Jump to content

[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

ZooNamedGames

By ZooNamedGames
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

tater

tater

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

So all the towers around the rocket registered violations, but not at the pad? Colour me skeptical.

Meh.

The wind directions on the NOAA website showed winds from NNE. On 39B, the tower is directly N of the vehicle, so was partially in the lee of that.

Violations honestly don't matter at this point, there was never a solution other than launching. If they had rolled back, they'd launch with yet another violation. SRB violations? Sure, no problem. FTS violation (>20 days after battery swap)? No problem. More SRB violations? Meh, good to go, they're fine!

The only ones left were wind, and rollback. Had they rolled back, then it's go—after they violate SRB again—and if they have a problem with that attempt, then they have to violate rollback limits. They should have waited to stack the SRBs. They should have planned for a spring launch attempt so that all their time constraints would be based on final testing issues (WDR, etc), with little chance of weather issues, and fixes and battery swaps being 100% of the rollbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beccab

Beccab

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, RCgothic said:

So all the towers around the rocket registered violations, but not at the pad? Colour me skeptical.

 

 

As someone on the SLS sub said, the wording of the update are likely the key: it says they were "within the rocket's capabilities", while we know that NASA's limits were exceeded, which probably means that they decided the specs chosen were too conservative and increased them for the wind speeds reached.

Which is to say, a new waiver

Link to comment
Share on other sites
intelliCom

intelliCom

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

53 Sad Memes to Start Smiling Again

THISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAM-

I guess there's two attitudes to SLS's failure during launch:

  1. Being distraught
  2. Laughing at the fireworks (That's probably me)

Neither is right or wrong. I just want them to get on with it so we can just be released from the torture of delays after delays, and move on to other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minmus Taster

Minmus Taster

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

I guess there's two attitudes to SLS's failure during launch:

  1. Being distraught
  2. Laughing at the fireworks (That's probably me)

Neither is right or wrong. I just want them to get on with it so we can just be released from the torture of delays after delays, and move on to other things.

I honestly think it will just rust away on the pad

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gargamel

Gargamel

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, intelliCom said:

I guess there's two attitudes to SLS's failure during launch:

  1. Being distraught
  2. Laughing at the fireworks (That's probably me)

Neither is right or wrong. I just want them to get on with it so we can just be released from the torture of delays after delays, and move on to other things.

Nah, #3.    The pure joy at seeing it fail knowing it will get NASA out of the space flight business itself and force it to focus on regulation and research, the only things they’ve actually been good at for the last 40 years.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wumpus

wumpus

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Nah, #3.    The pure joy at seeing it fail knowing it will get NASA out of the space flight business itself and force it to focus on regulation and research, the only things they’ve actually been good at for the last 40 years.   

Isn't this a Boeing project?  Or do you mean "NASA stop micromanaging the real rocket scientists and stick to things like probes".

From Atkin's Laws of Spacecraft design:

38. Capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say.

39. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.

39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.

Or in other words: howabout stop demanding new launch vehicles for the sake of new launch vehicles.  It may help that Sen Shelby finally retired this year (well, technically next January).

Edit: the really embarrassing thing  about all this is that the whole idea of "keeping shuttle jobs" is that it was too late to save the old shuttle jobs (a lot of new guys got to be trained on cutting edge 1970's technology) and reused parts of an old vehicle at prices that vastly exceeded new (commercial) launch vehicles (and expect NASA/Senate to be the source for most of the excessive costs.  Boeing just shut up and saw dollar signs in their heads as the crazy requirements/modifications rolled  in).  Source: I've dealt with DoD projects and the DoD's cavalier attitude to costs.  Nothing specific to NASA, but they tend to hire the same types and answer to the same Congresscritters.

Edited by wumpus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SunlitZelkova

SunlitZelkova

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Bad propeller, and water is deep.

  Reveal hidden contents

Examples-of-ULS-and-SLS-failure.png

 

Failure modes of wind turbines is something I didn’t realize I needed.

4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Nah, #3.    The pure joy at seeing it fail knowing it will get NASA out of the space flight business itself and force it to focus on regulation and research, the only things they’ve actually been good at for the last 40 years.   

A disaster might kill SLS but I’m a little skeptical about Orion.

Also, thinking about it more, this is a really weird statement. Even if NASA switches wholly to contracted launches, there is no way they are “getting out of the spaceflight business”. There is no way the private industry will be able to fund what NASA does now. Even if Axiom might be able to take over some research conducted by astronauts in the future, I don’t think we will really see a private astronaut corps on the scale of NASA’s for a long time.

I assumed you did not include probes, but ironically I think probes are actually easier to “commercialize” than human spaceflight, because Starship will allow larger “dumb” probes to be built using more off the shelf materials.

EDIT- What I mean is SLS alone does not represent NASA’s involvement in “spaceflight”.

Edited by SunlitZelkova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gargamel

Gargamel

Posted
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

there is no way they are “getting out of the spaceflight business”.

Oh no, I don't want them out of the business, I want them to refocus their goals.   I believe we've reached a time where private launch vehicles are a better choice compared to government funded ones.   Let's keep a manned Internationally funded space station in operation.  Let's keep designing and building and launching as many scientific probes as we can.  Let NASA be the government oversight that is needed, heavily needed, for the private industry.  I just don't see the need for governmentally funded launch vehicles anymore.   Other countries may have different approaches, but NASA has played itself out of the launch vehicle business, and I'm ok with that.   The US has a strong enough private sector building launch vehicles to not need anymore public ones.   SLS might be the last one we see. 

-More replies incoming, standby for edit-

3 hours ago, wumpus said:

Isn't this a Boeing project?  Or do you mean "NASA stop micromanaging the real rocket scientists and stick to things like probes".

See above ^ :D

Edited by Gargamel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted

This is pessimistic.

He is incorrect, incidentally. SLS has abort-to-orbit capability in the event of premature shutdown at almost every envelope of flight.

But pessimism is always the best approach, especially as a public figure. If you're wrong, everyone's happy and no one cares. If you're right, you're a prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...