mspohr
Well-Known Member
Apparently it takes Musk's genius to realize methane is better. NASA doesn't get it.
-
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
I’m sure the NASA engineers understand the advantages of methane. Keep in mind that Congress required NASA to use the old Space Shuttle engines and they need H2.
NASA is full of very smart people laboring under the constraints imposed on them by politicians who, obviously, are not rocket scientists.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
GAO doesn't think so.
The GAO report released today should serve as a clear wake-up call both to NASA’s leadership and to Members of Congress that NASA’s Artemis Moon-Mars initiative is in serious trouble, and strong corrective actions will be needed if it is to succeed," representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in response. Bernice Johnson also pointed at other "sobering" issues including "organizational weaknesses, reliance on immature technologies, an unrealistic timetable and acquisition approach."
Futurism: New Government Report Is Extremely Bad News for NASA. New Government Report Is Extremely Bad News for NASA
Those issues arise from Congressional mandates and problems with NASA administration, not from the engineers who are working hard to meet goals handed down from on high.
In my post just upthread I was pointing out that NASA engineers know far more about using methane as a propellant than some random person on YouTube.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
totally click bait, I gave up on it when I heard the Elon quote about the best part is no part.
If Elon specifically replied to it they either mentioned it at the start and then went off message explaining themselves or they buried the lead and his reply was after them going off message.
Either way I wasn't going to watch the whole thing after I saw the patchwork they started with.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Teams at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida conducted initial inspections Friday to assess potential impacts from Hurricane Ian. There was no damage to Artemis flight hardware, and facilities are in good shape with only minor water intrusion identified in a few locations. Next, engineers will extend access platforms around the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to prepare for additional inspections and start preparation for the next launch attempt, including retesting the flight termination system.
As teams complete post-storm recovery operations, NASA has determined it will focus Artemis I launch planning efforts on the launch period that opens Nov. 12 and closes Nov. 27.
from Teams Confirm No Damage to Flight Hardware, Focus on November for Launch – Artemis
Literally neck and neck with Starship NET November. Starship-Super Heavy (Prototype) | Orbital Test Flight
I'm not sure if I can call it better than a coin flip at this point.
As teams complete post-storm recovery operations, NASA has determined it will focus Artemis I launch planning efforts on the launch period that opens Nov. 12 and closes Nov. 27.
from Teams Confirm No Damage to Flight Hardware, Focus on November for Launch – Artemis
Literally neck and neck with Starship NET November. Starship-Super Heavy (Prototype) | Orbital Test Flight
I'm not sure if I can call it better than a coin flip at this point.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy on the SpaceX Crew 5 launch cast just said about SLS ".. it's a big deal when a new rocket flies for the first time" and "I can't wait to see the most powerful rocket in the world launch going to the moon"
I'm under the impression (if we are counting ships that haven't launched yet) that Starship (including the first stage) is more powerful than any existing or possible SLS config.
I'm under the impression (if we are counting ships that haven't launched yet) that Starship (including the first stage) is more powerful than any existing or possible SLS config.
If SLS successfully launches it will indeed be the most powerful rocket ever built. So that statement by Melroy will be correct.
I would not count rockets that have never flown.
And Artemis 1 is sending its payload into lunar orbit, which is indeed a big deal.
I would not count rockets that have never flown.
And Artemis 1 is sending its payload into lunar orbit, which is indeed a big deal.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
If SLS successfully launches before Starship full stack it would be. But there is no guarantee it will be first even if it successfully launches.
If you aren't counting rockets that have never flown you don't get to count SLS. It sure hasn't flown yet.
If you are talking about it's status after SLS has it's first flight it's not certain if it will be the most powerful or the 2nd most powerful at that point.
So that statement needs some conditional phrasing added or it's incorrect.
I wouldn't object to
'I can't wait to see if SLS is the most powerful rocket in the world. When it launches going to the moon.' or
'I expect SLS will be the most powerful rocket in the world. When it launches going to the moon.'
or any number of other conditionally qualified statements.
because for all we know when she sees "the most powerful rocket in the world launch going to the moon" it might be a SpaceX vehicle.
Last edited:
While I don’t disagree with your sentiments, be aware that the imminent Starship launch is still an engineering prototype, while the SLS launch is the finished product. These are apples and oranges so I can cut NASA some slack here.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
First one to orbit wins that round.
If starship 24 or 28 or 32 is first I'd no longer call it a prototype. It made it to orbit.
Suborbital flights like Starship 8. Sure Prototype.
Once it gets to orbit, that's all SLS is claiming to be able to do, If starship does it, it can do it.
Heck the Artemis I mission is just sending up a dummy payload, so you can't complain that the first starship to orbit needs to have a proper payload.
"The Orion spacecraft will carry three astronaut-like mannequins equipped with sensors to provide data on what crew members may experience during a trip to the Moon"
"Ten low-cost CubeSat missions will fly as secondary payloads", are you saying you don't think starship can launch cubesats?
