EUS has finally past the final phase in RnD there can't be much more delays. I've also heard a dummy will be aboard to record the radiation levels in the capsule during its flight.
  12. This contains all the same hardware as the final version that will fly on Artemis 2. Only difference is the EUS, which is still a step beyond what others can do. Moreover, no crewable vehicles exist that can make the journey. @David Willis
  13. Unless that thing that occurs before you get to the destination- is also fun. "The fun is in the journey" is a quote that someone important once said. That can be true for KSP as well. There simply exists nothing to do except timewarp. If we could do something, either in IVA or EVA that could occupy our time, then my comment has merit but as it stands, there isn't anything to do.
  14. Sounds like your root part is a different part. Try using [ or ] as @James Kerman mentioned to cycle until you can control your shuttle. Make sure it has a command capsule or probe to provide control!