Space exploration author Mark Whittington on why NASA should cancel the Lunar Gateway.
So many reasons…
So many reasons…
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SLS - On the Scent of Inevitable Capitulation
- Thread starter Nikxice
- Start date
tonybelding
Active Member
I just placed my order for Escaping Gravity: My Quest to Transform NASA and Launch a New Space Age, by Lori Garver. It promises to dish out a lot of dirt.
I think the way SLS ends is not with a whimper of cancellation but with an inferno of outright scandal. I mean, congressional hearings, prosecutions, mass outrage, the works. The whole program has slipped under the radar of news media for years, and never entered the consciousness of the general public, and there's a tendency to assume it'll always be that way. I think at some point the whole subject could explode into the "news cycle" and generate the kind of outrage with the general public that those of us actually following it have been feeling for years.
Right now we have a bit of a horse race shaping up between SLS and Starship, to see which one reaches orbit first. And everybody loves a horse race. But it doesn't matter which one wins. Because even if SLS is first, Starship will be second. . . and third. . . and fourth. . . and fifth. . . In fact, Starship has 18 flight slated before SLS's second flight. And if it actually happens that way, then it becomes impossible to ignore any longer. Then, finally, there's going to be pressure to explain why NASA spent tens of billions on a rocket that's obsolete before even flying and would be too expensive and cumbersome to operate (in any genuinely useful way) even if it had been free. And that is scandal material, not something that can just be swept under the rug.
I think the way SLS ends is not with a whimper of cancellation but with an inferno of outright scandal. I mean, congressional hearings, prosecutions, mass outrage, the works. The whole program has slipped under the radar of news media for years, and never entered the consciousness of the general public, and there's a tendency to assume it'll always be that way. I think at some point the whole subject could explode into the "news cycle" and generate the kind of outrage with the general public that those of us actually following it have been feeling for years.
Right now we have a bit of a horse race shaping up between SLS and Starship, to see which one reaches orbit first. And everybody loves a horse race. But it doesn't matter which one wins. Because even if SLS is first, Starship will be second. . . and third. . . and fourth. . . and fifth. . . In fact, Starship has 18 flight slated before SLS's second flight. And if it actually happens that way, then it becomes impossible to ignore any longer. Then, finally, there's going to be pressure to explain why NASA spent tens of billions on a rocket that's obsolete before even flying and would be too expensive and cumbersome to operate (in any genuinely useful way) even if it had been free. And that is scandal material, not something that can just be swept under the rug.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Warning sign? NASA never finished a fueling test before today’s SLS launch attempt
"I am very proud of this launch team."
arstechnica.com
Beginning in April of this year, NASA conducted four separate "wet dress rehearsal" tests during which the agency aimed to fully fuel the SLS rocket and countdown to T-10 seconds, ending the test before ignition of the main engines. Each of these four tests ultimately ended prematurely, although the fourth attempt in June saw engineers bring the rocket down to T-29 seconds. However, to reach that late stage in the countdown, NASA had to "fool" the flight computer. During the test, a 4-inch hydrogen line—smaller than the problematic 8-inch line on Monday—had a leaky seal. To complete the wet dress test, NASA chose to mask the leak from the ground launch sequencer, the ground-side computer that controls the majority of the countdown. Because of this masking, NASA could not complete the engine chill portion of the test. Had it done so, the agency may well have uncovered the problem that caused a scrub on Monday. In hindsight, therefore, NASA probably should have completed a full wet dress rehearsal before rolling the rocket out for a launch. Instead, the agency effectively attempted a fifth wet dress test on Monday, when the world was expecting a launch.
Hey I’ve got an idea! Let’s use a rocket engine that was notoriously finicky when built, use it a couple of times to space and back, store it for 40 24 years, and then use it again! What could possibly go wrong?
Last edited:
The Artemis ten launch program is going to use 24 new and 16 flight proven RS-25s. Artemis 1 is all reuse.
https://www.q13fox.com/news/recycled-space-shuttle-engines-boosters-artemis-i-sls-rocket
Mike1080i
Member
NASA kept 16 Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) officially called RS-25 at the end of the program. Development began in the 70s with the rest of the Shuttle program. The plan is to modify the RS-25D's to RS-25E specs for SLS, then when those are used up, switch to new build RS-25E's or RS-25F's. The oldest RS-25 installed for Artemis 1 first flew on STS-89 in January 1998, so no 40+ year old engines are flying, those are in museums.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
On a wing and a prayer.
Artemis 1: Nasa’s moon rocket springs hazardous leak ahead of launch
review found the problem was a faulty sensor, not a failure of the cooling system or engine itself, and the launch team has said it will be ignored if it malfunctions again during fuelling for Saturday’s planned attempt at 2.17pm EDT (7.17pm BST).
“This is an extremely complicated machine and system. Millions of parts,” Nelson told reporters at Cape Canaveral. “There are, in fact, risks. But are those risks acceptable?
Artemis 1: Nasa’s moon rocket springs hazardous leak ahead of launch
review found the problem was a faulty sensor, not a failure of the cooling system or engine itself, and the launch team has said it will be ignored if it malfunctions again during fuelling for Saturday’s planned attempt at 2.17pm EDT (7.17pm BST).
“This is an extremely complicated machine and system. Millions of parts,” Nelson told reporters at Cape Canaveral. “There are, in fact, risks. But are those risks acceptable?
Scrub this Saturday morning. Will this rust bucket ever fly? Or blow up on the launch pad due to all the shortcuts they will be forced to take? They tried three times to fix the hydrogen leak by letting the quick disconnect warm up for 30 minutes and hoping the metals expanded enough to tighten the seal. That’s the technical fix I want to hear when I’m dealing with hydrogen gas in an oxygen atmosphere.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
In case someone didn't see it in the Starship thread.
After Second Failed Launch, NASA Decides To Scrap Artemis Program And Just Fake Another Moon Landing
CAPE CANAVERAL, FL – After yet another delay, NASA is halting immediate plans to pursue an Artemis I launch and will scrap the program altogether and fake another moon landing instead.
babylonbee.com
mspohr
Well-Known Member
That video title reeks of click bait. If you watched it, can you let us know in a nutshell what the message is and if it is worth watching? Thanks.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It lays out why SpaceX uses methane instead of H2. It includes science and math
Content of this video was excellent, but the click bait title, "Genius solution to leak" was unnecessary. There was no genius solution offered, except to say that H2 is bad and Methane is good.
Similar threads