Doesn't sound like a finished product, sounds like an engineering test with dummies.
So then you'll have a round 2 of which one gets to orbit with a real payload.
Last edited:
And that is why I said:
Of course NASA administrators try to promote SLS. They have no choice. So sometimes their statements veer towards hyperbole. No surprise there.
In fact I can’t listen to the NASA webcast hosts during Crew Dragon launches. They just come across as silly PR people.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
"If SLS successfully launches it will indeed be the most powerful rocket ever built." is just as wrong as the Nasa admin I quoted.And that is why I said: If SLS successfully launches it will indeed be the most powerful rocket ever built.
Of course NASA administrators try to promote SLS. They have no choice. So sometimes their statements veer towards hyperbole. No surprise there.
In fact I can’t listen to the NASA webcast hosts during Crew Dragon launches. They just come across as silly PR people.
Like I said before you need more qualifiers after that first "If" to even make that statement conditionally correct.
"If SLS successfully launches will indeed be the most powerful expendable rocket ever built."
"If SLS successfully launches it will indeed be the most powerful rocket ever built by a cost plus project"
"If SLS successfully launches before starship goes orbital it will indeed be the most powerful rocket ever built for the week or two that it takes for Starship to have it's first orbital launch."
I think adding the word expendable is the one they could slide in there with the least people noticing and without it feeling like they are being intentionally misleading.
The next best option for a Nasa admin is to frame it "at the time of the launch" like "I can't wait to see the most powerful rocket in the world (at the time of launch) going to the moon". But that looks worse once you parse it (especially if Starship makes it to orbit a few days before and invalidates the statement or if Starship launches a few days after and the statement ages poorly and gets quoted).
Last edited:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Updated October 12, 2022
NASA is targeting the next launch attempt of the Artemis I mission for Monday, Nov. 14 (a month from this post)
As of Tuesday, October 11th, the Starship 24 (SN24) and Booster 7 (BN7) prototypes were once again seen fully stacked on the orbital launch pad, launch NET November. But unlike SLS, Starship will have 2 full stacks ready for the first launch. If one has a less than perfect flight they can adjust the 2nd and launch quickly. And have a 3rd full stack in progress that would be ready by the 2nd launch.
Artemis 2 isn't planned to launch until spring 2024. No matter what happens to Artemis 1 or when it launches.
NASA is targeting the next launch attempt of the Artemis I mission for Monday, Nov. 14 (a month from this post)
As of Tuesday, October 11th, the Starship 24 (SN24) and Booster 7 (BN7) prototypes were once again seen fully stacked on the orbital launch pad, launch NET November. But unlike SLS, Starship will have 2 full stacks ready for the first launch. If one has a less than perfect flight they can adjust the 2nd and launch quickly. And have a 3rd full stack in progress that would be ready by the 2nd launch.
Artemis 2 isn't planned to launch until spring 2024. No matter what happens to Artemis 1 or when it launches.
Congress and the Senate move to ensure that SLS does not have an inevitable capitulation. Let's write a contract to ensure those companies get billions....
spacenews.com
NASA outlines case for making sole-source SLS award to Boeing-Northrop joint venture
A procurement document sheds new light on the formation of a joint venture to which NASA plans to award a long-term SLS contract.
spacenews.com
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Congress and the Senate move to ensure that SLS does not have an inevitable capitulation. Let's write a contract to ensure those companies get billions....
NASA outlines case for making sole-source SLS award to Boeing-Northrop joint venture
A procurement document sheds new light on the formation of a joint venture to which NASA plans to award a long-term SLS contract.
omg, I sure hope they don't prepay or sign a contract for 20 SLS launches.
If they can sign it into law quickly before Starship is the obvious winner we may be stuck with SLS wasting money.
I hope someone either delays the bill or puts an escape clause in it that lets them cancel SLS in a few years when it becomes clear it's a loser.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Small consolation I'm sure - I read that the 20 launches is 10 SLS launches, and 10 that aren't necessarily SLS.
That could be 1 SLS and 19 not-necessarily and it'll still be too many SLS (MHO).
GAH!Congress and the Senate move to ensure that SLS does not have an inevitable capitulation. Let's write a contract to ensure those companies get billions....
NASA outlines case for making sole-source SLS award to Boeing-Northrop joint venture
A procurement document sheds new light on the formation of a joint venture to which NASA plans to award a long-term SLS contract.
Wile this aspect is at least in the right direction:
This feels like maneuvering to ensure the existence that can cut some cost easily be reducing tha amount of pork inthe program, but still has no way of bing competitive with what private industry can do.
And this feels like an arbitrary requirement that just so happens to justify SLS:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Starship is looking at December 2022 now. So it's in SLS/Artemis I hands at this point to delay or get the first launch.
Similar threads
