[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

They probably have multiple variants of OMS depending on the vector and their angle. That and they could've tested the whole SM and just not shown it in the photo. 

Yeah, probably... would help for them to use a camera from this decade, though. It's not like we haven't paid enough for the test to have the budget for a GoPro.

[jadebenn]

NASA starts buying long lead parts for third Orion ESM, SLS Core Stage

Depending on how things shake out, that Orion might not launch on that SLS. But it's good to be prepared in-case Europa Clipper on SLS gets the boot, especially considering how notional the current plans for Artemis 3 are.

Edited August 6, 2019 by jadebenn

[Guest]

8 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, probably... would help for them to use a camera from this decade, though. It's not like we haven't paid enough for the test to have the budget for a GoPro.

Maybe it’s some kind of uber-hardened space grade camera that can withstand taking photos on the surface of the sun   

(Kinda like how the CPUs for probes and rovers would struggle to play Packman but are super tuff  )

Edited August 6, 2019 by Guest

[ZooNamedGames]

18 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

Maybe it’s some kind of uber-hardened space grade camera that can withstand taking photos on the surface of the sun   

(Kinda like how the CPUs for probes and rovers would struggle to play Packman but are super tuff  )

Not likely. Looking at the compression artifacts my guess is that the image was either A) Highly compressed when it was uploaded to the internet or was compressed somewhere along the way as it was sent across the internet. Maybe by work email file size restrictions or just a program limitation on the file size. B) The image has been cropped, or duplicated and reduplicated with each update losing detail thus creating the muddy image. C) They didn't bother to check the camera quality before the test.

[tater]

It looks like maybe they put a pipe over the SM engine?

https://images.nasa.gov/details-8-5-2019_Orion_PQM_WSTF.html

 

[Nightside]

53 minutes ago, tater said:

It looks like maybe they put a pipe over the SM engine?

https://images.nasa.gov/details-8-5-2019_Orion_PQM_WSTF.html

 

Make sure to watch with sound! That thing makes a strange howl.

Where did that pipe even come from?!?

[jadebenn]

1 hour ago, tater said:

It looks like maybe they put a pipe over the SM engine?

https://images.nasa.gov/details-8-5-2019_Orion_PQM_WSTF.html

What I'm curious about are what those tiny engines that fire directly before the slightly-bigger engines on the ESM are. They look like the same type of engines used on the ESM's RCS thrusters, but they're not placed there on the actual craft.

[tater]

24 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

What I'm curious about are what those tiny engines that fire directly before the slightly-bigger engines on the ESM are. They look like the same type of engines used on the ESM's RCS thrusters, but they're not placed there on the actual craft.

I assume it's a mock up of all the RCS and OMS that would be used in the abort to orbit scenario. It;s not the actual SM. It is an expensive test stand... thing.

[jadebenn]

1 hour ago, tater said:

I assume it's a mock up of all the RCS and OMS that would be used in the abort to orbit scenario. It;s not the actual SM. It is an expensive test stand... thing.

Right, but assuming those are just the relocated RCS engines, why would they be testing them for an abort scenario? They're on the sides on the real thing.

Maybe attitude control, I suppose? But then you wouldn't need them all to be firing at once...

Edited August 7, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

6 hours ago, jadebenn said:

Right, but assuming those are just the relocated RCS engines, why would they be testing them for an abort scenario? They're on the sides on the real thing.

There are 4 sets of 2 for each engine type (2 types). The small RCS are at an angle, but still prograde.

[kerbiloid]

1. Are they rotating? I used to think that the orbital RCS thrusters usually have antagonists, say to turn around without prograding. But here I can't see an opposing pair for this prograde block, unless another one can rotate retrograde.

2. Are those four little nozzles behind, turbopump exhaust nozzles used for steering during prograde acceleration?

3. That thing in the shadow is probably a retractable extendable navigation sensor sticking out from the interstage?

Edited August 7, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Barzon]

Those are back up engines in case the OMS fails.

[tater]

Just now, Barzon Kerman said:

Those are back up engines in case the OMS fails.

