[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[SunlitZelkova]

6 hours ago, intelliCom said:

Well, if that happens, SpaceX's Starship will likely demonstrate the true advantage of private industry, and NASA might go from being a rocket-launching company to exclusively being a 'space study' company. They'd still make probes and rovers, since those work beautifully thanks to JPL's decent team, but say goodbye to the days of Saturns and Shuttles. At least ULA is doing amazingly, but they're unfortunately a mostly military-focused launch provider to my knowledge. They probably wouldn't have much interest in supporting Artemis, especially given how none of their rockets have the kind of payload capacity that SLS theoretically has.

NASA is not a company. It is a government agency. SLS is built for them by other companies- Boeing does the core stage, Northrop Grumman/Thiokol do the boosters, ULA does the upper stage.

Even in a nightmare scenario if Artemis I was pushed into 2023, I don’t think we would see SLS die for awhile.

Even if Starship works this year, it is only as a cargo launch vehicle. While just launching the crew aboard Dragon and then having Starship HLS take them all the way might be a feasible option, that would be too much of an embarrassing admission for Congress to make (that SLS was never necessary).

Perhaps one day if Crew Starship is flying regularly and has been proven to be safe, SLS could be retired without a loss of face, but right now I don’t think it can so it will remain part of the Artemis architecture.

ULA could support Artemis, I think they were technically part of the Blue Origin HLS bid by launching a component of their lander on Vulcan.

The payload capability SLS has is really only necessary for Orion. Orion itself isn’t really necessary, in fact I dare say (and would be interested to see an assessment if anyone has the time) that a completely standard F9 based lunar architecture utilizing modified Dragons, a series of space tugs and a big propellant depot altogether would be cheaper than the entire SLS program alone.

In any case though, because Orion isn’t necessary, SLS-level payloads aren’t necessary, so many rocket companies still have a chance to support Artemis with smaller rockets.

[RCgothic]

Even if Artemis I launches this year, it's only as a test vehicle. The next launch is likely late 2024 or early 2025.

The falcon family is on track to launch 60+ times this year, likely more next year, likely more the next. If Artemis I launches this window I wouldn't bet against 100-200 falcon flights before the next one.

There's a good chance Starship will  fly 20 times by the next SLS launch, and a good chance Vulcan will have 10 flights by then.

Credible lunar programmes can be built around these vehicles.

Why should the programme be limited by SLS/Orion's meagre cadence?

[Terwin]

24 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

There's a good chance Starship will  fly 20 times by the next SLS launch, and a good chance Vulcan will have 10 flights by then.

Credible lunar programmes can be built around these vehicles.

Why should the programme be limited by SLS/Orion's meagre cadence?

Because Congress needs an excuse to keep funding SLS.

55 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

NASA is not a company. It is a government agency. SLS is built for them by other companies- Boeing does the core stage, Northrop Grumman/Thiokol do the boosters, ULA does the upper stage.

As a government agency, the purpose of NASA is to address the priorities set out by the government.  Launching rockets is part of how they do this, but is not the purpose of NASA. 

As the specific purpose of SLS is not to launch a rocket, but to maintain aerospace jobs in specific congressional districts, I would not be surprised to see several SLS launches, even if they only launch once every 5 years, and the payloads could easily be handled by other rockets.

[tater]

8 hours ago, intelliCom said:

Well, if that happens, SpaceX's Starship will likely demonstrate the true advantage of private industry, and NASA might go from being a rocket-launching company to exclusively being a 'space study' company.

As has been said, NASA is a government agency, not a company. They procure things from private industry.

That said there is some truth in the overall idea that there will soon be launch vehicles that obviate SLS/Orion. I would assume NASA is eventually happy to be more concerned with what to do with those tools than building more launch vehicles (as a highly-involved customer). 

 

8 hours ago, intelliCom said:

They'd still make probes and rovers, since those work beautifully thanks to JPL's decent team, but say goodbye to the days of Saturns and Shuttles.

Saturn and Shuttle were also built by long lists of contractors. There is certainly an issue with the sort of contracts they have used in the past wrt being cost effective, but that’s not the point. Many contractors in many states is “how the sausage gets made” with these sorts of government contracts. If all the money went to one contractor/state,  the other 49 states have less reason to vote it money. It is no accident that SLS/Orion is literally built in 50 states.

 

8 hours ago, intelliCom said:

At least ULA is doing amazingly, but they're unfortunately a mostly military-focused launch provider to my knowledge. They probably wouldn't have much interest in supporting Artemis, especially given how none of their rockets have the kind of payload capacity that SLS theoretically has.

ULA—whose parent companies are building most of SLS—is very interested in supporting anything that purchases launches. 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by tater

[tater]

 

 

[SunlitZelkova]

I will be on the beach at that time but on the wrong coast 

[Beccab]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they scrub Saturday there isn't enough time to recycle for the 5th right? There is one last window on the 6th, but it lasts only 24 minutes...

