[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Is performing the service contracted for in a timely manner an option? 

[RCgothic]

 

Hurricane strength potentially on Wednesday, although may be within what the vehicle can tolerate.

Could cause launch criteria violations all that week for the opportunities on 14th/16th/19th though.

[tater]

[tater]

https://www.patrick.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Weather/

 

 

[darthgently]

At some point we need to develop hurricane boosters with integrated super powerful RCS designed to punch through hurricane force winds.  They could be attached in the quantity required by the category of the winds.   I'm joking, but at the same time I do think we are technologically capable of reliably and safely launching in worse weather than we currently do

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

At some point we need to develop hurricane boosters with integrated super powerful RCS designed to punch through hurricane force winds.  They could be attached in the quantity required by the category of the winds.   I'm joking, but at the same time I do think we are technologically capable of reliably and safely launching in worse weather than we currently do

Agree - sadly we're still in the age where flying rockets is precious.  We've been sailing boats and flying planes in storms for generations and, (with the acknowledgement that we avoid where possible) when necessary - we do brave the bad weather.

Which kind of brings me to 'when necessary'.  Not only is flying rockets to space 'precious' we do really seem to treat the practice as unnecessary.  To wit: we only do it when conditions are ideal and its convenient to do so.

[Beccab]

 

[darthgently]

16 minutes ago, Beccab said:

 

Translation:. We need more time

[tater]

SLS is cursed.

 

[darthgently]

If Elon wants point to point Starship he will have to techically crumble the "precious launch weather" myth first.  And he could do it given track record.  But bureaucracies will be gnashing teeth and wringing hands 

Edited November 7, 2022 by darthgently

[SunlitZelkova]

6 hours ago, darthgently said:

I'm joking, but at the same time I do think we are technologically capable of reliably and safely launching in worse weather than we currently do

Well, we are capable of that. Not only are ICBMs designed to launch in storms, as they have to be on call at any time, most are designed to fly through a reasonably distant nuclear explosion.

Specifically I recall hearing about the R-36 having a requirement to launch through a nuclear detonation on a nearby silo.

Also, given the location of the Soviet/Russian SSBN bastion in the Barents Sea area, I imagine their SLBMs are capable of launching through storms and rough seas as well.

The question comes down to this: does ruggedization of rockets have a hard limit imposed by performance, in the same way you can’t make a Jeep have the performance of a Lamborghini and still be rugged? Or can it be done, albeit at a cost?

I think Starship is what really opens the opportunities for this. It almost certainly does cost more, but you don’t want to spend more money on something you are going to throw away. Starship will be fully reusable and thus won’t have such an issue.

[tater]

There are physics constraints on winds, etc, and obviously risk concerns regarding lightning—though planes are struck often, and Apollo 12 famously had a lightning issue (SCE to AUX), but maybe they are overly careful vs designing systems to deal with such a contingency.

Also, when a vehicle is either incredibly expensive (SLS), or carrying humans (SLS in the future), the risk tolerance is lower.

 

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Well, we are capable of that. Not only are ICBMs designed to launch in storms, as they have to be on call at any time, most are designed to fly through a reasonably distant nuclear explosion.

Specifically I recall hearing about the R-36 having a requirement to launch through a nuclear detonation on a nearby silo.

Also, given the location of the Soviet/Russian SSBN bastion in the Barents Sea area, I imagine their SLBMs are capable of launching through storms and rough seas as well.

The question comes down to this: does ruggedization of rockets have a hard limit imposed by performance, in the same way you can’t make a Jeep have the performance of a Lamborghini and still be rugged? Or can it be done, albeit at a cost?

I think Starship is what really opens the opportunities for this. It almost certainly does cost more, but you don’t want to spend more money on something you are going to throw away. Starship will be fully reusable and thus won’t have such an issue.

Well, the bigger the rocket, the smaller the weather, as volume to surface area and viscosity of atmo across scale goes, so Starship has that going for it

[Beccab]

 

 

[intelliCom]

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

 

Costing 4.1 billion dollars, but it sure ain't worth that much.

If it gets destroyed, hopefully NASA gets its act together and looks into reusable launch vehicles properly and competently.

That or there's no repercussions and NASA continues to get worse and worse at developing launch vehicles, until they're basically just a space technology and research division instead of a space launch provider.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, intelliCom said:

If it gets destroyed, hopefully NASA gets its act together and looks into reusable launch vehicles properly and competently.

This has nothing to do with reusability. Reusable or not, a rocket left outside is going to get destroyed by a hurricane.

People said that NASA would solve everything by going back to expendable vehicles post-Challenger/Columbia. There is zero reason things would be better simply by switching back to reusability.

2 hours ago, intelliCom said:

That or there's no repercussions and NASA continues to get worse and worse at developing launch vehicles, until they're basically just a space technology and research division instead of a space launch provider.

They’re not a space launch provider. SLS is built by a variety of contractors.

NASA does operate SLS, but it would be unfair to pin SLS’s failings on the people at MCC and Ground Exploration Services.

I think true responsibility lies with Congress and the contractors. They created SLS’s requirement to utilize Shuttle contractors and signed off on the design despite its poor performance, and then let the program devolve into what it is.

[intelliCom]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This has nothing to do with reusability. Reusable or not, a rocket left outside is going to get destroyed by a hurricane.

