You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Is this just NASA waving its willy at the billionaires developing their own giant phallus missions to leave the planet? The first mission is just going around the moon but further out than any other manned flight. Seems pretty pointless and a huge waste of fuel* to me. As you've gathered, I'm very much in the "we ain't going to successfully re-colonise" camp, so let's rein in human activity on this planet and try and save it.
*The engines will burn more than 90,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen every minute before the core stage separates from the ICPS and Orion.
I'll watch the launch as it happens if I can.
Is this just NASA waving its willy at the billionaires developing their own giant phallus missions
I think it's a bit of the opposite, NASA trying to show it still has relevance against the "privateers".
That said they are invaluable for science, education and putting data in public domain. Just not the rocket side of things.
The engines will burn more than 90,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen every minute
I still think the pumps designed and made to meet this are an incredible achievement.
If Starship works, it’ll make SLS look like the 1960/70s approach that it is.
Tragic, but true.
As for the fuel, it sounds a lot volumetrically, but LH2 takes up a lot of space, so in equivalent energy density terms, it’s 4 fully fuelled 747s, so 2 round trips across the Atlantic. It’s also making predominantly water as an emission, so far less harmful.
Literally a drop in the ocean both in use and emissions.
The scale of the assembly building alone is just mind blowing....
If Starship works, it’ll make SLS look like the 1960/70s approach that it is.
+1
Artemis is amazing, but it's a one shot rocket costing billions. SpaceX is miles ahead with reusable rockets.
I’m guilty of not paying enough attention to Artemis, but are the SRBs at least reusable?
I’m guilty of not paying enough attention to Artemis, but are the SRBs at least reusable?
I think they just crash back to earth and get scrapped.
Certainly don't self land like SpaceX's boosters - which are like something from 70s sci-fi!
Looks like that’s correct and it all goes in the bin. Basically a massive firework. Way to go NASA, very progressive
I think the NASA has two problems:
1. It's very different for such a massive organisation with decades of experience to pivot to new technology. Whereas SpaceX etc are starting with a clean slate.
2. With all the accidents NASA has had over the decades they will naturally become very safety conscious, which will add in loads of processes / decision trees which lead to conservative and expensive design choices due to risk mitigation etc. SpaceX etc haven't so far lost a life, so are probably much less risk averse.
1. It’s very different for such a massive organisation with decades of experience to pivot to new technology. Whereas SpaceX etc are starting with a clean slate.
The SRBs on the shuttle were reusable, this is a step backwards in that regard.
2. With all the accidents NASA has had over the decades they will naturally become very safety conscious, which will add in loads of processes / decision trees which lead to conservative and expensive design choices due to risk mitigation etc. SpaceX etc haven’t so far lost a life, so are probably much less risk averse
Some bold assumptions being made there. Space X would potentially be out of business if something went sideways, I could imagine them being the ones with the better controls in place. NASA will certainly be more bureaucratic and have more accountants getting involved though
The SRBs on the shuttle were reusable, this is a step backwards in that regard.
Not on a cost effective basis. They were basically remanufactured after salt water immersion - the resuabilty was congressional pork.
Also, SpaceX fly NASA astronauts to the Space Station, so I don't think safety is less regarded at SpaceX.
Looks like that’s correct and it all goes in the bin. Basically a massive firework. Way to go NASA, very progressive
My first thought was, how much fuel does it take to land one? And you've got to carry that fuel up first?
Fag packet maths, but if 90% of it's weight is fuel, then even if it needs 1% to arrest it's fall and land it, then that's another 9% of fuel to get that last bit up there in the first place. Might be less than 1%, might be more, but it's not 0.
SpaceX etc haven’t so far lost a life, so are probably much less risk averse.
SpaceX is a contract space provider for NASA. They'll work to the same SOPs. That Artemis wasn't contracted out per se is due to different mission objectives - NASA contracted out low earth orbit missions completely with SpaceX and Boeing being selected as providers (Boeing have run into challenges). NASA don't really build the rockets anyway. Morton Thiolol made the shuttle boosters, if you recall.
NASA prime contractors, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman currently have over 3,200 suppliers contributing to the milestone achievement that heralds the success of America’s human spaceflight program.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/artemis-i-overview
Anyway, I failed to get overly excited by the news yesterday, but then I watched the first time around, and have a picture above this monitor showing all but one of the humans alive in one photo above my desk taken by the loneliest man as eagle descended.
Would be good to watch the launch live though!
I was done at 90,000 gallons then per minute - errrr yeah f that!
SlS is basically recycled shuttle tech (without the plane shaped reusable bit) the SRB’s are the same, the main engines are left over stock from the shuttle program. The capsule is new, but could be argued that capsules are Apollo era tech.