Those would be the 8 smaller engines (large RCS) in 4 groups of 2 on the bottom?

That leaves the 4 groups of 2 prograde RCS thrusters on the side, albeit those will have cosine losses.

 

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Barzon Kerman said:

Those are back up engines in case the OMS fails.

But a separated engine or a turbopump of the main one?

[Barzon]

they function the same as normal RCS thrusters. Just are larger.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Barzon Kerman

[jadebenn]

Adding to this, I believe the OMS, the "bigger RCS," and the normal RCS system all share the same fuel supply. So there's redundancy if the OMS fails. Depending how far they are to the mission, they might be able to continue with reduced capacity, and if that's not an option, they could use the backup engines to safely return to Earth.

Edited August 7, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

15 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Adding to this, I believe the OMS, thie "bigger RCS," and the normal RCS system all share the same fuel supply. So there's redundancy if the OMS fails. Depending how far they are to the mission, they might be able to continue with reduced capacity, and if that's not an option, they could use the backup engines to safely return to Earth.

That's the point of this test, presumably (abort to orbit using the SM, minus the ICPS or EUS).

[jadebenn]

42 minutes ago, tater said:

That's the point of this test, presumably (abort to orbit using the SM, minus the ICPS or EUS).

Well, in that post specifically I was more thinking of an "Abort to Earth" scenario. Although I do wonder if the backup engines on the ESM have enough thrust to successfully perform an ATO if the OMS fails.

[Cheif Operations Director]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 8:32 PM, tater said:

Artemis-3 is when, exactly? 2024?

they better start bending metal soon..

More like 2824

*Elon colonizes mars and build's a full colony on mars 800 years ago. 

NASA: Ok lets go explore mars with the SLS now!

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

More like 2824

*Elon colonizes mars and build's a full colony on mars 800 years ago. 

NASA: Ok lets go explore mars with the SLS now!

Assuming SpaceX/Musk doesn't go bankrupt, Starship development goes smooth and a myriad of other small issues that must align perfectly for it to work.

SLS will fly and will get us there. Yes it's taken time but unlike Musk, NASA doesn't try to bury the practical problems of developing the world's largest rocket.

Also A3 is for the moon not Mars. Not even Musk has plans for Mars until the 30s (more likely the 40s or 50s).

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

Assuming SpaceX/Musk doesn't go bankrupt, Starship development goes smooth and a myriad of other small issues that must align perfectly for it to work.

SLS will fly and will get us there. Yes it's taken time but unlike Musk, NASA doesn't try to bury the practical problems of developing the world's largest rocket.

I am no musk fanboy, however when you watch a NASA video from the late 2000 and it predicts we will have a moon base by 2018 and you realize that when SLS is ready for launch, congress will need to launch there salaries instead of rockets, I doubt that SLS will get off the ground until 2022, at that I doubt we will be back on the moon by 2028 let alone 2024. This just seems like it will not happen anytime soon.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I am no musk fanboy, however when you watch a NASA video from the late 2000 and it predicts we will have a moon base by 2018 and you realize that when SLS is ready for launch, congress will need to launch there salaries instead of rockets, I doubt that SLS will get off the ground until 2022, at that I doubt we will be back on the moon by 2028 let alone 2024. This just seems like it will not happen anytime soon.

Here's your problems-

1) NASA is having to launch a Saturn V sized vehicle with less than half the budget than they had in the 60s.

2) Rocket development is costly. So high costs taxed with minimal budget means a long development time.

3) SLS exists in it's entirety and merely needs to have a few additional tests and full assembly. So there's no doubt it'll fly by 2021. There's simply nothing left to delay it- we've done every other conceivable test NASA can concoct for the vehicle. The only additional test after Stennis will be to launch it.

4) Musk can't afford to send crews to Mars without NASA funding and NASA won't fund Musk until they are ready for Mars or the moon. Most certainly not to ferry crews or anything other than non-essential cargo. SLS is the only man rated SHLV currently available that's completely created.

5) SLS doesn't need to fly as often as the Saturn V for us to get crews. We launched 4 Saturn Vs before Apollo 11 (Apollos 4, 6, 8, and 10). By cutting out the redundant launch of Apollo 6 and wrapping Apollo 7 and 8 into one mission (Artemis 2), by Artemis 3, we'll be ready to land on the surface of the moon again. Not to mention SLS will operate next to commercial vehicles which will be deploying and launching the essential hardware to make Artemis possible.

6) SLS was plagued by developmental delays, not general design or manufacturing delays. Production started in 2014 and it only took 5 years to produce the first article- a production cadence that's undoubtedly going to shrink now that changes to the vehicle or it's mission have stopped and a focused plan has been created. So SLS will not take nearly as long to produce a second time, or a third and so on.

7) NASA is guaranteed to launch SLS- SpaceX or any alternative is not. If there's a fault in Starship's development, a slip in funding, or some hold in construction, production or assembly, that's a hold on all BEO exploration. As long as NASA's committed- there's a guaranteed chance. No one in congress is going to cancel SLS after billions of dollars in funding. Even if Starship/SuperHeavy was ready by 2021- NASA still wouldn't consider it as it isn't man rated nor will it be tested to NASA's standards. As NASA knows the hazards of BEO exploration (Apollo 13).

8) Maybe the timeline is a bit hasty- but it sets a precedence to get things underway and once SLS is launching regularly- a moon mission goes from an impossibility to a mere discussion of "where do we want to land?". So maybe it won't be 2024. But once Artemis 2 flies, there will be nothing preventing NASA from launching crews to the orbit of the moon, and once they select a commercial developer for a lander, they can set foot on the moon.

9) NASA unlike SpaceX- has all the hardware and equipment already designed and ready for longterm lunar exploration, such as spacesuits, tools and equipment for exploring the moon and scientists who have been working with NASA engineers (and SLS/Orion!) to make sure their science and work is compatible with the next NASA program (which turned out to be Artemis). SpaceX has a space suit which has like a few hours of life support and lacks the option for the suit to receive external life support (something essential for EVAs).

10) You can't say that NASA makes unattainable promises- someone on my Discord server recently dug up an online article where Musk claimed to have Falcon 9 Heavy (pre Falcon Heavy renaming) flying by 2010. NASA has to make ambitious goals as taxpayers, congressmen or corporate entities are interested in investing in scientific advancement. They want pizazz and excitement. It's what Musk has been feeding off of- and the same reason why Bridenstine would make such a bold claim. Since if the corporations get fired up to get this done on time to become the heroes, then everyone benefits. NASA, the companies, the US taxpayers, the scientists, the youth of this generation and so many more.

11) SLS could be backdated to the 80s too if you really wanted to be technical. Issue back then wasn't funding but "do we need it".

[Cheif Operations Director]

4 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Here's your problems-

1) NASA is having to launch a Saturn V sized vehicle with less than half the budget than they had in the 60s.

2) Rocket development is costly. So high costs taxed with minimal budget means a long development time.

3) SLS exists in it's entirety and merely needs to have a few additional tests and full assembly. So there's no doubt it'll fly by 2021. There's simply nothing left to delay it- we've done every other conceivable test NASA can concoct for the vehicle. The only additional test after Stennis will be to launch it.

4) Musk can't afford to send crews to Mars without NASA funding and NASA won't fund Musk until they are ready for Mars or the moon. Most certainly not to ferry crews or anything other than non-essential cargo. SLS is the only man rated SHLV currently available that's completely created.

5) SLS doesn't need to fly as often as the Saturn V for us to get crews. We launched 4 Saturn Vs before Apollo 11 (Apollos 4, 6, 8, and 10). By cutting out the redundant launch of Apollo 6 and wrapping Apollo 7 and 8 into one mission (Artemis 2), by Artemis 3, we'll be ready to land on the surface of the moon again. Not to mention SLS will operate next to commercial vehicles which will be deploying and launching the essential hardware to make Artemis possible.

