MaverickSawyer Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 2 hours ago, sh1pman said: Here's your proof that reuse doesn't work! Booster landings - cheap publicity stunt! Nah, proof that refurbishing after EVERY flight isn't practical or economical. Jury's still out on reuse, as SpaceX isn't terribly transparent with their finances... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 17 hours ago, sh1pman said: Here's your proof that reuse doesn't work! Booster landings - cheap publicity stunt! *Roscosmos cheque disbursed* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperFastJellyfish Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 Spoiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 3 hours ago, SuperFastJellyfish said: Reveal hidden contents There’s a reason the Energiya-5 variant design that uses an actual RD-0120 first stage core (rather than another Soyuz-5/Irtysh) is known as the “fatty”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightfury Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Just watched in the DSN now app and found this : Could they be preparing for the EM1 mission ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Nightfury said: Could they be preparing for the EM1 mission ? EM1 is indeed their abbreviation for EM1, clearly they must just be testing something, or it was a mistaken entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 On 12/13/2018 at 10:40 PM, sh1pman said: Here's your proof that reuse doesn't work! Booster landings - cheap publicity stunt! Well, then elon and bozos are losing money. How much of that money goes to bureaucracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Xd the great said: How much of that money goes to bureaucracy? Depending on how you view the Silicon Valley crowd? Some of it... or, actually, most of it goes to the Deep State. *dun-dun-DUN!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, tater said: Talk about checking things out... NASA: runs structural tests SpaceX: slaps together a suborbital prototype from a bunch of sheet metal Edited January 31, 2019 by DDE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 38 minutes ago, DDE said: Talk about checking things out... NASA: runs structural tests SpaceX: slaps together a suborbital prototype from a bunch of sheet metal NASA: NOTHING. MUST. GO. WRONG. SpaceX: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 54 minutes ago, Xd the great said: NASA: NOTHING. MUST. GO. WRONG. NASA: Failure is not an option Also NASA: Don’t look over there! Spoiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 5 hours ago, Xd the great said: NASA: NOTHING. MUST. GO. WRONG. Yeah, that definitely seems to be their mantra for manned spaceflight. An acquaintance of mine said they wanted a 1-in-10,000 chance of mission-critical part failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Kerman Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) Sorry, posted in the wrong thread. Edited February 1, 2019 by James Kerman wrong thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 12:20 PM, MaverickSawyer said: Yeah, that definitely seems to be their mantra for manned spaceflight. An acquaintance of mine said they wanted a 1-in-10,000 chance of mission-critical part failures. If you have 200 or so of those mission critical parts, you have roughly the safety of the shuttle (2 loss of crew in ~100 missions). They really add up (there's a reason that engineers love the chance to use redundant parts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1093163391429021697https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1093163391429021697 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman4308 Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 Man, that better not be the case. If that's true, then it might be the next President who gets to unfairly claim credit for a project started by the prior President, itself a near carbon copy of a project started by the President before that, attempting to use 1970's era hardware in a way best designed to funnel money to 1970's era contractors. And that would be... bad? Anyways, I seriously hope nobody dies as a consequence of the SLS, which is composed of so much pork that it could probably win Midwest hog-raising competitions without the judges any wiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 On 2/7/2019 at 3:58 AM, Starman4308 said: Man, that better not be the case. If that's true, then it might be the next President who gets to unfairly claim credit for a project started by the prior President, itself a near carbon copy of a project started by the President before that, attempting to use 1970's era hardware in a way best designed to funnel money to 1970's era contractors. And that would be... bad? Anyways, I seriously hope nobody dies as a consequence of the SLS, which is composed of so much pork that it could probably win Midwest hog-raising competitions without the judges any wiser. I dunno, NASA booking flights on the Federatsya/Yenisei stack while pretending Starship doesn’t exist would be... hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, DDE said: I dunno, NASA booking flights on the Federatsya/Yenisei stack while pretending Starship doesn’t exist would be... hilarious. "We are NOT sending our astronauts up in a stainless steel can. We love aluminium." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silavite Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 9 hours ago, Xd the great said: "We are NOT sending our astronauts up in a stainless steel can. We love aluminium." Oops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Well, to be fair, that's not a stainless steel can... it's a stainless steel balloon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Kerman Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has released its annual report and makes for some interesting reading regarding the new heat shield design for Orion. Quote During this year, the ASAP continued to review several areas of concern in the Orion Program. Overall, the ESD System was designed to methodically collect data and expand operational experience to build confidence in the integrated space system. Large scale integrated system tests, including the flight tests, were designed to ensure that important data and knowledge required to properly mitigate safety risk would be obtained before sending humans beyond LEO. In carrying out this approach, Exploration Flight Test-1 returned data that resulted in a completely different approach to the design and manufacture of the capsule heat shield. This new system relies on blocks of heat resistant material, joined to a backing with the inter-block spaces filled with a gap-filling compound. The new system has a potential failure mode that involves the differential ablation rate between the block material and the gap filler which could lead to heat shield failure. Fully understanding this failure mode can only be achieved through full-scale flight test, because no ground facility can generate the extreme environmental conditions over a large enough area to fully validate the shield’s integrity. The acquisition of critical heat shield thermal performance data is required to ensure crew safety, and only flight test can obtain this data. Despite this, ASAP has now learned that recent decisions about launch commit criteria could result in a situation where the EM-1 flight test could occur without the ability to obtain this data. This could be caused by the lack of a properly functioning avionics box that collects and stores the data from the heat shield instrumentation. Without this critical data collection, one of the main objectives of the flight test could be compromised. If the avionics box fails, the back-up plan for heat shield verification is to visually examine the EM-1 heat shield for damage and/or potentially deploy an airborne asset during the re-entry phase to attempt to acquire infrared imagery of the Orion capsule as it returns to Earth. This approach is driven by the desire to avoid a launch delay in order to roll back the system to the Vehicle Assembling Building for avionics box replacement. While we understand the reticence to accept such a delay, neither option guarantees enough information will be gathered to provide the needed understanding of heat shield performance. The ASAP position is that NASA should aggressively research alternate means to collect the data onboard if the avionics box fails. Edited February 14, 2019 by James Kerman edited for formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 So... They're ignoring the lessons of Challenger and Columbia all over again. They're putting schedule above safety. How hard could it possibly be to put in a dual-redundant data capture system if it's that critical to the mission and they're that worried about it failing? Or plan for all the alternate modes of data acquisition anyways, since you can cross-reference them against each other to get a better idea of what is/did happen? Better yet, put the avionics box in a spot that technicians can get to it and quickly swap it should it fail before launch. Now THERE's a novel idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts