Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


235 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Twitter

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,817 profile views
  1. I didn't explain myself well enough. I meant the Artemis II vehicle, not the Artemis II mission. Artemis I vehicle keeps popping up with problem after problem. I am not superstitious but am starting to think that it is cursed
  2. I think now is maybe the time to scrap Artemis I and go straight to Artemis II... the amount of mishaps and bad luck with this vehicle is astonishing
  3. I am not sure, but seems to me that they do spin primes before every static fire, at least with Booster 7 since they started testing. Maybe that is part of getting raptors ready to fire properly. Or maybe just a test they do before they test so that they don't blow up the whole thing when they go to fire it up for static test because of faulty fuel line or something.
  4. Better have a lot of those, and them being successful, then to go do a first launch, hype it all up only for vehicle to even start it's engines. NASA, Boeing and co. are already doing that, let's have SpaceX at least do it properly. If it blows mid flight then there is some work to do, but at least get to "take off" part without having to abort because of some hardware issue that wasn't checked before.
  5. Fair enough, teething problems for new hardware (wether reused old parts or brand new parts) are kinda expected. What isn't expected is for manufacturers and operator to be so far behind schedule due to problems occuring in testing, them not understanding the cause and how to fix them dven after they show up in further testing. And then to just wing it in a hope that they won't appear for first launch attempt. Going by what was reported as problems and their attempts to solve them I would hazard a bet that Boeing, Bechtel, NASA and others still. have no idea ehat exact problem they are having and how to solve them
  6. Fair enough, it is a new vehicle. But they are 6 years behind original plans, they had tests that weren't completed because they had technical issues and they still proceed to attempt a launch where they continue to have those same technical issues. And I would agree with you that it is kinda gottagetthereitis if it wasn't the same thing with other Boeing developed hardware for NASA which was just a tiny bit late when problems were discovered and still haven't had a problem free flight with that craft as well. I think it is much much much deeper that simple rushing to get there. I think the main reason is that whatever happens program is so far in development that it won't be canceled before at least one or two flights. And contractors know that, they also know their contracts are safe because of political reasons so they are just milking the federal budget as much as they possibly can. And when opposition gets loud enough only then will they get their act together, actually work on solving the issues, launch and pat themselves on the back for a job well done
  7. At this moment I have so little faith in Artemis program and contractors that make hardware for it that I sincerely doubt they will launch before 2023. If I am not mistaken first stage is made by Boeing which in last few years hasn't really proven itself with reliably building stuff. They are facing delays and are over budget in rockets, space crafts and airplanes. That doesn't give confidence in the company. And mobile launch platform is made by Bechtel, and from what experience I have on that company (they built a large part of highways here in Croatia) they also like to go over budget and face delays after delays. And guess what, both scrubbed launch attempts were due to equipment built and delivered by those two companies.
  8. I would be hugely surprised if it doesn't end up with a scrub today
  9. That price seems a bit steep doesn't it? I mean, they were talking about how much they will save per seat in comparison to launching astronauts on Soyuz, but if quick google search wasn't wrong it is "only" $15 million per seat saving. TBH, I expected Dragon ticket to be much cheaper.
  10. Love how it burbs/farts on shut down. If that is the feature of Raptor engines that sound will probably get as famous as Titan II turbo pump spool up
  11. @Scotiusdon't be like that. After all this wait we have a chance to see live (or on TV) a demonstration flight of a technology from late 70s and early 80s. It is also fitting that Boeing is behind it, since they still produce airliners from that era. SpaceX, Blue Origin and co. are all about pushing new technologies, being more efficient and actually making a profit. However stupid throwing absurd amounts of money on ancient tech may seem I think it is not thaaaaat bad of an idea to have some low(er) tech solutions on the line ready to be used. Shame that they are actually super expensive and take eternity to be built.
  12. Can't wait for Blue Origin to use this clip as evidence that NASA made a mistake in choosing SpaceX for Moon landing missions claiming "they missed the whole darn thing"
  13. Probably because it started to feel like "been there, done that" now with SpaceX. Falcon 9 became super reliable, both in terms of launch performance and landing success. Starlink has been launched so many times now that there is basically nothing new to see there. We can notice this thread as well getting pretty quiet lately. Only when there is coverage of crewed missions there seems to be some buzz around Spacex. They made it seem like routine and people look for interesting stuff elsewhere. My guess is once Starship/Heavy testing and flights resume there will be so much more noise around SpaceX.
  14. See Boeing, when competent and/or not living of a tax payers wallet valve problems don't take 2 years to find and repair
  15. Also I have read somewhere that first plans didn't have any masts on since Olympic class was never imagined with sails in mind. They were included because of two reasons: looks and somewhere to hang wireless antennas off.
  • Create New...