Jump to content

tater

Members
  • Posts

    22,144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

33,278 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Rocket Surgeon
  • Location
    On the side of a mountain in New Mexico

Recent Profile Visitors

19,438 profile views
  1. So much holdover from Constellation. Once committed to EOR at some level, why not go all in? I suppose back in the day the launch costs were high, so minimize launches. Once you have an architecture that involves extensive EOR <cough> LSS </cough> why not go all in, and assemble your moon ship(s) in LEO?
  2. And like everything else that involves the tyranny of the rocket equation, there are other things that then add mass. Say the ascent vehicle has been on the surface for the nominal full mission duration, they go to leave and there is a problem. They sort it out, but now their ideal launch window is gone. They can wait another 6.5 days (whatever it is), then try again—but they then have to have consumables aboard for that contingency (mass). Alternately, they could leave right away havin sorted the issue, but then they have to have props for phasing, and that will also take time, so also consumables (yet more mass). For a descent abort, they at least have the supplies, since they were gonna be on the surface for XX days, so not an issue, but it matters for edge cases and has to be planned for.
  3. True, the point is that it gives some idea of when opportunities exist. And it's more than the green dates on the calendar. SLS has to have the FTS installed, then it has 20 days to launch, or it must roll back to the VAB. Not sure how much time it takes upon rollout to get the vehicle ready at the pad—a day? Two? I would assume they roll out in advance of a launch window, then they have 20 days, after which back to the barn, the repeat. A lot will depend on weather I think.
  4. The ~160 acre BO facility (not counting the pad) at KSC is taking shape:
  5. Hatch opening coverage starts soon
  6. Could be. All the "old space" companies had, and have some brilliant engineers. These are the same entities that sent humans to the Moon, after all. The cash flow to bootstrap stuff like we see in this thread just never happened. I say bootstrap because I think there is a nonzero probability that once started, cheap heavy lift might actually create new markets, in which case it could become self-sustaining.
  7. The problem is that as "real" companies that have stockholders, and need to actually make money, such projects require an entity to write the checks. So they came up with some epic ideas, but those ideas are sales pitches to NASA. No check written, no epic spacecraft. It takes a company that doesn't actually exist to make money to do anything epic short of a national goal set such that they are free with the checkbook because there is not really a business case for super heavy lift (much less a case for frequent super heavy lift).
  8. Driving second set of hooks Hard dock, umbilicals next. And umbilicals Congrats, Boeing!
  9. Hooks going in. Not hard dock yet I think.6/12 hooks closed
×
×
  • Create New...