NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
- Thread starter Johnbr
- Start date
BlueAbyssal
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 January 2024
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 762
My guess is that Orion won’t long outlive the SLS. But if it does keep flying, New Glenn seems more likely.
Starship makes sense as a giant Agena at least...it doesn't have to land, just shove.
Orion makes more sense atop NG.
I do hope the remaining SLS cores are used for probes...Congress won't let it die, there is still an NRO mirror left. Once the SRBs are gone, that's it.
The lunar plan is similar to Constellation.
Factories
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RaY1BABte0w&pp=0gcJCcMKAYcqIYzv
Victory
hackaday.com
Orion makes more sense atop NG.
I do hope the remaining SLS cores are used for probes...Congress won't let it die, there is still an NRO mirror left. Once the SRBs are gone, that's it.
The lunar plan is similar to Constellation.
Factories
Victory
Following Artemis II’s Journey Around The Moon
NASA is going back to the Moon! We’ll follow the crew of Artemis II every step of the way.
Last edited:
nope, won't happen. Just like Europa Clipper.
It is still going to land.
Maybe not right away.
Blue Moon and Orion a bit more manageable...it all depends on how Starship works out. That and New Glenn.
I would like to see a pure Agena type craft released by Starship. The hypergolics would keep for years.
Here is where tugs make the most sense.
A Starship Agena would be easy for SpaceX to make...not much more than Bullet with a nose attachment like that left on Hubble.
I'd still prefer a hypergolic lander. I just don't trust cryogens and seals these days.
I hope Orion stays around and isn't dumped like Apollo.
Win for Lori Glaze....loss for Lori Garver.
Blue Moon and Orion a bit more manageable...it all depends on how Starship works out. That and New Glenn.
I would like to see a pure Agena type craft released by Starship. The hypergolics would keep for years.
Here is where tugs make the most sense.
A Starship Agena would be easy for SpaceX to make...not much more than Bullet with a nose attachment like that left on Hubble.
I'd still prefer a hypergolic lander. I just don't trust cryogens and seals these days.
I hope Orion stays around and isn't dumped like Apollo.
Win for Lori Glaze....loss for Lori Garver.
Last edited:
After Artemis V there will be three SRB flight-sets left.
Last edited:
I'd like to see a few turned into Athena III for asteroid intercept. ICBM readiness, launch on warning.
A good transient event probe or warhead launched at the drop of a hat.
So, any suggestions for MAF vertical weld tooling?
A good transient event probe or warhead launched at the drop of a hat.
So, any suggestions for MAF vertical weld tooling?
Last edited:
Cheaper and better ways to do it. And SRBs are not capable of ICBM readiness. Propellant slumping, joint heaters, HPUs, etc
Auction or scrap heap.
They kept for a year with Arty I, just launch a probe near the end of service life.
I am sure someone could make some cheap probes.
a. Because of $$$$$
b. ICBM readiness also means low maintenance
c. not worth doing for a short self life
D. No place to keep it on alert
e. What part of better and cheaper ways don't you understand.
f. Sunk cost fallacy. Not worth spending money to use the casings.
No such thing.
That would be wrong. No sense any other way.
Unqualified statement
Mutually exclusive and there is no need for such a thing
You have nothing to support that claim
No. SpaceX is not going to do that. And it goes against what they are doing. Don't need it with depots
and Starships
It isn't problem with cryogenics. See Delta IV, Atlas V, Vulcan, New Glenn, Starship, Falcon 9, New Shepard, Saturns, Centaur and the list goes on.
They don't keep cryogenics longer than launch and insertion.
More talk about replacement
Last edited:
What does that have to do with seals?
Seals for cryogens on the ground can be fixed.
Seal goes bad in orbit... what's your answer to that, o enlightened one?
insidersource
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 24 March 2025
- Messages
- 333
- Reaction score
- 587
Not using hydrogen would be the answer to that. Hydrogen seems to be the root cause with most of these leaks. Methane is definitely a good medium term compromise. I'm still very surprised NASA hasn't requested a hypergolic fueled lander as one of the initial landing proposals. I actually think this will be the primary reason China beats the US to the Moon. It will take too many years to prevent cryogens not boiling off and transferring cryogens in orbit without seal issues.
Last edited:
What seals are going to go bad in orbit? The "bad seals" you don't "trust" are on hydrogen ground umbilicals. Again, what leaks have ever happened on orbit. Did shuttle fuel cell cryogens leak after more than two weeks in orbit?
Last edited:
This is just current topic du jour. Typical behavior is to latch onto a recent issue and insert it into discussions on subjects that don't align with one's skewed views of what the world should be. Before it was a SRM nozzles, vehicles breaking up, new administrators, new space..... the list goes on.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 20,030
- Reaction score
- 17,225
"Oh my God, F-35 got a scratch. The entire concept of stealth is invalidated. The US is doomed."
That was a little more than a scratch (assuming that combat footage was real).
Leaks on the ground are more easily fixed than in space..as in water in helmets. Hypergolic propellant transfers are one thing--big methalox depots quite another.
Leaks on the ground are more easily fixed than in space..as in water in helmets. Hypergolic propellant transfers are one thing--big methalox depots quite another.
A statement made without facts or engineering judgment to back it up. Actually, methane and LOX are easier to transfer than hypergols. Hypergols require high pressure helium to expel the propellants from the tanks and must be recovered using compressors (which must be part of the receiving vehicle) before filling the tanks. Helium is also used to push the propellant from the tankers to the receiver. It is simpler with cryogenic propellants. The receiving vehicle can just vent the tanks to allow propellant to come in. The venting can be used to provide some acceleration to keep the propellants settled. The tanker can autogenously produce gas to push propellants to the receiver.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 June 2006
- Messages
- 14,666
- Reaction score
- 20,604
Tis but a scratch. I've had worse (i.e, F-117 shot down by Serbia)
Last edited:
Everyday Astronaut's site live
Oh well
Oh well
Last edited:
- Joined
- 4 July 2010
- Messages
- 2,648
- Reaction score
- 3,613
Looks like a successful launch of SLS for Artemis II today. Managed to proceed pretty smoothly through the count too, just a short hold to review a transient telemetry lock issue. Encouraging to see the team and the system perform so well with so much attention on them.
Nope
Artemis II has successfully lifted-off and now Artemis II will soon circularise its initial orbit a ICPS burn.
From CNN:
The launch had a nominal performance for its' SRBs, first-stage and ICPS with a nominal SRB burnout and separation followed by a successful ICPS staging.
From CNN:
The launch had a nominal performance for its' SRBs, first-stage and ICPS with a nominal SRB burnout and separation followed by a successful ICPS staging.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 20,030
- Reaction score
- 17,225
Of course when you compare what they're trying to do this should surprised exactly nobody.
Meh, not a big deal that I was wrong on that.
In hand
saemiller.com
NASA SLS in My Hands – S. A. E. Miller, Ph.D.
saemiller.com
The human space side and Marshall is full of bureaucracy. When the non-human spaceflight side intersected with SLS ( Europa Clipper and I-Hab), we were amazed on the number of people and meetings they had. I knew a guy who was the lead for non-Orion payloads on SLS. He seemed to have worked it since the early days of the program. What a waste of 15 years of a career, hasn't launched anything and yet, I worked on 15-20 missions over the same period.In hand
NASA SLS in My Hands – S. A. E. Miller, Ph.D.
Last edited:
What cubesats? Are you referring to Juno, MSL, M2020, GOES, PSYCHE, Europa Clipper, JWST, EFT-1, Cygnus, etc?
Alternate MECO Target High was achievable..
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 20,030
- Reaction score
- 17,225
Wow. Clearly SLS is the most efficient booster ever conceived.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 20,030
- Reaction score
- 17,225
Remind me again, which one of those was launched by SLS? Oh, and how far would your "more efficient" hydrolox rocket get without those giant solid boosters? Given what, almost 50% of your boost is with solid propellant, well, I'd be careful about your "facts".
Last edited:
They took longer to get there with their choice of rides--which means shorter service life from dawdling in transit.
Well now look at this a defeatist speaks
forum.nasaspaceflight.com
Then how'd they do it from scratch?---try harder Jim
Launch views
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydUeuJvZ97s
Well now look at this a defeatist speaks
SLS 5-Seg Boosters - Steel Cases Restart?
SLS 5-Seg Boosters - Steel Cases Restart?
forum.nasaspaceflight.com
We can't, the capability no longer exists.
Then how'd they do it from scratch?---try harder Jim
Launch views
Last edited:
Not in a first booster stage and not coupled with large SRMs.
Hydrocarbon launched
A meaningless point. A 40 year old design shouldn't.
But it did nothing but blow up during development and took a long time. Part of the reason the shuttle was delayed years.
Raptor has flown more times already than the RS-25/SSME
Merlin has been reused more times.
How many times will RS-25 fly.?
Unsupported claim.
It didn't affect Galileo, Cassini, Juno
And still cheaper than using SLS.
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
NASA Advanced Transportation System Studies (ATSS) Technical Area 2 (TA-2) 1995- Started by Triton
- Replies: 2
-
Space Transfer Concepts and Analyses for Exploration Missions (STCAEM) (1991)
- Started by Triton
- Replies: 3