Jump to content

[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, YNM said:

There's a reason we'll never see CBMs again after Shuttle due to the loss of the arms

If launch a self-propelled (like Quantum) module with radial CBMs on it and an axial one, why not?
It could approach and get berthed to an existing CBM with Canadarm.

45 minutes ago, YNM said:

but I question you can do it entirely unmanned

The ISS is not abandoned yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The ISS is not abandoned yet.

Well you can't do it for a new station without Shuttle, that's what I was saying. CBM will be limited to the ISS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YNM said:

Well you can't do it for a new station without Shuttle, that's what I was saying. CBM will be limited to the ISS.

Sure you can. The first module just has to include a manipulator arm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Sure you can. The first module just has to include a manipulator arm.

What, autonomous ? We're still quite a way from that.

24 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

surely we have learned from the ISS and could build a new one if we wanted to, without the shuttle.

Yeah, they'll just use IDSS/IDA to connect all the modules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YNM said:

Well you can't do it for a new station without Shuttle, that's what I was saying. CBM will be limited to the ISS.

Dock with an expendable tug docking port,  detach the module and berth it to the station CBM port with the module CBM port .

33 minutes ago, YNM said:

Yeah, they'll just use IDSS/IDA to connect all the modules.

Too expensive and geometrically hardly appropriate.

1. The CBM square opening is used for, say, extending outdoors the racks on rails. With IDSS  instead you should cut the equipment corners.

2. Unlike the classic docking adaptors, but like the Gemini adaptor, CBM  has its complicated and expensive active part on the station side, while the vessel is equipped with a simple and cheap passive part (a ring with holes). So, you can catch the supply crafts with arm and berth them, So you spend the cheapest adaptor possible. 

3. They want larger doors.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Dock with an expendable tug docking port,  detach the module and berth it to the station CBM port with the module CBM port .

Too expensive and geometrically hardly appropriate.

1. The CBM square opening is used for, say, extending outdoors the racks on rails. With IDSS  instead you should cut the equipment corners.

2. Unlike the classic docking adaptors, but like the Gemini adaptor, CBM  has its complicated and expensive active part on the station side, while the vessel is equipped with a simple and cheap passive part (a ring with holes). So, you can catch the supply crafts with arm and berth them, So you spend the cheapest adaptor possible. 

3. They want larger doors.

Do you not remember the first few modules delivered to space for the ISS ?

391px-Unity-Zarya-Zvezda_STS-106.jpg

These were just the bare minimum. None of these were berthed - they were all docked.

Also NASA is getting used to having to send cargo with only IDSS/IDA as the access, given one of the CRS vehicles.

Edited by YNM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Core stage is rated for 9 cryo cycles.

Did they do a WDR before, or no, I can't remember?

Artemis I has used at least 1 of its 9 lives. I assume this means they'll be very particular about bothering with a launch campaign unless the weather is perfect.

They also have the clock ticking on any stacked SRB segments (12 months, but that can probably stretch with some mitigations).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tater said:

Core stage is rated for 9 cryo cycles.

Did they do a WDR before, or no, I can't remember?

Artemis I has used at least 1 of its 9 lives. I assume this means they'll be very particular about bothering with a launch campaign unless the weather is perfect.

They also have the clock ticking on any stacked SRB segments (12 months, but that can probably stretch with some mitigations).

Yes, I am positive they did a WDR.

And presumably they will need to do at least one WDR with the full stack.

So if they need to retest, that's 4 of 9.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tater said:

Artemis I has used at least 1 of its 9 lives.

Would giving it catnip restores the life points ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

So if they need to retest, that's 4 of 9.

It's not something I ever considered before, and most of the launches we see are F9s that have been fired too many times to count 2X flights, and then some).

Wonder how many cycles Delta IV H can do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Bridenstine misspoke, and it is 22 cycles, not 9.

Stennis had 9 cycles allocated for testing, hence confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tater said:

Apparently Bridenstine misspoke, and it is 22 cycles, not 9.

Stennis had 9 cycles allocated for testing, hence confusion.

So SLS is rated at 2.44 cats then? Excellent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/

Sounds like another test is likely.

Wonder what "drying and refurbishing" the engines requires.

Given paper shortages, they can dry them out using $100 bills as paper towels, that;s probably pretty cost-effective as SLS efforts go. Unsure how much refurbishment costs, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tater said:

they can dry them out using $100 bills

Lol. Given that Canadian bills are now made of plastic, that wouldn’t work very well here. But that wouldn’t stop our governments from trying.  Maybe as a squeegee?

Frankly, another test would be a good sign, because it would show that NASA finally learned to listen to their engineers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a thread at NSF going, and it got me thinking about the EUS.

What capability does EUS buy?

Comanifesting a component of a HLS system is obviously a possibility, but is the added cost of EUS over ICPS for that comanifested launch any more expensive than sending that HLS component ahead on a commercial LV? If any other LV can get that comanifested cargo to lunar orbit for less than the difference between ICPS and EUS, EUS is a waste of money. And I'd absolutely include dev cost if the alternative is to use off the shelf LV capability.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tater said:

A single engine.

Yeah, that was the engine test for the tech/components they'll use for the new production RS-25E (or whatever upgrades they're considering for that engine).

12 minutes ago, tater said:

What capability does EUS buy?

Apparently 40 tonnes of cargo to TLI, vs 26 tonnes for Block 1.

Edited by YNM
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, YNM said:

Yeah, that was the engine test for the tech/components they'll use for the new production RS-25E (or whatever upgrades they're considering for that engine).

Apparently 40 tonnes of cargo to TLI, vs 26 tonnes for Block 1.

I could do the math on what that would look like if I wanted to......

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I could do the math on what that would look like if I wanted to......

I mean honestly the problem is that it's been so long now that the role of ICPS is barely significant in actually making the rocket fly any faster than if it had to wait for EUS. Boeing is already in process of producing their first EUS by now.

Also I'm not sure about the numbers on ICPS. Is it exactly the same with DCSS or are there extra volumes and better engines ? Wouldn't doing that technically make it longer to make (but given how long this has become it barely even matters anymore).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, YNM said:

I mean honestly the problem is that it's been so long now that the role of ICPS is barely significant in actually making the rocket fly any faster than if it had to wait for EUS. Boeing is already in process of producing their first EUS by now.

Also I'm not sure about the numbers on ICPS. Is it exactly the same with DCSS or are there extra volumes and better engines ? Wouldn't doing that technically make it longer to make (but given how long this has become it barely even matters anymore).

It's basically exactly the same as the 5-meter version of the DCSS. Minimally modified. 13.74 meters long, 5 meters wide, 3490 kilograms empty, 27.22 tonnes of hydrolox, and one RL10B-2.

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...