[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[RCgothic]

So all the towers around the rocket registered violations, but not at the pad? Colour me skeptical.

 

 

[tater]

2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

So all the towers around the rocket registered violations, but not at the pad? Colour me skeptical.

Meh.

The wind directions on the NOAA website showed winds from NNE. On 39B, the tower is directly N of the vehicle, so was partially in the lee of that.

Violations honestly don't matter at this point, there was never a solution other than launching. If they had rolled back, they'd launch with yet another violation. SRB violations? Sure, no problem. FTS violation (>20 days after battery swap)? No problem. More SRB violations? Meh, good to go, they're fine!

The only ones left were wind, and rollback. Had they rolled back, then it's go—after they violate SRB again—and if they have a problem with that attempt, then they have to violate rollback limits. They should have waited to stack the SRBs. They should have planned for a spring launch attempt so that all their time constraints would be based on final testing issues (WDR, etc), with little chance of weather issues, and fixes and battery swaps being 100% of the rollbacks.

[Beccab]

11 hours ago, RCgothic said:

So all the towers around the rocket registered violations, but not at the pad? Colour me skeptical.

 

 

As someone on the SLS sub said, the wording of the update are likely the key: it says they were "within the rocket's capabilities", while we know that NASA's limits were exceeded, which probably means that they decided the specs chosen were too conservative and increased them for the wind speeds reached.

Which is to say, a new waiver

[Beccab]

Waivers!

[Minmus Taster]

17 hours ago, Beccab said:

Waivers!

THISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAM-

[tater]

Meh

[intelliCom]

11 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

THISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAMTHISISJUSTABADDREAM-

I guess there's two attitudes to SLS's failure during launch:

1. Being distraught
2. Laughing at the fireworks (That's probably me)

Neither is right or wrong. I just want them to get on with it so we can just be released from the torture of delays after delays, and move on to other things.

[Minmus Taster]

48 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

I guess there's two attitudes to SLS's failure during launch:

1. Being distraught
2. Laughing at the fireworks (That's probably me)

Neither is right or wrong. I just want them to get on with it so we can just be released from the torture of delays after delays, and move on to other things.

I honestly think it will just rust away on the pad

[Gargamel]

5 hours ago, intelliCom said:

I guess there's two attitudes to SLS's failure during launch:

1. Being distraught
2. Laughing at the fireworks (That's probably me)

Neither is right or wrong. I just want them to get on with it so we can just be released from the torture of delays after delays, and move on to other things.

Nah, #3.    The pure joy at seeing it fail knowing it will get NASA out of the space flight business itself and force it to focus on regulation and research, the only things they’ve actually been good at for the last 40 years.   

[kerbiloid]

Bad propeller, and water is deep.

Spoiler

 

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Nah, #3.    The pure joy at seeing it fail knowing it will get NASA out of the space flight business itself and force it to focus on regulation and research, the only things they’ve actually been good at for the last 40 years.   

Isn't this a Boeing project?  Or do you mean "NASA stop micromanaging the real rocket scientists and stick to things like probes".

From Atkin's Laws of Spacecraft design:

38. Capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say.

39. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.

39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.

Or in other words: howabout stop demanding new launch vehicles for the sake of new launch vehicles.  It may help that Sen Shelby finally retired this year (well, technically next January).

Edit: the really embarrassing thing  about all this is that the whole idea of "keeping shuttle jobs" is that it was too late to save the old shuttle jobs (a lot of new guys got to be trained on cutting edge 1970's technology) and reused parts of an old vehicle at prices that vastly exceeded new (commercial) launch vehicles (and expect NASA/Senate to be the source for most of the excessive costs.  Boeing just shut up and saw dollar signs in their heads as the crazy requirements/modifications rolled  in).  Source: I've dealt with DoD projects and the DoD's cavalier attitude to costs.  Nothing specific to NASA, but they tend to hire the same types and answer to the same Congresscritters.

Edited November 15, 2022 by wumpus

[tater]

 

I want it to succeed, the money is already spent (mission accomplished), so we might as well get the secondary goal payloads to TLI.

[tater]

 

[sevenperforce]

Over/under on tonight's launch attempt?

[Spaceception]

Might stay up for this, but it will be a late night. At least I don't have any classes tomorrow

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Bad propeller, and water is deep.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Failure modes of wind turbines is something I didn’t realize I needed.

4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Nah, #3.    The pure joy at seeing it fail knowing it will get NASA out of the space flight business itself and force it to focus on regulation and research, the only things they’ve actually been good at for the last 40 years.   

A disaster might kill SLS but I’m a little skeptical about Orion.

Also, thinking about it more, this is a really weird statement. Even if NASA switches wholly to contracted launches, there is no way they are “getting out of the spaceflight business”. There is no way the private industry will be able to fund what NASA does now. Even if Axiom might be able to take over some research conducted by astronauts in the future, I don’t think we will really see a private astronaut corps on the scale of NASA’s for a long time.

I assumed you did not include probes, but ironically I think probes are actually easier to “commercialize” than human spaceflight, because Starship will allow larger “dumb” probes to be built using more off the shelf materials.

EDIT- What I mean is SLS alone does not represent NASA’s involvement in “spaceflight”.

Edited November 15, 2022 by SunlitZelkova

[Minmus Taster]

Weather or not it launches it's gonna be a loooong night  

[tater]

Tanking graphics should be up soon I am told.

Live stream placeholder... not in 720p.

Hmmm (fires off text)

[tater]

 

[Gargamel]

40 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

there is no way they are “getting out of the spaceflight business”.

Oh no, I don't want them out of the business, I want them to refocus their goals.   I believe we've reached a time where private launch vehicles are a better choice compared to government funded ones.   Let's keep a manned Internationally funded space station in operation.  Let's keep designing and building and launching as many scientific probes as we can.  Let NASA be the government oversight that is needed, heavily needed, for the private industry.  I just don't see the need for governmentally funded launch vehicles anymore.   Other countries may have different approaches, but NASA has played itself out of the launch vehicle business, and I'm ok with that.   The US has a strong enough private sector building launch vehicles to not need anymore public ones.   SLS might be the last one we see. 

-More replies incoming, standby for edit-

3 hours ago, wumpus said:

Isn't this a Boeing project?  Or do you mean "NASA stop micromanaging the real rocket scientists and stick to things like probes".

See above ^

Edited November 15, 2022 by Gargamel

[tater]

Did not seem surprised for HD stream placeholder... woot

[Gargamel]

All that said above.... I'm still psyched for a successful flight and I'll have my popcorn ready.   I love all forms of spaceflight. 

It sure is a purty vehicle

Edited November 15, 2022 by Gargamel

[sevenperforce]

This is pessimistic.

He is incorrect, incidentally. SLS has abort-to-orbit capability in the event of premature shutdown at almost every envelope of flight.

But pessimism is always the best approach, especially as a public figure. If you're wrong, everyone's happy and no one cares. If you're right, you're a prophet.

[Rutabaga22]

Is there ANY way SLS could be reusable? I know people constantly ask if it is reusable, but I want to know if it could.

[Gargamel]

3 minutes ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Is there ANY way SLS could be reusable? I know people constantly ask if it is reusable, but I want to know if it could.

Define reusable.