[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[kerbiloid]

1953. And pay attention to the rocket.

Spoiler

 

[Barzon]

13 hours ago, Nightside said:

I have an SLS question: Is EUS still a thing?

Yes. 

https://itjobpro.com/job/structural-analysis-technical-lead-space-launch-system-exploration-upper-stage-2

200mln in funding for EUS dev.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Barzon Kerman

[tater]

How will they test this? Artemis-3 is the supposed lunar landing mission. That's really going to be tied to an unflown stage? Really?

[sh1pman]

1 hour ago, tater said:

How will they test this? Artemis-3 is the supposed lunar landing mission. That's really going to be tied to an unflown stage? Really?

Do you need Block 1B for landing? I think it can be done with just Block 1, SLS delivers Orion to the Gateway, where the lander delivered by FH/NG is waiting. Crew then lands, plants the flag, ascends back to the Gateway and goes home via their Orion.

[tater]

7 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Do you need Block 1B for landing? I think it can be done with just Block 1, SLS delivers Orion to the Gateway, where the lander delivered by FH/NG is waiting. Crew then lands, plants the flag, ascends back to the Gateway and goes home via their Orion.

While I think this is correct, the NASA post says Artemis-3 has EUS, and they have also said that Artemis-3 is the landing mission. Short of testing EUS on Europa Clipper---in which case they'd likely have said that was when EUS would first fly---it will be tested with astronauts (including the first woman to walk on the Moon! (in all NASA PR lately )) as the Guinea Pigs. Seems like a less than good idea.

(yes, it's all stuff that has been flown in other ways, RL-10s, etc, but it's none the less a new stage, untested)

[sh1pman]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

While I think this is correct, the NASA post says Artemis-3 has EUS, and they have also said that Artemis-3 is the landing mission. Short of testing EUS on Europa Clipper---in which case they'd likely have said that was when EUS would first fly---it will be tested with astronauts (including the first woman to walk on the Moon! (in all NASA PR lately )) as the Guinea Pigs. Seems like a less than good idea.

(yes, it's all stuff that has been flown in other ways, RL-10s, etc, but it's none the less a new stage, untested)

Did RL-10 fly with people before?

Anyway, it's as if Elon launched a Crew Dragon with people on the first FH flight instead of his Roadster. A bit risky

[tater]

1 minute ago, sh1pman said:

Did RL-10 fly with people before?

Not that I recall. It will, after CST-100 flies, I suppose.

[tater]

x

 

[Bill Phil]

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1nAKEzgVRPVGL

[tater]

Marshall leading lander program...

Johnson not super happy, apparently.

[jadebenn]

On 8/18/2019 at 2:22 PM, tater said:

Johnson not super happy, apparently.

I can imagine. Of course, it's not like they're not going to be busy as-is. They'll still be handling the ISS program, spacesuit development, ascent lander stage oversight, the Lunar Gateway program, and Orion. So I think that'll help prevent any congressional retaliation from the Texas delegation.

Edited August 21, 2019 by jadebenn

[jadebenn]

Oh wow. Bridenstine actually called out Berger's article on the transfer from JSC to MSFC. And basically used the exact same examples I did.

I swear I didn't know about that before I did the first part of my post. But it feels nice to be vindicated.

[jadebenn]

Some minor news: The Lunar Gateway's Minimal Habitation Module (MHM) has apparently been renamed to the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO).

-snipped-

 

That's, what, the third name it's had now? Hopefully this one actually sticks.

EDIT: Bad info. That tweet was wrong. HALO is a separate module from the MHM.

Edited August 21, 2019 by jadebenn

[Kerbal7]

What are the going odds of putting all this together and getting people on the moon in 2024?

 

I'm thinking 2-5. Mostly negative.

[wumpus]

6 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

What are the going odds of putting all this together and getting people on the moon in 2024?

I'm thinking 2-5. Mostly negative.

2020 launch SLS test launch
2022 launch SLS crewed?  SLS block 1b test?
2024 launch SLS block1b crewed + unknown support craft

Delta IV heavy and Falcon 9 are presumably available for shipping whatever is needed to TLI, but would need a contract *right* *now* to build/integrate the parts for a 2024 launch.

Of all the innovations that have come out of SpaceX, why did NASA/Boeing have to pick up "Elon time"?

[jadebenn]

7 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

What are the going odds of putting all this together and getting people on the moon in 2024?

 

I'm thinking 2-5. Mostly negative.

Here's my take.

Odds of Gateway being ready on-time:

• Pretty good, I think. Though the contracts were just awarded, both the MHM and PPE have been in development for quite a while prior to this point and should be relatively straightforward to build.

Odds of SLS and Orion being ready by 2024:

• Depends on whether or not Artemis 3 will be a Block 1 or Block 1B flight. If it's the former, basically guaranteed. If it's the latter, it's a bit more dicey, though still favorable.

