11–20 of 115 posts
I feel like they need to go the SpaceX route and build dozens of these things and just launch them with the expectation that most will fail, but they learn from each failure to improve the next ones.
Consequences of choosing the wrong first stage fuel (hydrogen) are many. Those tiny molecules want nothing more from life than to sneak through the smallest of openings. Well, possibly second to mating violently with oxygen.
Bomb: To explode, of course.
- "Hearing a rollback to the VAB of the SLS rocket is likely, but I don't have confirmation. If that happens, it is very likely that Artemis I does not launch before October 17, at the earliest."
- "I'm told that Space Launch System program officials will recommend a rollback to the VAB to investigate the hydrogen leak. The Artemis I mission management team will consider this recommendation at their afternoon meeting, and publicly announce a decision at 4pm ET."
I feel like they need to go the SpaceX route and build dozens of these things and just launch them with the expectation that most will fail, but they learn from each failure to improve the next ones.
8-inch quick disconnect hoses have to be really gnarly to do anything with.
The joints connecting each piece of Space Launch System’s five-segment rocket motors are certified for one year once booster stacking begins, a clock that began ticking Jan. 7 with the hoisting of the SLS’s left-hand aft center booster segment on top of the booster’s lowermost piece.
But the 12-month certification limit, a holdover from the space shuttle program, could be extended with an engineering review, according to John Honeycutt, NASA’s Space Launch System program manager at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.
Honeycutt said in January engineers planned to make measurements and collect data as ground teams stacked each segment of the Artemis 1 boosters inside the Vehicle Assembly Building. The data could help NASA and Northrop Grumman extend the certification of the rocket motor joints beyond 12 months.
“That gives us the best opportunity to do some sort of a life extension on the booster stacking in the event that we need that,” Honeycutt said.
[1] https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/03/09/stacking-complete-for-...
We’ve been quoted $4bn per launch. If this pattern of delays turns out to be fundamental (a big, if plausible, if), what would the launch costs actually be?
We’ve been quoted $4bn per launch. If this pattern of delays turns out to be fundamental (a big, if plausible, if), what would the launch costs actually be?
…which is why it’s often a good idea to not use a new launch vehicle on the critical path for your crewed spaceflight program. (Could have used LEO rendezvous of various types to go to the Moon.)
https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
> 39. 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.
Consequences of choosing the wrong first stage fuel (hydrogen) are many. Those tiny molecules want nothing more from life than to sneak through the smallest of openings. Well, possibly second to mating violently with oxygen.
Doolittle: Bomb, what is your purpose? Bomb: To explode, of course.
What’s the record amount of scrubs? I guess we have to ask TLC…
The record for the shuttle was 6
And this case is particularly spectacular because while it's ostensibly just a test, they are literally using the exact same engines that the Space Shuttle used. Not as in the exact model, but literally refurbished RS-25 engines that already completed successful flights on the Space Shuttle.