Jump to content

NASA mandated to do manned mission to Mars


NFUN

Recommended Posts

  On 9/25/2016 at 2:31 PM, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

What does the bill actually say?

Expand  

Hmmm, that is a good question . . .

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3346/text

  Quote

Summary: S.3346 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)All Bill Information (Except Text)

A summary is in progress

Expand  

??

  Quote

Text: S.3346 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)All Bill Information (Except Text)

As of 09/25/2016 text has not been received for S.3346 - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2016 

Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

Expand  

Apparently whatever it says is still known only to the legislator class . . . if it indeed, says anything at all . . .

Maybe they just posted it as a stub to get feedback from KSP forumites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/25/2016 at 2:40 PM, Diche Bach said:

Hmmm, that is a good question . . .

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3346/text

??

Apparently whatever it says is still known only to the legislator class . . . if it indeed, says anything at all . . .

Maybe they just posted it as a stub to get feedback from KSP forumites?

Expand  


0.o  The whole text is there - scroll down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/25/2016 at 2:31 PM, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

What does the bill actually say?

Expand  

Ah must have finally got it processed in!

Skimming through it, I see repeated references to "cis-lunar" which I take to mean, they ARE proposing that returning to mission to prove the effectiveness of habitats etc. should be undertaken as an initial proving stage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/26/2016 at 4:13 AM, jwenting said:

Now if only they used it to launch the senate on a one way trip to Mars... Would no doubt get them enough crowd funding to build the things in no time :P

Expand  

If they would take the House with them, they'd probably have enough left over (from the inevitable windfall of crowdsource donations) to make some pretty substantial charity contributions even after paying for the whole project in advance!

Plus it would be a great chance to do experiments in human cyrogenics.

Edited by Diche Bach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/25/2016 at 2:55 PM, DDE said:

It's NASA's 2017 budget, it includes a strategic goal of a manned Mars mission within the quarter-century, and allocated $1.4 of the annual budget to that goal.

Expand  

They're getting $1.40 to put a man on Mars? Either serious deflation or congress is getting to be an even bigger tightwad :0.0:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that both are powerpoint plans at this stage, it doesn't make a difference. I was talking about selling a DRM plan to Congress.

Although there are still many details in SpaceX's plan that don't withstand casual scrutiny...

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/28/2016 at 5:02 PM, _Augustus_ said:

The reliability of one ITS booster is probably worse than the reliability of ten SLS rockets....

Expand  

Reliability isn't necessarily linked to the number of engines. The N1 failures weren't directly linked to the number of engines. They were more related by the lack of proper testing and a shoddy working environment.

42 engines allows a certain number of engine failures and you should still be able to reach orbit. If one engine fails on an SLS, you lose a multi-billion dollar mission.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/28/2016 at 6:11 PM, Nibb31 said:

Reliability isn't necessarily linked to the number of engines. The N1 failures weren't directly linked to the number of engines. They were more related by the lack of proper testing and a shoddy working environment.

42 engines allows a certain number of engine failures and you should still be able to reach orbit. If one engine fails on an SLS, you lose a multi-billion dollar mission.

Expand  

Tell me how trying to build a launcher 4 times larger than the largest launcher ever built and cheaper than any rocket ever built, in 7 years will allow time for proper testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/28/2016 at 6:22 PM, Gaarst said:

Tell me how trying to build a launcher 4 times larger than the largest launcher ever built and cheaper than any rocket ever built, in 7 years will allow time for proper testing.

Expand  

I never said it will, neither did I say that I believe in Musk's vision or that much of the engineering showed yesterday is feasible.

What I'm saying is that the number of engines alone is not a good metric to judge the potential reliability of a new vehicle.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/28/2016 at 6:11 PM, Nibb31 said:

The N1 failures weren't directly linked to the number of engines.

Expand  

3 of 4 N1 failures were linked to thrust disbalance, 1 of 4 to 1-of-30 engine burst.
(sorry, in Russian https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Н-1#.D0.9F.D1.83.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B8)

  On 9/28/2016 at 6:11 PM, Nibb31 said:

They were more related by the lack of proper testing

Expand  

In 3 of 4 failures engines didn't burst. Just worked differ.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/29/2016 at 6:18 AM, kerbiloid said:

3 of 4 N1 failures were linked to thrust disbalance, 1 of 4 to 1-of-30 engine burst.

Expand  

Um, no.  None of the N-1 failures were caused by or linked to unbalanced thrust.  The first vehicle was lost due a fire caused by ruptured fuel and oxidizer lines.  The second due to fire caused by an explosion in a turbopump.  The third due to aerodynamic effects.  The fourth due to structural stress.

At any rate, unexpected engine shutdown can happen with much fewer engines too - ask the flight controllers on SA-502.  Or Apollo 13, where the S-II's center engine shut down early.  (The Saturn V, when you look at the many failures due to POGO, was actually quite a problematic vehicle.)  Or STS-51F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 9/29/2016 at 8:12 AM, DerekL1963 said:

The first vehicle was lost due a fire caused by ruptured fuel and oxidizer lines.

Expand  

In flight. A voltage surge shut down engine #12. Thrust autobalancer (KORD) disabled #24 to parry the uneven thrust. 30 seconds later both pipelines were destroyed by the pitch oscillations, and that caused a fire. The fire destroyed electric cables, autobalancer treated the situation as turbopumps failure and switched off the whole 1st stage.

  On 9/29/2016 at 8:12 AM, DerekL1963 said:

 The second due to fire caused by an explosion in a turbopump.

Expand  

Incorrect work of engine #8 caused automatic stage shutdown right above the launchpad (200 m alt.). All but one engines got disabled, but #18 (i.e. another one) continued working, and that caused a rapid unplanned pitch maneuver. This caused the later events sequence.

  On 9/29/2016 at 8:12 AM, DerekL1963 said:

 The third due to aerodynamic effects.

Expand  

An off-design angular momentum (aerodynamical) caused unplanned rotation. Vernier nozzles could not parry this, while several dozen main engines had no gimbals and culd not be used by autobalancer.

  On 9/29/2016 at 8:12 AM, DerekL1963 said:

The fourth due to structural stress.

Expand  

Due to #3 vernier engines were added (in addition to several tens main ones).
At 7 seconds before the planned 1st stage shutdown, during the planned thrust descreasing, the turbopump of main engine #4 exploded, causing fire and critical damage.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...