tater Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Unsure if the 10 weeks is just for NG elements, or the program as a whole. I tend to think the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 On 7/9/2018 at 11:10 AM, tater said: "a Dec. 2019 launch" SURE... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 3 hours ago, DAL59 said: SURE... Most people are saying mid-2020 as the NET date, but as I said, that schedule margin might be only for the SRMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Pretty 'chutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 You could... if someone finally would build that darn thing. Lock-Mart really should get to it already. But as for now, all we have is presentations and "shoulda, coulda, woulda"s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 Bruh, i guess they should abandon the orion/sls and use/invest in bfr. Should be cheaper. Also, buy some falcon 9s for sending stuff. Or maybe falcon heavies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Xd the great said: Bruh, i guess they should abandon the orion/sls and use/invest in bfr. Should be cheaper. Also, buy some falcon 9s for sending stuff. Or maybe falcon heavies. Or maybe they shouldn‘t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 11 hours ago, Scotius said: You could... if someone finally would build that darn thing. Lock-Mart really should get to it already. But as for now, all we have is presentations and "shoulda, coulda, woulda"s. As long as it's not Northrop Grumman.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 On 7/28/2018 at 6:47 AM, tater said: *Slaps capsule* *Gets delayed* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silavite Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 16 hours ago, Wjolcz said: *Slaps capsule* *Gets delayed* Sounds familiar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monophonic Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, Silavite said: Sounds familiar... And that, kids, is why you must be very careful with how you use quotation marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 1 hour ago, monophonic said: And that, kids, is why you must be very careful with how you use quotation marks. How to delay a launch guide 101: Touch the rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) He just checks with hand is it clean. Spoiler Edited August 1, 2018 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: He just checks with hand is it clean. Hide contents Leaving a print telling people this is my ride. Or palm scan unlock tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 Btw how is that sticker sticked? With a sticky side to the sterile surface? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, kerbiloid said: Btw how is that sticker sticked? With a sticky side to the sterile surface? Probably by someone who knows what they're doing wearing clean gloves. EDIT: Misread sticked to mean placed or removed. Edited August 1, 2018 by Mad Rocket Scientist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 30 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Btw how is that sticker sticked? With a sticky side to the sterile surface? Probably with a special kind of tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 1 hour ago, kerbiloid said: Btw how is that sticker sticked? With a sticky side to the sterile surface? With Photoshop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunjo Carl Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 I've recently become interested in the F1-B engine, a radically simplified and modernized revision of the F1-A, which was designed (but as I understand not prototyped) for the SLS as a liquid alternative to the shuttle-like SRBs they went with. I've been trying to get a feel for how these options compared to eachother and why (specifically) they found the SRBs to be the better option. In the absence of a committee, the decision would probably boil down to (in no particular order): Thrust (engineering requirement that both options provide a total of 3.6MN) Dry mass Isp (or burn time) Cost Logistics Safety/reliability Aerodynamic/vibration complexities I'd have to imagine that the F1-B would take an edge from the safety/reliability standpoint, but I'm having a really hard time finding anything concrete to compare them by in the other regards. I've found on wiki that the shuttle SRB has a vac ISP of 260s (pretty good!), but while I know Cape Kennedy can have some nasty weather, I've never heard of it being vacuum bad! Anyways, anyone have some figures I can sink my teeth into? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 35 minutes ago, Cunjo Carl said: I've recently become interested in the F1-B engine, a radically simplified and modernized revision of the F1-A, which was designed (but as I understand not prototyped) for the SLS as a liquid alternative to the shuttle-like SRBs they went with. I've been trying to get a feel for how these options compared to eachother and why (specifically) they found the SRBs to be the better option. In the absence of a committee, the decision would probably boil down to (in no particular order): Thrust (engineering requirement that both options provide a total of 3.6MN) Dry mass Isp (or burn time) Cost Logistics Safety/reliability Aerodynamic/vibration complexities I'd have to imagine that the F1-B would take an edge from the safety/reliability standpoint, but I'm having a really hard time finding anything concrete to compare them by in the other regards. I've found on wiki that the shuttle SRB has a vac ISP of 260s (pretty good!), but while I know Cape Kennedy can have some nasty weather, I've never heard of it being vacuum bad! Anyways, anyone have some figures I can sink my teeth into? Thanks in advance. The reason for using SRBs is almost surely political. Gotta keep those boys at Morton Thiokol (now ATK?) shoveling pork into those massive SRBs. In other words, more jobs in more congressional districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunjo Carl Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 Just now, StrandedonEarth said: The reason for using SRBs is almost surely political. Gotta keep those boys at Morton Thiokol (now ATK?) shoveling pork into those massive SRBs. In other words, more jobs in more congressional districts. Committee decision, got it. That's too bad! Well, if anyone's got the goods on the tech specs, I'd still be happy to learn about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Cunjo Carl said: I've recently become interested in the F1-B engine, a radically simplified and modernized revision of the F1-A, which was designed (but as I understand not prototyped) for the SLS as a liquid alternative to the shuttle-like SRBs they went with. I've been trying to get a feel for how these options compared to eachother and why (specifically) they found the SRBs to be the better option. In the absence of a committee, the decision would probably boil down to (in no particular order): Thrust (engineering requirement that both options provide a total of 3.6MN) Dry mass Isp (or burn time) Cost Logistics Safety/reliability Aerodynamic/vibration complexities I'd have to imagine that the F1-B would take an edge from the safety/reliability standpoint, but I'm having a really hard time finding anything concrete to compare them by in the other regards. I've found on wiki that the shuttle SRB has a vac ISP of 260s (pretty good!), but while I know Cape Kennedy can have some nasty weather, I've never heard of it being vacuum bad! Anyways, anyone have some figures I can sink my teeth into? Thanks in advance. The intent was to start with SRBs and then use LRBs for later generations. It was supposed to help keep jobs and prolong/replace existing contracts, and also be relatively quick. What they didn't expect was that the SRBs had to be heavily redesigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunjo Carl Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bill Phil said: The intent was to start with SRBs and then use LRBs for later generations. It was supposed to help keep jobs and prolong/replace existing contracts, and also be relatively quick. What they didn't expect was that the SRBs had to be heavily redesigned. Interesting, I had thought the SRBs were largely the same as before, save for the extra segment and (I'd assume) some safety updates. Let's see... I remember NASA's 2-page happy facts sheet says they wound up needing to change a few things: 25 percent more propellant New nozzle design New asbestos-free insulation and liner configuration New avionics Improved nondestructive evaluation processes That sounds like a bit of work, but not a ton. They're definitely understandable updates and retrofits for serving on a new rocket. Let's dig a little deeper... Apparently the motor cases and the propellant also need updating!? What would be left of the original? I can see what you mean about the heavy redesign now. It looks like they'll be aiming for yet another redesign as well, the "Advanced Booster", now in a racy black color! If I'm understanding this little tech blurb in the image, it's only supposed to take only 1000 labor hours to produce? Somehow that seems like an underestimate, but I'm sure they have something in mind. Then it seems they're trying to keep the door open for yet another yet another redesign after that... Well, even if the race was over before it really started, it's still interesting from the tech perspective: 'Advanced Booster' SRB 'Pyrios' LRB VS Oh my gosh, the F1-B LRBs are what the Twin Boar was designed after!? I knew I liked them for a reason! (Images originally from https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/sls-advanced-boosters-flight-nine-shuttle-heritage/ ) Edited August 3, 2018 by Cunjo Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts