Barzon
-
Posts
1,268 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Barzon
-
-
-
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-expands-options-for-spacewalking-moonwalking-suits-services
QuoteThe latest Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services task orders, each with a value of $5 million, are intended to have Axiom Space begin work on a spacesuit for use in low Earth orbit, and Collins Aerospace to begin work on a spacesuit for use on the lunar surface.
-
-
woah! congrats on the release! it looks great!
-
- First vertical firing of a BE-4
- First dual BE-4 firing
- First firing of a BE-4 on something other than a test stand
-
5 hours ago, darthgently said:
Since glass fiber doesn't burn, it must be the binder or adhesive that is the issue. I wonder if the flammability goes down as outgassing of volatiles goes down over time. Hopefully it is something tapers into a safe enough zone given time so the ISS is fine and Starliner and other new builds maybe just need time. But if it isn't volatiles, maybe a spray on fire retardant over layer could be applied (after enough outgassing, or permeable to outgassing) to get within safety margins. Which would still be a major activity
It's the adhesive.
Also, I'm pretty sure this is the tape used:
https://www.nitto.com/us/en/others/products/file/datasheet/PDS_NA_Glass_Cloth_Tape_P-213LW_012020_EN.pdf
http:// https://www.boeingdistribution.com/product/PRESSURE+SENSITIVE+ADHESIVE+TAPE/P-213LW-WHITE-2IN-36YD/P-213LW-WHITE-2IN-36YD -
9 minutes ago, tater said:
I suppose I had assumed it was the first submission, maybe not. FWIW the BO mockup was removed from JSC from what I was told.
by first submission are you meaning ILV? Because we know what the ILV PV looked like, and it did not look like that.
And the mockup in the tweet was located at KSC, not JSC
-
5 minutes ago, tater said:
No, the point was testing the capsule TPO.
The latest DRA is 5.0. It predates SLS.
The mission is 2 parts, the cargo component has 7 launches of ARES V to LEO in the span of 170 days. Ares V was estimated at ~188t to LEO. The crew transfer vehicle is 5 launches (1 might be Ares I with Orion) in a period of 120 days 2 years later. So 3.5 to 7 times as many launches in half a year... oh, wait, but at almost twice the mass to LEO. So 7-15 SLS launches in 6 months. Only one every 2 weeks! Easy! And to LEO. So multiply that by 4 for NRHO for the solid bits, but it needs a lower prop mass for the TMI stage is all. I don't feel like doing the math.
SLS is incapable of Mars missions.
Thats... not the latest study. There were studies on reference architectures released as recently as last year.
Here's an overview of the NTP architecture study that the MTAS Team released last year, and a final report from '21 on the 4th iteration of the GRC's Compass team's CHEMNEP architecture that they've been studying for a fair while now.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210017131/downloads/TM-20210017131_errata.pdf
-
It's probably a safe assumption. If not, well, all we can do is wait for more information.
-
If it helps, you can probably get a rough estimate for the dimensions of the habitat from this tweet, if it hasn't been posted already.
-
9 hours ago, tater said:
Not sure what benefit there is from a "deep space environment" except exposing the crew to more radiation.
would you argue A1 would have achieved the same goals if Orion was sent to LEO instead of DRO?
9 hours ago, tater said:(interestingly, it's also why it will never happen, because SLS could not possibly build such a mission, it can never have a cadence that would support that).
The most recently released studies allow construction of a vehicle with a 1 or 2 per year flight rate.
Anyways ML-2 hardware is arriving at KSC soon:
-
10 hours ago, tater said:
Constant comms is simply putting a constellation near the Moon, it's not enough of a plus to matter. The departure point for Mars is not a thing unless somehow ISRU is providing the props, since everything leaving NRHO has to get there first. A full tanker gets ~25% of it's LEO prop load to NRHO, and the same tanker needs about half of that to return to LEO, so we're talking getting ~15% of props moved to LEO into a vehicle at NRHO. Not really seeing any benefit.
Most of the architectures NASA are studying rn involve a checkout in NRHO of the MTV habitat, with MTV assembly in orbits ranging from MEOs to LDHEOs, which is advantageous as it means you can test it in a deep space environment with or without crew before sending it to Mars, using Gateway as a safe-haven, and taking over station keeping for that module when needed. If you want I can post the some of the recent studies they've published.
-
10 hours ago, tater said:
To be fair, NRHO is not awful, the thermal environment is decent, I read that boiloff in higher lunar orbits is ~10X lower than LEO, presumably reflection from the lunar surface during daylight orbital passes in lower orbits is a thermal issue as well.
You also get constant communications, and it's a pretty decent departure point for Mars & beyond, iirc there are trajectories that can send a spacecraft from NRHO to Mars with double or even single digits of Δv.
-
13 hours ago, tater said:
So the SRB contract included Ares I, and the test article they fired before Artemis I, and the SRBs for the next 2 flights—and is $4.4B.
For 8 SRBs.
$550M each. So the boosters alone are $1.1B.
The RS-25s are harder to sort out. The $2.1B contract for the first 16 seems to give a value of $131M per engine, but then there is a continuing contract to 2029 that includes 24 new engines, and additional cost for the 11 of the first 16. Ignoring the initial engines, the contract is $150M/engine, not the $99M I have seen before. It might well be lower than that, in which case the first 16 are more than $131... In short, RS-25s are absurdly expensive.
So an SLS core has between $524M and $600M worth of engines on the bottom, and over a billion in boosters.
The SRB contract also includes BOLE development, & 6 additional flight sets of SRBs.
that $2.1B value for the Adaptation contract includes 1.5b for the J-2X for some inane reason. The actual money spent on RS-25s in that $2.1B was .6B.
-
15 hours ago, tater said:
The deck height is really low in that old design. Based on pixel counting using the 216 inches on the right, I estimate the deck height at 6.25 feet (1.9m). The BO lander looks to have ~4.8m of vertical space available (maybe less). They could loft 4 bunks—sorta like Japanese pod hotel "rooms" above the main deck, so the floor space is 100% available for airlock, piloting, gear, toilet, etc.
How are you calculating that 4.8m? My rough workings give a max of ~4.4m.
-
On 5/19/2023 at 9:06 PM, tater said:
What hardware? The Be-7?
They've shown off BE-7 hardware & RCS thrusters. There's more than that behind the curtain.
On 5/19/2023 at 9:06 PM, tater said:I thought they had said Q4.
The last NET publicly given was Q4 2023.
On 5/20/2023 at 9:37 AM, RCgothic said:I've seen speculation that the living area is a torus with the BE-7s and downcomers in the middle, which I think seems plausible.
Yep. You can kinda see it in the pictures in this tweet:
23 hours ago, tater said:Makes sense, but reduces the cargo utility.
Was hoping for the ability to leave a monolithic cargo (a ~6m dia cargo).
It's definitely confusing but NASA seem happy with whatever solution they've come up for HDL, considering they said in the SSS that it exceeded both the mass and volume requirements. My guess is something like this, either with the same total height kept and just a flat deck above the engine, or stretching the entire vehicle.
-
On 5/20/2023 at 1:01 AM, tater said:
A better version would continue the stacked ring design (around the tanks) such that the crew pod was inside a ring that supported the gear.
radiators. Maybe the upper tank is H2? Also a sunscreen.
as stated in the conference the Upper tank is LH2 yes.
-
59 minutes ago, tater said:
Apparently during the actual announcement (with people talking), they said first flight was 2030, test flight a year before that.
for Blue Moon Mk2 the test flight is NET 2027, with it being available for a crewed landing in 2028, but the 2024 & 2025 pathfinder flights are Blue Moon Mk1, which is expendable. We've already seen flight hardware for the '24 flight in public, and there's even more behind the scenes.
And everything I know from my own contacts puts New Glenn well on track for 2024, after all, ESCAPADE is scheduled for August, and it won't be the maiden flight.
-
2024 is... very much possible.
-
Source Selection Statement is out - https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander4
Notably, Blue have pathfinder landing flights planned for 2024 and 2025, and their HDL proposal significantly exceeded both mass and volume requirements.
Dynetics, however, didn't account for cargo or an EVA suit, so it was uncertain whether they would meet the 4 crew requirement.
-
NASA Selects the Blue Origin Team for Astronaut Mission to the Moon | Blue Origin
Height: 16m
Diameter: <6.2m
Dry Mass: 16t
Wet Mass: 45t>
4 crew capable, anywhere on the Moon, day or night.
Cargo config can do 20t reused, 30t expendable.
Basic CONOPS are that it launches to LEO, flies itself to NRHO, then the cislunar transporter is launched to LEO on New Glenn and refuelled, and flies to NRHO to refuel Blue Moon. It can stay in NRHO as needed, or return to Earth orbit.
-
14 minutes ago, tater said:
Interesting. Toroidal tanks with a pass through for crew?
No pass through.
More detail on the lander:
Height: 16mDiameter: <6.2m
Dry Mass: 16t
Wet Mass: 45t>
4 crew capable, anywhere on the Moon, day or night.
Cargo config can do 20t reused, 30t expendable.
Basic CONOPS are that it launches to LEO, flies itself to NRHO, then the cislunar transporter is launched to LEO on New Glenn and refuelled, and flies to NRHO to refuel Blue Moon. It can stay in NRHO as needed, or return to Earth orbit.
-
17 hours ago, tater said:
Maybe Jarvis has a less "old space" dev model?
I was assuming darthgently was talking about Orbital Reef.
-
2 hours ago, darthgently said:
What I mean is physical construction and testing and delivery. Actual measurable progress. All kinds of progress could be, and was, claimed about the BE-4 engines for example, but actual delivery of reliable engines, was a far better and inherently transparent measure of progress than design meetings and reviews
You don't start building something before you finish designing it. not in this development style.
Artemis Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
except ESM was significantly redesigned and shares more heritage with Lockheed's SM design than it does ATV