jadebenn

I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than it just suddenly popping a seam. On one hand, it would mean that their tanks weren't crap. On the other hand, it would suggest they had no alternative safe-guards and therefore had a single point of failure.

No offense, but that's like excusing a boiler explosion by saying it was under a lot of pressure. This is not cutting edge materials science. We know how to make pressure vessels that don't blow up when in use.

They're at the very least considering it. Though I've heard some talk that they may have to default to an all-storables design if they can't mitigate the boiloff. Considering a lot of the assumptions baked into the architecture, that'll be no easy feat. I don't think the final decision has been made either way yet.

Doing some reading on it, it looks like the original design has the ascent module co-manifested with the descent module given its own cargo launch. However, that co-manifesting capability relied on an early transition to composite BOLE SRBs to gain enough mass margin to fit the AE and Orion on the same SLS, and gave the descent module an entire cargo launch to itself. If the current Boeing proposal is to launch ascent and descent on a Block 1B, they must have downsized the lander quite considerably, meaning that the two-week ECLSS capability may have been lost.

Considering? Yes. Baselining? No.

Ah, were you the source of those pics? I found them in my pictures folder and I couldn't remember where they'd originated from.

LUVOIR and the Boeing lander. You're not going to see many more proposals until SLS Block 1B has flown and there's confidence it will be available in the future. Even LUVOIR has a less-capable EELV-sized backup design just in case.

Of course, and there's absolutely no problem with that! But I was using it to illustrate my point: HSF commercialization hasn't really been a "thing." All that's been commercialized is its transportation.

Because there's a proven market for communications satellites whereas every attempt to create a fully private HSF program (in LEO or otherwise) has been met with failure? Even the "mixed" programs haven't had much luck finding non-governmental customers. People forget that there were supposed to be customers other than NASA for CCrew. Those utterly failed to materialize.

I found this old presentation about what appears to be a precursor to the current Boeing lander design: https://imgur.com/a/N6jgfBo Here's the slide that summarizes its capabilities: IMO, that two-week capability (if it exists in the current design, which I think is a safe assumption) is going to be a killer selling point. I doubt the National Team's lander will be able to do more than one since it lacks a dedicated habitat.

It is my problem when people want to destroy the current BLEO PoR in favor of it simply because they have blind faith they'll meet those promises. I'd rather have an inefficient BLEO program that ends up getting replaced because I was wrong than no BLEO program at all because I ended up being right. I've heard this argument before. It's exceedingly weak. If this is true, then why should I care what SpaceX does? What's the point of reducing the cost to access space if one company's just pocketing the difference? Nothing changes on our end. Frankly, if that were true (and thankfully, I doubt it is), any of Boeing's "price-gouging" pales in comparison. Is that not one of the uses of SLS? I'm legitimately confused here, because you seem to be acting as though the Block 1B crewed configuration is the only Block 1B configuration. The cost of a Block 1B SLS is going to be similar to the cost of a Block 1 SLS (this comes from my buddy at MSFC), which I'd imagine is one of the reasons Block 1A was not pursued. The ability to co-manifest payload on a crewed launch is a "bonus." The real drive for Block 1B is for the pure cargo configuration, there's just no point in using Block 1 for the crewed launches once you have Block 1B. You may as well pack a module into the extra space; It's cheaper than maintaining two different SLS configurations. In payload to TLI, not in architecture. You misinterpreted my statement. The LEM was a marvel of engineering, but if we want to do anything more than staying on the Moon for a few days, it's not something we should replicate. Both Boeing and the National Team have the right ideas with their lander proposals. New landers should support longer surface stays and have more capabilities, which means more mass. There's no point just making a new LEM.

Also note that I'm quite certain Block 1B payload figures are going to increase over the estimates shown here due to: Operational maturity giving a better understanding of its capabilities The RS-25D phase-out and the RS-25E (which has higher thrust) phase-in The introduction of BOLE SRBs (currently slated for flight 8 with the depletion of STS casings, can be pushed forward if neccessary) I very much expect Block 1B to be a Saturn V-class vehicle once the dust clears.

I don't know what you want me to say. Saying anything other than, "No, I don't agree," would be implicitly accepting some arguments I fundamentally don't agree with. For example, I find the statement that ARM was more useful than Artemis ridiculous on its face. What would sending a team of astronauts out to grap a small rock (not even really an asteroid - the grabber got downsized) teach us? How would that be useful? There are legitimate arguments for going back to the Moon, not so much for ARM. Or in another example: The idea that NASA will get "beat" to the Moon if they don't move quickly. I have zero faith in SpaceX's ability to meet the timelines or costs they're promising for Starship. It's ridiculous on its face to claim they'll be flying astronauts on their new spaceship in just a few years when it's taken them 8 years and counting for Crew Dragon, essentially the same time as "oldspace" Boeing. SpaceX does have credibility in lowering costs, but not to the ridiculous levels they're promising. $2M per flight is ridiculous. That's less per-kg than air freight. SpaceX made similar claims about the Falcon family early in its lifetime, and while the Falcon was cheaper than the competition, it never even came close to being as game-changingly cheap as promised. So the Starship timeline isn't going to happen, and neither are the cost estimates. You can quote me on this. Finally, just because some representatives at the House feel a certain way about certain testimonies doesn't mean they'll get their way. I don't expect there to be a big shake-up in the Artemis Lunar architecture at this point. You keep saying this, and I frankly find it a bit baffling. Block 2 isn't much more capable than Block 1B. The real jump in performance is between Block 1 and Block 1B. The EUS makes a big difference. Are you perhaps thinking of the original SLS evolution path?

I don't think they will. They weren't visible on the same engines when they were test-fired. I think those speculating that they're supposed to be removed before flight, and that the red coloration is used to make their presence (or lack thereof) stand out have the right idea.

Pardon me for the confusion, but why are you trying to fit the Boeing lander in a FH fairing anyway?

There are two mobile launchers.

This picture is at a better angle, IMO.

The latest Artemis graphic has an unpressurized rover deployed on the first surface mission, ala the later Apollo missions. They could use that.

What!? Why? The whole point of this RFP was to allow companies the flexibility to propose solution as they see fit. I though this was near universally-agreed to be a good thing. Now you want to artificially constrain them?

Uh, guys? That EUS doesn't have RL-10s.

I really don't know what you're going on about here. All I know is that I will guarantee you the cost of EUS will not be 880 million dollars. It won't even be close.

There is absolutely no way that's accurate. At that price the EUS would cost a hair more than an entire SLS Block 1; There would literally be no reason to ever use it.

@jinnantonix One minor error I noticed in your video: The SLS's LES and the Orion fairing panels should stage before the EUS fires up its engines, not after.

Halfway there:

I think this tweet chain distills exactly why I dislike Eric Berger's reporting.