Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #261  
Old 09-30-2022, 06:06 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,141
Default

Your call has been confirmed by NASA themselves. Targeting November.

Blog post: https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022...ber-for-launch/


Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 10-10-2022, 12:37 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston2021
The SLS... Senate Launch System designed as a continued employment program for Shuttle manufacturers "saving money" by using, at first, left over SMEs designed to be reusable in totally disposable mode, later a "lower cost" version along with SRBs that, unlike with the Shuttle, will also be disposed of on each flight... not that I could ever find firm info that the Shuttle SRB reuse ever actually saved money.

WHY do we "need" a heavy lift vehicle anyway? DESIGN heavy stuff to be launched in sections into orbit on smaller launch vehicles and then assemble in Earth orbit. Auto-docking could be used for assembly or even telepresence robotics due to low signal trip delay in Earth orbit.

What a HUGE boondoggle and total waste of money...


Yup... basically 2 Falcon Heavies can do the same as one SLS, for a TINY TINY fraction of the cost. It's just that they have DESIGNED stuff to be launched by a giant rocket in order to *require* a giant rocket to launch it... classical circular reasoning. It's really stupid.

H3ll they don't even have a lunar lander-- SpaceX has been contracted to supply a "lunar Starship" for landing on the Moon. NASA's lunar lander plan under the Constellation program, Altair, was cancelled nearly 2 decades ago to free up money for the expensive and troubled Orion/Ares I disaster, err... I mean "development". At the time when the Constellation program was first proposed under Bush II's "Moon, Mars, and Beyond!" program, the "Vision for Space Exploration", Ares I was to launch the crew atop a single SRB and single airlit SSME powered second stage, "the safest rocket ever designed", and Ares V, the "heavy lifter" was to lob the lunar module "Altair" and the in-space propulsion stage to get it all to the Moon. Orion would dock to the top of the Altair, and then the in-space propulsion stage shoot the whole thing through TLI, "eyeballs out" in the Orion (Orion facing backwards to direction of flight). Course the load paths made Altair needlessly heavy, as did the ENORMOUS hydrogen tanks required for the RL-10 engines powering it, compared to the storable hypergolic propellant tanks on the LM. Plus the Altair cabin would be like 20-30 feet above the Moon after it landed, requiring a LONG ladder to get down to the surface and back up again. NASA soon ran out of money for development and problems started piling up, so to free up money they started canceling aspects of the program-- first to go about the time the ink was dry was the Prometheus nuclear power/propulsion effort. Next was Altair. Hmmm... kinda hard to land on the Moon, with NO MOON LANDER LOL As it was in the 60's Apollo program, basically LM development issues drove most of the schedule for the entire program-- Apollo 8 happened because the LM wasn't ready, even as late as Apollo 10, the LM was STILL too heavy to land on the Moon!!! Yet with NASA today, "well just pull a lunar lander out of our butt when we need one". Why I've always considered Artemis to be something of a joke...

Back in the early days, under NASA Administrator Sean O'keefe and his assistant Admiral Steidle, the plan was "spiral development" of the existing EELV rockets (Atlas V and Delta IV), increasing their capabilities as needed for various phases of the program as needed to perform the lunar mission and, developing larger variants, the Mars mission. Of course the Air Force, that had paid ULA for the EELV development, didn't want NASA messing with their rockets, and the "shuttle mafia", the select group of very powerful old school NASA contractors who'd been delivering shuttle parts for decades, didn't want to see their main source of revenue dry up, without something "equivalent" replacing them... thus "shuttle derived" was born, and soon their lobbyists exerted enough pressure in gubmint to get Okeefe and company tossed out, and Mike Griffin put in, who had his "mega rocket" Ares V design using plenty of old shuttle parts to keep them in contracts. They had already succeeded in getting NASA to build Orion "too big" to launch on Atlas V or Delta IV Heavy, (although later of course when it launched on EFT-1 this proved to be a fallacy). SO NASA argued they HAD to have the "Scotty rocket", a design by a former NASA astronaut to create a new rocket out of an old SRB for a first stage, with a new upper stage powered by a single SSME. Of course this "back of the napkin" design didn't actually work-- the SRB is basically under-thrust and insufficient burn duration for the fat Orion, and and airlit SSME turned out to require basically an ENTIRE redesign of the engine, as SSME's were designed to be GROUNDLIT. Of course NASA plowed ahead, and substituted J-2S, the only other "high thrust" hydrogen engine at their disposal, in the design. Half the thrust of SSME, it couldn't do the job. SO they decided to totally redesign the engine, to increase thrust (and weight) to turn it into J-2X, but it lowered the efficiency and increased the weight, both BAD things for a second stage engine! Ares I limped along, beset by one problem after another-- adding a fifth segment to the SRB was tried, but while it added some thrust, the burn time was still too short, and no way to increase burn time without increasing motor diameter, which was a non-starter. Orion weight had to come down, so Orion was forced into a "zero base vehicle" weight scrub where basically EVERY system on the spacecraft had to EARN its place and weight on the spacecraft, and so things like the toilet and land-landing capabilities were deleted for Orion, resorting to splashdowns like Apollo. (these systems would be resurrected for Starliner, which is based on Orion design anyway). At the end, Ares I STILL couldn't deliver an Orion to orbit without burning half the fuel in the service module to stagger into orbit after the first and second stages dropped it off... and NASA didn't warm to possible solutions like "Stumpy" which would have used 2 three-segment shuttle SRB's coupled to either side of a single ground lit SSME powered ET-based "mini core" rocket to get Orion into orbit. Ares I-X, the single test flight of a four segment shuttle SRB topped with a fifth dummy segment, and a battleship upper stage simulator and Orion boilerplate with a dummy LES tower, flew and staged but when it splashed down under parachute, the first stage SRB casings were found to be bent beyond reuse, due to the additional weight and length of the fifth segment. SO all plans to reuse the SRB casings, on Ares I AND V, were scrapped-- NASA sold its SRB recovery ships and decided to use the remaining shuttle SRB casings in expendable mode til they were gone, then have a billion dollar project to develop all-new spiral-filament wound disposable boosters.

