[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Yeah, I think you are right here. At the very least, there is not a concrete plan yet for any particular use of Block 1B, contrary to what @ZooNamedGames is saying. I'm not saying they could never use it, I'm saying they have no specific plans yet for any cargo it might carry (and if they were talking 20204, they better start bending metal soon, and stop with the powerpoints).

Plan I've heard is that they would ferry an additional LOPG element on A3 with the lander commercially launched.

[tater]

27 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Plan I've heard is that they would ferry an additional LOPG element on A3 with the lander commercially launched.

NASA link?

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

NASA link?

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/nasa-evaluates-em-2-launch-of-space-gateways-ppe/

[tater]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/nasa-evaluates-em-2-launch-of-space-gateways-ppe/

1. That's nasaspaceflight—an excellent source, but not NASA.

2. It's not even about Artemis, it's about "EM-1" which predates the Artemis program (which would map to the Artemis II mission, anyway, not Artemis III).

 

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, tater said:

1. That's nasaspaceflight—an excellent source, but not NASA.

 

On 2/24/2020 at 6:43 PM, tater said:

NSF seems to think otherwise, and it matches everything I had read before

Hmmm...

 

1 hour ago, tater said:

2. It's not even about Artemis, it's about "EM-1" which predates the Artemis program (which would map to the Artemis II mission, anyway, not Artemis III).

Many EM missions have kept their structure under a new mission name.

[tater]

13 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

 Hmmm...

NSF reporting in late 2019 thinks something different than NSF in 2017. That's called the program changing/evolving.

 

Quote

Many EM missions have kept their structure under a new mission name.

Where "many" is defined as "two" (generously), or "one" if we get into the weeds.

EM-1 was always uncrewed, and in the Exploration Mission (EM) days it was also without life support (you can likely find me posting here that the Orion was a boilerplate for this very reason in discussions about EM-1 going back years). EM-2 was always the first crew mission, and was in some distant lunar orbit, and they may have suggested a Gateway payload years ago because back in the "EM" days, EM-1 was supposed to be the ONLY mission to ever use Block 1SLS, so EM-2 had EUS/payload. There's your problem right there. Originally, EM-1 was Block 1 (ICPS only flight), and then B1 was to be scrapped, and all future SLS flights were to be B1B+.

Since EUS never happened, they elected to fly at least 2 B1 missions. Then the name change, and goal change (the goal changed from the useless lunar station to a lunar landing and lunar facility—a huge improvement, BTW, Gateway was and is useless nonsense, but OK, whatever, as long as they actually go to the Moon (surface) to stay).

Artemis II is like EM-2, but I think EM-2 was actually supposed to orbit the Moon, Artemis II merely does a flyby and free return (which is bizarre, since it should be able to do the tiny LOI burn at NRHO, and easily come home, so it makes me wonder what else they have left off Orion, honestly).

Everything after Artemis II is completely different from the EM missions, as the EM missions were all "LOP-G" missions, and Artemis is supposed to be lunar surface—or WAS, now it's 'Moon to Mars" apparently, because that's a thing to people without a clue, I guess.

Edited February 26, 2020 by tater

[tater]

https://spacenews.com/first-sls-launch-now-expected-in-second-half-of-2021/

Quote

A top NASA official said Feb. 28 he expects the first flight of the Space Launch System to take place in the second half of 2021, a later date than prior agency statements.

 

[EchoLima]

We're getting closer and closer to 2023...

[ZooNamedGames]

16 hours ago, tater said:

https://spacenews.com/first-sls-launch-now-expected-in-second-half-of-2021/

 

Is there a reason for why the green-run can't be performed earlier this year? CS-1 is already mated to the stand and CS-2 is almost complete. At this rate CS-3 will also be ready if we wait too much longer. I just saw a picture of a A3 component a few weeks ago. Maybe part of the Orion but who knows at this early stage. Regardless there seems to be no reason for this delay.

Artemis 1 is funded, it's mounted into the test stand. So I'm curious what reasoning they have to delay the flight now. Berger cited funding issues but that doesn't make sense since Bridenstine has already confirmed A1 funding has been secured. 