6) SLS was plagued by developmental delays, not general design or manufacturing delays. Production started in 2014 and it only took 5 years to produce the first article- a production cadence that's undoubtedly going to shrink now that changes to the vehicle or it's mission have stopped and a focused plan has been created. So SLS will not take nearly as long to produce a second time, or a third and so on.

7) NASA is guaranteed to launch SLS- SpaceX or any alternative is not. If there's a fault in Starship's development, a slip in funding, or some hold in construction, production or assembly, that's a hold on all BEO exploration. As long as NASA's committed- there's a guaranteed chance. No one in congress is going to cancel SLS after billions of dollars in funding. Even if Starship/SuperHeavy was ready by 2021- NASA still wouldn't consider it as it isn't man rated nor will it be tested to NASA's standards. As NASA knows the hazards of BEO exploration (Apollo 13).

8) Maybe the timeline is a bit hasty- but it sets a precedence to get things underway and once SLS is launching regularly- a moon mission goes from an impossibility to a mere discussion of "where do we want to land?". So maybe it won't be 2024. But once Artemis 2 flies, there will be nothing preventing NASA from launching crews to the orbit of the moon, and once they select a commercial developer for a lander, they can set foot on the moon.

9) NASA unlike SpaceX- has all the hardware and equipment already designed and ready for longterm lunar exploration, such as spacesuits, tools and equipment for exploring the moon and scientists who have been working with NASA engineers (and SLS/Orion!) to make sure their science and work is compatible with the next NASA program (which turned out to be Artemis). SpaceX has a space suit which has like a few hours of life support and lacks the option for the suit to receive external life support (something essential for EVAs).

10) You can't say that NASA makes unattainable promises- someone on my Discord server recently dug up an online article where Musk claimed to have Falcon 9 Heavy (pre Falcon Heavy renaming) flying by 2010. NASA has to make ambitious goals as taxpayers, congressmen or corporate entities are interested in investing in scientific advancement. They want pizazz and excitement. It's what Musk has been feeding off of- and the same reason why Bridenstine would make such a bold claim. Since if the corporations get fired up to get this done on time to become the heroes, then everyone benefits. NASA, the companies, the US taxpayers, the scientists, the youth of this generation and so many more.

11) SLS could be backdated to the 80s too if you really wanted to be technical. Issue back then wasn't funding but "do we need it".

Again I know this, my entire critique is of congress if you re-read my post. I know that NASA as an entity is MORE than Capable of making a rocket in a few years if they are given enough funding. That is the question though, getting enough problems. I just think congress is more interested in raising their salary and blaming each other for the 2020 election that launching rockets. If NASA has any delays and SpaceX is successful they will cut NASA funding even more.

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Again I know this, my entire critique is of congress if you re-read my post. I know that NASA as an entity is MORE than Capable of making a rocket in a few years if they are given enough funding. That is the question though, getting enough problems. I just think congress is more interested in raising their salary and blaming each other for the 2020 election that launching rockets. If NASA has any delays and SpaceX is successful they will cut NASA funding even more.

That's your issue though. You keep assuming SpaceX will have the funding to go on their own way- NASA isn't paying them to go to the moon and NASA is SpaceX's biggest client. Even if SpaceX did get there- they'd still launch the SLS a few times to get their money's worth out of it. SpaceX ain't having crews leave LEO without NASA's funding. SpaceX can barely get crews to space period, much less orbit, the ISS, the moon or SpaceX's former goal- Mars.

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, ZooNamedGames said:

That's your issue though. You keep assuming SpaceX will have the funding to go on their own way- NASA isn't paying them to go to the moon and NASA is SpaceX's biggest client. Even if SpaceX did get there- they'd still launch the SLS a few times to get their money's worth out of it. SpaceX ain't having crews leave LEO without NASA's funding. SpaceX can barely get crews to space period, much less orbit, the ISS, the moon or SpaceX's former goal- Mars.

I will say this again

6 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

If NASA has any delays and SpaceX is successful they will cut NASA funding even more.

IF NASA has any delays and SpaceX is successful they will cut NASA funding even more.