Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed

blogs.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed

#111

Post by skissane »

rocket_surgeron wrote: post #54
hfgbvhevrt wrote: post #34

Earlier 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…

How much is B7/S24 missing compared to an operational vehicle?

Artemis 1 doesn't have the configuration of a fully operational vehicle either. Artemis 1's Orion doesn't have a fully functioning life support system, launch abort system, or docking system – and probably is missing other components too.

To compare apples to apples – SLS (without Orion), to just the components of Starship/SuperHeavy which form part of launch vehicle proper (as opposed to payload) – what is Starship/SuperHeavy actually missing?

Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed

#112

Post by mannerheim »

engineer_22 wrote: post #82
endymi0n wrote: post #73

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…

When they started the project (2011) Starship wasn't even a twinkle in Elon's eye (BFR around 2016). Starship started looking like a real product in 2020. In hindsight, you're right, SLS looks silly, but not many people were betting on SpaceX developing a super heavy launch system in 6 years like they've (apparently) done. They've invested a lot of money in SLS and there's probably still lessons to learn there. If St…

'"Let's be very honest again," Bolden said in a 2014 interview. "We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real."'

Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed

#113

Post by mannerheim »

endymi0n wrote: post #89
theteapot wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who? They're all on the same team, team USA! Or are you implying the glacial pace will inevitably mean China gets there first?

So even if it was this easy and logical, the only logical consequence would be scrapping SLS right now. Artemis 3 isn‘t just depending on one, but two super heavy launchers that haven‘t even left the ground yet. And if you put Starship in the critical path, why would you spend billions to introduce another bottleneck that‘s literally just duplicating Starship‘s ground to orbit capability? If NASA agenda really only w…

Starship hadn't been conceived in 2011, but the SLS has been obsolete since 2018 with the Falcon Heavy.

Re: Artemis I Launch Attempt Scrubbed

#115

Post by GolfPopper »

endymi0n wrote: post #73

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…

To put a pretty positive spin on it: to use extant launch hardware to carry out some key heavy lift missions while developing future, replacement heavy lift launchers.

To put an uncharitable spin on it: to full federal space spending into the same places where its been since the 70s, to not rock the boat.

I think one of the reason some people are so cynical about it is that it appears to have succeeded at the second goal while being ineffective at the first.

Post reply on HN