[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[DDE]

2 hours ago, tater said:

(no methalox engines around)

The SLS isn't reusable, which takes away most of the advantages of methalox. Also, methalox was the first type of LRPE fired in Europe, i.e. pre-WWII; the option of conversions was always there.

Spoiler

Sometimes pretty extreme

 

2 hours ago, Beccab said:

Looks like an October launch (17th October?) Is very likely by now

Risque question, I'll ask anyway: is there pressure to manage before November 8?

[tater]

1 minute ago, DDE said:

The SLS isn't reusable, which takes away most of the advantages of methalox. Also, methalox was the first type of LRPE fired in Europe, i.e. pre-WWII; the option of conversions was always there.

I was thinking booster engines that were far enough along that they could hope to fly the thing in 5-6 years (the initial requirement).

 

Also:

 

 

[DDE]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

I was thinking booster engines that were far enough along that they could hope to fly the thing in 5-6 years (the initial requirement).

I honestly don't think that's a realistic expectation. SHLV engines aren't just passively around, it's one of the particular technologies you end up investing into unless you go down the route of massive clustering.

[tater]

13 minutes ago, DDE said:

I honestly don't think that's a realistic expectation. SHLV engines aren't just passively around, it's one of the particular technologies you end up investing into unless you go down the route of massive clustering.

RD-180?

 

[Cuky]

52 minutes ago, tater said:

It's a new vehicle, was bound to have some teething problems. Would not have been a real issue had it truly been Shuttle-derived, and done quickly. Sticking to Shuttle-derived it should have used minimally altered infrastructure, etc. Shuttle-C to start, work on Direct, etc, in the background.

The issue is that is is so far behind schedule that there is a sort of gottagetthereitis going on. If it was 2017? Meh, take their time, work it out, they're ready when they're ready. 6 years late? Everything seems like it needs to happen yesterday.

 

Fair enough, it is a new vehicle. But they are 6 years behind original plans, they had tests that weren't completed because they had technical issues and they still proceed to attempt a launch where they continue to have those same technical issues. And I would agree with you that it is kinda gottagetthereitis if it wasn't the same thing with other Boeing developed hardware for NASA which was just a tiny bit late when problems were discovered and still haven't had a problem free flight with that craft as well. I think it is much much much deeper that simple rushing to get there. I think the main reason is that whatever happens program is so far in development that it won't be canceled before at least one or two flights. And contractors know that, they also know their contracts are safe because of political reasons so they are just milking the federal budget as much as they possibly can. And when opposition gets loud enough only then will they get their act together, actually work on solving the issues, launch and pat themselves on the back for a job well done

[tater]

Different leaks today than Monday. 1 was in the same place, but different magnitude.

[Beccab]

See you all in 47 days!

[tater]

Can't cryo test the QD in the VAB (they want to replace the flexible parts), so they may replace it on the pad, then do a cryo test.

They will still have to go back to VAB to reset the FTS, etc. Leaving it on the pad for that replacement makes sense to me because they can then test it.

[Pthigrivi]

Maybe I’ll finally get around to watching this:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11893274/

[Minmus Taster]

1 hour ago, tater said:

I was thinking booster engines that were far enough along that they could hope to fly the thing in 5-6 years (the initial requirement).

 

Also:

 

 

Guess Starship is back in the race for first launch

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Direct

How viable was this?

Wikipedia portrays it as more of a general suggestion against Constellation rather than a serious proposal, the DIRECT team apparently even disbanded after the development of SLS was announced (of course prior to the form it would take was known though) and “declared success”.

[tater]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

How viable was this?

Wikipedia portrays it as more of a general suggestion against Constellation rather than a serious proposal, the DIRECT team apparently even disbanded after the development of SLS was announced (of course prior to the form it would take was known though) and “declared success”.

One of the principals of DIRECT is a frequent poster on NSF. They were under the impression that SLS as first described was close to DIRECT as I recall... then they found out what had been done to the idea. DIRECT was quite doable I think.

Spoiler

 

 

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, DDE said:

Risque question, I'll ask anyway: is there pressure to manage before November 8?

Spoiler

A rather strange question.

7 November, the 105th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. They have to meet the deadline.

[tater]

8 hours ago, DDE said:

Risque question, I'll ask anyway: is there pressure to manage before November 8?

What is November 8th? Elections? LOL, no one in the pop at large knows or cares about this launch.

 

[intelliCom]

15 minutes ago, tater said:

What is November 8th? Elections? LOL, no one in the pop at large knows or cares about this launch.

Except for Kamala just doing public relations work. With a name like Space Launch System she'll forget about it in a few months after the first launch; won't launch again until 2023/4 anyway.

[kerbiloid]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

What is November 8th? Elections

Spoiler

What a coincidence...

 

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, intelliCom said:

Except for Kamala just doing public relations work. With a name like Space Launch System she'll forget about it in a few months after the first launch; won't launch again until 2023/4 anyway.

The name really is indeed nonsensical.

The Space Shuttle was called the Space Transportation System because it inherited the name of the real “system” it was supposed to be part of (consisting of not only the Shuttle but also conventional and nuclear space tugs, lunar landers, and heavy lift rockets) which was cancelled. “STS” as we got it has the excuse of merely being the sole component of an otherwise inoperable system, and of course the Space Shuttle has its own cool name (Space Shuttle).

“Space Launch System” is problematic. Is it supposed to be a derivative of Space Transportation System? That doesn’t make sense, because STS itself was *launching* stuff into space. Is it a new system for “launching” instead of “transport”? What makes it a system? It can’t be the sole existing part of a wider proposed menagerie of spacecraft like the Space Shuttle was, because no such menagerie was ever proposed. The rocket itself can’t be a “system”, I mean yes, it is a system in the dictionary definition sense of the word, but Atlas V has an identical layout (liquid core and SRBs) and no one calls it a “system” (as a name).

I kind of wonder if giving it a proper name was too intimidating. “Saturn” rockets are an expensive no no but “Space *insert thing* System” is manageable and mentally easier to give mountains of money too.

A mundane name also draws public attention away from any problems it might have with development.

Interestingly, the USAF once proposed something called the Space Launching System, also abbreviated SLS. It actually was a system, with different combinations of stages and boosters available to meet different mission needs.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/sls.html

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

  Reveal hidden contents

A rather strange question.

7 November, the 105th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. They have to meet the deadline.

11-7-1967 was the deadline for a crewed 7K-L1 lunar flyby at one point.

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

11-7-1967 was the deadline for a crewed 7K-L1 lunar flyby at one point.

So, and the 55th anniversary of the previous deadline.

9 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

“Space Launch System” is problematic. Is it supposed to be a derivative of Space Transportation System? That doesn’t make sense, because STS itself was *launching* stuff into space. Is it a new system for “launching” instead of “transport”? What makes it a system? It can’t be the sole existing part of a wider proposed menagerie of spacecraft like the Space Shuttle was, because no such menagerie was ever proposed. The rocket itself can’t be a “system”, I mean yes, it is a system in the dictionary definition sense of the word, but Atlas V has an identical layout (liquid core and SRBs) and no one calls it a “system” (as a name).

SLS = Specialists' Lunch System

They have to feed the military rocketeers.

The Moon is optional.

[AlamoVampire]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

The Moon is optional.

Disagree. The moon and humanity's return to it is 100% not optional. Its absolutely mandatory. Why? We simply cannot survive as a species if we do not return. We are not even a Type I civilization yet. But getting to the moon, colonizing it then expanding beyond it are a vital and mandatory step. If we wish to go to say Mars or beyond as regularly as we visit the ISS (and what ever follows it) then having colonies on the moon that can build, service and launch rockets/ships of greater size and complexity than what is possible here on Earth is required. Im gonna stop myself here lol.

031509042022

[intelliCom]

32 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

Disagree. The moon and humanity's return to it is 100% not optional. Its absolutely mandatory. Why? We simply cannot survive as a species if we do not return. We are not even a Type I civilization yet. But getting to the moon, colonizing it then expanding beyond it are a vital and mandatory step. If we wish to go to say Mars or beyond as regularly as we visit the ISS (and what ever follows it) then having colonies on the moon that can build, service and launch rockets/ships of greater size and complexity than what is possible here on Earth is required. Im gonna stop myself here lol.

031509042022

One thing that's vital but keeps being missed is a permanent Phobos or Deimos settlement; it would be ideal to operate machines on the martian surface with only a few seconds of delay instead of several minutes, not to mention coordinating a manned Mars landing.

Edited September 4, 2022 by intelliCom

[Cloakedwand72]

If NASA misses out on the launch window on September 5th  and October would they have to dismantle the whole rocket? If they do I think they should just use the falcon heavy for two lunar flyby’s and use other commercial rockets.

[Beccab]

10 minutes ago, Cloakedwand72 said:

If NASA misses out on the launch window on September 5th  and October would they have to dismantle the whole rocket

September 5th is already out, the new NET is October 19th. They're going to try to get a waiver to keep it at the pad a while more and repair it before returning it to the VAB, after which they'll roll it out again for the late October window. If they miss that whole launch period (they'll likely do ~3 tries in that one, same as this), they'll probably just get a few more waivers and retry for the 9th December or so; the date after which the SRBs should have been destacked and restacked has passed long ago, but they've been extending it since instead

[intelliCom]

11 minutes ago, Beccab said:

 retry for the 9th December or so; the date after which the SRBs should have been destacked and restacked has passed long ago, but they've been extending it since instead

December? Isn't Vulcan-Centaur launching then?

Edited September 4, 2022 by intelliCom

[DDE]

7 hours ago, tater said:

What is November 8th? Elections? LOL, no one in the pop at large knows or cares about this launch.

Well, to get people to care is a matter of having a sufficiently large bullhorn.

16 hours ago, tater said:

RD-180?

Even with a septuple cluster they ended up having to uprate it.

[Beccab]

15 minutes ago, DDE said:

Well, to get people to care is a matter of having a sufficiently large bullhorn.

16 hours ago, tater said:

I doubt anything Artemis will ever matter much for elections, not even if Artemis III launches the day one of them happens. Hell some people won't even know it happened after the landing, last year someone made a comment like "call me when spacex sends people to space"