Odds of the lander being ready by 2024:

• Unlikely. Too much work to do in 4 years. Very much believe there's going to be at least a 2-year slip. On the plus side this will likely negate any potential schedule slips with Block 1B.

The odds are actually really good for everything but the lander being ready on-time for 2024, so it's likely the landing will simply get pushed back and we'll have another mission or two in-between to test out and possibly further outfit the Lunar Gateway while lander development is wrapping-up.

Edited August 22, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

2020 launch SLS test launch

This is likely not happening. Early 2021 would be more realistic (as a NET date), I think.

 

I see EUS as a problem, not sure I'd call it "favorable," I'd say "I don't know." It's also odd since it ties Artemis-3 to an untested stage.

Landers? I also have trouble imagining them putting crew on an untested lander. So any lander architecture needs some substantial testing, and I think this includes an uncrewed landing (it's not like Apollo, they can't send it to test near the Moon short of landing after also testing it in LEO).

[Barzon]

for once, I agree with you tater. However, EUS is likely, imo, to by flying around 2023. Considering it passed CDR in 2017, and by then will have been in development for 6 years, so it will most likely be complete.

[tater]

3 minutes ago, Barzon Kerman said:

for once, I agree with you tater. However, EUS is likely, imo, to by flying around 2023. Considering it passed CDR in 2017, and by then will have been in development for 6 years, so it will most likely be complete.

True, but I thought dev has been frozen for a while now (budget used to move SLS along). I'm entirely open to having my mind changed (on everything, really, but in the case of EUS, I really "don't know" the details). Wouldn't changes to the EUS void the CDR, though (they were using added time to try and get a ton or 2 more mass to TLI)?

In general on scheduling stuff, we'll have to wait for the 2 people fired (Gerst and Hill) to be replaced, and accurate dates given, honestly.

[jadebenn]

This is a really good op-ed with a somewhat misleading title.

Op-ed | NASA must shift its focus to infrastructure and capabilities that support dynamic missions

The headline makes you think this is gonna be a really radical proposal, right? But it's actually one of the most eloquent defenses of the whole Artemis architecture I've heard. Seeing as it's written by one of the guys responsible for crafting the whole thing, it also sheds a lot of insight into what their objectives were in crafting it.

Edited August 22, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

^^^Wonder if he'll have a new job, soon.

[insert_name]

1 hour ago, jadebenn said:

This is a really good op-ed with a somewhat misleading title.

Op-ed | NASA must shift its focus to infrastructure and capabilities that support dynamic missions

The headline makes you think this is gonna be a really radical proposal, right? But it's actually one of the most eloquent defenses of the whole Artemis architecture I've heard. Seeing as it's written by one of the guys responsible for crafting the whole thing, it also sheds a lot of insight into what their objectives were in crafting it.

Beat me to it, also he mentioned that lopg could fly to a gto and back to lunar orbit. Does falcon heavy have the capability to put dragon 2 into gto?

[Ultimate Steve]

1 minute ago, insert_name said:

Beat me to it, also he mentioned that lopg could fly to a gto and back to lunar orbit. Does falcon heavy have the capability to put dragon 2 into gto?

They were going to do red dragon, so the answer is definitely yes.

Idk about reusability though. If you gave dragon 2 an actual service module, then it might actually be able to take crew to and from gateway on an expendable Falcon heavy, but you would have to probably modify the heat shield, comms, and life support. And also get fh man rated.

One way cargo missions are very doable with minimal changes from the current design. You wouldn't even have to change the service module, the dracos on board probably have enough fuel to get from tli into nrho. If not it must be close.

[Nightside]

1 hour ago, jadebenn said:

This is a really good op-ed with a somewhat misleading title.

Op-ed | NASA must shift its focus to infrastructure and capabilities that support dynamic missions

The headline makes you think this is gonna be a really radical proposal, right? But it's actually one of the most eloquent defenses of the whole Artemis architecture I've heard. Seeing as it's written by one of the guys responsible for crafting the whole thing, it also sheds a lot of insight into what their objectives were in crafting it.

This was a great read, thanks for reposting.

I am more interested in Gateway now. I liked the critique of the name “gateway “

i’m sure The intent was to evoke something exciting  like “stargate” but it ended sounding more like a checkpoint.

in anycase Gateway is better than Lop-G!

 

[jadebenn]

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

They were going to do red dragon, so the answer is definitely yes.

Idk about reusability though. If you gave dragon 2 an actual service module, then it might actually be able to take crew to and from gateway on an expendable Falcon heavy, but you would have to probably modify the heat shield, comms, and life support. And also get fh man rated.

One way cargo missions are very doable with minimal changes from the current design. You wouldn't even have to change the service module, the dracos on board probably have enough fuel to get from tli into nrho. If not it must be close.

Dragon is a pretty terrible cargo carrier for Lunar COTS, though. There's no way it would be able to bring any downmass back to Earth from NRHO, so the Dragon heatshield is useless mass and reuse would be impossible.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they instead form a partnership with NGIS and have a Lunar Cygnus launch on FH instead.