71–80 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a big, complex project and it’s failed two tests. I’m happy to take the bet that it will launch successfully
It's a big complex project that legislators decreed should re-use ancient engines and structural components from the shuttle - a project that was the world's first space-faring barrel of pork, infamous for its operating expenditures. One of the arguments for doing so was that the engines were "proven." checks news story Oh hey, it's the engines that are causing these delays. NASA has been so over-budget on the projec…
??? Last scrub was because of a problem with providing bleed cooling to cold soak everything.
This scrub appears to be a problem with a quick disconnect used in fueling operations or the piping just inside it.
Neither are the "engines".
I'm skeptical of Artemis, but come on.
To my untrained eye the current outlook on the program looks like that rocket is right now only supposed to make two roundtrips along the moon — and then in that third „Starship HLS“ mission Artemis’ only job is to take up the astronauts to orbit: while Starship (notably designed to be human rated) will be doing all the heavy lifting of the mission.
In this context it all looks like a total sham, it would literally be cheaper and easier to send them up in another reusable Starship.
What other purpose does Artemis have except building the most expensive trip to orbit existing so NASA can say „hey, we did something about this moon mission too!“?
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.
“Wrong” by what standard? Hydrogen has the highest specific impulse but I’d much harder to work with. We have no better propellant. A lot of other launch vehicles use RP-1, which is basically just kerosene. Lower specific impulse so lower payload capacity but it doesn’t need to be cryogenically stored and cooled with everything that entails. That’s a fine choice for single use rockets but when you get into reusable r…
Yes, it has the highest practical specific impulse. No, that is not the most important metric for a lower stage. Take a look at how many new launchers are using hydrogen in their lower stages. Hint: it’s a big, round sort of a number.
Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Because I really don‘t. To my untrained eye the current outlook on the program looks like that rocket is right now only supposed to make two roundtrips along the moon — and then in that third „Starship HLS“ mission Artemis’ only job is to take up the astronauts to orbit: while Starship (notably designed to be human rated) will be doing all the heavy lifting of the mission. In t…
Making Senators happy.
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.
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…
It’s about mature vs immature vehicles, mostly. Much as I loathe the entire SLS program and design of the rocket, it is not because they’re having some trouble with scrubs. That’s going to happen with a unique, complex, and new system.
Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Because I really don‘t. To my untrained eye the current outlook on the program looks like that rocket is right now only supposed to make two roundtrips along the moon — and then in that third „Starship HLS“ mission Artemis’ only job is to take up the astronauts to orbit: while Starship (notably designed to be human rated) will be doing all the heavy lifting of the mission. In t…
They want to go to the moon.
Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Because I really don‘t. To my untrained eye the current outlook on the program looks like that rocket is right now only supposed to make two roundtrips along the moon — and then in that third „Starship HLS“ mission Artemis’ only job is to take up the astronauts to orbit: while Starship (notably designed to be human rated) will be doing all the heavy lifting of the mission. In t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about all the work done by people that you are discounting...
What is the point that you're trying to make here? I'm sure we've all experienced situations where we realize that the work we're being paid to do is futile and will never reach achieve it's intended purpose. It's really demoralizing but the thing to remember in that situation is that you're still getting paid. Would you rather be an aeronautical engineer who gets paid and doesn't launch of a rocket, or an aeronautic…