NSEP Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 47 minutes ago, tater said: Scrubbed because of C-17 cargo door. What happend to the door? If i were to explain Spaceflight in one word its Delays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 5 hours ago, NSEP said: They don't call them delays, thats too offensive, they call them slips and slides and other cryptic terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 2 hours ago, NSEP said: What happend to the door? If i were to explain Spaceflight in one word its Delays Rear ramp failed to open. It has safeguards against opening at really high altitude I think, and they couldn’t override them (they guy on livestream said something like that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/rs-25-next-phase-testing-stennis-hot-fire/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 2 hours ago, tater said: Rear ramp failed to open. It has safeguards against opening at really high altitude I think, and they couldn’t override them (they guy on livestream said something like that) Nothing that a reciprocating saw could not fix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Explosive bolts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monophonic Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 10 hours ago, tater said: Rear ramp failed to open. It has safeguards against opening at really high altitude I think, and they couldn’t override them (they guy on livestream said something like that) And why the very hot place did they not figure that stuff out before flight?! Doesn't seem very competent now does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Yeah, you'd think they would have flown dry runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Flights are expensive. And it's not impossible they thought they had a workable solution that didn't actually work. This stuff happens, BTDT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 2 hours ago, monophonic said: And why the very hot place did they not figure that stuff out before flight?! Doesn't seem very competent now does it? Reminds me of a certain software bug in a certain rocket that now lies at the bottom of the Atlantic. It’s the Early Winter of Stupid Goof-Ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 30 minutes ago, DDE said: Reminds me of a certain software bug in a certain rocket that now lies at the bottom of the Atlantic. It’s the Early Winter of Stupid Goof-Ups. Its a reciprocal thing, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. One rocket was supposed to go up but fell down, the other was supposed to fall down but did not go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, tater said: Rear ramp failed to open. It has safeguards against opening at really high altitude I think, and they couldn’t override them (they guy on livestream said something like that) As usually Spoiler 19 hours ago, tater said: Explosive bolts. Didn't work, too. Spoiler They should try "manual override" lever, it sounds as cool as "manifold". Edited December 14, 2017 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 @kerbiloid Quote Dear John... +250% Intimidation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 http://spacenews.com/thales-alenia-working-with-three-companies-on-deep-space-gateway-concepts/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 On 12/14/2017 at 10:20 AM, DDE said: @kerbiloid +250% Intimidation That shot was from the movie Dr. Strangelove which was, if anything, a mockery of armeggedon thinking (bunker mentality). Ultimately the decision to launch, bungled by the powers that be and then bungled again in its retraction is left up to a totally ignorant worker bee in the hull of a malfunctioning bomber. 14 minutes ago, Canopus said: http://spacenews.com/thales-alenia-working-with-three-companies-on-deep-space-gateway-concepts/ Uhhhh, no reading that, its pretty certain DSG is not going to happen. There are alot of lines in that article that one can read between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted December 15, 2017 Author Share Posted December 15, 2017 1 hour ago, PB666 said: Uhhhh, no reading that, its pretty certain DSG is not going to happen. There are alot of lines in that article that one can read between. Yeah. The fact that it's still "proposed" and no contracts beyond studies are being initiated means it's about as real as VASIMR for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 16 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said: Yeah. The fact that it's still "proposed" and no contracts beyond studies are being initiated means it's about as real as VASIMR for the time being. And the people who are conducting the studies are not choice, between the lines, the DSG is not a priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/nasa-is-trying-to-make-the-space-launch-system-rocket-more-affordable/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true NASA looking into options for the EUS to reduce cost. "Ars understands that NASA paid an average of $17 million for each RL-10 engine for the maiden Exploration Upper Stage vehicle..." Just the engines for EUS cost more than an entire F9, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 5 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: Yeah. The fact that it's still "proposed" and no contracts beyond studies are being initiated means it's about as real as VASIMR for the time being. That would imply actual hardware exists. Not flight-rated hardware, but hardware nonetheless. And DSG has nothing of the sort. Basically, it's less real than VASIMR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted December 16, 2017 Author Share Posted December 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Bill Phil said: That would imply actual hardware exists. Not flight-rated hardware, but hardware nonetheless. And DSG has nothing of the sort. Node 4 and Rafaello? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 1 hour ago, tater said: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/nasa-is-trying-to-make-the-space-launch-system-rocket-more-affordable/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true NASA looking into options for the EUS to reduce cost. "Ars understands that NASA paid an average of $17 million for each RL-10 engine for the maiden Exploration Upper Stage vehicle..." Just the engines for EUS cost more than an entire F9, lol. Wow, RL10b-2 is an expansion cycle engine, no complex turbo pumps original design was in 1950's and most of the critical patents have expired, apparently you can print all the components except the nozzle on a 3D printer. The engine was made by pratt & witney but has moved on to Aerojet Rocketdyne. Someone is definitely on the good side of a procurement contract. The RL10b-2 weighs 266 kg that is 63909$/kg. More expensive than gold. Hey, how about 700 kn of thrust with the YF-77 (we can have the Made-in-china in big bold letters on the SLS). lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: Node 4 and Rafaello? DSG =/= Exploration Gateway Platform You can't just use LEO hardware in the deep space environment. There are some major differences that need to be accounted for. DSG was planned to use new hardware. Edited December 16, 2017 by Bill Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Bill Phil said: DSG =/= Exploration Gateway Platform You can't just use LEO hardware in the deep space environment. There are some major differences that need to be accounted for. DSG was planned to use new hardware. This particular tank is a fuel tank and cryo fuel carrier, 1/3 rd fueled is just enough to get it into orbit where it can be refueled and reach inside the EM system, basically using half its fuel to get there and sending the other half to the user. A Larger system could carry fuel and return to LEO. Frankly however, the cheapest way to get fuel from launchpad to LEO is not going to be a cryosystem, but the Falcon9 heavy. So the best bet is to match the fuel tank size with the payload capacity of the F9H to LEO. The rocket as such can take itself into orbit at 7788 - 200 km from 4000 m/s orbital velocity as a second stage on this single engine, its PL is the fuel tank and the engineering that goes with docking. This is assuming that the DSG would be a cryogenics spacecraft gateway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) Whats your point? He is saying that these components where built for low earth orbit. Which is a different environment from the lunar halo orbit. You have to consider differences in the thermal managment and higher radiation levels. Edited December 16, 2017 by Canopus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 45 minutes ago, Canopus said: Whats your point? He is saying that these components where built for low earth orbit. Which is a different environment from the lunar halo orbit. You have to consider differences in the thermal managment and higher radiation levels. I don't see a reason they wouldn't work, provided they do not spend alot of time in orbit before transferring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts