• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ZooNamedGames

  1. I just made it to match the rest of the emotes.
  2. Well the first docking has always been slated for A3. I had been hearing that in light of Starliner’s issues that a similar docking test would be done on A2, however I hadn’t heard where in the mission it would be done. I find this ironic since Starliner did test the docking system, just didn’t attempt to rendezvous & dock but whatever. Good to test beforehand anyway.
  3. Well while you work on that, Artemis 1 Orion is fully built & waiting at the ksc while it’s sisters, Artemis 2 & 3 Orion’s finish production. Those 2, actually supporting lunar missions from the outset- rather than retrofitting.
  4. Also NASA saw that Ares 1 would be an expensive LEO vehicle (not to mention dangerous)- where a single vehicle would be cheaper to design than 2, 3 or however many you’d need to support LEO missions.
  5. Bear in mind it would hold more crew as well, if it couldn’t, then it’s just as limited as Orion in any respects. Orion can at least carry 4-6 astronauts. Dragon 2/Starliner is only rated to for a few hours to reach the ISS- not days or the week needed. I’ve read nothing that says they’d only wear vests. There will be dummies on A1 that will have vests- but that’s to collect data- not protect the crew.
  6. Somehow I missed this- But Dragon 2 doesn't have the radiation shielding to make the trip, doesn't have the ECLSS to (7 undocked days, just barely enough to make it to the moon at all), SM is insufficient to do any lunar operations, spacecraft frame isn't built for lunar re-entry, it's too tiny (I couldn't imagine living in what's the size of a SUV for 3 days with a crew of 3-4 others). Same applies to Starliner. By the time you modify those vehicles, they would exceed their launch vehicles abilities & necessitate a larger vehicle. Orion, is the only one that passes all of those requirements.
  7. And the vehicle was still in development. LOPG was first envisioned as the Deep Space Habitat in 2012- a year after SLS was signed into development. SLS was largely a LV built to ferry Orion & maybe cargo. It's destination was always deep space. Even before Artemis, EM-1 was to do a lunar flyby- this was back in 2012 as well. By comparison- Saturn V also lacked much in the end goal. In fact LOR was only selected 5 years before Saturn V first flew. Prior to that- the entire structure of Apollo was also- in limbo. Which is why the CSM's engine is so powerful- it was initially designed to land on the moon from the EOR era. Well NASA's been waiting since the 2000s when they started to refocus on the moon. It's been 20 years, NASA is tired of waiting. SLS flies crew within 3 years (Artemis 1 may be delayed by Artemis 2 is almost entirely unaffected by A1 delays). I see nothing saying a launcher has been finally selected. Considered? Yes. Selected? No. Yeah that bellyflop landing, lack of parachutes, still unreliable landing technology, lack of abort modes, unproven heatshield (not to mention it'll need reworking for lunar re-entry heating), lack of radiation shelter... the vehicle has many many many many many challenges to prove itself. It's taken SpaceX a decade to meet NASA's standards with a standard capsule. much less a radical new design that relies on exploding technology. That was also a decade ago, more than by this point. Changes have occurred. That may have been it's design in 2008, but in 2020 that is not the case. vs 1) Legacy eases development. Work with the F-1 shows how problematic new hardware can be. Meanwhile boosters are already ready, engines, optimized, improved, & ready. So many elements are already finished, in advance of what any other program could achieve. 2) For a "pork" program, it's kind of crappy when Apollo had 2x the number of contractors. Except it can't send it to the moon, which is NASA's destination. I know you have a fascination for LEO- but NASA's been there for 30 years- they're kind of bored of it! Even if it could send to LEO- great. Now there's no tug to send it anywhere. So that's more time and more tax dollars to build a new vehicle when SLS would be ready & waiting.
  8. It can still take multiple days, maybe even weeks to get a launch underway, so those loses are considerable.
  9. Never outright said SLS put it into any orbit. That'd be a challenge for a cyrogenic booster to keep its fuel from boiling off over the course of 3 days to get there.
  10. SLS is to send crew to LOPG, whereby they will descend to the lunar surface. By comparison, Apollo's Saturn V only did the TLI kick- relying entirely on the CSM to do the work. Whereas here SLS does the work. It's mission is crew to lunar orbit- of what kind is irrelevant since from LOPG, they can access any other orbit needed using another craft. "But Zoo, if SLS can't do it then clearly it isn't a good vehicle", Comanifesting cargo is a trait NASA has no interest in repeating. They can maximize the abilities of SLS best & keep costs down by splitting launches. Which is critical for sustainability. With Apollo- there was no drawback to cancelling the program. With Artemis, especially once LOPG is launched & operational- missions can be lined up years in advance, maybe with landers that can be operational even longer (2/3 landers I am aware of, are reusable in some form or another). No, the end goal of prolonged operations on the lunar surface, such as lunar bases- this is critical in allowing us to build the experience & technologies needed to survive on Mars. Short term goals being ISRU? Maybe, but not the ultimate end goal as deep space experience is more important to us getting to Mars than utilizing on site resources- however, using those resources is a major asset but not a necessity. You keep mentioning SpaceX's options, which for deep space are FHr, FHe, & Starship. We already discussed how FHr&e are poor options due to poor payload to TLI, & most definitely being unable to launch Orion to the moon (likely being at the structural limit of the vehicle). So if it isn't FH, then it must be Starship, hence why I keep mentioning it. NASA doesn't want Orion in LEO. Hence why neither vehicles are considered. Time spent in LEO, is ECLSS wasted, not to mention adding more complexity (& with it risk), as well as requiring technology that NASA doesn't want to waste time developing when a LOR vehicle could do the same thing, but at least get man to the moon. Block 1 is a technology demonstrator largely. To prove the vehicle works. It's Artemis' version of Saturn 1. It puts the technology of the new program into practice, rather than theory. SLS 1B is more akin to Saturn V in functionality- being the full vehicle.
  11. For "doing nothing right" it's still the only booster capable of doing the job. Kind of strange how the NASA built rocket, can't fit your vision for Artemis architecture. I'm also going to venture a guess that your continuous commentary about SLS not being capable is from a year old comment from Berger- since SLS has been continuously improving it's payload margins with improved manufacturing processes on the part of NASA, Boeing, Rocketdyne & Lockheed. You seem to have ignored the undeveloped challenges imposed by EOR- one of which being refueling or designing vehicles that can handle forward thrust loading. Strangely NASA saw it more practical to use existing design methods rather than trying to do something new just to chase a smaller pricetag- maybe they knew that hypothetical numbers based on designs never before tested, might not be the best starting point for a hypothesis. Again, no matter which order is used- you either waste valuable life support resources to fly crew up first, or have to design an expensive fuel tank just to keep the fuel from boiling off.
  12. 3.5 Dragons. NASA gives them money- they use the profit to build their vehicles. That money starts with my tax dollars.
  13. Cool, meanwhile SLS actually has a crew capsule. I'd like to see 1 photo of the starship cockpit. Much less the picture of the vehicle that'll send man to the moon (a feat I can do with SLS!) Especially furthered by the limitations of Starship. It relies on refueling- something that's never been proven (ISS refuels are so pitifully tiny it isn't a comparison at all). Orbital refueling has never been proven to work at all. Metholox is a cyrogenic fuel which boils off over time. No system has been made to keep fuel like that from boiling off- none. Much less the ability to rendezvous with it in time before it does boil off. Current launch rates would have Starship arrive to a methane oxygen gas filled starship- but no fuel to be found. Much less a system that can pump it without freezing from the subzero temperatures. Meanwhile again- it's competition, SLS- is already built. No conceptual needs for technology that doesn't exist. Last I checked, NASA was SpaceX's biggest customer so my tax dollar funds their shiny steel rocket, & Falcon Heavy. For as many problems as you claim SLS has- where's the improved alternatives? Just Starship? That's it? New Glenn is too low TLI, same for FHe. Best we have is an imploding steel tube that without it's bigger tube & refueling can't even reach SLS' destinations? Wow. Totally a bad rocket! Must be why not a single entity on planet Earth could do better!
