[HN Gopher] NASA, Lockheed Martin Working to Resolve Artemis II ...
___________________________________________________________________
NASA, Lockheed Martin Working to Resolve Artemis II Orion Issues
Author : belter
Score : 52 points
Date : 2024-04-03 17:42 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nasaspaceflight.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nasaspaceflight.com)
| Cybergenik wrote:
| related: Destin from SmarterEveryDay called out some other issues
| related to the Artemis mission:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU
|
| Curious if this is related to the issues that they're now
| experiencing.
| sabareesh wrote:
| Destin's video was shortsighted but I believe his new video is
| better on understanding it is not about just flags any more.
| minetest2048 wrote:
| Do you have a link?
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| He was pretty much trashing lunar starship (which makes sense
| for the first landings) but seemed to be very much cheerleading
| SLS. It's boggling to me that no one (not even destin) is
| talking about scooting a lander + engine module up with F9H and
| rendezvousing with crew brought up with a normal F9.... After
| all F9H is even slated to bring up the lunar space station.
|
| This would be relatively easy and doable basically "today" plus
| or minus a year or three of capsule design
|
| Edit: clarified to say "lunar starship", added details on F9H
| sabareesh wrote:
| Can you please explain why trashing starship makes sense.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Well, he wasn't entirely fair, but, rapid full-reuse of
| Starship feels like a distant thing at this point. Rapid
| full-reuse is required for HLS as according to NASA, around
| 15 launches of the tanker version will be necessary. Those
| launches will need to happen in relatively short order.
|
| That means either 15 full stacks (Booster + Tanker) ready
| to go, or a few with full-reuse and very fast turnaround.
|
| I can't believe I'm saying this, but there is a chance that
| Blue Moon lands first.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Sorry I should have been more clear. Starship is itself
| fantastic, but the starship lunar lander requiring 15
| refuelings is extremely high risk and worthy of criticism.
| Also, why does it take 15 refuelings?? That seems like a
| lot. I could imagine 2 or 3, but is the proportion of fuel
| that makes it into orbit from a fully laden starship _that_
| low?
|
| I can see starship (or something equivalently big) being
| eventually used to ferry large components to the moon, but
| to make the first phase of the manned part of the program
| dependent on that seems crazy.
|
| If lunar starship (or an equivalent) could make it up in
| one refueling, it would IMO be less crazy, even if you had
| to ditch the whole thing on the moon each time.
| ginkgotree wrote:
| I live on the Space Coast (also work in the industry, and thus,
| have access to well - rumors). The SLS (Senate Launch System as
| we call it here) was pretty cool to watch in person for the
| uncrewed mission. Nevertheless, as Destin pointed out, it has
| some massive challenges and headwinds NASA and contractors are
| cemented in and must accept the SLS is the selected system we are
| going with. Rumor (please take it for what that is worth -
| rumors) are, many here are very suspect of even a 2025 crewed
| flight.
| disillusioned wrote:
| At what point do we seriously consider the idea that Starship
| will lap SLS in capabilities and timing, and cancel SLS
| altogether? I feel like everyone's thinking this, but there's
| too much pork pressure and sunk cost fallacy to finally just
| ditch what's turning out to be a misguided approach, nearly 20
| years in.
|
| It's a platform built of new stock but very old SSMEs, still
| using hydrogen and all the problems that brings with it, on a
| non-reusable basis, with apparently varying quality even
| amongst identically specced but different vendored mission
| critical parts. The litany of issues they're outlining here are
| all varying stages of terrifying, and things that shouldn't be
| getting caught in this validation phase of a rocket that's
| actually already had a successful-ish launch demonstration.
|
| Meanwhile, Starship keeps iterating like crazy, the way SpaceX
| does, and with significantly reduced relative complexity, on a
| vertically integrated platform that they have much more control
| over. I'm no Elon fanboy, but Starship is going to win this
| race, right?
| pfdietz wrote:
| SLS can't even beat F9/FH, never mind Starship. It has
| already lost.
| ginkgotree wrote:
| Starship is _required_ as part of the TLI trjaectory to
| refuel SLS with cryos. NASA will keep flying SLS however, to
| demonstrate to the public and congress that it was not
| setting a pile of tax dollars on fire. LH2 as a fuel was a
| mistake, high ISP, but well, the turbopumps, plumbing,
| valves, etc, not to mention REFUELING LH2 ON ORBIT to
| replenish evap. Starship imho will lapse SLS in the next year
| or two. From a perspective of demonstrated spaceflight
| capabilities per unit cost, it will lapse it the first time
| Starship makes an uncrewed flight around the moon and re-
| enters a capsule that is recoverable with a human survivable
| water or land landing. Key qualifier there is per unit cost.
| Point is, Starship lapses SLS once it matches demonstrated
| spacelfight capabilities on sheer demoninator of cost.
| two_handfuls wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you mean "Starship will lap SLS" and not
| "lapse", which would inverse the meaning of what you wrote.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _At what point do we seriously consider the idea that
| Starship will lap SLS in capabilities and timing, and cancel
| SLS altogether?_
|
| When it flies. NASA will never kill SLS, but the Congress
| will.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-03 23:01 UTC)