_Augustus_

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

Recommended Posts

Just now, _Augustus_ said:

snip

As optimistic and enthusiastic as I am about BFR I can understand NASA/Congress's decision to ignore it for now at least... Considering Gateway is mid to late 2020's, as is a fully operational BFR it is getting a bit ridiculous, but I can still understand it.

The thing is, if they accept BFR as existing for resupply contracts, the entire gateway is redundant. You might as well just use BFR as the gateway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they will believe BFR when they see it, as it's a substantially different vehicle than any ever launched, whereas New Glenn and Vulcan are only slightly different than existing LVs (note that "existing" now includes reusable boosters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't blame them for doubting BFR, it would be really embarrassing for NASA if they had to change their plans because SpaceX delayed or changed BFR repeatedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I can't blame them for doubting BFR, it would be really embarrassing for NASA if they had to change their plans because SpaceX delayed or changed BFR repeatedly.

It would also be embarrassing for NASA if the BFR docked with the gateway as currently envisioned. I mean, its pressurized volume is (if plans don't change) going to be comparable to the ISS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although i do believe BFR will fly someday, its still a baby compared to all other spacecraft flying next decade, and because of its large size and ambition, it still has a long way to go before its to be taken seriously.

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

It would also be embarrassing for NASA if the BFR docked with the gateway as currently envisioned. I mean, its pressurized volume is (if plans don't change) going to be comparable to the ISS...

BFR and DSG are nearly polar opposites of eachother.

DSG is a regular cramped tin can collection, while BFR is probably going to be a 5-star hotel, judging from the way Dragon-V2 looks.

DSG is going to be rather expensive, while BFR's main purpose is the drasticly lower the cost of spaceflight.

I can probably go on but i don't have the time do that.

 

Share this post


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

BFR is probably going to be a 5-star hotel, judging from the way Dragon-V2 looks.

1280px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_147-0640,_LuftsBundesarchiv_Bild_147-0639,_Luftschiff_Hmaxresdefault.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airbus, on behalf of ESA, has dispatched the first European Service Module for Orion to Kennedy Space Center.
 

Quote

Bremen, 02 November 2018 – Airbus will deliver the first European Service Module (ESM) for NASA’s Orion spacecraft from its aerospace site in Bremen, Germany on 5 November 2018. An Antonov cargo aircraft will fly the ESM to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, USA. This is the result of four years of development and construction, and represents the achievement of a key milestone in the project. ESA selected Airbus as the prime contractor for the development and manufacturing of the first ESM in November 2014.

 

The ESM is a key element of Orion, the next-generation spacecraft that will transport astronauts beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since the end of the Apollo programme in the 1970s. The module provides propulsion, power and thermal control and will supply astronauts with water and oxygen on future missions. The ESM is installed underneath the crew module.

 

“The delivery of the first European Service Module for NASA’s Orion spacecraft is a hugely significant moment, and NASA’s ground-breaking deep-space mission is continuing to pick up speed. Very soon, the crew module and the service module will come together for the first time at Kennedy Space Center, and integration and testing can then begin,” said Oliver Juckenhöfel, Head of On-Orbit Services and Exploration at Airbus. “Working on the Orion project has cemented our exceptional, efficient and close relationships with our customers, ESA and NASA, and with our industrial partner, Lockheed Martin Space. We are committed to further reinforcing the trust that ESA and NASA have already placed in our know-how and expertise when it comes to the development and construction of the first ESM. We have already begun work on the integration of the second service module in our clean rooms.”

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/11/Airbus-delivers-first-European-Service-Module-for-NASAs-Orion-spacecraft.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2018 at 5:48 PM, tater said:

I think they will believe BFR when they see it, as it's a substantially different vehicle than any ever launched, whereas New Glenn and Vulcan are only slightly different than existing LVs (note that "existing" now includes reusable boosters).

I've said it on here many times before and I'll say it again. The BFR is as real as astroturf. You might as well go looking for leprechaun colonies in the craters on the dark side of the moon. No BFR is ever going to show up and it sure as hell ain't ever flying colonist (or anyone) to Mars.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

I've said it on here many times before and I'll say it again. The BFR is as real as astroturf.

I agree, it's as real as astroturf.

https://www.astroturf.com/

 

26 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

You might as well go looking for leprechaun colonies in the craters on the dark side of the moon. No BFR is ever going to show up and it sure as hell ain't ever flying colonist (or anyone) to Mars.  

BFR (the spacecraft, not booster) is already under construction. The engines exist. It will be tested at some point in the next year or two (albeit as a hopper, not orbitally).

I don't think it will take colonists anywhere any time soon (if ever), but the launch vehicle will almost certainly exist in the same rough time frame as ULA's Vulcan, and Blue Origin's New Glenn. This isn't Kool Aid drinking, it's a simple statement of facts. They've bought the facility, they've built a temporary facility. They are wrapping fiber already within that facility (we've seen it).

Will it work? That's an entirely different question. The booster is easy, it's just a bigger F9. The only unknown is landing on the launch clamps, but it would be an effective SHLV even with legs like F9. Launch cadence drops, so they could simply make more boosters.

The BFS is the hard bit. As an expendable upper stage it would not be that difficult, and it would still be an incredibly capable SHLV. DC-X worked within the regimes tested, so I fully expect BFS to at least be capable of suborbital hops without too much difficulty. Current SpaceX TPS can deal with orbital reentries fine, but I think that the Moon/Mars will require some new work, so I'll wait on that.

So NASA will look at BFR when there is something to look at, just as I said.

I'd wager money BFR has flown before EM-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tater said:

 

I'd wager money BFR has flown before EM-2.

 

You would lose your money. The guy is a carnival barker looking for suckers. -$$- SLS and Orion will fly EM-2 before the BFR goes anywhere.

5QUHW3V.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kerbal7 said:

You would lose your money. The guy is a carnival barker looking for suckers. -$$- SLS and Orion will fly EM-2 before the BFR goes anywhere.

EM-2 is June 2022 assuming literally nothing happens off schedule (SLS/Orion has zero schedule padding at this point). I'd bet 2023 is more likely. BFS needs to only leave the pad in TX and explode, and I would win that bet.

You will no doubt keep moving the ball.

First you apparently mean that it is vaporware (though you compared it to a line of common, existing products for some inexplicable reason). The reality is that parts of it actually exist as full-scale objects (unlike Vulcan, where the only existent part is the BE-4 and RL-10 engines (the latter only sort of, since they will use a new version)).

Then you repeatedly (this and other threads) focus on what Musk explicitly claims to be his "aspirational goals." A team aims to win the cup, the pennant, or the ring, even if they're the worst team in the league. That is an aspirational goal. They push to win, and they come out somewhere between last and first, but none the less, they aim high. No one actually paying attention (or serious) thinks his aspirational timelines will be hit. Regardless, he actually tends to hit the goals at some level, eventually. Even then, "eventually" is pretty short compared to SLS/Orion (which is 13 years old (it started during Constellation). There is nothing magic about BFR, it's what we have known since the 60s, bigger is better. Cost reduction can only come from operational reuse. Phil Bono knew this 55 years ago, and it's just as true now. Composites are also nothing new in aerospace.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The last OIG report (which was incredibly tough on NASA/Boeing) was just for the core stage. This new audit is on the entire launch vehicle, and can't be any better than the last one as the program has been terribly mismanaged.

 

Regarding Various new space companies being part of Gateway, this is the current reality. They are calling for non-SLS delivery to the Gateway as a service, they are procuring the PPE to be tested in LEO, then bought by NASA. This is in part because SLS is pretty fragile as a program. It has lots of support, but it is constantly days late and a billion dollars short. Even when flying it's very expensive, and is not scheduled to have a meaningful launch cadence, well, ever.

That doesn't mean it's vaporware, or won't fly, it is what it is. JUst as NG is what it is, and BFR is what it is. I fully expect to see versions of all 3 flying in the next few years. When? Who knows. I think before 5 years is entirely reasonable (when EM-2 will likely also fly).

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

Then you repeatedly (this and other threads) focus on what Musk explicitly claims to be his "aspirational goals."

 

"Aspirational goals?" You mean Elon Musk's BS. 

He's a carnival barker. Musk stands in front of auditoriums of people and talks absurdities of Martian colonies and giant, interplanetary cargo ships, within SIX YEARS. If he had a knowledgeable audience, and not fanboys, he'd be eye-rolled off the stage. 

No way could NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine get away with such annoying, fantastical, nonsense. He'd be shown the door, with head shakes, for good measure.

And as far as Musk being inspirational, what's inspirational about believing soon to be undeniably exposed and should be obvious, delusions?  The SLS and Orion, fortunately, are real, and really going to happen. And I'm excited about that, even if Musk's cult members are not.
 

People will fly to the moon on Pan Am space clippers using Moon Club tickets before anyone does in a  SpaceX, BFR. Mark my words. Bookmark this post. 

cj23C8T.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

*snip*

I don't for one second buy martian colonies within 6 years. I only believe men on Mars within 6 years for about half a second. I am also looking forward to SLS/Orion (although the program could be run way better). However, given the facts:

  • The Raptor is doing full duration test fires
  • The worlds largest carbon fiber fuel tank was built and tested, albeit to failure and for and older version of the proposal
  • More test tanks are under construction
  • The land for the factory has been purchased
  • Someone has bought a launch
  • SpaceX has a strong track record of getting things done
  • SpaceX are currently the world leaders in reusability and cost efficiency (as far as rockets go)

I believe that BFR will happen. Do I believe that it will come in under budget? No. Do I believe the timeline will stick? No. Do I believe that everything will go smoothly? No. Do I believe that it will do everything it's been advertised to do right off the bat? No.

EDIT: Do I believe it will look exactly like the 2018 proposal? No.

Does believing that it will exist at some point in some form make me a "Musk Cult Member?"

Edited by Ultimate Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

"Aspirational goals?" You mean Elon Musk's BS. 

He explicitly calls out his own timelines as aspirational---at the time he makes them.

He doesn't say, "I'm launching in May 2019, bank on it." He says "I think we can launch test flights in 2019---of course that date is aspirational."

SLS keeps claiming launch dates, them moving them. They didn't a launch at such and such a date was aspirational (in fact, their launch date that passed was written into law, and they still failed).

2 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

He's a carnival barker. Musk stands in front of auditoriums of people and talks absurdities of Martian colonies and giant, interplanetary cargo ships, within SIX YEARS. If he had a knowledgeable audience, and not fanboys, he'd be eye-rolled off the stage.

His COO gives times in front of entirely professional audiences, and she doesn't get laughed off the stage. She's giving similar timelines for flights. You really need to get out of the weeds on the Mars nonsense. You are constantly focused on that, but that is the foundational goal of the company. Musk talking Mars is the same as Bezos talking about millions of people living and working in space. That's the WHY of SpaceX, it's the long term mission, getting bogged down by his dates (which he fully admits are goals to work towards, not when it really happens). Shotwell has often been asked about his crazy timelines, and she says it pushes everyone, because the other people at SpaceX want to live to see this happen. So what if it takes twice as long. Mars has been 20 years away for NASA as long as I've been alive.

 

2 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:


No way could NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine get away with such annoying, fantastical, nonsense. He'd be shown the door, with head shakes, for good measure.

 

Bridenstine is all in for commercial space. Commercial space is SpaceX. ULA was already around as a gov provider. Commercial right now means SpaceX.

As I said above, BFR is off the table for NASA for exactly the reason I said. It's so far from the norm, they can't assume it until it's there. That's what I said, and it's true. That doesn't mean it's unlikely to happen, it just means it's outside all norms to this point. So was landing boosters and reflying them.

 

2 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

And as far as Musk being inspirational, what's inspirational about believing soon to be undeniably exposed and should be obvious, delusions?  The SLS and Orion, fortunately, are real, and really going to happen. And I'm excited about that, even if Musk's cult members are not.
 

SLS/Orion is a cluster___. The OIG report on the core was terrible. Did you actually read it? The program and contractor management is awful. They don't eben know where they stand at any given point. SLS Block 1 is real. SLS 1b and 2? Vaporware. No more real than BFR, and their management is so poor, it's at serious risk of ever happening should anyone in DC acquire any sense.

 

2 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

People will fly to the moon on Pan Am space clippers using Moon Club tickets before anyone does in a  SpaceX, BFR. Mark my words. Bookmark this post.

If they did, you'd just say it was long after the aspirational timeline and poo poo it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys...  Not only is this not the SpaceX/BFR thread, you're also just talking past each other and never will convince each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said before in this thread that BFR will obviate Gateway should it become operational. Until them, NASA has to go with either off the shelf providers, or at least vehicles they are familiar enough with that they can actually make reasonable predictions about their availability (Vulcan and NG fit here). Even then, they are not counting much on those, either. NG alone seriously crimps what few launches require SLS (sorry, Gateway discussion is sorta mushed into this thread). Huge fairing, decent mass to LEO, and it has a cryo US.

If BO can manage to be a little less gradatim, and a little more ferociter, then they could really do a lot for Gateway.

Share this post


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

I've said before in this thread that BFR will obviate Gateway should it become operational.

 

The BFR will never become operational. Ever. There is no customer for this rocket. And despite Musk claiming to develop and build this rocket using his own money, rubbish. No customers, no investors, no rocket. Period. It's going to become a money pit and canceled. End of story.

And it could never be made safe enough for human spaceflight anyways. Retro-burning a giant rocket full of people Tintin style . Give me a break. How many times until that goes tragically wrong? :unsure:Think about it. 

NASA learned its lesson with the Space Shuttle. Something the Russians are keen about. Paramount in human spaceflight is safety.  Flight systems need to be simple and robust. That makes it safe. You get complicated and people get killed. 

That's the very reason Orion is a capsule and the BFR is a pipedream.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

The BFR will never become operational. Ever. There is no customer for this rocket. And despite Musk claiming to develop and build this rocket using his own money, rubbish. No customers, no investors, no rocket. Period. It's going to become a money pit and canceled. End of story.

And it could never be made safe enough for human spaceflight anyways. Retro-burning a giant rocket full of people Tintin style . Give me a break. How many times until that goes tragically wrong? :unsure:Think about it. 

NASA learned its lesson with the Space Shuttle. Something the Russians are keen about. Paramount in human spaceflight is safety.  Flight systems need to be simple and robust. That makes it safe. You get complicated and people get killed. 

That's the very reason Orion is a capsule and the BFR is a pipedream.  

Yes, safety is important. But spaceX has done the impossible of reusing boosters, and that has made people believe in the dreams of spaceX.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xd the great said:

Yes, safety is important. But spaceX has done the impossible of reusing boosters, and that has made people believe in the dreams of spaceX.

 

Oh please. Reusing boosters wasn‘t impossible it just wasn‘t economical and it still hasn‘t been proven to be.

There are even myths of an ancient launch vehicle that reused every part of the launcher, even the part that reached Orbit, loosing only the main tank. 

Edited by Canopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone just use "not-econimical" as an argument against an SLS competitor? :o

Share this post


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

Oh please. Reusing boosters wasn‘t impossible it just wasn‘t economical and it still hasn‘t been proven to be.

There are even myths of an ancient launch vehicle that reused every part of the launcher, even the part that reached Orbit, loosing only the main tank. 

I would like to see that myth. Any links?

The launch cost of falcon 9 is 60 million for 6 tonnes to ISS, lower than that of a soyuz, and much much lower than that of a space shuttle.

7 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Did someone just use "not-econimical" as an argument against an SLS competitor? :o

Agreed. Why use space shuttle compartments when the entire thing is just a saturn v?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

The BFR will never become operational. Ever. There is no customer for this rocket. And despite Musk claiming to develop and build this rocket using his own money, rubbish. No customers, no investors, no rocket. Period. It's going to become a money pit and canceled. End of story.

And it could never be made safe enough for human spaceflight anyways. Retro-burning a giant rocket full of people Tintin style . Give me a break. How many times until that goes tragically wrong? :unsure:Think about it. 

NASA learned its lesson with the Space Shuttle. Something the Russians are keen about. Paramount in human spaceflight is safety.  Flight systems need to be simple and robust. That makes it safe. You get complicated and people get killed. 

That's the very reason Orion is a capsule and the BFR is a pipedream.  

When BFR flies in a couple years, I'll be sure to remind you of this.

Share this post


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