Nightside Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 19 hours ago, tater said: The TLDR version is that the plan Berger links to is basically giving the store to Boeing, but happily JB says that is not the plan. It also relies heavily on the Stennis facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) Reality check: Vulcan hardware. New Glenn hardware (also tanks, not just fairing). Starship hardware (loads of this, iterating along). All of this stuff will be flying before humans climb on top of SLS. 2 of 3 will be crew rated from the start, BTW (Vulcan and NG). SS not crew rated (I won't hold my breath on that, personally), but 100-150t to LEO means that crew can fly some other way if needed. Edited March 6, 2020 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, tater said: And crash goes the gateway. What did we expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 They're still saying they will do it, but after, not before. They sort of have to, there's no place else for Orion to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadebenn Posted March 14, 2020 Share Posted March 14, 2020 (edited) Let me kick up some salt: Edited March 14, 2020 by jadebenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 14, 2020 Share Posted March 14, 2020 19 minutes ago, jadebenn said: Let me kick up the salt a bit: The current schedule is 2024. Yeah, he's probably right, as the only crew vehicle with the capability at the moment is Orion (assuming tests flights work—something I would have assumed to be about 99.9% likely until Starliner, honestly). The lander? I'll judge any lander when we start seeing it built. Also tested, all up. Any modern spacecraft should be able to fly the entire mission without crew, so it will be interesting to see them test the lander by landing it (or doing a transfer to LLO, then deorbit, then before landing an abort back to NRHO to demonstrate capability). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinnantonix Posted March 14, 2020 Share Posted March 14, 2020 On 3/14/2020 at 3:08 AM, sevenperforce said: And crash goes the gateway. What did we expect? I don't think that is what he is saying. The PLAN is not to rendezvous with Gateway on the 2024 mission, and the mission will be designed assuming Gateway is not there initially. It might be, it might not be. But the PLAN is to assume it is not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted March 17, 2020 Share Posted March 17, 2020 (edited) https://www.space.com/nasa-remove-lunar-gateway-artemis-critical-path.html Quote SpaceNews reported that, at the meeting, Loverro said that he aims to "de-risk" Artemis and simplify the program by focusing only on activities necessary to achieve the lunar landing. "What are we going to do to go ahead and make that happen? And the answer is you've got to go ahead and remove all the things that add to program risk along the way," SpaceNews quoted Loverro as saying. "If it's not mandatory, it's not necessary," he added. According to the SpaceNews report, Loverro went on to say that things that "add to program risk" include activities that have never been accomplished before in space. Emphasis mine. And now we have an Apollo project clone, with the same promise of greater lunar infrastructure we got in the '70s, and the same politically insurmountable costs and twisted bureaucracy. What's more, Artemis is now shying away from doing anything new! That's terrible, we won't ever really get out there thinking like that. Any new crewed lunar program must explore ISRU water mining and utilization of regolith for base and road building, but since that's never been done before it's off the table for NASA. They should be designing payloads for Starship, and collaborating on its expansive crew cabin. The real explorers are in the private sector now, they are the ones willing to take any risks at all and most importantly try something new once in a while. /strong opinions Edit: JPL is still cool tho. :3 Edited March 17, 2020 by cubinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinnantonix Posted March 17, 2020 Share Posted March 17, 2020 3 hours ago, cubinator said: Any new crewed lunar program must explore ISRU water mining and utilization of regolith for base and road building, but since that's never been done before it's off the table for NASA. Exploring the moon from a scientific perspective is not in the category of "never been done before". They are going to the moon to do science, including searching and experimenting with for in situ resources. That's the whole purpose of the mission, it hasn't yet resorted to flags and footprints. When they refer to doing something new, it is more about establishing a permanent space station in NRHO with multiple launches, docking multiple craft with it, fuel pumping, etc. Quote They should be designing payloads for Starship, and collaborating on its expansive crew cabin. The real explorers are in the private sector now, they are the ones willing to take any risks at all and most importantly try something new once in a while. OFFS, Starship by 2024? I will believe that when I see it. I think human life is still important in the private sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted March 17, 2020 Share Posted March 17, 2020 18 minutes ago, jinnantonix said: Exploring the moon from a scientific perspective is not in the category of "never been done before". They are going to the moon to do science, including searching and experimenting with for in situ resources. That's the whole purpose of the mission, it hasn't yet resorted to flags and footprints. When they refer to doing something new, it is more about establishing a permanent space station in NRHO with multiple launches, docking multiple craft with it, fuel pumping, etc. I certainly hope so. And I hope they pick up the pace. Proper exploration requires many frequent launches, which is why I think SpaceX and Blue Origin's launch vehicles are far better suited for the task. 28 minutes ago, jinnantonix said: OFFS, Starship by 2024? I will believe that when I see it. I think human life is still important in the private sector. Meanwhile, SLS will be ready in 2018? I think cargo Starship and the first SLS test flight will occur around the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinnantonix Posted March 17, 2020 Share Posted March 17, 2020 44 minutes ago, cubinator said: I certainly hope so. And I hope they pick up the pace. Proper exploration requires many frequent launches, which is why I think SpaceX and Blue Origin's launch vehicles are far better suited for the task. Commercial launches are a big part of Artemis. I estimate that for each SLS launch, there will be at least 2 commercial launches. Quote Meanwhile, SLS will be ready in 2018? I think cargo Starship and the first SLS test flight will occur around the same time. I think that shows the difficulty in getting human rating for a launch vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 On 3/18/2020 at 12:53 AM, jinnantonix said: I think that shows the difficulty in getting human rating for a launch vehicle. Wasn't SLS supposed to have all components already tested and human-rated during the Shuttle program? It looked like a big advantage of SLS over other designs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) So add 250 M$ to each B1 launch when calculating costs. Edited March 19, 2020 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, tater said: So add 250 M$ to each B1b launch when calculating costs. A slight cost increase then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, sh1pman said: A slight cost increase then. Oops, I wrote B1b, should have written Block 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 So apparently the BO lander concept is too heavy at the moment and SLS isn't launching until 2022. Yay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, Bill Phil said: So apparently the BO lander concept is too heavy at the moment and SLS isn't launching until 2022. Yay... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 2 hours ago, tater said: So add 250 M$ to each B1 launch when calculating costs. I suppose 4 uses of Block 1 is better than a single use from a ML cost perspective, but B1 should never have existed in the first place. It's the Saturn C3 of SLS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 12 minutes ago, tater said: ? Blue Origin is the prime contractor for one of the Artemis lander proposals (they will provide the descent stage and work with other contractors to integrate the ascent and transfer elements). But their current design is too heavy to throw to TLI/NRHO with the desired margins. The schedule also keeps slipping, as it always does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Bill Phil said: Blue Origin is the prime contractor for one of the Artemis lander proposals (they will provide the descent stage and work with other contractors to integrate the ascent and transfer elements). But their current design is too heavy to throw to TLI/NRHO with the desired margins. The schedule also keeps slipping, as it always does. What's the current total mass estimate of Blue Moon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted March 27, 2020 Author Share Posted March 27, 2020 2 hours ago, RCgothic said: ... I think this is the first piece of the entire program that has a reasonable chance of being ready on time and on budget. I'm sure the dragon will need a few tweaks to get it to the moon and back, but probably not much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinnantonix Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 2 hours ago, Nightside said: I think this is the first piece of the entire program that has a reasonable chance of being ready on time and on budget. I'm sure the dragon will need a few tweaks to get it to the moon and back, but probably not much. I thought Northrop Grumman was a shoe-in with a modified Cygnus XL, but well done SpaceX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.