[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

2 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It appears September 19th is just the earliest possible date, not the one they will necessarily do.

I'm hearing the end of that week as more likely.

(still waiting on the times for each day)

 

[intelliCom]

30 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The whole thing just reeks of the type of incompetence that blew up the first N1 though, IMO.

I feel like the US was always just as capable of that same incompetence, but in the cold war they were under pressure to actually do a good job. NASA asks a contractor to build something, they'll built it right.

Nowadays, NASA asks a contractor to make something (after permission from five or so politicians) and the contractor makes something barely adequate; as long as they get paid. At least private companies like SpaceX don't have such a limitation; they're clearly after the top, since that's what will produce the most profit. With government work, what produces the most profit is simply getting the job done; regardless of the results.

That being said, NASA's management also has a big part in what they do. I'm still liquided off about Venturestar being cancelled, despite the composite tank problem being fixed and NASA needing to have a reusable vehicle to stay ahead of literally everyone else.

[tater]

Now maybe 21st?

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, intelliCom said:

I feel like the US was always just as capable of that same incompetence, but in the cold war they were under pressure to actually do a good job. NASA asks a contractor to build something, they'll built it right.

Nowadays, NASA asks a contractor to make something (after permission from five or so politicians) and the contractor makes something barely adequate; as long as they get paid. At least private companies like SpaceX don't have such a limitation; they're clearly after the top, since that's what will produce the most profit. With government work, what produces the most profit is simply getting the job done; regardless of the results.

That being said, NASA's management also has a big part in what they do. I'm still liquided off about Venturestar being cancelled, despite the composite tank problem being fixed and NASA needing to have a reusable vehicle to stay ahead of literally everyone else.

In the space race,  there were hard deadlines.  You couldn't get the customer to make changes and then bloat the time and materials budget changing them left and right (exception that proves the rule: there were massive changes after Apollo 1, but the deadline didn't move).  Also there was still competition among defense contractors.  The contractor who let us lose to the USSR would not be popular in getting massive Congressional handouts.

I'm less sure about blaming NASA management.  Most of the big disasters (budgetary and literal) are in the high profile cases that brings excessive congressional oversight.  The low visibility missions seem to work much better.  If management works better with less micromanaging, I'd have a hard time thinking they are the problem (unless the problematic managers all get themselves promoted into high visibility roles, a common problem for any organization as it scales up).

[tater]

 

 

[GuessingEveryDay]

1 hour ago, tater said:

It would be amazing if it launched at the end of October, all of them are at times when classes are changing at my school or hanging out outside.

[StrandedonEarth]

If it’s still on the pad for Hallowe’en, someone has to paint a jack’o’lantern on the big orange rocket…

[GuessingEveryDay]

6 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

If it’s still on the pad for Hallowe’en, someone has to paint a jack’o’lantern on the big orange rocket…

And ghosts on the SRBs!

[RCgothic]

 

 

 

[tater]

<blink>

[Beccab]

We'll found out more soon

[intelliCom]

6 minutes ago, Beccab said:

We'll found out more soon

That's 7 hours, 55 minutes from when I just replied to your comment. Do I have that right?

I have a suspicion that the words "we have everything under control" or some alternative to those words are going to be said.

Edited September 8, 2022 by intelliCom

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

we have everything under control

"space is hard"

[intelliCom]

3 minutes ago, Beccab said:

"space is hard"

"We are trying to produce the peak of rocket engineering for the first time, which means there's inevitably going to be technical issues"

[Geonovast]

The SRB expiration I get, the number of fuel tank fills I get, the FTS battery stuff I get...

But what's the rollout number about?  What gets degraded on the rocket from the rollouts?

[Scotius]

Structural integrity of entire stack? Fueling, defueling, rolling entire rocket and the crawler into and out of VAB...

Are they concerned it will start cracking?

[Beccab]

...now, that is quite worrying. Skipping a test they haven't completed even if they would have the time to do it? What?

[NFUN]

8 hours ago, intelliCom said:

"We are trying to produce the peak of rocket engineering for the first time, which means there's inevitably going to be technical issues"

Oh is that what they're trying to do? Sure had me fooled given literally everything about the project (except, I suppose, the cost)

[intelliCom]

19 minutes ago, NFUN said:

Oh is that what they're trying to do? Sure had me fooled given literally everything about the project (except, I suppose, the cost)

Well, anyone with little knowledge on the subject would think that it really is 'peak NASA' with all of this marketing fluff about it being the "most powerful rocket ever built".

I'm pretty sure it having the greatest thrust out of any rocket isn't out of the question; but its payload to LEO is somehow less than Starship and Saturn V. Curious...

[Jacke]

On 9/7/2022 at 8:46 AM, mikegarrison said:

The horseshoe crab has never gotten to the moon and it has survived as a species for about 500 million years. Humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand, and you are writing us off if we don't send people to the moon (again)?

It's not the same species for the last 500 million years.  It's actually a sequence of many similar species, with several existent at any one time (4 currently).  There's been arthropods that are very much like the horseshoe crab for the last ~500 million years, but it's not the same species, but is a long sequence of very similar species.  What is happening is that evolution keeps selecting back towards a very similar body plan because it's still successful in that niche despite any changes to the world.  At any one time there are several species in different niches around the world.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Jacke

[tater]

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105323?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=usgao

 

[kerbiloid]

11 hours ago, Jacke said:

It's not the same species for the last 500 million years.  It's actually a sequence of many similar species, with several existent at any one time (4 currently). 

+1

https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Mirelurk_(Fallout_4)

[SunlitZelkova]

16 hours ago, intelliCom said:

Well, anyone with little knowledge on the subject would think that it really is 'peak NASA' with all of this marketing fluff about it being the "most powerful rocket ever built".

I'm pretty sure it having the greatest thrust out of any rocket isn't out of the question; but its payload to LEO is somehow less than Starship and Saturn V. Curious...

Do payload and thrust really connect together? In a “fact comparison” kind of way; i.e. not related to actual engineering but just comparing different stats.

I can build a rocket with the highest thrust but it won’t matter much if it weighs so much, the primary payload becomes itself.

IIRC N1 still has SLS beat at sea level, only Super Heavy will beat it.

[intelliCom]

53 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Do payload and thrust really connect together? In a “fact comparison” kind of way; i.e. not related to actual engineering but just comparing different stats.

I can build a rocket with the highest thrust but it won’t matter much if it weighs so much, the primary payload becomes itself.

IIRC N1 still has SLS beat at sea level, only Super Heavy will beat it.

If a rocket is outputting more thrust but with a lower payload to LEO than other rockets of its class, it's likely wasting more energy than it needs to. What it demonstrates to me is that SLS is far heavier than it needs to be; hence the increase in thrust but decrease in payload mass.

Though, I'm not a rocket scientist, so this could be entirely wrong.

As for the two being connected, I'd say a launch vehicle's thrust is more associated with the launch vehicle's own mass than the mass of its payload. Ideally, the mass of the payload should be as high as possible and the mass of the rocket should be as low as possible. That's clearly not what SLS is doing, unfortunately.

Edited September 9, 2022 by intelliCom

[intelliCom]

On 9/8/2022 at 5:09 PM, intelliCom said:

"We are trying to produce the peak of rocket engineering for the first time, which means there's inevitably going to be technical issues"

https://www.space.com/artemis-1-moon-mission-next-launch-try-september-2022

Speak of the devil;

"This is the first time we're operating this vehicle," [Jim Free] said, adding that NASA saw fueling challenges during its space shuttle and Apollo programs. "There are challenges when you try and do this." 

Basically what I just predicted; coping and telling everyone that this amount of technical issues is entirely normal for a launch vehicle's maiden flight.

Edited September 9, 2022 by intelliCom