User Panel
I am really looking forward to Starship, Neutron and heck, even Relativity Space's reusable and partly reusable rockets going into service.
This Is Terran R Rocket Lab's Reusable Neutron Rocket Animation As a species. We need flight ready hardware, not political fuck-fuck games. |
|
Quoted: The ratuonal way to view and judge SLS, Orion, Gateway, etc is all through this lens: What is simultaneously the cheapest, least risky*, and easiest way to milk as much money as possible for as long as possible? *Risk being perceived as anything different than what's already been flown. SLS needed a destination, since it couldn't go to the Moon. Enter LOP-G. LOP-G was nice simple pork from the same prime contractors as always. Everyone stays happy. It's the exact same story as STS and the ISS: to perpetuate the self-licking ice cream cone, not to boldly go anywhere new at all. Many years ago I ran across a highly detailed financial analysis somewhere on an old AngelFire or Yahoo page, that laid out a truly impressive analysis of space exploration funding. Essentially, the "smart move", if ones total decision making was bounded by funding levels and not politics, was to stop all spaceflight for a period of a few years, maybe a decade. Dedicate *all* funding to maximizing launch efficiency and bringing down the cost to orbit. Instead of a few tens of millions here and there for prototype launch systems that never get to be trialed, pour all the billions you have into a Manhattan Project of launch tech. *Then* once you have a mature and inexpensive method to orbit, start launching the missions you actually want to do. View Quote Apparently some electric car yahoo read the same article… |
|
Quoted: The ratuonal way to view and judge SLS, Orion, Gateway, etc is all through this lens: What is simultaneously the cheapest, least risky*, and easiest way to milk as much money as possible for as long as possible? *Risk being perceived as anything different than what's already been flown. SLS needed a destination, since it couldn't go to the Moon. Enter LOP-G. LOP-G was nice simple pork from the same prime contractors as always. Everyone stays happy. It's the exact same story as STS and the ISS: to perpetuate the self-licking ice cream cone, not to boldly go anywhere new at all. Many years ago I ran across a highly detailed financial analysis somewhere on an old AngelFire or Yahoo page, that laid out a truly impressive analysis of space exploration funding. Essentially, the "smart move", if ones total decision making was bounded by funding levels and not politics, was to stop all spaceflight for a period of a few years, maybe a decade. Dedicate *all* funding to maximizing launch efficiency and bringing down the cost to orbit. Instead of a few tens of millions here and there for prototype launch systems that never get to be trialed, pour all the billions you have into a Manhattan Project of launch tech. *Then* once you have a mature and inexpensive method to orbit, start launching the missions you actually want to do. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Look y'all fuckers. I'll will you a story. GATEWAY or LOPG: In the before before times. Before spacex was in the process of taking over NASA had issues with consistent programs or funding. They were working on SLS/Orion but has no where to go. Presidents shifted priorities every 4-8 years from moon to mars to an asteroid. All very different missions. Budgets were tight. It was legitimately looking like NASA would never get the consistency to get anything done outside LEO ever again. Enter NASA's Brain . ******* ""We are going to have a ship and a BFR . No money/time for a lander .no money/time for a bigger ship for mars and no mars lander either . Hmmmmmmmmmm ..I got it!! .space station around the moon! Other nasa dude: "what that's fucking worthless and wouldn't help a lunar lander or mission at all?!" First nasa dude: "No listen fucker, build a small station with a small propulsion system around the moon! Tell congress and the people it will help (it won't help shit) but it gives us a cheapish do-able mission. One we get it out there it will be a funding anchor liability like the ISS. IF we get astronauts to the moon gateway all of the USA will say ok cool when do they land when watching it on tv. NASA says never because we never got funding for a lander. All of congress goes well fuck we have to have a lander duh doi! Also we can theoretically use gateway as the habitat we throw to mars for the journey if we build it out more" ********* The idea of gateway is a funding anchor and busy work for beyond Leo human missions. We are fast approaching with spacex a world where hundreds of tons of cargo can be dropped on the moon for relatively nothing. So the gateway doesn't make much since. It doesn't help Artemis AT ALL but it gives them an excuse for a mission if no lander is available. It give international partners something to make(modules). But NASA in 2011-2017 was a bleak place and the gateway was the smartest option they could make. It was a funding anchor they could launch to the moon for shit they knew how to do (modular stations). Robert zubrin right fully calls it a tollbooth because it literally hurts mission and will be a funding anchor around NASA's neck in the future. Where NASA will be like fuck gateway let it die in the future but congress will say NO you wanted it no your money has to go to that. So gateway might just suck up our moon base money in the future. Repeating that SLS can't also do moon landings due to insufficient TLI tonnage does not explain Gateway, it only justifies HLS. I don't know why others kept saying that. But gateway is easy to build using old space. So NASA continuing with inadequate Artemis meant gateway was the only place it could go. SpaceX appears and can produce HLS making gateway superfluous. NASA doesn't want to cancel gateway because in the future it could have a purpose. Starship is huge. It's way bigger than needed for HLS. It had a completely different mission. But by launching 4 tankers, it can be sent to the moon with enough fuel to serve as a moon orbit to moon, moon habitat, and back to moon orbit vehicle. In the future, it can be refueled. A smaller HLS than starship would probably be more optimal. Time to build that later. The ratuonal way to view and judge SLS, Orion, Gateway, etc is all through this lens: What is simultaneously the cheapest, least risky*, and easiest way to milk as much money as possible for as long as possible? *Risk being perceived as anything different than what's already been flown. SLS needed a destination, since it couldn't go to the Moon. Enter LOP-G. LOP-G was nice simple pork from the same prime contractors as always. Everyone stays happy. It's the exact same story as STS and the ISS: to perpetuate the self-licking ice cream cone, not to boldly go anywhere new at all. Many years ago I ran across a highly detailed financial analysis somewhere on an old AngelFire or Yahoo page, that laid out a truly impressive analysis of space exploration funding. Essentially, the "smart move", if ones total decision making was bounded by funding levels and not politics, was to stop all spaceflight for a period of a few years, maybe a decade. Dedicate *all* funding to maximizing launch efficiency and bringing down the cost to orbit. Instead of a few tens of millions here and there for prototype launch systems that never get to be trialed, pour all the billions you have into a Manhattan Project of launch tech. *Then* once you have a mature and inexpensive method to orbit, start launching the missions you actually want to do. We already know how to get cheap TONS of material to the moon or mars. No scientific issue. you don’t get cheaper by “taking a break and focusing on getting cheaper” You run a fucking elimination tournament fixed cost contract SHLV bids. Take 15 bids. Ala Crew dragon. Cut down to 4 contractors. 2 years later cut down to the best 3. And tell the remaining three that only two will ever get a launch contract. You will basically Make a new spacex out of (Rocketlab, Firefly, BO, Etc.) Illogically, It will be cheaper and a far better system. It’s also something that would NEVER get through congress because why would they give NASA money they can’t guarantee would come back to their district?. |
|
THE ANGRY ASTRONAUT!
Artemis is going!! (Back to the VAB and maybe the NASA scrapheap!) |
|
Everyone is getting angry now.
I used to love NASA launches but I was like an abused spouse. I didn’t accept how incompetent they really were and how archaic the process was until I saw SpaceX swap engines on the stand, do full wet rehearsals on the stand and test fire as much as needed, yet again on the stand. All for pennies on the dollar compared to NASA. Just park SLS, it is 1980s tech and pork barrel funded. |
|
Quoted: Everyone is getting angry now. I used to love NASA launches but I was like an abused spouse. I didn’t accept how incompetent they really were and how archaic the process was until I saw SpaceX swap engines on the stand, do full wet rehearsals on the stand and test fire as much as needed, yet again on the stand. All for pennies on the dollar compared to NASA. Just park SLS, it is 1980s tech and pork barrel funded. View Quote You may get your wish. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/so-long-senator-shelby-key-architect-of-sls-rocket-wont-seek-reelection/ |
|
I like how all news is like
“What! A SCRUB?!?! I just learned about Artemis 45 minutes ago and I already think it’s a complete embarrassment that it didn’t launch on its first attempt! Oh how America has fallen!!” Bros. Scrubs happen. You heart is in the right place. SLS is an embarrassment but the scrub isn’t the issue here. |
|
H2 leaks have been common since STS days. Sample news article
Why they haven't designed a superior connection, is a question that really needs answered. |
|
Quoted: H2 leaks have been common since STS days. Sample news article Why they haven't designed a superior connection, is a question that really needs answered. View Quote Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element in the universe. Handling it in liquid form and trying to keep it contained is always going to be a challenge no matter how much tech you have. I mean just look at what liquid helium can do. Superfluid helium Certain laws of physics start to get a little weird when you get to those temperatures. |
|
|
NASA's Baffling Engine Problem
NASA's Baffling Engine Problem |
|
I always thought of something like glass as a solid. It is crazy to me that elements like hydrogen and helium can pass right through it.