The chances to launch on Saturday are also lowered by the weather, with only 40% probability it will allow for a launch. Maybe if they abort for unfavourable weather and recycle very quickly they might reach the 5th's launch window, but it's very very tight

[intelliCom]

38 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they scrub Saturday there isn't enough time to recycle for the 5th right? There is one last window on the 6th, but it lasts only 24 minutes...

The chances to launch on Saturday are also lowered by the weather, with only 40% probability it will allow for a launch. Maybe if they abort for unfavourable weather and recycle very quickly they might reach the 5th's launch window, but it's very very tight

I can't wait for wet dress rehearsal #6 coming this Saturday, yet one more step forward to finally launching!

[tater]

29 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

I can't wait for wet dress rehearsal #6 coming this Saturday, yet one more step forward to finally launching!

If they can make it past all the issues so far, it functions as a WDR even if they can't fly. Might as well got for at at this point.

[RCgothic]

 

 

 

[KSK]

Go go, go go Fever!

Mighty ‘Splodin’ go go Fever!

[darthvader15001]

ah yes, finally something Kerbal 

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[xD-FireStriker]

On 3/18/2022 at 12:49 PM, ZooNamedGames said:

Long time no post.

Just had to pop in & say the photos don’t do this girl justice!

I got a selfie with her today  ! She looked fantastic!

 

how did you get that close, looks amazing up close 

[kerbiloid]

He has a chute.

[tater]

 

[intelliCom]

5 hours ago, tater said:

 

The fact that they're considering launch dates across an entire year is just too funny to me. They lack so much confidence in being able to get it up within a month, not even within 3 months.

Yes, I know it's just preparation, but the idea is still funny to me.

Edited September 1, 2022 by intelliCom

[sevenperforce]

If it goes up properly on Saturday then it should launch at 2:17 PM EST, right?

So the first burn by ICPS for the perigee raise should be at around  3:08 PM EST and the TLI burn should be at around 3:54 PM EST.

Where will the vehicle be at those times? Will anyone be able to see those burns from the ground?  Presumably the first burn will be halfway between the launch point and the splashdown NOTAM for the SLS core but I haven't been able to figure out where that NOTAM is. And I have no idea how to figure out where where the TLI burn might be visible from. 

[tater]

8 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Where will the vehicle be at those times? Will anyone be able to see those burns from the ground?  Presumably the first burn will be halfway between the launch point and the splashdown NOTAM for the SLS core but I haven't been able to figure out where that NOTAM is. And I have no idea how to figure out where where the TLI burn might be visible from. 

Core is going down in the S. Pacific graveyard I assume...

[tater]

 

[sevenperforce]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Core is going down in the S. Pacific graveyard I assume...

The STS external tank typically splashed down (in fragments) in the Indian Ocean. According to Wikipedia there were times it splashed down in the Pacific ocean for "direct insertion" trajectories but I don't know what those were, how often those were, or in what part of the Pacific it ended up.

Orion + ICPS will be following the same overall trajectory as the SLS core, with a very slight difference due to the higher drag on the core and the extra kick from the separation mechanism. And SLS has approximately the same burn time is as STS but is sending Orion+ICPS to an altitude more than three times greater than what the Shuttle ever achieved. So the splashdown zone might be much farther east than we would expect from remembering STS.

In any case the first ICPS firing is an apogee kick. 

[tater]

59 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The STS external tank typically splashed down (in fragments) in the Indian Ocean. According to Wikipedia there were times it splashed down in the Pacific ocean for "direct insertion" trajectories but I don't know what those were, how often those were, or in what part of the Pacific it ended up.

Orion + ICPS will be following the same overall trajectory as the SLS core, with a very slight difference due to the higher drag on the core and the extra kick from the separation mechanism. And SLS has approximately the same burn time is as STS but is sending Orion+ICPS to an altitude more than three times greater than what the Shuttle ever achieved. So the splashdown zone might be much farther east than we would expect from remembering STS.

In any case the first ICPS firing is an apogee kick. 

Good points. They don't seem to talk about this aspect much—probably because it looks bad compared to landing stages

Incredibly hard to find any hazard area maps, but I still remember reading that it was coming down in the Pacific, maybe I was mistaken. I fired a text off to my friend at MCC, maybe I'll get a reply in the morning.

Edited September 2, 2022 by tater

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Incredibly hard to find any hazard area maps, but I still remember reading that it was coming down in the Pacific, maybe I was mistaken.

Tim's site says it will land in the Pacific but (a) he doesn't say where, (b) he doesn't cite a source, and (c) he may just be assuming like we did.

Really surprising that there isn't a clear NOTAM. I guess unless you know where to look you wouldn't be able to find it; those things are searched based on where you are, not based on where the rocket will be.