Jump to content

[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

The track Berger mentions above is what Levi Cowen (tropical tidbits) suggested was the best case, since it will drag in dry air from the west, and weaken. He was saying as soon as it moves N of the southern tip of FL (mainland) it will continuously weaken. He said just N of Tampa, while still offshore it would be a strong Cat 2—weakening as it continues to move, and obviously weakening quickly when it make landfall, particularly if it hits the panhandle since more of the wind fields will be ashore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be a nothingburger at the Cape. The bigger issue weather wise is if they predict bad weather to hang around til the weekend at the Cape—not dangerous weather, just junk that violates launch conditions (clouds, etc). Then they lose Oct 3, regardless, and have to roll back anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tater said:

This will be a nothingburger at the Cape. The bigger issue weather wise is if they predict bad weather to hang around til the weekend at the Cape—not dangerous weather, just junk that violates launch conditions (clouds, etc). Then they lose Oct 3, regardless, and have to roll back anyway.

 

I think the bigger question is how they  expect to get this thing in better condition than it is now.  The SRBs were stacked relatively early and the "shelf life" is ticking.  They already have issues with leaks and are going to roll this thing back and forth again.  If they want to launch it, somebody is going to have to decide to light the candle, probably with less than perfect confidence of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wumpus said:

I think the bigger question is how they  expect to get this thing in better condition than it is now.  The SRBs were stacked relatively early and the "shelf life" is ticking.  They already have issues with leaks and are going to roll this thing back and forth again.  If they want to launch it, somebody is going to have to decide to light the candle, probably with less than perfect confidence of success.

They started stacking in November 2020. By March 2021 the SRBs were completely stacked. So they're pushing 2 years out of a 1 year certification. They had to get an engineering review to say they were OK already.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cuky said:

I think now is maybe the time to scrap Artemis I and go straight to Artemis II... the amount of mishaps and bad luck with this vehicle is astonishing

No point doing a manned mission if the damn rocket is so broken. Artemis at least does the moon landing in three missions instead of the 11 that Apollo did; but given the cost and amount of time between launches for SLS, that doesn't really mean anything.

Still, they must do the unmanned demonstration before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

At approximately 11:45pm today, a fire was reported in the Vehicle Assembly Building. Employees were evacuated

I just hope they didn't took seriously the suggestion to find the hydrogen leak with cigarette smoke.

On the other hand, it would mean that they read KSP forums.

On another other hand, they still don't have the "No smoking" caption on both fluid tanks. So, who knows.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I just hope they didn't took seriously the suggestion to find the hydrogen leak with cigarette smoke.

On the other hand, it would mean that they read KSP forums.

On another other hand, they still don't have the "No smoking" caption on both fluid tanks. So, who knows.

In another timeline...

Spoiler

dvFNDmI.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, intelliCom said:

No point doing a manned mission if the damn rocket is so broken. Artemis at least does the moon landing in three missions instead of the 11 that Apollo did; but given the cost and amount of time between launches for SLS, that doesn't really mean anything.

Still, they must do the unmanned demonstration before.

I didn't explain myself well enough. I meant the Artemis II vehicle, not the Artemis II mission. Artemis I vehicle keeps popping up with problem after problem. I am not superstitious but am starting to think that it is cursed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cuky said:

I didn't explain myself well enough. I meant the Artemis II vehicle, not the Artemis II mission. Artemis I vehicle keeps popping up with problem after problem. I am not superstitious but am starting to think that it is cursed

The two are practically the same vehicle, the only difference is the crew were risking by putting them on a flying  coffin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cuky said:

I didn't explain myself well enough. I meant the Artemis II vehicle, not the Artemis II mission. Artemis I vehicle keeps popping up with problem after problem. I am not superstitious but am starting to think that it is cursed

Getting Artemis I's problems ironed out means Artemis II will likely (with no certainty) be more reliable at launching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

They should name the maiden flight vehicle Iphigenia and sacrifice her.

That would require a creative naming scheme. With a name like "Space Launch System" for the rocket, I wouldn't expect NASA to think creatively about names any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...