|
|
Quoted: Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element in the universe. Handling it in liquid form and trying to keep it contained is always going to be a challenge no matter how much tech you have. I mean just look at what liquid helium can do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI Certain laws of physics start to get a little weird when you get to those temperatures. View Quote And Elon’s crew uses liquids helium to super cool their fuel for more density. It’s a culture issue, and SpaceX is making them look like chumps. |
|
Quoted: World's Largest Solid Rocket Booster Static Fired for SLS and Artemis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Ef1PcPKjk View Quote Just adding segments? Boring... Kharn |
|
Quoted: We already know how to get cheap TONS of material to the moon or mars. No scientific issue. you don’t get cheaper by “taking a break and focusing on getting cheaper” You run a fucking elimination tournament fixed cost contract SHLV bids. Take 15 bids. Ala Crew dragon. Cut down to 4 contractors. 2 years later cut down to the best 3. And tell the remaining three that only two will ever get a launch contract. You will basically Make a new spacex out of (Rocketlab, Firefly, BO, Etc.) Illogically, It will be cheaper and a far better system. It’s also something that would NEVER get through congress because why would they give NASA money they can’t guarantee would come back to their district?. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Look y'all fuckers. I'll will you a story. GATEWAY or LOPG: In the before before times. Before spacex was in the process of taking over NASA had issues with consistent programs or funding. They were working on SLS/Orion but has no where to go. Presidents shifted priorities every 4-8 years from moon to mars to an asteroid. All very different missions. Budgets were tight. It was legitimately looking like NASA would never get the consistency to get anything done outside LEO ever again. Enter NASA's Brain . ******* ""We are going to have a ship and a BFR . No money/time for a lander .no money/time for a bigger ship for mars and no mars lander either . Hmmmmmmmmmm ..I got it!! .space station around the moon! Other nasa dude: "what that's fucking worthless and wouldn't help a lunar lander or mission at all?!" First nasa dude: "No listen fucker, build a small station with a small propulsion system around the moon! Tell congress and the people it will help (it won't help shit) but it gives us a cheapish do-able mission. One we get it out there it will be a funding anchor liability like the ISS. IF we get astronauts to the moon gateway all of the USA will say ok cool when do they land when watching it on tv. NASA says never because we never got funding for a lander. All of congress goes well fuck we have to have a lander duh doi! Also we can theoretically use gateway as the habitat we throw to mars for the journey if we build it out more" ********* The idea of gateway is a funding anchor and busy work for beyond Leo human missions. We are fast approaching with spacex a world where hundreds of tons of cargo can be dropped on the moon for relatively nothing. So the gateway doesn't make much since. It doesn't help Artemis AT ALL but it gives them an excuse for a mission if no lander is available. It give international partners something to make(modules). But NASA in 2011-2017 was a bleak place and the gateway was the smartest option they could make. It was a funding anchor they could launch to the moon for shit they knew how to do (modular stations). Robert zubrin right fully calls it a tollbooth because it literally hurts mission and will be a funding anchor around NASA's neck in the future. Where NASA will be like fuck gateway let it die in the future but congress will say NO you wanted it no your money has to go to that. So gateway might just suck up our moon base money in the future. Repeating that SLS can't also do moon landings due to insufficient TLI tonnage does not explain Gateway, it only justifies HLS. I don't know why others kept saying that. But gateway is easy to build using old space. So NASA continuing with inadequate Artemis meant gateway was the only place it could go. SpaceX appears and can produce HLS making gateway superfluous. NASA doesn't want to cancel gateway because in the future it could have a purpose. Starship is huge. It's way bigger than needed for HLS. It had a completely different mission. But by launching 4 tankers, it can be sent to the moon with enough fuel to serve as a moon orbit to moon, moon habitat, and back to moon orbit vehicle. In the future, it can be refueled. A smaller HLS than starship would probably be more optimal. Time to build that later. The ratuonal way to view and judge SLS, Orion, Gateway, etc is all through this lens: What is simultaneously the cheapest, least risky*, and easiest way to milk as much money as possible for as long as possible? *Risk being perceived as anything different than what's already been flown. SLS needed a destination, since it couldn't