Updates SLS Updates
- Thread starter N_Molson
- Start date
TheShuttleExperience
Well-known member
I think money is the key. And political will. The people at NASA certainly would love to let off some amazing steam in their research facilities. But then you would hear smart economists that explain why it is "too expensive" while the smart environmental folks would explain why it is not eco-friendly.You said it! We need today the kind of NASA leadership that went from zero to boots on the moon in nine years.
Ulrich Walter (STS-55) recently even said on TV that it is an "evidence of incapacity" that they can't get this thing off the ground even unmanned. I was surprised to hear something like that from him. But I somehow had to agree.
Max-Q
99 40
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2021
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 1,183
- Points
- 108
- Location
- Cislunar Space
- Website
- www.orbiter-forum.com
How true. In the 60s we were racing the soviets to the moon and the cold war was at it's peak.
It was a question of national security and pride to get there first.
Nowadays, it is more of "We are going back to the Moon, and on to Mars! * "
* if there are resources left over after we spend it all on socialist stuff and the noise doesn't disturb anybody around the cape
It's not like they haven't tried... What are we at, 2 scrubs now for stupid stuff that should have been caught a long time ago?
GLS
Well-known member
Well, on the subject of the recent delays, locking themselves into a lunar mission on the first flight wasn't very smart, as it drastically decreases the launch opportunities. On top of that, trying to launch without validating the countdown only added fuel to the fire. The cherry on top is lack of access to important parts on the pad.
In a related news, the Spring/Summer jokes about a Christmas launch are now just 40 days away from being a reality:
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,644
- Reaction score
- 2,358
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
I would say, it depends on who he thinks is accountable there. If he means NASA, I would strongly disagree. NASA does an outstanding job there, despite all the problems involved. If he means the subcontractors, especially Boeing, I would only quietly disagree. Yeah, Boeing has really a bad run in the past years. But it isn't them alone. If he means the US politic, yeah, they really messed this one up. They forced NASA into specifically building a really expensive launcher for a much too small budget. NASA did not even have a choice there. It was a project to rescue some management jobs at old aerospace, and the budget had to fit into what US politics gave NASA.
I don't want to be in the shoes of one of those engineers and technicians who have to get this one off the ground. And at the same time, I wish I was one of them now.
Max-Q
99 40
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2021
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 1,183
- Points
- 108
- Location
- Cislunar Space
- Website
- www.orbiter-forum.com
Working on any space project, especially manned spaceflight, would be very, very cool!
GLS
Well-known member
It is there already...
...but
steph
Well-known member
It's still much too early to tell. I'd say they might roll it back due to caution, but it will probably be at the last possible moment
Thunder Chicken
Fine Threads since 2008
If it needs another round trip to the VAB I'm just wondering what is going to rattle loose on these trips.
Here's hoping they get more sky miles than road miles soon.
Here's hoping they get more sky miles than road miles soon.
GLS
Well-known member
If I'm not mistaken, it has 7 rides on the Crawler now. Challenger did 12, so 2 more would put SLS only 3 trips behind.
N_Molson
Addon Developer
They name it the Crawler for a reason, it was designed not to put stress on the launcher structure. I'm more worried with the fueling/defueling process which fatigues the LH2 tanks metal each cycle.
Max-Q
99 40
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2021
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 1,183
- Points
- 108
- Location
- Cislunar Space
- Website
- www.orbiter-forum.com
I heard it was rated for 10 tanking cycles, we've gotta be getting close to that now.
Update: Now targeting Nov 16.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022...d-of-tropical-storm-nicole-re-targets-launch/
GLS
Well-known member
I think the "metric" is pressurization not just tanking.I heard it was rated for 10 tanking cycles, we've gotta be getting close to that now.
Thunder Chicken
Fine Threads since 2008
GLS
Well-known member
Yes, but I don't think there is a limit for tankings... not that I hear of.
Anyway, there are warmer problems for this thing
Thunder Chicken
Fine Threads since 2008
Max-Q
99 40
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2021
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 1,183
- Points
- 108
- Location
- Cislunar Space
- Website
- www.orbiter-forum.com
I heard it was rated for 10 tanking cycles, we've gotta be getting close to that now.
Update: Now targeting Nov 16.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022...d-of-tropical-storm-nicole-re-targets-launch/
In the green run NASA TV last year, they specifically said tanking cycles, not pressurization cycles.
@Thunder Chicken Absolutely correct about the thermal thing. Chilling metal to -420 degrees is a big deal.
However I don't know if that was a case of "NASA PAO half-correct tech speak" or accurate information. You must take what they say on NASA TV with a grain of salt, I have heard them talk of solid rocket boosters on Soyuz...
