Jump to content

[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Barzon said:

They have been doing many other tests on this STA. This was the final test, after dozens of others.

I guess I don't get the timing here. Green Run is on the flight article. If a test like this one had produced any unexpected result, then they would have to scrap the current core stage tanks and build them again, right? (they have much of the core for Artemis II done already, right?)

In short, what's the point of a test regime in this case if the flight articles are already made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if all previous tests had shown that it could withstand the loads it was rated for, this one was to validate the engineering sims/models. And it failed within two percent of the predictions, so I guess that means the sims/models were accurate. 

But yeah, not as impressive with that big cage around it. I suppose that helps protect the test equipment, since there’s more stuff there than at BC. And it was only water. I assume Al-Li holds up to cryogenic temps well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Well, if all previous tests had shown that it could withstand the loads it was rated for, this one was to validate the engineering sims/models. And it failed within two percent of the predictions, so I guess that means the sims/models were accurate. 

But yeah, not as impressive with that big cage around it. I suppose that helps protect the test equipment, since there’s more stuff there than at BC. And it was only water. I assume Al-Li holds up to cryogenic temps well...

Yeah, a test that needed to be done I guess, but again, if the models had not been validated, then what? If that was so unlikely that they'd literally build 2+ flight article cores before doing it, then why even bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tater said:

Yeah, a test that needed to be done I guess, but again, if the models had not been validated, then what? If that was so unlikely that they'd literally build 2+ flight article cores before doing it, then why even bother?

Because it had passed all the tests that really mattered, perhaps they were hoping it would turn out stronger than the models. Besides, maybe they felt the need to compete with Musk and show that they could intentionally destroy things too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Because it had passed all the tests that really mattered, perhaps they were hoping it would turn out stronger than the models.

I guess. Seems like the time to do that sort of testing is earlier rather than later.

They said within 2% of predicted. I assume predicted was some multiple of anything in flight.

29 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Besides, maybe they felt the need to compete with Musk and show that they could intentionally destroy things too

On the last bit that would be fine if whoever built the stuff paid out of pocket. Wonder what that test cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artemis II is 2023.


https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/07/06/exploration-is-a-team-sport/?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=KathyLueders&utm_campaign=NASASocial&linkId=93032034

 

Quote

Orion is complete and SLS is on track for its last major test later this year before flight. These systems will be integrated early next year and launched together for the first time on an uncrewed flight test around the Moon in 2021 followed by a test flight with crew around the Moon in 2023.

So 2023 is the first all-up SLS/Orion now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

2023? Only 3 years before there are humans around the moon?

Yay! (SpaceX missions might be sooner, and this might get delayed, but still.)

No, Artemis II is the free return mission. That's a delay. They've said 2022 was possible, but skeptics have been saying it is really 2023, and now we've just heard from the head of human spaceflight it's 2023.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tater said:

with crew around the Moon in 2023.

I got misled by this.

4 minutes ago, tater said:

That's a delay. They've said 2022 was possible

Don't really know that, but 2023 is still good.

Edited by Space Nerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

Don't really know that, but 2023 is still good.

Well they've been saying "no earlier than 2022", so while not a delay (they never said 2022), there are some people here who have said 2022 I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tater said:

 

Why don't they just do a gorram distributed launch for it??

Throw it up on a reusable Falcon Heavy, let it hang out in MEO, and then meet an empty Centaur or DCSS for the ejection burn. 

Fast, cheaper than SLS, and a really cool proof of concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I really don't understand why distributed launch isn't a bigger thing already. It's such an obviously superior mission mode for just about all unmanned purposes.

Schedule slip, inability of rocket companies to work together, lack of autonomous spacecraft docking capabilities outside of the ISS world, and so forth.

Company cooperation is probably the biggest thing. No exec will agree to a plan that has part of the money for a mission going to another company. 

Also there aren't that many payloads going beyond Earth's SOI these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even as one of the ones on the forums known for bashing SLS, it certainly has a cool factor for looks. The block 1 with the tiny upper stage for a rocket a third the size still looks wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Space Nerd said:

Am I the only one who thinks SLS looks better than starship?

(Seriously, I like SLS mostly because of it's look and the kerbal factor.)

I'd list the problems with SLS until the cows come home, but I can't deny that it's a cool looking rocket. I prefer the Saturn V style look it used to have, though.

But IMO, Starship is better both visually and functionally. It's literally a 1950s sci-fi rocket come true :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...