[tater]

 

[tater]

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-012.pdf

[AngrybobH]

So, what do we (US taxpayers) have for our $17 billion? Stage 1 (almost) and Orion? or am I missing something? I'm rather disappointed in the whole thing.

[tater]

13 minutes ago, AngrybobH said:

So, what do we (US taxpayers) have for our $17 billion? Stage 1 (almost) and Orion? or am I missing something? I'm rather disappointed in the whole thing.

That's just for SLS. Orion is a similar amount itself.

[Shpaget]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

That's just for SLS. Orion is a similar amount itself.

Block 1 or 2?

Block 2 or bust.

[tater]

There is only Block 1, Blocks 1b and 2 are not a thing yet.

[.50calBMG]

Man, it really is impressive just how much can be spent on basically nothing

[StrandedonEarth]

I’d love to see the breakdown on just how the money was spent. I know the bulk of it is salaries, but what were they doing?

[Dirkidirk]

Have they even begun construction of the second stage?

On 3/2/2020 at 11:29 PM, EchoLima said:

We're getting closer and closer to 2023...

I doubt that the SLS will be That late. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On 3/3/2020 at 1:21 PM, ZooNamedGames said:

Is there a reason for why the green-run can't be performed earlier this year? CS-1 is already mated to the stand and CS-2 is almost complete. At this rate CS-3 will also be ready if we wait too much longer. I just saw a picture of a A3 component a few weeks ago. Maybe part of the Orion but who knows at this early stage. Regardless there seems to be no reason for this delay.

Artemis 1 is funded, it's mounted into the test stand. So I'm curious what reasoning they have to delay the flight now. Berger cited funding issues but that doesn't make sense since Bridenstine has already confirmed A1 funding has been secured. 

not an expert, but It might be some combination of boeing wanting the money and not caring about the delays, congress not caring about the delays and only wanting the jobs, and/or nasa wanting it to be extra safe.

1 hour ago, .50calBMG said:

Man, it really is impressive just how much can be spent on basically nothing

and to think that it will all be thrown away after all of that time and money. If them companies actually did something and congress did the care then all of that spent would be doing something productive.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[tater]

27 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

Have they even begun construction of the second stage?

They have ICPS, not EUS.

[ZooNamedGames]

21 hours ago, AngrybobH said:

So, what do we (US taxpayers) have for our $17 billion? Stage 1 (almost) and Orion? or am I missing something? I'm rather disappointed in the whole thing.

How about a fully built rocket? With progress nearing completion on the Artemis 2 core stage, with work starting on Artemis 3 hardware (now confirmed). Orion is fully tested & awaiting the green run of the Artemis 1 core stage. Once burned, refurbed, inspected then packed (as far as I can tell, it has finished the burns, so I'm guessing we're in the refurb stage), it can be shipped back to the cape for assembly & integration with the rest of the components which are, as said before, fully built.

Thankfully Artemis 2 will not need the same expansive testing regime so once it finishes production & Artemis 1 lands, Artemis 2 will have the green light for the first flight to the moon since 1972.

Also, careful about cost- since that's still 1/5th the budget needed for the development of the Saturn V, & developed in 10 years (upper estimated age) to Saturn V's 7 which had vastly more funding behind it.

[.50calBMG]

But Orion isn't fully tested. It isn't getting life support integrated until flight two, and IIRC they are switching it's heatshield after A1 as well

[tater]

51 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

How about a fully built rocket? With progress nearing completion on the Artemis 2 core stage, with work starting on Artemis 3 hardware (now confirmed). Orion is fully tested & awaiting the green run of the Artemis 1 core stage. Once burned, refurbed, inspected then packed (as far as I can tell, it has finished the burns, so I'm guessing we're in the refurb stage), it can be shipped back to the cape for assembly & integration with the rest of the components which are, as said before, fully built.

Thankfully Artemis 2 will not need the same expansive testing regime so once it finishes production & Artemis 1 lands, Artemis 2 will have the green light for the first flight to the moon since 1972.