go to the Moon. Enter LOP-G. LOP-G was nice simple pork from the same prime contractors as always. Everyone stays happy. It's the exact same story as STS and the ISS: to perpetuate the self-licking ice cream cone, not to boldly go anywhere new at all. Many years ago I ran across a highly detailed financial analysis somewhere on an old AngelFire or Yahoo page, that laid out a truly impressive analysis of space exploration funding. Essentially, the "smart move", if ones total decision making was bounded by funding levels and not politics, was to stop all spaceflight for a period of a few years, maybe a decade. Dedicate *all* funding to maximizing launch efficiency and bringing down the cost to orbit. Instead of a few tens of millions here and there for prototype launch systems that never get to be trialed, pour all the billions you have into a Manhattan Project of launch tech. *Then* once you have a mature and inexpensive method to orbit, start launching the missions you actually want to do. We already know how to get cheap TONS of material to the moon or mars. No scientific issue. you don’t get cheaper by “taking a break and focusing on getting cheaper” You run a fucking elimination tournament fixed cost contract SHLV bids. Take 15 bids. Ala Crew dragon. Cut down to 4 contractors. 2 years later cut down to the best 3. And tell the remaining three that only two will ever get a launch contract. You will basically Make a new spacex out of (Rocketlab, Firefly, BO, Etc.) Illogically, It will be cheaper and a far better system. It’s also something that would NEVER get through congress because why would they give NASA money they can’t guarantee would come back to their district?. They already did that, the result was laughable. Attached File vs Attached File Kharn |
|
Quoted: Just adding segments? Boring... Kharn View Quote For some reason, I thought they were of larger diameter as well but that may not be the case. ... Many don't realize the existence of one of the scariest SRB failure modes: if a large enough chunk of unburnt propellant breaks off and clogs the nozzle, game over. |
|
Quoted: They already did that, the result was laughable. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/4178a_jpg-2515811.JPG vs https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/Starship-SpaceX-Moon-vs-Moon-1-c_jpg-2515815.JPG Kharn View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Look y'all fuckers. I'll will you a story. GATEWAY or LOPG: In the before before times. Before spacex was in the process of taking over NASA had issues with consistent programs or funding. They were working on SLS/Orion but has no where to go. Presidents shifted priorities every 4-8 years from moon to mars to an asteroid. All very different missions. Budgets were tight. It was legitimately looking like NASA would never get the consistency to get anything done outside LEO ever again. Enter NASA's Brain . ******* ""We are going to have a ship and a BFR . No money/time for a lander .no money/time for a bigger ship for mars and no mars lander either . Hmmmmmmmmmm ..I got it!! .space station around the moon! Other nasa dude: "what that's fucking worthless and wouldn't help a lunar lander or mission at all?!" First nasa dude: "No listen fucker, build a small station with a small propulsion system around the moon! Tell congress and the people it will help (it won't help shit) but it gives us a cheapish do-able mission. One we get it out there it will be a funding anchor liability like the ISS. IF we get astronauts to the moon gateway all of the USA will say ok cool when do they land when watching it on tv. NASA says never because we never got funding for a lander. All of congress goes well fuck we have to have a lander duh doi! Also we can theoretically use gateway as the habitat we throw to mars for the journey if we build it out more" ********* The idea of gateway is a funding anchor and busy work for beyond Leo human missions. We are fast approaching with spacex a world where hundreds of tons of cargo can be dropped on the moon for relatively nothing. So the gateway doesn't make much since. It doesn't help Artemis AT ALL but it gives them an excuse for a mission if no lander is available. It give international partners something to make(modules). But NASA in 2011-2017 was a bleak place and the gateway was the smartest option they could make. It was a funding anchor they could launch to the moon for shit they knew how to do (modular stations). Robert zubrin right fully calls it a tollbooth because it literally hurts mission and will be a funding anchor around NASA's neck in the future. Where NASA will be like fuck gateway let it die in the future but congress will say NO you wanted it no your money has to go to that. So gateway might just suck up our moon base money in the future. Repeating that SLS can't also do moon landings due to insufficient TLI tonnage does not explain Gateway, it only justifies HLS. I don't know why others kept saying that. But gateway is easy to build using old space. So NASA continuing with