I mention reusability because it would demonstrate a rare, sensible use of money. Just having 4 billion dollars being left out to be destroyed would surely shock a bit of sense into Management. Though then again, imagining a VentureStar in the same situation does kinda make the mention pointless.

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

They’re not a space launch provider. SLS is built by a variety of contractors.

NASA does operate SLS, but it would be unfair to pin SLS’s failings on the people at MCC and Ground Exploration Services.

True, but it's considered a "NASA" LV. I guess I should say government launch vehicle really. I wonder if ULA would do a better job at a super-heavy LV.

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think true responsibility lies with Congress and the contractors. They created SLS’s requirement to utilize Shuttle contractors and signed off on the design despite its poor performance, and then let the program devolve into what it is.

Meanwhile the military actually produces competent technologies, and has more funding. Maybe it's space not being taken nearly as seriously as "national security"? I don't even know anymore, politics is weird.

Let's just hope SLS can actually launch on Nov 14. If it doesn't, let's hope they just throw away the whole thing altogether and start from scratch. You know, using new technologies.

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, intelliCom said:

True, but it's considered a "NASA" LV. I guess I should say government launch vehicle really. I wonder if ULA would do a better job at a super-heavy LV.

Considering Boeing is part of ULA I’d be skeptical. Vulcan is one thing, but SHLVs are hard.

If NASA had a “Commercial Heavy Crew” program in the future to replace SLS but keep Orion (something I very much hope for while respecting the reality of pork), it would be cool to see a ULA SHLV compete against modified Super Heavy and New Armstrong.

1 hour ago, intelliCom said:

Meanwhile the military actually produces competent technologies, and has more funding. Maybe it's space not being taken nearly as seriously as "national security"? I don't even know anymore, politics is weird.

The F-35 has run into just as many development problems as SLS though, and has just as high a price tag (relatively speaking). On the other hand, the F-35 is actually innovative and useful while SLS is pretty trash (in terms of capability).

[intelliCom]

5 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

it would be cool to see a ULA SHLV compete against modified Super Heavy and New Armstrong.

With regards to New Armstrong, Blue Origin hasn't even made New Glenn yet. They're either very tight-lipped compared to SpaceX, or they're stuck and the mention of New Armstrong was just a marketing thing.

12 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The F-35 has run into just as many development problems as SLS though

I'm not against development problems when it comes to new technology. SLS is embarrassing because all the tech is about 4 decades old by this point, while being overpriced and temperamental.

[tater]

Berger is very much in favor of hiding from all the bad weather. The last hurricane made little difference, as I think they would not have been able to go in the few days they had left anyway, but this rollout 10 days ahead of their planned launch was a little odd to me, and NASA really is stuck. They rolled out Nov 4, so they have to fly by Nov 30, then roll back to change batteries (not putting those someplace else on the core where service is possible at the pad was next-level stupid, IMHO).  The SRB time limit is up on Dec 9. They only have one round trip left, and there are known issues that are only partially resolved. I think they have to just go for it.

[SunlitZelkova]

9 hours ago, intelliCom said:

With regards to New Armstrong, Blue Origin hasn't even made New Glenn yet. They're either very tight-lipped compared to SpaceX, or they're stuck and the mention of New Armstrong was just a marketing thing.

I assume we wouldn’t see a commercialized SLS replacement program until the 2030s, so they’ve got time.

4 hours ago, tater said:

They rolled out Nov 4, so they have to fly by Nov 30, then roll back to change batteries (not putting those someplace else on the core where service is possible at the pad was next-level stupid, IMHO).  The SRB time limit is up on Dec 9. They only have one round trip left, and there are known issues that are only partially resolved. I think they have to just go for it.

Has there ever been a pressed launch with this level of known issues before?

I suppose Challenger was one known issue somewhat concealed by management, but it feels like all the red lights are blinking here.

[tater]

17 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I suppose Challenger was one known issue somewhat concealed by management, but it feels like all the red lights are blinking here.

1. No crew, so the concern level should certainly be lower than a crew mission.

2. They have a bunch of different time constraints that overlap, and pushing the launch out farther trades one risk for another. Ie: safety vs hurricane against losing a rollback, then maybe having to accept vehicle wear and tear from rollbacks. Whatever they do there is risk.

[StrandedonEarth]

Darned if they do, Darned if they don’t

[Rutabaga22]

5 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Darned if they do, Darned if they don’t

That's why I say they should do. If you don't, you learn nothing and have 4 billion dollars down the drain.  If you do, you might have the mission go as planned or things go wrong, but you still learned something.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Rutabaga22

[tater]

Say they had rolled back. They now have 1 more try, and the min time between rollbacks is a couple weeks I think. Which means they would be back out there right before Thanksgiving, bt everyone can miss a Thanksgiving, that's no big deal—except that the next time limit is December 9. And if they did roll it back a couple days ago, they'd also have to change the batteries again, but whatever. So they'd maybe be on the pad say the 21st. They then have 18 days before they need an SRB extension. If this launch was any indication, they roll out, then need ~10 days before launch? So really the first day is around December 1.

Oops, the actual first date in December is the 9th. So if they had rolled back for this hurricane, they have to fly December 9, or start with new extensions. And batteries need replacing after the 17th.