FINALLY the Ares I and with it the Constellation program were put out of their misery by Obama in the one smart move I can point to in his presidency, after having burned through over $9 billion dollars. Ares V went with it, and suddenly there was a scramble to put *something* shuttle derived in its place... hence SLS, or "Ares V Lite". And here we are.

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 10-12-2022, 07:38 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,141
Default

Ok, looks like they will try again starting at 12:07am, Monday, November 14. I guess that means actually ‘late Sunday night’ on the 13th. Sixty-nine minute window that night. Backup windows on the 16th and the 19th.

Of course, all those dates are over a month from now, so plenty of opportunities for ‘things’ to crop up and change that schedule.

Full NASA blog post link: https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022...i-moon-mission/


Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 11-01-2022, 09:29 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl
Ok, looks like they will try again starting at 12:07am, Monday, November 14. I guess that means actually ‘late Sunday night’ on the 13th. Sixty-nine minute window that night. Backup windows on the 16th and the 19th.

Of course, all those dates are over a month from now, so plenty of opportunities for ‘things’ to crop up and change that schedule.

Full NASA blog post link: https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022...i-moon-mission/


Earl


Looks like the targeted launch date mentioned above is currently still holding. Rollout to the pad from the VAB is currently scheduled for this coming Thursday night at 12:01am eastern (which technically of course is ‘Friday’).

Latest blog entry: https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022...-to-launch-pad/


Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 11-02-2022, 10:51 AM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl
Looks like the targeted launch date mentioned above is currently still holding. Rollout to the pad from the VAB is currently scheduled for this coming Thursday night at 12:01am eastern (which technically of course is ‘Friday’).

Latest blog entry: https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022...-to-launch-pad/


Earl

I'm not even going to buy the popcorn for the rollout, much less an "on-schedule" launch.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 11-02-2022, 11:41 AM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
I'm not even going to buy the popcorn for the rollout, much less an "on-schedule" launch.


Yeah, I haven't seen any one of the (coming up on) three rollouts yet.

I was hoping for a daytime launch though (if this next attempt does come about) as it would give a better view of the overall vehicle during its first (and maybe only) flight. Still, a night time launch would be spectacular for a vehicle this size. It should be quite 'visual'.

Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 11-02-2022, 02:28 PM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nunya Bizznuss, Michigan
Posts: 12,817
Default

Ity'll spring another LEAK.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !

Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 11-03-2022, 10:03 AM
Bill's Avatar
Bill Bill is offline
I do not like Facebook
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Tejas
Posts: 2,747
Default

Will SLS go first or will Starship go first?

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen...

https://spacenews.com/nasa-predicts...on-as-december/


Bill
__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 11-03-2022, 10:23 AM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nunya Bizznuss, Michigan
Posts: 12,817
Default

SpaceX.
'Nuf Said.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !

Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 11-03-2022, 01:36 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
Will SLS go first or will Starship go first?

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen...

https://spacenews.com/nasa-predicts...on-as-december/


Bill

Considering NASA has been designing/building big rockets for 50+ years and SpaceX has only existed for 20 and never built anything big other than strapping 3 rockets together, I still pick Starship!
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2022