Also, careful about cost- since that's still 1/5th the budget needed for the development of the Saturn V, & developed in 10 years (upper estimated age) to Saturn V's 7 which had vastly more funding behind it.

A fully built rocket is true ( @AngrybobH), though it's ONE such LV. Orion is another similar pile of cash, and it's not actually a full flight article (not full LS).

Comparing to Apollo would be useful, except it's not capable of Apollo missions. Ever.

It can exceed the Saturn V throw to TLI by quite a bit, and not be able to do Apollo. Orion CSM is 26.5t. The minimum 2 stage Artemis lander is 41t (per that NASA slide up the thread). Might be a couple tonnes lighter if 3 stage. That means we need 67.5t to TLI on Block 1B to do a lunar mission. They've talked about maybe, someday getting 45t? Still way short.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, .50calBMG said:

But Orion isn't fully tested. It isn't getting life support integrated until flight two, and IIRC they are switching it's heatshield after A1 as well

Orion is as tested as possible, they even are throwing dummies on board like SpaceX to test radiation shielding. A study was even launched to make it crewed so it's not that distant from a final vehicle- especially when the very crewed vehicle we're comparing it to, is in production right now. 

41 minutes ago, tater said:

A fully built rocket is true ( @AngrybobH), though it's ONE such LV. Orion is another similar pile of cash, and it's not actually a full flight article (not full LS).

Comparing to Apollo would be useful, except it's not capable of Apollo missions. Ever.

It can exceed the Saturn V throw to TLI by quite a bit, and not be able to do Apollo. Orion CSM is 26.5t. The minimum 2 stage Artemis lander is 41t (per that NASA slide up the thread). Might be a couple tonnes lighter if 3 stage. That means we need 67.5t to TLI on Block 1B to do a lunar mission. They've talked about maybe, someday getting 45t? Still way short.

Orion is just as ready as SLS. 

Of course SLS isn't going to do a Apollo mission ever- it isn't meant to. (like saying Vulcan can't do a powered landing, it isn't meant to). It's going to launch crew & only crew. Though there are discussions of including station modules, even those are sliding off the table in favor of commercial launches to maximize SLS use towards crew. Which is SLS' mission; crew to LOP-G. It isn't meant to carry a lander.

[tater]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Orion is as tested as possible, they even are throwing dummies on board like SpaceX to test radiation shielding. A study was even launched to make it crewed so it's not that distant from a final vehicle- especially when the very crewed vehicle we're comparing it to, is in production right now. 

Orion is just as ready as SLS. 

No, it's NOT, unless you are saying SLS isn't actually ready to do the one thing it is supposed to do. Which is it? Is Orion ready to put people in when it flies, no changes, yes or no? If the answer is yes, you are correct, if ANY flight feature on Artemis II is not installed and operating on Artemis I, then the answer is NO.

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Of course SLS isn't going to do a Apollo mission ever- it isn't meant to. (like saying Vulcan can't do a powered landing, it isn't meant to). It's going to launch crew & only crew. Though there are discussions of including station modules, even those are sliding off the table in favor of commercial launches to maximize SLS use towards crew. Which is SLS' mission; crew to LOP-G. It isn't meant to carry a lander.

It's not MEANT to do ANYTHING then.

I can understand wanting SLS/Orion to work or do something, why not, it's a crew vehicle, cool. What I don't understand is arguing that there is anything it's actually useful for that isn't make-work.

Atlas V can launch crew, and only crew once Starliner is working. Falcon 9 can do the same come May when it will. By the time SLS flies so will Vulcan, and NG (certainly before SLS flies crew). All at vastly lower cost than SLS. So what is SLS for, exactly?

Oh, right, it's for launching crew past LEO. What is there to do past LEO that is useful? Nothing except landing on the Moon. SLS is a rocket to nowhere. That was the initial complaint, and nothing has changed.

[sevenperforce]

On 3/10/2020 at 9:00 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

I’d love to see the breakdown on just how the money was spent. I know the bulk of it is salaries, but what were they doing?

Dicking around on KSP forums maybe