_Augustus_

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

No concrete reasoning yet. Some speculation that Gerst's defense of Gateway didn't resonate with the current administration, but that's not proven.

Edited by jadebenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Could. OMB's apparently been gunning for it (moreso than they usually gun for human spaceflight programs, that is). That would beg the question of how you'd work around its absence though. We can't do an Apollo-style mission with our current resources.

While the ousting of Gerst was almost certainly a policy thing, we don't yet know what policy thing it was.

If the goal is getting back to the lunar surface, Gateway doesn't actually help at all. It adds dv, and all the parts have to be sent there (at non-trivial cost). Any lander they might build can be sent to LLO easier than it can be sent to Gateway, THEN LLO. The least parts mission architecture is likely sending a 2-3 crew lander in 2 parts that could self-assemble via docking (already the plan with Gateway). That could be sent ahead with 2 FH launches (or something similar like NG). They could then also send a small tug, or the Ascent stage could have a tug with it, since it need not be as massive as the Descent stage. That tug stays with Orion in LLO, and has a few hundred extra m/s of dv while pushing the Orion CSM. Orion does it's TEI burn in 2 parts, first the OMS on the SM, then it flips, and uses the tug for the final small amount, and any midcourse correction.

The tug only needs to provide something like 100m/s, so any eyeballs out discomfort would be short lived (and it could be designed for lower thrust).

33 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

No concrete reasoning yet. Some speculation that Gerst's defense of Gateway didn't resonate with the current administration, but that's not proven.

Yeah, I agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler
1 hour ago, tater said:

The tug only needs to provide something like 100m/s, so any eyeballs out discomfort would be short lived (and it could be designed for lower thrust).

Also nobody nobody dismissed traditional measures.

Spoiler

metallics-roberts-duct-tape-50-555-64_10

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tater said:

If the goal is getting back to the lunar surface, Gateway doesn't actually help at all. It adds dv, and all the parts have to be sent there (at non-trivial cost). Any lander they might build can be sent to LLO easier than it can be sent to Gateway, THEN LLO.

Yer, but there’s an emphasis on creating some kind of semipermanent presence there too. I don’t really like gateway for that but some kind of logistic focal point to consolidate resources and capability would be nice. 

I haven’t had a look to see if the objectives and experiments planned for the first manned mission are stated anywhere. Anyone know if that’s been announced yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tug doesn't necessarily have to be a pusher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

A tug doesn't necessarily have to be a pusher.

It doesn't. But you save a lot of weight and engineering team's head scratching making it a pusher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

I haven’t had a look to see if the objectives and experiments planned for the first manned mission are stated anywhere. Anyone know if that’s been announced yet?

There really isn't a good reason for an orbiting Moon station except that it's where Orion can go.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(note that there is not even a chance of launch in less than a year---NET end of 2020)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tater said:

There really isn't a good reason for an orbiting Moon station except that it's where Orion can go.

Where is a place having a good reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We now have pretty good confirmation that, despite rumors that the OMB's been gunning for Gateway, it was not the reason behind Gerst's demotion.

NASA administrator on recent personnel shakeup: ‘There’s no turmoil at all’

Quote

So given all of these changes, does that mean that we can expect some large structural changes to the Artemis architecture moving forward?

No, not for the Artemis architecture. All of the elements are in place. We’ve got SLS and Orion. We’re going to build the Gateway, and we’re going to build a lander, and that architecture is not changing.

Edited by jadebenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2019/07/nasa-admits-tha-1.html

Quote

"[NASA SLS Core Stage Manufacturing Manager Chad] BRYANT: Think of it as a jobs program. So we're taking - all of the funding that is given us to build this rocket, we're creating jobs everywhere. And not only that, we're all coming together to build a product that is going to make us proud to be Americans."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, and this is only supposition, I get the feeling the feeling that those Americans would be much happier knowing that their jobs weren't just makework, and were actually advancing spaceflight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said:

Somehow, and this is only supposition, I get the feeling the feeling that those Americans would be much happier knowing that their jobs weren't just makework, and were actually advancing spaceflight. 

