Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 279

Thread: NASA's moon mission - ARTEMIS

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    Ozmens' SNC delivers prototype lunar crew module to DYNETICS. (photo of crew module) If the Dynetics-led team is selected to continue development of their human landing system for NASA's Artemis program, the SNC crew module could transport the first woman and next man to the lunar surface.

    https://www.moondaily.com/reports/Oz...ETICS_999.html
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    NASA will host a media teleconference at 9 a.m. EST Friday, Feb.19, to discuss the final test in the Green Run testing series for the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that will launch the agency’s Artemis I mission. The team is targeting Thursday, Feb. 25, for the test, known as the hot fire, to take place at NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. The target date will be confirmed following a test readiness review later this week.

    https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...-moon-missions
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    NASA remains cautiously optimistic that the first launch of the Space Launch System rocket can take place before the end of the year despite having to perform a second hotfire test of the rocket’s core stage. That test, the culmination of the Green Run test campaign for the core stage that started in early 2020, is scheduled for Feb. 25 at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. Ignition of the stage’s four RS-25 engines is scheduled for around 5 p.m. Eastern.

    https://spacenews.com/nasa-sees-reas...nch-this-year/
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    NASA remains cautiously optimistic that the first launch of the Space Launch System rocket can take place before the end of the year despite having to perform a second hotfire test of the rocket’s core stage. That test, the culmination of the Green Run test campaign for the core stage that started in early 2020, is scheduled for Feb. 25 at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. Ignition of the stage’s four RS-25 engines is scheduled for around 5 p.m. Eastern.

    https://spacenews.com/nasa-sees-reas...nch-this-year/
    They started a clock when they started stacking the SRB segments, since they're only rated to remain stacked for a year. A delay means either waiving that requirement and taking a risk with the boosters that will look very bad if something then goes wrong with them, or discarding this set of boosters and using another one (which would be both very expensive and time consuming). There's likely a lot of pressure to avoid taking either of these options...or at least pretend as long as they can that they won't be necessary.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    NASA said it was postponing the Green Run static-fire test, which had been scheduled for Feb. 25, after discovering a problem with one of eight valves called “prevalves” associated with the stage’s four RS-25 main engines. The valve, which supplies liquid oxygen, was “not working properly,” NASA said in a statement, but didn’t elaborate on the problem.

    https://spacenews.com/nasa-postpones...reen-run-test/
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    SpaceX rapidly builds, tests Starship Moon elevator for NASA

    https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-sta...asa-prototype/
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    16,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    SpaceX rapidly builds, tests Starship Moon elevator for NASA

    https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-sta...asa-prototype/
    On that site I got ads for a Faraday cap. And underpants. Sheesh!
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    With NASA “down to the wire” in reviewing lunar lander proposals, agency officials say a priority is to maintain competition for a later procurement.

    https://spacenews.com/nasa-says-main...r-procurement/
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,957
    "Canada to join US mission to moon"

    https://www.moondaily.com/reports/Ca..._moon_999.html

    Canada announced on Thursday that it will send an astronaut to orbit the moon in 2023 as part of NASA's Artemis II mission.

    "It's official!" Canadian Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Francois-Philippe Champagne tweeted. "Canada will join the US on the first crewed mission to the moon in over 50 years."
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,957
    "Artemis will accelerate the commercial space sector"

    https://spacenews.com/op-ed-artemis-...-space-sector/

    As the first flight of Artemis moves ever closer from Kennedy Space Center, critics continue to raise questions around the cost of the U.S. return to the moon by pointing to private sector alternatives as more expeditious and less resource intensive. Somehow lost in this critique is that the private sector is, in fact, the workforce behind all of NASA’s design and manufacturing of launch vehicles and crew modules. That was true in the 1960s for Apollo and remains true today for Artemis.

    Such criticism isn’t new for the U.S. human spaceflight program. Despite the outpouring of nostalgia in July 2019 to commemorate the half century anniversary of Neil Armstrong stepping onto the lunar surface, NASA’s budget remained stubbornly static even as Artemis was being heralded as the next chapter in such storied American history. After all, since the retirement of the Saturn V rocket, no nation nor company had even built a vehicle capable of delivering astronauts back to cislunar orbit. Until the Space Launch System, that is.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    Researchers identify optimal spacecraft types to land on the Moon... and they didn't choose the old Apollo lunar module.

    https://phys.org/news/2021-03-optima...ures-moon.html
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    Do we need SLS? NASA is conducting an internal review of the Space Launch System rocket's affordability, two sources have told Ars Technica. Concerned by the program's outsized costs, the NASA transition team appointed by President Joe Biden initiated the study. The analysis is being led by Paul McConnaughey, a former deputy center director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, as well as its chief engineer. The SLS rocket program has been managed by Marshall for more than a decade. Critics have derided it as a "jobs program" intended to retain employees at key centers, such as Alabama-based Marshall, as well as those at primary contractors such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Such criticism has been bolstered by frequent schedule delays—the SLS was originally due to launch in 2016, and the rocket will now launch no sooner than 2022—as well as cost overruns.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...affordability/
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,008
    Dragon XL

    Launches on Falcon Heavy to do Lunar Gateway logistics.

    NASA’s Artemis Program @NASAArtemis
    Did you know that @SpaceX’s Dragon XL will be approximately the size and weight of two side-by-side school buses?

    Check out this @NASA illustration of Gateway in lunar orbit with the Dragon XL module on approach to docking:

    20210316_021527.jpg

    https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/stat...59419754598400

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Do we need SLS? NASA is conducting an internal review of the Space Launch System rocket's affordability, two sources have told Ars Technica. Concerned by the program's outsized costs, the NASA transition team appointed by President Joe Biden initiated the study. The analysis is being led by Paul McConnaughey, a former deputy center director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, as well as its chief engineer. The SLS rocket program has been managed by Marshall for more than a decade. Critics have derided it as a "jobs program" intended to retain employees at key centers, such as Alabama-based Marshall, as well as those at primary contractors such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Such criticism has been bolstered by frequent schedule delays—the SLS was originally due to launch in 2016, and the rocket will now launch no sooner than 2022—as well as cost overruns.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...affordability/
    IMO the SLS isn't needed but that is just me.

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,838
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    IMO the SLS isn't needed but that is just me.
    In my opinion, two billion per launch is insane. The only positive thing I can say for it is that political support for it helped NASA keep rolling, but I think it is now time to drop it. I think interest is heating up both politically and commercially so space efforts won’t need to be propped up by pork dinosaurs.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,083
    With the possibilities steaming towards us regarding rate/cost/capabilities in launching stuff, NASA -and associated subcontractors- will have their hands full developing new technologies anyway. Heat shields, landing systems on other planets, radiation shielding, base building techniques, space stations, comms...More than enough to do to keep jobs going. So there's no need for SLS as a launcher, and no need for the SLS project jobwise (in the broad sense, not just the job but also the related knowledge etc)
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,154
    Webb is even more costly because we didn't have an HLLV to allow monolithic simplicity-and Starship-SuperHeavy looks to be expendable for the near future. What is really stupid is to limit SLS to Orion-which will have an escape tower BTW. I want big hydrogen infrastructure and the greater specific impulse. The SLS workers deserve the same love and respect that JPL and others get without people trying to slit their throats.

  18. #258
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,838
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Webb is even more costly because we didn't have an HLLV to allow monolithic simplicity-and Starship-SuperHeavy looks to be expendable for the near future.
    How much more costly? JWST has its own development issues, but ultimately it is a one-off. It hardly makes sense to spend twenty billion in development for a two billion per launch rocket to perhaps save a billion or two on a single telescopes.


    I want big hydrogen infrastructure and the greater specific impulse.
    I want fully reusable and reasonably economical rockets that lead to real space development and much expanded exploration because it becomes so much less expensive and more feasible to do so. I’m not interested in flags and footprints missions that lead to nothing. I couldn’t care less about greater specific impulse unless it leads to lower operational costs.