inadequate Artemis meant gateway was the only place it could go. SpaceX appears and can produce HLS making gateway superfluous. NASA doesn't want to cancel gateway because in the future it could have a purpose. Starship is huge. It's way bigger than needed for HLS. It had a completely different mission. But by launching 4 tankers, it can be sent to the moon with enough fuel to serve as a moon orbit to moon, moon habitat, and back to moon orbit vehicle. In the future, it can be refueled. A smaller HLS than starship would probably be more optimal. Time to build that later. The ratuonal way to view and judge SLS, Orion, Gateway, etc is all through this lens: What is simultaneously the cheapest, least risky*, and easiest way to milk as much money as possible for as long as possible? *Risk being perceived as anything different than what's already been flown. SLS needed a destination, since it couldn't go to the Moon. Enter LOP-G. LOP-G was nice simple pork from the same prime contractors as always. Everyone stays happy. It's the exact same story as STS and the ISS: to perpetuate the self-licking ice cream cone, not to boldly go anywhere new at all. Many years ago I ran across a highly detailed financial analysis somewhere on an old AngelFire or Yahoo page, that laid out a truly impressive analysis of space exploration funding. Essentially, the "smart move", if ones total decision making was bounded by funding levels and not politics, was to stop all spaceflight for a period of a few years, maybe a decade. Dedicate *all* funding to maximizing launch efficiency and bringing down the cost to orbit. Instead of a few tens of millions here and there for prototype launch systems that never get to be trialed, pour all the billions you have into a Manhattan Project of launch tech. *Then* once you have a mature and inexpensive method to orbit, start launching the missions you actually want to do. We already know how to get cheap TONS of material to the moon or mars. No scientific issue. you don’t get cheaper by “taking a break and focusing on getting cheaper” You run a fucking elimination tournament fixed cost contract SHLV bids. Take 15 bids. Ala Crew dragon. Cut down to 4 contractors. 2 years later cut down to the best 3. And tell the remaining three that only two will ever get a launch contract. You will basically Make a new spacex out of (Rocketlab, Firefly, BO, Etc.) Illogically, It will be cheaper and a far better system. It’s also something that would NEVER get through congress because why would they give NASA money they can’t guarantee would come back to their district?. They already did that, the result was laughable. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/4178a_jpg-2515811.JPG vs https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/Starship-SpaceX-Moon-vs-Moon-1-c_jpg-2515815.JPG Kharn How is it laughable? It’s most likely going to be the best dollar to hardware value ratio ever. Same as commercial cargo and commercial crew before it. We just need to make sure there are two winners because spacex is going to win everyone now if there is only one winner. |
|
Simple explanation for gateway at the 3 minute mark with visual for the typical GD'r...https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4
I haven't been hear long enough to learn how to Imbed. |
|
Quoted: Simple explanation for gateway at the 3 minute mark with visual for the typical GD'r...https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4 I haven't been hear long enough to learn how to Imbed. View Quote How We Are Going to the Moon - 4K |
|
Musk's Reaction & Genius solution to NASA's SLS leak failure- The real reasons SpaceX uses new fuel
Musk's Reaction & Genius solution to NASA's SLS leak failure-The real reasons SpaceX uses new fuel! |
|
Quoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8cn2J13-4 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Simple explanation for gateway at the 3 minute mark with visual for the typical GD'r...https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4 I haven't been hear long enough to learn how to Imbed. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8cn2J13-4 This video is in the OP. I’ve also explained it!!!! Gateway is/was plausible make work for SLS/Orion to have a place to “go to”. It would be a funding anchor around the moon and once there all of the world would be like “what you aren’t going down to the surface!?” So NASA could then get real funding for a lander. But fixed competitive bids (and spacex) have been doing some capitalist black magic and all of a sudden a lander became something plausible to get without a serious act of congress (even though HLS is literally an act of congress lol). So the gateway seems superfluous but it made sense to nasa in like 2014 when they new every president could change his mind on what nasa should be doing. So they need an anchor that was affordable that they knew how to make that they could ask international partners to help with. A lunar ISS anchor they could chuck around the moon that they’d be obligated to visit and upkeep. |
|
Apollo 11 Saturn V Launch Slow Motion 16mm Film |
|
|
NASA SLS Rocket Engine Test-Fired in Mississippi
Powerful NASA SLS Rocket Engine Test-Fired in Mississippi |
|
TSM(U) = Tail Service Mast Umbilicals |
|
Quoted: How is it laughable? It’s most likely going to be the best dollar to hardware value ratio ever. Same as commercial cargo and commercial crew before it. We just need to make sure there are two winners because spacex is going to win everyone now if there is only one winner. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Look y'all fuckers. I'll will you a story. GATEWAY or LOPG: In the before before times. Before spacex was in the process of taking over NASA had issues with consistent programs or funding. They were working on SLS/Orion but has no where to go. Presidents shifted priorities every 4-8 years from moon to mars to an asteroid. All very different missions. Budgets were tight. It was legitimately looking like NASA would never get the consistency to get anything done outside LEO ever again. Enter NASA's Brain . ******* ""We are going to have a ship and a BFR . No money/time for a lander .no money/time for a bigger ship for mars and no mars lander either . Hmmmmmmmmmm ..I got it!! .space station around the moon! Other nasa dude: "what that's fucking worthless and wouldn't help a lunar lander or mission at all?!" First nasa dude: "No listen fucker, build a small station with a small propulsion system around the moon! Tell congress and the people it will help (it won't help shit) but it gives us a cheapish do-able mission. One we get it out there it will be a funding anchor liability like the ISS. IF we get astronauts to the moon gateway all of the USA will say ok cool when do they land when watching it on tv. NASA says never because we never got funding for a lander. All of congress goes well fuck we have to have a lander duh doi! Also we can theoretically use gateway as the habitat we throw to mars for the journey if we build it out more" ********* The idea of gateway is a funding anchor and busy work for beyond Leo human missions. We are fast approaching with spacex a world where hundreds of tons of cargo can be dropped on the moon for relatively nothing. So the gateway doesn't make much since. It doesn't help Artemis AT ALL but it gives them an excuse for a mission if no lander is available. It give international partners something to make(modules). But NASA in 2011-2017 was a bleak place and the gateway was the smartest option they could make. It was a funding anchor they could launch to the moon for shit they knew how to do (modular stations). Robert zubrin right fully calls it a tollbooth because it literally hurts mission and will be a funding anchor around NASA's neck in the future. Where NASA will be like fuck gateway let it die in the future but congress will say NO you wanted it no your money has to go to that. So gateway might just suck up our moon base money in the future. Repeating that SLS can't also do moon landings due to insufficient TLI tonnage does not explain Gateway, it only justifies HLS. I don't know why others kept saying that. But gateway is easy to build using old space. So NASA continuing with inadequate Artemis meant gateway was the only place it could go. SpaceX appears and can produce HLS making gateway superfluous. NASA doesn't want to cancel gateway because in the future it could have a purpose. Starship is huge. It's way bigger than needed for HLS. It had a completely different mission. But by launching 4 tankers, it can be sent to the moon with enough fuel to serve as a moon orbit to moon, moon habitat, and back to moon orbit vehicle. In the future, it can be refueled. A smaller HLS than starship would probably be more optimal. Time to build that later. The ratuonal way to view and judge SLS, Orion, Gateway, etc is all through this lens: What is simultaneously the cheapest, least risky*, and easiest way to milk as much money as possible for as long as possible? *Risk being perceived as anything different than what's already been flown. SLS needed a destination, since it couldn't go to the Moon. Enter LOP-G. LOP-G was nice simple pork from the same prime contractors as always. Everyone stays happy. It's the exact same story as STS and the ISS: to perpetuate the self-licking ice cream cone, not to boldly go anywhere new at all. Many years ago I ran across a highly detailed financial analysis somewhere on an old AngelFire or Yahoo page, that laid out a truly impressive analysis of space exploration funding. Essentially, the "smart move", if ones total decision making was bounded by funding levels and not politics, was to stop all spaceflight for a period of a few years, maybe a decade. Dedicate *all* funding to maximizing launch efficiency and bringing down the cost to orbit. Instead of a few tens of millions here and there for prototype launch systems that never get to be trialed, pour all the billions you have into a Manhattan Project of launch tech. *Then* once you have a mature and inexpensive method to orbit, start launching the missions you actually want to do. We already know how to get cheap TONS of material to the moon or mars. No scientific issue. you don’t get cheaper by “taking a break and focusing on getting cheaper” You run a fucking elimination tournament fixed cost contract SHLV bids. Take 15 bids. Ala Crew dragon. Cut down to 4 contractors. 2 years later cut down to the best 3. And tell the remaining three that only two will ever get a launch contract. You will basically Make a new spacex out of (Rocketlab, Firefly, BO, Etc.) Illogically, It will be cheaper and a far better system. It’s also something that would NEVER get through congress because why would they give NASA money they can’t guarantee would come back to their district?. They already did that, the result was laughable. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/4178a_jpg-2515811.JPG vs https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/Starship-SpaceX-Moon-vs-Moon-1-c_jpg-2515815.JPG Kharn How is it laughable? It’s most likely going to be the best dollar to hardware value ratio ever. Same as commercial cargo and commercial crew before it. We just need to make sure there are two winners because spacex is going to win everyone now if there is only one winner. You missed my point. I was mocking the two Old Space teet-suckers who missed the memo that they were supposed to change their business model. I should have included a picture of Blue Origin's lawyers dropping off their contract protest too. The "liferaft for Starship" competition should allow a firewalled SpaceX team who has never worked with Starship to compete so everyone could watch the "perform or die" private company mentality come out on top again. Kharn |
|
Quoted:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcAaiXIWYAE4wgf?format=jpg&name=large TSM(U) = Tail Service Mast Umbilicals View Quote That pic is classic, Chokey, a bunch of guys standing there with their hands on their hips (at least not in their pockets) staring at a problem hoping the solution presents itself. It reminds me of guys working on fixing potholes in California. 6+ guys |
|
|
|
Has it been confirmed that it was in fact human error which over-pressured a line/valve, which resulted in the leak (presumably because of damage)?
I've heard that several times, but is that the official explanation at this point, or are people just guessing? |
|
Quoted: That pic is classic, Chokey, a bunch of guys standing there with their hands on their hips (at least not in their pockets) staring at a problem hoping the solution presents itself. It reminds me of guys working on fixing potholes in California. 6+ guys View Quote You have no idea what is going on in that pic. Your statement is an ass fact. There is a guy standing in front of them. Two guys actually. Those two are facing the rest. Four guys are facing the one on the left and two guys are facing the one on the right. They appear to be gathered around in an assembly. Maybe they are going over the plan of action. Maybe they are being reminded of specific safety procedures and dangers when working on a rocket containg cryogenic liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Maybe they are discussing what they just found out. I really don't like Artemis. I think it's a static throw back and has no future. I think SpaceX quickly figured hydrogen is an impractical fuel for core engine use, same as carbon fiber was for booster construction. But that doesn't mean stupid, ass facts get a free shot at guys working on a leaking cryogenic bomb. |
|
Quoted: That's a single pic. An instant video in time. No sound. You have no idea what is going on in that pic. Your statement is an ass fact. There is a guy standing in front of them. Two guys actually. Those two are facing the rest. Four guys are facing the one on the left and two guys are facing the one on the right. They appear to be gathered around in an assembly. Maybe they are going over the plan of action. Maybe they are being reminded of specific safety procedures and dangers when working on a rocket containg cryogenic liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Maybe they are discussing what they just found out. I really don't like Artemis. I think it's a static throw back and has no future. I think SpaceX quickly figured hydrogen is an impractical fuel for core engine use, same as carbon fiber was for booster construction. But that doesn't mean stupid, ass facts get a free shot at guys working on a leaking cryogenic bomb. View Quote My mistake. I got caught up in the moment. |
|
Quoted: Musk's Reaction & Genius solution to NASA's SLS leak failure- The real reasons SpaceX uses new fuel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7zFh6qHDfc View Quote So Lori Garver was the only non retarded person out there |
|
View Quote If you think about it, if you are relying on Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to provide you with mission critical space stuff, you are gonna have issues |
|
|
|
Quoted:
View Quote Fingers crossed!!! |
|
Quoted: Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element in the universe. Handling it in liquid form and trying to keep it contained is always going to be a challenge no matter how much tech you have. I mean just look at what liquid helium can do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI Certain laws of physics start to get a little weird when you get to those temperatures. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: H2 leaks have been common since STS days. Sample news article Why they haven't designed a superior connection, is a question that really needs answered. Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element in the universe. Handling it in liquid form and trying to keep it contained is always going to be a challenge no matter how much tech you have. I mean just look at what liquid helium can do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI Certain laws of physics start to get a little weird when you get to those temperatures. Which is why I always find it interesting that certain groups tout hydrogen as an alternative fuel for vehicles. I understand Honda and Toyota, especially, have dumped a ton of money into hydrogen but they aren't getting traction with it that I can tell. I guess they worked out a way around the storage / tanks / fuel lines but no one cares as EV's are the choice of big government. |
|
Quoted: Which is why I always find it interesting that certain groups tout hydrogen as an alternative fuel for vehicles. I understand Honda and Toyota, especially, have dumped a ton of money into hydrogen but they aren't getting traction with it that I can tell. I guess they worked out a way around the storage / tanks / fuel lines but no one cares as EV's are the choice of big government. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: H2 leaks have been common since STS days. Sample news article Why they haven't designed a superior connection, is a question that really needs answered. Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element in the universe. Handling it in liquid form and trying to keep it contained is always going to be a challenge no matter how much tech you have. I mean just look at what liquid helium can do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI Certain laws of physics start to get a little weird when you get to those temperatures. Which is why I always find it interesting that certain groups tout hydrogen as an alternative fuel for vehicles. I understand Honda and Toyota, especially, have dumped a ton of money into hydrogen but they aren't getting traction with it that I can tell. I guess they worked out a way around the storage / tanks / fuel lines but no one cares as EV's are the choice of big government. CNG actually seems like a better alternative for vehicles. |
|
Quoted: Which is why I always find it interesting that certain groups tout hydrogen as an alternative fuel for vehicles. I understand Honda and Toyota, especially, have dumped a ton of money into hydrogen but they aren't getting traction with it that I can tell. I guess they worked out a way around the storage / tanks / fuel lines but no one cares as EV's are the choice of big government. View Quote Clearly it can be contained and handled. But containing it and handling it on a civilizational scale? It's one thing if the people manning the infrastructure are employees of Boeing, NASA or SpaceX. When it's Billy Bob's gas station out in the boonies. There might be issues maintaining 10 degrees above absolute zero there. |
|
Quoted: Has it been confirmed that it was in fact human error which over-pressured a line/valve, which resulted in the leak (presumably because of damage)? I've heard that several times, but is that the official explanation at this point, or are people just guessing? View Quote That's what I've heard 2nd hand. Some procedure apparently wasn't carried out properly causing a seal to fail. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcPrIGzWIAEL6_j?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 View Quote SpaceX would have one dude doing a similar procedure in a company polo and another holding the iPhone filming for the documentary. Kharn |
|
Quoted:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcPrIGzWIAEL6_j?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 View Quote SpaceX would have done that in blue jeans, T-shirts and ball caps standing on a rickety cherry picker |
|
NASA should just contract out all the space stuff to SpaceX.
So they can still do their muslim out reach and crt training. |
|
|
|
Failed To Load Title |
|
Quoted:
View Quote Good to hear. Fueling test and if that works out? |
|
Amateurs shoulda went for a full complement of engines A model rocket engine size D in the boosters and 4 size A engines in the core stage would approximate the ratio of power of SLS Quoted: Good to hear. Fueling test and if that works out? After a successful tanking test, they'll roll that momentum into a launch (I've heard 24th and 27th) |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.