Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dark Star. Good movie.
IMDB disagrees! 6.2.
It's a gestalt imo, kinda like Lynch's Dune. Flawed film with lots of bad parts and bizarre decisions, but also unique and memorable enough to elevate it above 'just bad'
Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
61–70 of 115 posts
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#62Consequences 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.
There are just as many hydrolox(hydrogen + liquid oxygen) as kerolox(RP-1 kerosene + LOX). Atlas, Delta, H-II, Ariane 5, Long March 5, to name a few, all use hydrolox. I believe a part of reasons why launch attempts are called "attempts" is because of extreme scrub and failure rate of launch vehicle launches, and I think the fact that scrubs are now considered abnormal can be attributable to SpaceX and Elon Musk. I w…
I think the lack of scrubs of SpaceX launches mostly comes from Falcon 9 being an absurdly powerful rocket with great margin of safety for the payload/missions it takes. Thus it can often launch in sub-optimal conditions, still complete it's primary objective -and- recover the booster.
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have my doubts that it will ever launch - the way things are proceeding, they’ll miss October, push to ‘23, and will then end up with parts and systems ageing out due to wear and duty cycles - the rollback to the VAB alone incurs significant wear. Meanwhile, starship will see its first orbital flight (likely not before a few RUDs) while SLS just grows mould. That said, the whole purpose of SLS was to provide jobs a…
Think about all the work done by people that you are discounting...
Since the rocket gets thrown in the ocean at the end of this, this is literally the sunk cost fallacy at play.
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
When is that first starship orbital launch again?
Starship doesn't even exist yet. Note: neither Booster 7, nor Booster 8, or Ship 20 and 24 for that matter, are even close to being anything that could be considered "Starship" by even the most generous observer. Even if B7/S24 do launch in a test flight they are so far removed from anything that could potentially be in the far future an operational and usable spacecraft that they resemble "starship" the same way a w…
In 20 years, I've seen SpaceX start from scratch and develop and launch the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy, and nail propulsive landings on Earth.
Since it's members joined forces to form ULA 15 years ago, I've watched them launch the same machines they've been using since 2002.
I have a lot more faith that SpaceX will launch something new than that ULA will get anything done.
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#65Consequences 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.
Like all engineering decisions, hydrogen is a choice with tradeoffs. It's specific impulse ('fuel efficiency') is unbeatable. That buys you a lot more cargo capacity for the same sized rocket. And since this program is putting large items into lunar orbit, you need that badly. But as you said, it's... complex to work with. Hey it worked for the space shuttle.
> That buys you a lot more cargo capacity for the same sized rocket.
I think you mean the same mass rocket, because hydrogen is not dense, which factors into the tradeoffs (more structural mass to contain it).
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
The initial SpaceX Falcon rocket was entirely privately funded, at a total cost of of ~$100 million. The first 3 launches were failures. The 4th launch was a success, and the rest is history. And that vessel would ultimately go on (through various again largely privately funded innovations) to revolutionize spaceflight. The same is now true of the Starship, which is again being entirely privately funded. The cost is…
> The initial SpaceX Falcon rocket was entirely privately funded, at a total cost of of ~$100 million. And just to put things in perspective: SLS (not Orion, just SLS) is projected to cost a total of $30 Billion The shuttle cost $1.5BN/launch and SLS, forty years later? Over $2BN/launch. Absolute insanity.
I was downvoted a few weeks ago on a "Rah, rah, rah! Artemis!" post here on HN for pointing out the same a few weeks ago.
People on here sure are fickle.
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#67At this rate it seems really unlikely to me that the next mission will have humans on it.
Agreed. I doubt the capsule part of the mission.....you know, the actual mission.....will go smooth either.
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#68I assume this means the SRBs need to be disassembled to replace the sealing between the segments seeing as how these were stacked beginning in January 2021 [1] and the sealing is guaranteed for 12 months. This has already been extended for 7-8 months but if the launch is to be postponed until October or later they're coming up to 2 years: The joints connecting each piece of Space Launch System’s five-segment rocket m…
It's pretty clear they don't care at this point. They were extended by 6 months and no one has brought it up since then. NASA is feeling political heat to just fly this thing at any cost at this point.
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#69It's like the programmer who just runs their code again without actually testing it in the hopes that something changed
It's not, actually. They're not running anything. In fact, they're doing the literal opposite of what your comment suggests.
It’s an accurate description of todays launch attempt. They decided to repeat assuming the sensor problem that scrubbed the last launch was a sensor issue only. It was not.
Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about all the work done by people that you are discounting...
Since the rocket gets thrown in the ocean at the end of this, this is literally the sunk cost fallacy at play.
NASA TV loves to show a great infographic of how many parts have flown to space before and have been reusable... can't help but yell in my mind.. and that's the last time they'll be reusable.