Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads


_Augustus_

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, tater said:

I agree, but it's still funny.

SLS/Orion was also not mentioned, because there is no plausible reality in which it would matter to getting back to the Moon in any sort of timely way for the simple reason that SLS cannot ever have the launch cadence required to move such an effort forward quickly. That's just a fact. On top of that, short of Block 2, it's not going to the lunar surface, and block 2 is about as far away as warp drive right now.

The Saturn V got up to five per year, I think. Apollos 8 through 12 were launched within the space of 12 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically Apollo only happened because a) Cold War, and b) Johnson was 100% committed to showing the world that even though he wasn't the charismatic JFK, he could actually do the stuff that JFK promised.

Ever since then it's been a lot more typical for US Presidents to cancel any work that their predecessors started, then start their own program which will eventually go nowhere after their successor cancels it. There is zero chance that any plan for a moon visit that is identified as being a Trump initiative is going to survive the Trump presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real NASA science (all unmanned) continues regardless of who is President. SLS and Orion are not Trump programs, they belong to Congress, which supports them in a bipartisan fashion. DSG might get another name change, but it’s the only mission they can come up with, so it stays. 

The beauty of commercial space is that it also has survived, and it will, since all sides can claim it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Flight 9?  We don't even know what flight 3 is!

EM-1

EC

EM-2

Unless it doesn't fly EC, in which case it's EM-3, which probably won't accomplish much.

12 hours ago, tater said:

Real NASA science (all unmanned) continues regardless of who is President. SLS and Orion are not Trump programs, they belong to Congress, which supports them in a bipartisan fashion. DSG might get another name change, but it’s the only mission they can come up with, so it stays. 

The beauty of commercial space is that it also has survived, and it will, since all sides can claim it.

 

The ISS actually does do some good manned science, and not all of it involved with how to keep humans alive in space.

Now, the ISS is quite an expensive piece of hardware, so it's not as good as unmanned probes in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

not all of it involved with how to keep humans alive in space.

The ISS does important medical research for diseases like altziemers and bioprinters.  Unfortunately, since its manned, they can't research any infectious diseases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2018 at 12:10 PM, DAL59 said:

The ISS does important medical research for diseases like altziemers and bioprinters.  Unfortunately, since its manned, they can't research any infectious diseases.

A satellite would be a terrible place to research infectious diseases anyway. We have perfectly fine protocols for isolating biohazards here on the ground, but satellites have a tendency to come down in an uncontrolled manner and spread bits of themselves over large swaths of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

but satellites have a tendency to come down in an uncontrolled manner and spread bits of themselves over large swaths of the world.

If they aren't in very low orbit, they are safe for centuries or millennia.  Also, they could be made to break apart on reentry and burn.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2018 at 9:33 PM, mikegarrison said:

A satellite would be a terrible place to research infectious diseases anyway. We have perfectly fine protocols for isolating biohazards here on the ground, but satellites have a tendency to come down in an uncontrolled manner and spread bits of themselves over large swaths of the world.

While I'm fairly sure the local Level 4 biohazard research facility (Ft. Detrick in Maryland, not the CDC) withstood yesterday's 5" of rain in two hours + nasty hail (said to be "baseball sized" in places within a few miles of the Fort), I'd sleep a lot easier if the various biohazards couldn't make it back to Earth without burning up.  Yes, it is a superfund sight (although that likely dates back to when it was used for offensive disease capability research.  This is the same place that found a depot of nerve gas while the Army was looking for such things in Iraq).

I'm sure it provides plenty of good jobs, but the place is exactly what you would describe as "not in my backyard".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I learned about (the semi-whimsical) "Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design". I have included a few that are relevant to SLS:

11: Sometimes, the fastest way to get to the end is to throw everything out and start over. (I see NASA has interpreted this as "throw away the reusable SRBs and the limited-supply liquid fueled engines.")

17: The fact that an analysis appears in print has no relationship to the likelihood of its being correct. (Also applies to SpaceX Elon-time).

39: Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.

39 (Alternate formulation): The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:

          1) No new launch vehicles.

          2) No new launch vehicles.

          3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2018 at 10:08 PM, Confused Scientist said:

39: Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.

39 (Alternate formulation): The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:

          1) No new launch vehicles.

          2) No new launch vehicles.

          3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.

New spacecraft (whether probes or satellites) fit somewhere between the cost of developing a whole new launch vehicle and hitching a ride on a fully developed one.  I strongly suspect that "no new orbital platforms" and "no new probe platforms" will need to be added to keep costs coming down.

- this is of course orthogonal to SLS whose mandate is largely to spend money in specific Congressional districts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLS isn't being delayed, its just traveling through time, near a black hole. The development isn't slow, it just seems like its slow to us, the observers. We already saw it shift red!

Spoiler

NASA2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=208,94,526

2018-02-28-185030.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
20 hours ago, NSEP said:

Im not sure if this is for SLS...

If I'm connecting the dots right, that is for Rocketdyne's new and shiny 3D printed RL-10s, which are supposed to be much cheaper than legacy ones. So, subsidies to make the Vulcan cheaper, basically.

 

Rune. And in a happy accident, Orbital-ATK-Northrop Grumman's new rocket, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...