    The SLS workers deserve the same love and respect that JPL and others get without people trying to slit their throats.
    Who’s trying to do that? I have nothing against the people working on it. That doesn’t change the fact that it is a ridiculously expensive rocket design and it has become abundantly clear that there are better alternatives.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,154
    I am sure a lot of folks think there are better alternatives to space spending in general. I don't agre with that either. Keeping hydrogen infrastructure is good in its own right. Vulcan doesn't carry enough for NTRs, and costs more than Musk's rockets. Vulcan is for the spooks of course. Some of the expense many find high is infrastructure-and that is not waste. SLS is simple in design, and I want to see ET tank station type wet workshops. No need of landing gear or TPS. In the series "For All Mankind" the Lunar Shuttle needed to remain attached to the ET for that to really work-but from a structural standpoint it was more sound. The orbiter alone had more modest landing gear, TPS, windows. The orbiter just tells the ET to "hold my beer."
    Last edited by publiusr; 2021-Mar-18 at 05:28 AM.

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,083
    SLS is simple in design, and I want to see ET tank station type wet workshops. No need of landing gear or TPS.
    And yet it's hideously expensive. In terms of capability, SLS would have made sense if there was no alternative in the making. In terms of the simplicity of its design, it would have made sense if it was reasonably priced.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  21. #261
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,154
    ISS was more expensive-and worth it. SLS is itself an alternative. It has an escape tower, cleaner liquids-and the solids will at least get it away from the pad. Kill F-35 and you save a trillion. I'm sure some wanted to kill the Saturns. Right now, Project Lyra is looking at high energy SLS options. You don't throw away tools. SLS is worth its cost. The Mars Base-Camp lander with hydrolox capability can use ice from both the Moon and Mars. The hydrolox-based infrastructure is better than methalox-only plans. Both need our support. Remember, you still need hydrogen at some point anyway to make methane. Hydrolox just needs ice.
    Last edited by publiusr; 2021-Mar-18 at 09:24 AM.

  22. #262
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,838
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    ISS was more expensive-and worth it.
    Was it? For what? I am happy we at least ended up with a space station, but long ago my position was that first NASA should have built what the Shuttle was supposed to be: A practical, reusable and much less expensive to fly launch system. Then a space station would have been far less expensive to build, and with regular and much more common flights could have been put to much better use, and the less expensive launch system would lead to far more development and exploration.

    SLS is itself an alternative. It has an escape tower, cleaner liquids-and the solids will at least get it away from the pad. Kill F-35 and you save a trillion.
    SLS is far too expensive to fly to ever be used for more than the occasional mission. It could only be used to perpetuate the rut the US space program got stuck in decades ago. And seriously? A key defense program isn’t going to be cut just to keep an overly expensive rocket going that has no critical use and no commercial prospects.

    I'm sure some wanted to kill the Saturns.
    They WERE killed. They almost were killed earlier, but ultimately were kept long enough to achieve the political purpose they were built for: To beat the Soviets to the Moon. They were not designed to be economical to fly, just to do a job as fast as possible. The Shuttle was supposed to change that, but between technological limitations and a compromised design, that didn’t happen. And so we’ve been in a rut for decades. Hilariously, the SLS went back to the old, too expensive, Shuttle technology and they found a way to make it even more expensive.

    Right now, Project Lyra is looking at high energy SLS options. You don't throw away tools. SLS is worth its cost.
    Sure you do. It happens all the time, if you have something better and more economical. Old space methodology, with insanely long development time even when using well understood existing technology (reusing Shuttle tech and even hardware was supposed to save development time and cost, remember) to build massively expensive to fly rockets is quickly going the way of the Dodo. And SLS is worth the cost? Based on what? I would love to see the alternate universe where SpaceX had been given the twenty billion to develop a proper launch system. It wouldn’t have to be just like Super Heavy/Starship to be massively better than SLS.