  14. FH required massive retooling & design modifications to support the design. Something which caused drastic delays. SLS, by comparison does use legacy hardware (see shuttle program) and just like the shuttle program, the design needed massive retooling & redesign to support the new design. Only difference is, NASA isn't backing out at the last minute on man rating their rocket. NASA is going forward with it 100%. Especially not with the intention to turn around an make their own rocket obsolete within 5 years according to Musk with Starship.
  15. https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-three-stage-approach-to-human-class-lunar-landers/ I was right.
  16. I think there’s a disconnect here as NASA distinctly considered comanifesting Orion-lander cargo for Artemis. Orion was designed is well said since... it isn’t anymore. It’s been a decade since Orion of constellation. It’s changed to update and meet new mission needs- none of which call for EOR or forward loads. Neither New Glenn nor Falcon Heavy can do what SLS can with crew & you’re already complaining that NASA can’t do it (despite NASA having the rockets for Artemis 2 & 3 already!) And yet it still has a use. Remind me again, aside from NASA- who’s flying on starship? Falcon heavy? It barely flies at all! Both were supposed to change the fate of aerospace but they’re debut has been less than eventful seeing as Atlas V & Delta IV still receive contracts & missions to the very places that SpaceX was intending to compete with. Also NASA never said they wanted mars exploration- hell not even within the current decade. So talk about jumping the gun. Moreover their current architecture has them traveling to LOPG & from there to Mars. Using a crew launcher like SLS. So much for dead end when it’s still in use.
  17. Ah your right. NASA can’t do anything with SLS- it’s not like they could build a version with a more powerful upper stage- they couldn’t ever do that! You say that but for a white elephant- it’s the only elephant in the room. No other rocket can do what SLS can do- within 5 years.
  18. You know of another spacecraft that can fly crew to deep space by 2025? [snip]
  19. I’d use my new “Orange rocket bad” bingo board here but I know I’d win within a few hours so there’s no point. We can’t go anywhere more interesting if we can’t live on the moon. Period.
  20. 3.5bil you day for 1 core- round down as production is streamlined, x10 for 10 cores, is 30mil. Reuse has a place. Deep space isn’t it.
  21. Apparently NASA doesn’t agree since they’ve already purchased 10 cores from Boeing & I don’t see a budget request for 30 billion worth of booster cores. Moving a few gallons of stable hypergolic fuels is a far far far far far far far far far far far far cry from moving tens of thousands worth of gallons worth of cryogenic fuels that in hours will boil off, much less days or weeks it takes for launches to finish.
  22. EOR was found to be even more expensive & more dangerous- not to mention requiring many technologies that still don’t exist. Problems that SpaceX will soon have to develop themselves while NASA goes with proven technologies ahead of time. Boeing was quoted at specifically 800mil per core. [snip]
  23. No, the real danger is the unified opinion would support cancelling SLS & funding the equally slow & delayed SpaceX. It’s been just short of a decade of funding SpaceX as part of the CCP to build a capsule (& it isn’t even reusable!). Falcon Heavy? 2013? Delayed to 2018 & has launched as often as SLS will. Yes SLS is costly & slow- but it’s a surefire better option than throwing more money at SpaceX who’s spent their hard earned cash blowing up tubes in Texas rather than build actual rockets (not to mention they’re struggling with the smaller starship fuel tanks, I can imagine it’ll take them years and dozens of prototypes to stop super heavy from exploding!). Any option short of SLS will be slower; development alone will cost as much if not more, & ultimately not meet NASA’s mission. Despite its costs or its delays, SLS is the most powerful rocket that will fly crew by 2025, which is great since no other vehicle can fill its role within the next decade. Falcon Heavy even when fully expendable, is not able to send orion to TLI. SLS can send nearly an additional 10t of payload to TLI over FHe. Tater has gone on about the idea of EOR assembly with FHe, but that would cost more $$$, time & add additional risks & mission limitations that Bridenstine, nor any NASA administrator can seriously accept. And if I hear another quip about how Boeing is entirely to blame, I swear to kraken.
  24. I really stopped following the forums since it's just rehashing Berger commentary. Meet at least a dozen people on Twitter though that agree with me so it's a lot better there.
  25. 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.