The problem NASA has is that their contracts provide a lot of work for certain states, so the senate is not really incentivised to geeen light new stuff, rather continue the jobs and contracts that already exist in elected persons states.
I like rockets though, so will be watching. I don’t have an issue with space exploration, but not sure SLS OR Starship are the answer yet.
Its also worth remembering that the Orion ESM (the new service module for the capsule) is built by us Europeans.
A first for NASA.
I have a casual interest in the moon stuff and will watch with interest, but this really does look a little like a continuation of Apollo, just with fancier computers.
I watched the first time around, and have a picture above this monitor showing all but one of the humans alive in one photo above my desk taken by the loneliest man as eagle descended.
One of the coolest pictures ever taken. 🙂
I'm pretty conflicted- yes, I'm cynical as all hell about NASA procurement and the actual real value of the missions, and the whole thing feels like it's about 2 decades out of date. But spaceships are still AWESOME and it's quite possibly a necessary step towards doing anything more.
mashr
Full MemberI’m guilty of not paying enough attention to Artemis, but are the SRBs at least reusable?
They were, but in this form aren't. The same as the SSME in fact. Both were selected on account of we had old stock lying around to use up and so reusability wasn't seen as an advantage, but then once they were committed they realised there weren't enough so now they're making new versions of the old stock. The only real advantage in the end is that it's proven tech.
(the new SSMEs aren't quite the same as the old shuttle version, they're being re-engineered for greater disposability but it's still pretty daft. And it goes into a whole daft history of reusability- the early SSME's weren't meaningfully reusable, they needed to be effectively rebuilt from scratch. But the reason they were installed in teh shuttle at all, was the reusability they didn't have. So in the end they took what was almost a disposable motor all the way to orbit and back, which limited lifting capacity AND max reentry weight and made reusing the shuttle much more complex.
(tldr- the SSME should have been a disposable. Instead, it was a somewhat-reusable, and now we're using it as a disposable)
Returning (doh). https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2019/07/apollo-11-moon-landing-photos-50-years-ago/594448/#img36
I hope they'll dust down the Hasselblads for the next mission too.
The capsule is new, but could be argued that capsules are Apollo era tech.
Possibly yes, but I quite like the overall Artemis concept with the orbital station above the moon and purpose designed lander. The SpaceX idea of landing a massive spacecraft seems a bit Thunderbirds to me.
I don’t have an issue with space exploration, but not sure SLS OR Starship are the answer yet.
I've lived through the whole manned spaceflight program from Gagarin to now but these days unmanned excites me more.
The SpaceX idea of landing a massive spacecraft seems a bit Thunderbirds to me.
To be fair, so did landing a booster just a few years ago.
Edit: although hopefully they don’t litter the moon with as many failures!
I love those Apollo 11 photos - iconic!
My first thought was, how much fuel does it take to land one? And you’ve got to carry that fuel up first?
Just watched a CNET video on this and the NASA comment on not using a reusable rocket is its all down to how much payload they can get.
They want as much as possible on the Moon.
It’s also making predominantly water as an emission, so far less harmful.
There's plenty of CO2 emitted during the manufacture of the hydrogen as 98% of hydrogen today is produced by steam reforming of methane. I'd be surprised if the overall GHG emissions were less than Falcon Heavy burning kerosene in oxygen.
slowoldman
Full MemberThe SpaceX idea of landing a massive spacecraft seems a bit Thunderbirds to me.
True but I've never seen anything more thunderbirdsy in my life than when they landed the 2 boosters on the first falcon heavy launch simultaneously. Including actual thunderbirds.
I've still got a lot of love for NASA.
They really did pave the way along with thele Russians of course.
I stood by that horizontally housed Appollo in Houston some 12 years back and it amazed me. Almost alien in scale and audacity.
Can't find the pic I thought I had with me in the shot for scale but it and the engines were immense.
Look at the plumbing though, looks amazingly primitive.
Excellent article about why it's a choice between a Shuttle derived rocket or no rocket.
The SLS and Orion spacecraft projects are of such a scale that they spend money in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, creating parochial interest in nearly every congressional district. According to a 2019 economic impact report, these programs created approximately $14 billion in total economic output and supported more than 69,000 jobs nationwide. Maintaining these jobs is ultimately the foundation of the SLS/Orion political coalition in the United States.
https://twitter.com/brianweeden/status/1566447813814325250
Such a shame it’s become a boondoggle. Nasa will be finished as a human space flight enterprise if this doesn’t go up successfully soon. Ceding the human exploration of space to Musk and the other psychopathic billionaires is a major species error.