    The Mars Base-Camp lander with hydrolox capability can use ice from both the Moon and Mars. The hydrolox-based infrastructure is better than methalox-only plans. Both need our support. Remember, you still need hydrogen at some point anyway to make methane. Hydrolox just needs ice.
    What does that have to do with SLS? SLS is a throwaway rocket that would only be launched from Earth.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    NASA should be able to set a new date for the Artemis 1 launch within a few weeks of today, with the Green Run static-fire test of the Space Launch System core stage, assuming that test goes as expected.

    https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-revisi...reen-run-test/
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  24. #264
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,074
    Not only do we not need them, we don't want big hydrogen boosters or cores, hydrogen just isn't a good fit to the problem. And SLS isn't even a good implementation, as demonstrated by its welding issues/etc. It's a rehash of a decades-obsolete implementation of an architectural mistake, and a drain on mainpower, brainpower, and funding. It provides no capabilities we can't get more effectively by other means, and it's completely unaffordable.

    The "wet workshop" argument is particularly silly. Apart from all the fundamental problems with the wet workshop concept, the core doesn't go to orbit to start with, and is a ridiculously poor fit to the problem of providing a mass-efficient 1 atm habitat hull. SpaceX is demonstrating how easy it is to weld up pressure vessels from sheet metal in a Texas swamp, for the cost of a single SLS launch they could certainly work out how to do so in orbit and build pressurized volume to suit whatever your needs are.

    SLS will have no significant part (no positive one, anyway) in space exploration even if we continue to throw money and time at it. Get rid of it.

  25. #265
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,912
    (TNYT article) NASA’s Last Rocket: The United States is unlikely to build anything like the Space Launch System ever again. But it’s still good that NASA did.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/s...ch-system.html
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  26. #266
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    (TNYT article) NASA’s Last Rocket: The United States is unlikely to build anything like the Space Launch System ever again. But it’s still good that NASA did.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/s...ch-system.html
    "Right now, if NASA wants to return astronauts to the moon, the Space Launch System is the only game in town, even if it costs $2 billion per launch and cannot be reused."

    Er, no, it's not. There's a good chance it won't even beat Starship to orbit.

    The article makes this error repeatedly, treating the SLS as something that already exists and is therefore the only option. It's not the only option, and due to its costs you can't honestly claim it's an option at all. It's not something we need for any period of time as a transitional solution, it's something we need to get rid of as soon as possible as an obstacle to progress.

  27. #267
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,008
    SLS Green Run 2 today, coverage begins at 1530 Eastern

    https://youtu.be/XGRE_7yz_kM

  28. #268
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,603
    And finished.

  29. #269
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,154
    Glushko hated hydrogen too but the Energiya core block engines had an easier development-no coking problems. Marshall almost got a look at those channel-wall engines. Methane-only is short sighted.

  30. #270
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,838
    Throwing away incredibly expensive hydrogen fueled rockets that need solid fuel boosters to get off the ground (and incidentally destroying those coke-free engines you like so much) is short sighted. If SLS actually represented a reasonably economical and practical design, a debate on whether methane or hydrogen is preferable could make sense. But you’re talking about trivialities when the basic concept is flawed, and is orders of magnitude more expensive than expected and existing alternatives.

    Honestly, I don’t understand what you think you’re arguing for. You’re talking about a rocket that at best is never going to get a launch rate of more than once a year, and optimistically a decade before being killed. But I’ll be amazed if it is flown more than five times regardless of Starship, and if Starship/Super Heavy is shown to be reasonably successful, I expect the pressure to kill it would cause a very quick effective end to the program. Meanwhile, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy can do much of what they want to do with SLS at much lower cost.

    There’s a fundamental change happening with space travel, moving from a “cost is no object” launch paradigm that in practice dramatically limit what missions are ultimately flown to rockets specifically built to be much more economical to fly. Obsolete rockets will fade very quickly with this change.

    Basically, my reading of your posts is that you seem to me to be arguing for hyper expensive hydrogen and solid fuel powered but hopelessly obsolete rockets because you think hydrogen is neat.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •