_Augustus_

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, tater said:

Engineering is not science.

To be fair, this seems to be a topic of some controversy.  Some see "science" as an endeavor that sprawls from technicians to the forefront of research.  Others see it as more restrictive.  The debate seems to follow many of the same "tyranny of the small" principles as those who care about whether that thing in the back of a rocket that provides propulsion should rightly be called an "engine" or a "motor".

With that in mind, the way to convince people of your stance is not merely to repeat your assertion.

23 hours ago, tater said:

I agree, as I said countless times,

Okay.  What was your point in mentioning the circularity, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Nikolai said:

To be fair, this seems to be a topic of some controversy.  Some see "science" as an endeavor that sprawls from technicians to the forefront of research.  Others see it as more restrictive.  The debate seems to follow many of the same "tyranny of the small" principles as those who care about whether that thing in the back of a rocket that provides propulsion should rightly be called an "engine" or a "motor".

With that in mind, the way to convince people of your stance is not merely to repeat your assertion.

Engineering is making technologies. Science is studying the universe. They are not the same thing. This is not controversial to anyone in engineering I have ever talked to. Engineers use science, and scientists use engineering. The goals are different.

If it doesn't generalize to increase the understanding of the natural universe, it's not science.

Quote

Okay.  What was your point in mentioning the circularity, then?

Because human spaceflight factors can be science (basic medical research), but the only point to learning about people in space is to put people in space, which is obviously circular. 

I'm unsure why this is unclear.

People don't live in space right now (meaning their entire lives). Learning how to do that is circular because it has only one goal, doing that. If people don't have a reason to live their lives in space, then finding out how to accomplish that makes little sense. The possible reasons are "just because" (which I'm fine with, some people live really cold places, some people live in really hot places, etc), and... well, I think just because. Mars will never have an economic reason for colonization (though if colonized it would have its own, internal economy). Space (orbital colonies) won't have a reason, either. In space resource extraction will be done remotely, it's not like we need "miners" in spacesuits to mine asteroids, if they do anything it will be in front of a screen.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guys on the NSF forum figured out that the Mars lander is based on ACES and Orion, as I said it might be.

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40324.0;

Yes, very flight-proven when one has flown as a boilerplate once and the other hasn't flown at all........

:huh:

Edited by _Augustus_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think that thing has to go up on SLS, sorta like the original Dynasoar concept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but I have no idea how you get it to Mars with a full tank. Using cryos around Mars is going to be hard unless mission profile relies on ISRU from Phobos or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as exciting as Musk's talk, but still interesting.

Here's their flickr as well:

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

Think that thing has to go up on SLS, sorta like the original Dynasoar concept?

No. Dream Chaser wasn't selected for Commercial Crew and is flown unmanned in a fairing for a reason. You'd need giant wings on the bottom for stability - try it in KSP sometime.

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Sure, but I have no idea how you get it to Mars with a full tank. Using cryos around Mars is going to be hard unless mission profile relies on ISRU from Phobos or something.

Agreed - we don't know if we even can ISRU cryos from Phobos.....

Edited by _Augustus_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike DC or Dynasoar, at least the concept above is symmetric.  At 10.5m wide, it's a stretch to launch it with anything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i can't watch any of these videos right now. Can any one tell me when and where these Orions dock with these ACES, or are they launched with them? And how are people supposed to fly to Mars only in these small command modules?. Or am i getting the whole thing wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Canopus said:

So i can't watch any of these videos right now. Can any one tell me when and where these Orions dock with these ACES, or are they launched with them? And how are people supposed to fly to Mars only in these small command modules?. Or am i getting the whole thing wrong?

The craft is 2 craft hooked together with a docking hub in the center. There is an Orion with an ACES upper stage on each side, and each is docked to a hab which is surrounded by hydrolox tanks (radiation protection, I assume). The Hab is then docked to a larger crew section, and that is attached to the hub. Then the same on the other side.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Canopus said:

So i can't watch any of these videos right now. Can any one tell me when and where these Orions dock with these ACES, or are they launched with them? And how are people supposed to fly to Mars only in these small command modules?. Or am i getting the whole thing wrong?

We are lacking detail on the mission profile, but I suspect it goes something like:

  • HAB launches on SLS+EUS
  • Orion+ACES on SLS+EUS
  • Orion+ACES docks with HAB
  • EUS sends Orion+ACES+Hab to Mars
  • Stack docks with other HAB and stuff in Mars orbit

A lot of stuff doesn't add up, like can SLS+EUS launch Orion with an ACES ? Can ACES stages keep their cryo for a multi-year mission?

 

 

 

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36603077013_09dbbda342_k.jpg

 

So there are quarters surrounded b y the gold tanks, then the conical sections are also crew/lab areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those enormous windows on the lander are making me uncomfortable.

Share this post


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

Those enormous windows on the lander are making me uncomfortable.

The whole thing looks a little too retro for me. Like something from a 50's Sci-fi Magazine cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Canopus said:

The whole thing looks a little too retro for me. Like something from a 50's Sci-fi Magazine cover.

Right? Like they lifted the artwork from some old issue of PM and plopped it into their renders.

Why the windows though? It's not like they're useful for landing or even flying the damn thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, regex said:

Why the windows though? It's not like they're useful for landing or even flying the damn thing...

I guess if they ever fly they will look more like bigger versions of the DC-X. Less Windows and less fins.

Share this post


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

Right? Like they lifted the artwork from some old issue of PM and plopped it into their renders.

Why the windows though? It's not like they're useful for landing or even flying the damn thing...

The only reason for forward windows is docking... and cameras would do just as well. It's certainly odd, since in flight, before the flip, they cannot see over the nose. It's backwards, really, you'd think the critical time would be landing in terms of seeing the ground.

Share this post


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

No. Dream Chaser wasn't selected for Commercial Crew and is flown unmanned in a fairing for a reason. You'd need giant wings on the bottom for stability - try it in KSP sometime.

I did. Stubby wings plus sizeble grid fins did it for me, buuuuut...

14514290041960.png

Saturn-Shuttle_model_at_Udvar-Hazy_Cente

Share this post


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

I did. Stubby wings plus sizeble grid fins did it for me, buuuuut...

14514290041960.png

Saturn-Shuttle_model_at_Udvar-Hazy_Cente

Indeed. Big wings aren't out of the question if you plan on recovering the booster anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Lockmart lander is not nearly as asymmetric as something like dynasoar or shuttle, however. 

36603075873_2178468380_z.jpg

The windows are certainly odd, however, other than the cool factor... I notice the flag on the side... which way does a flag point when the vehicle sometimes flies "forward" but also lands under retropropulsion? LOL.

Hmmm...

 

Share this post


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

Hmmm...

Ooooooooh! I love food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building stations is what you do with overbuilt, otherwise useless hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockheed Martin livestream supposedly starting in a little bit... so far it's just a 4 minute dark stage with some music.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can do Mars (?) but not webcasting, apparently.

 

Share this post


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

They can do Mars (?) but not webcasting, apparently.

I lol'd

Share this post


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