[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[Barzon]

1 hour ago, Nightside said:

My hot take:

They've been working on this thing HOW LONG and they just now tested it?

They have been doing many other tests on this STA. This was the final test, after dozens of others.

[tater]

48 minutes ago, Barzon said:

They have been doing many other tests on this STA. This was the final test, after dozens of others.

I guess I don't get the timing here. Green Run is on the flight article. If a test like this one had produced any unexpected result, then they would have to scrap the current core stage tanks and build them again, right? (they have much of the core for Artemis II done already, right?)

In short, what's the point of a test regime in this case if the flight articles are already made?

[StrandedonEarth]

Well, if all previous tests had shown that it could withstand the loads it was rated for, this one was to validate the engineering sims/models. And it failed within two percent of the predictions, so I guess that means the sims/models were accurate. 

But yeah, not as impressive with that big cage around it. I suppose that helps protect the test equipment, since there’s more stuff there than at BC. And it was only water. I assume Al-Li holds up to cryogenic temps well...

[tater]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Well, if all previous tests had shown that it could withstand the loads it was rated for, this one was to validate the engineering sims/models. And it failed within two percent of the predictions, so I guess that means the sims/models were accurate. 

But yeah, not as impressive with that big cage around it. I suppose that helps protect the test equipment, since there’s more stuff there than at BC. And it was only water. I assume Al-Li holds up to cryogenic temps well...

Yeah, a test that needed to be done I guess, but again, if the models had not been validated, then what? If that was so unlikely that they'd literally build 2+ flight article cores before doing it, then why even bother?

[StrandedonEarth]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Yeah, a test that needed to be done I guess, but again, if the models had not been validated, then what? If that was so unlikely that they'd literally build 2+ flight article cores before doing it, then why even bother?

Because it had passed all the tests that really mattered, perhaps they were hoping it would turn out stronger than the models. Besides, maybe they felt the need to compete with Musk and show that they could intentionally destroy things too

[tater]

29 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Because it had passed all the tests that really mattered, perhaps they were hoping it would turn out stronger than the models.

I guess. Seems like the time to do that sort of testing is earlier rather than later.

They said within 2% of predicted. I assume predicted was some multiple of anything in flight.

29 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Besides, maybe they felt the need to compete with Musk and show that they could intentionally destroy things too

On the last bit that would be fine if whoever built the stuff paid out of pocket. Wonder what that test cost.

[KSK]

My hot take - starting your tweet with a swipe at the media is lame.

Perhaps if your big milestones came less than 18 months apart, the space journos might pay a little more attention.

[tater]

 

[tater]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1280202817043664896?s=20https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1280202817043664896?s=20

 

[tater]

Artemis II is 2023.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/07/06/exploration-is-a-team-sport/?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=KathyLueders&utm_campaign=NASASocial&linkId=93032034

 

Quote

Orion is complete and SLS is on track for its last major test later this year before flight. These systems will be integrated early next year and launched together for the first time on an uncrewed flight test around the Moon in 2021 followed by a test flight with crew around the Moon in 2023.

So 2023 is the first all-up SLS/Orion now.

[Space Nerd]

2023? Only 3 years before there are humans around the moon?

Yay! (SpaceX missions might be sooner, and this might get delayed, but still.)

Edited July 7, 2020 by Space Nerd

[tater]

19 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

2023? Only 3 years before there are humans around the moon?

Yay! (SpaceX missions might be sooner, and this might get delayed, but still.)

No, Artemis II is the free return mission. That's a delay. They've said 2022 was possible, but skeptics have been saying it is really 2023, and now we've just heard from the head of human spaceflight it's 2023.

Edited July 7, 2020 by tater

[Space Nerd]

1 hour ago, tater said:

with crew around the Moon in 2023.

I got misled by this.

4 minutes ago, tater said:

That's a delay. They've said 2022 was possible

Don't really know that, but 2023 is still good.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Space Nerd

[tater]

7 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

Don't really know that, but 2023 is still good.

Well they've been saying "no earlier than 2022", so while not a delay (they never said 2022), there are some people here who have said 2022 I think.

[kerbiloid]

Not earlier than KSP-2 release. They need a full set of tests/

[tater]

 

[RCgothic]

EUS is so going to be cancelled.

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, tater said:

 

Why don't they just do a gorram distributed launch for it??

Throw it up on a reusable Falcon Heavy, let it hang out in MEO, and then meet an empty Centaur or DCSS for the ejection burn. 

Fast, cheaper than SLS, and a really cool proof of concept.

[RCgothic]

I really don't understand why distributed launch isn't a bigger thing already. It's such an obviously superior mission mode for just about all unmanned purposes.

[sevenperforce]

22 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I really don't understand why distributed launch isn't a bigger thing already. It's such an obviously superior mission mode for just about all unmanned purposes.

Schedule slip, inability of rocket companies to work together, lack of autonomous spacecraft docking capabilities outside of the ISS world, and so forth.

Company cooperation is probably the biggest thing. No exec will agree to a plan that has part of the money for a mission going to another company. 

Also there aren't that many payloads going beyond Earth's SOI these days. 

[Space Nerd]

Am I the only one who thinks SLS looks better than starship?

(Seriously, I like SLS mostly because of it's look and the kerbal factor.)

[Barzon]

You aren't alone 

[.50calBMG]

Even as one of the ones on the forums known for bashing SLS, it certainly has a cool factor for looks. The block 1 with the tiny upper stage for a rocket a third the size still looks wrong though.

[RealKerbal3x]

51 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

Am I the only one who thinks SLS looks better than starship?

(Seriously, I like SLS mostly because of it's look and the kerbal factor.)

I'd list the problems with SLS until the cows come home, but I can't deny that it's a cool looking rocket. I prefer the Saturn V style look it used to have, though.

But IMO, Starship is better both visually and functionally. It's literally a 1950s sci-fi rocket come true

[Space Nerd]

To me, the look of starship will need some time to get used to, because it's so "new"