Jump to content

[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

This hurricane is now even more ridiculous:

 

Direct hit on LC39. It's expected to strengthen as it goes out to sea, so KSC isn't out of the woods yet.

Edited by RCgothic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have a lot of incentives to light this candle. Every month this stretches out and components that had time limits reach or exceed them. They tend to be allowed to continue, but the reputational risk should an out of spec part fail is... huge. Imagine if the SRBs are given an extension on  the "use within 1 year of stacking" requirement, then they burn through an O-ring like the Shuttle, and lose the vehicle? It will be the fault of the guy who made that call (even if it would have failed anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tater said:

They have a lot of incentives to light this candle. Every month this stretches out and components that had time limits reach or exceed them. They tend to be allowed to continue, but the reputational risk should an out of spec part fail is... huge. Imagine if the SRBs are given an extension on  the "use within 1 year of stacking" requirement, then they burn through an O-ring like the Shuttle, and lose the vehicle? It will be the fault of the guy who made that call (even if it would have failed anyway).

I know, but I got a feeling that things ain't gonna go as smoothly as the results of all those youtube polls keep saying it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they roll out, they will go for some of the day in the list above. They'll have to roll back in 25 days for the FTS if they don't fly. If they roll back, they have 1 more try, then they need some sort of waiver for the rollback limitation I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 minutes ago, AngrybobH said:

Ahead of schedule? Is that an anomaly? Do they need to roll it back now?

It is hilarious to see them boasting about being "ahead of schedule" when they are at least 6 years late

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the unlikely (imo) case it misses the November window too, it's going to be interesting to see how NASA approaches the booster life issue. Doing another extension without even using the VAB to do additional checks on them would most definitely be a case of launch fever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 11:05 AM, RCgothic said:

This is a joke. Of course no one else can make SLS rockets. What they should be asking for is vehicles that can perform the mission.

 

 

Unfortunately, you have to go through such a procedure in procurement every single time. And if it wasn't NASA, they'd probably have GAO breathing down their necks precisely for the reason you enumerated... and so you'd be treated to an amusingly long-winded description of the SLS worded so that SpaceX couldn't troll them by applying.

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...