[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[Beccab]

LH2 still in manual mode, LOX is going well instead

[darthvader15001]

Liquid oxygen loading at 50% and liquid hydrogen at 7%

Edited September 3, 2022 by darthvader15001
NeW pAgE AlMoSt 100

[Beccab]

 

[Beccab]

LH2 is again in manual fill, now it's time to see if the leak is still there or not

[intelliCom]

3 minutes ago, Beccab said:

LH2 is again in manual fill, now it's time to see if the leak is still there or not

Question: What if the leak isn't there? Will they go back to filling it at a normal rate again?

[tater]

Think so.

Drinking coffee, I'm thinking about the phasing issues with elliptical orbits. They have a window that is not instantaneous, but since SLS/Orion does not have much margin, they have to slide the trajectory around as they change T=0.

A circular parking orbit is so much easier, then you simply phase via moving the timing on the TLI burn.

Plan to seal leak did not work.

[intelliCom]

The troubleshooting failed; engineers are trying to find another way to seal the leak.

[tater]

Now another plan being considered.

Hmm, so the primary benefit of Block 1B is not throw to TLI, but overall margin and core/upper stage dv split.

 

1B will in fact use a circular parking orbit.

Yet another reason whoever thought of using the ICPS...

grrr

[tater]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205004470/downloads/SLS Launch Window Paper.pdf

 

[Beccab]

 

[intelliCom]

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

 

Seems like a bit of a desperate move, to be honest. Don't they have a better idea?

[Minmus Taster]

6 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Seems like a bit of a desperate move, to be honest. Don't they have a better idea?

Scrub it and pull it back into the VAB for another 6 months?

[intelliCom]

6 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

Scrub it and pull it back into the VAB for another 6 months?

A better idea than that is just cancel SLS entirely and actually make a new launch vehicle instead of forcing themselves to use old tech in an overpriced way. If they're going to spend that much, at least spend that much on something new. Or just don't spend that much to begin with.

Edited September 3, 2022 by intelliCom

[tater]

5 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

Scrub it and pull it back into the VAB for another 6 months?

Seems like a GSE issue. Maybe detank, work the GSE issue, and do more tanking tests before any future launch attempt.

Having read the paper I linked above, whoever decided Block 1 should have been a thing should have been run out of town.

 

 

[Beccab]

Plan C failed as well

[intelliCom]

3 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Plan C failed as well

Well, this wet dress rehearsal sure is going sour, isn't it? Good thing we caught these problems before the real launch attempt, huh?

Edited September 3, 2022 by intelliCom

[Minmus Taster]

Just roll the thing back and stop humiliating yourselves 

[tater]

The QD arms don't seem to have human access. Would be nice to get guys out there (on a different day) and test the connection, take a wrench to it or whatever.

The Apollo MLP had ground crew access

 

[magnemoe]

5 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Well, this wet dress rehearsal sure is going sour, isn't it? Good thing we caught these problems before the real launch attempt, huh?

Was thinking the same thing. 

[tater]

Maybe it's there and I can't see it (folded away)

Stand by for the scrub announcement

 

[intelliCom]

6 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

Just roll the thing back and stop humiliating yourselves 

Look, to be fair, some launch vehicles have taken more attempts, two space shuttles needed six attempts. STS-73 first attempted 25 September 1995, and finally launched 20 October 1995, a month after; average of about one launch attempt a week.

Chances are that with how much contractor shilling they put SLS with, they're gonna be at this for a while unless it launches Sept. 5... or launches a month from now... or two months from now... 

Relying on the Moon for launch attempts is a big issue here; they should just use SLS to launch a huge payload into LEO instead of the ICPS as a first-time SLS launch test; why not Skylab II or something? Maybe world's first artificial gravity centrifuge. Break new ground. Apollo IV didn't go to the moon on its first launching; why should SLS? Probably because it's so overpriced that they need to get the big stuff out of the way

[Beccab]

Recommendation of no go for launch from mission control

Launch team also recommends no go

[intelliCom]

You know, I've just realised something; SLS is the absolute antithesis to Sea Dragon.

Sea Dragon would have had:

• Partial reusability (First stage with chutes and airbags)
• Simplistic launch infrastructure ("Ocean 'n go" system)
• Low RnD cost (Big dumb booster)
• Huge payload capacity
• Lower cost per payload mass

On top of all of this, NASA took a funding hit due to Congress wanting to fund the Vietnam war (which they lost lmao)

SLS needs to:

• Be completely expended (despite reusing refurbishable shuttle parts)
• Have completely reworked launch infrastructure (despite reusing shuttle parts)
• Heavily overpriced RnD (despite reusing space shuttle parts)
• Less payload capacity than Saturn V (despite being the "most powerful rocket ever built", and a "modern-day Saturn V")
• Only launches once a year (despite being a "modern-day Saturn V")

On top of all of this, this was going to be built three goddamn times. The third of which is notable for having a lot of political meddling.

Edited September 3, 2022 by intelliCom

[Beccab]

Launch director wants to hold off still for a bit instead of aborting the launch

[intelliCom]

2 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Launch director wants to hold off still for a bit instead of aborting the launch

I appreciate their optimism, but they better be doing it because they actually have a good idea instead of it just being a great big cope over a second failed launch attempt.

Edited September 3, 2022 by intelliCom