You do realize a lot of them are young and new to the industry right? Supervisors are likely swamped by dozens of rookie personnel because NASA is the one giving the newer hands in spaceflight a chance to work on rockets and spacecraft before they’re hired by more practical companies like ULA, SpaceX or Blue Origin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, tater said:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2019/07/nasa-admits-tha-1.html

"[NASA SLS Core Stage Manufacturing Manager Chad] BRYANT: Think of it as a jobs program. So we're taking - all of the funding that is given us to build this rocket, we're creating jobs everywhere. And not only that, we're all coming together to build a product that is going to make us proud to be Americans."

Oh boy, I'm gonna have fun seeing this quote on every space site for the next few months. Thanks, Chad.

Talk about a "foot-in-mouth" incident. 

4 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

You do realize a lot of them are young and new to the industry right? Supervisors are likely swamped by dozens of rookie personnel because NASA is the one giving the newer hands in spaceflight a chance to work on rockets and spacecraft before they’re hired by more practical companies like ULA, SpaceX or Blue Origin. 

It's true. From what I can tell, the Shuttle people still are in management (for the most part), but the SLS is otherwise mainly being made by the next generation of NASA workers. I suppose many of the shuttle people decided The Gap was as good as time as any to retire.

Edited by jadebenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jadebenn said:
10 hours ago, tater said:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2019/07/nasa-admits-tha-1.html

  Quote

"[NASA SLS Core Stage Manufacturing Manager Chad] BRYANT: Think of it as a jobs program. So we're taking - all of the funding that is given us to build this rocket, we're creating jobs everywhere. And not only that, we're all coming together to build a product that is going to make us proud to be Americans."

Oh boy, I'm gonna have fun seeing this quote on every space site for the next few months. Thanks, Chad

O say does that star-spangled banner yet waaaaaave. o7

XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

You do realize a lot of them are young and new to the industry right? Supervisors are likely swamped by dozens of rookie personnel because NASA is the one giving the newer hands in spaceflight a chance to work on rockets and spacecraft before they’re hired by more practical companies like ULA, SpaceX or Blue Origin. 

I know a few people who were hired by Blue Origin. They were (relatively to me, anyway) young and new to the industry.

Of course, that's just anecdotal. It could be that every other person at Blue Origin is a grizzled veteran steely-eyed missile man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe most of the senior personnel at SpX, BO, and the other startups are NASA veterans.with the rank and file filled with aspiring kerbonauts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 9:35 PM, ZooNamedGames said:

SLS is less than a year away from LAUNCH day, not from a major development milestone- from leaving the ground with all of its equipment (minus LSS and that isn’t even NASA’s problem, that’s ESA’s for being slow).

Um, nope...

 

So a year is mid-2020, 2 years is mid 2021, so we're 2.5 years (earliest) from SLS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

585601737088303104.png?v=1

being reliable and trustworthy about SLS and being Eric Berger are mutually exclusive.

Edited by Barzon Kerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bridenstine's comments were made before the Senate. It's public record:

Quote

Twice during testimony before the US Senate Committee Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Bridenstine referenced 2021 as the expected launch date for Artemis-1. "I think 2021 is definitely achievable for the Artemis-1 launch vehicle," Bridenstine said in response to a question from Sen. Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who chairs the committee.

He thinks 2021 is achievable.

That means it's not 2020 at all, and that 2022 is possible as well. Under oath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2020 is definitely possible.

ad.jpg

keep in mind, this is old. more progress has been made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Barzon Kerman said:

2020 is definitely possible.

The NASA Administrator literally just testified that 2020 is NOT possible.

Saying a launch MIGHT be achievable in 2021 without question means 2020 is off the table, otherwise he would have said they might be able to make 2020.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tater said:

The NASA Administrator literally just testified that 2020 is NOT possible.

Saying a launch MIGHT be achievable in 2021 without question means 2020 is off the table, otherwise he would have said they might be able to make 2020.

 

He also didn’t say 2020 wasn’t possible. He said that 2021 was. He’s likely covering his tail so if something goes wrong, no one can say he was wrong. Plus, he can set himself up to be “ahead of schedule” by intentionally listing it as later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bridenstine is very good at navigating the political oceans of human BEO exploration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.