SLS launches in 4 days

  • 86 Replies
  • 2882 Views
*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2550
  • Show me the evidence
SLS launches in 4 days
« on: August 24, 2022, 08:37:04 PM »
The Artemis 1 missions launches in 4 days





This is NASA's biggest rocket to date.
This is demo launch where they test all the systems before they put people in on it.


This bad boy has 2 side solid boosters and a central hydrogen + oxygen core.


Lets hope it does not blow up, it is pretty expensive.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13070
  • I am car!
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2022, 12:44:39 AM »
Thanks for the update, I had no idea it was about to happen. I kinda lost track of it after all the testing delays. Here's a cool graphic showing he mission:

Yes Stash.

I am clearly the product of castrated machine learning.

You are quite obviously, human.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2550
  • Show me the evidence
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2022, 02:35:07 AM »
Thanks for the update, I had no idea it was about to happen. I kinda lost track of it after all the testing delays. Here's a cool graphic showing he mission:

Yeah, it has really not attracted a lot of media attention. Its also not all that exciting, its just a demo launch.
People are now used to seeing rockets land, dumping them in the ocean is barely as exciting.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15559
  • Djinn
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2022, 08:41:23 AM »
It is a big deal.  But it's not quite a big deal yet.  It looks like it's going to be at least 2025 until we've done the same thing that we've done in 1969 and there's no date scheduled for when we go even further.

I don't want to shit on it too much.  It is very cool but sending people to the moon or even Mars is sort of a stunt.  It's not going to do much to increase our understanding of the universe. 

If it were up to me I'd lean heavily on programs like the JWST and planetary rovers.  Science wise I think we get more bang for our buck for those.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • Flat Earth Empathiser
  • 5327
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2022, 08:55:18 AM »

We should concentrate on deep space mining ships to augment our dwindling resources, call the first one The Nostromo.
Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.



Life is meaningless and everything dies.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13070
  • I am car!
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2022, 11:36:47 AM »
It is a big deal.  But it's not quite a big deal yet.  It looks like it's going to be at least 2025 until we've done the same thing that we've done in 1969 and there's no date scheduled for when we go even further.

I don't want to shit on it too much.  It is very cool but sending people to the moon or even Mars is sort of a stunt.  It's not going to do much to increase our understanding of the universe. 

If it were up to me I'd lean heavily on programs like the JWST and planetary rovers.  Science wise I think we get more bang for our buck for those.

I pretty much agree. But I think one of the ultimate goals is to establish launch capability from the Moon. Which may make it easier to get the real cosmological exploratory stuff (weapons), probes, telescopes, rovers, deadly jewish space lasers, etc., way out there more readily & easily.

But we've all seen how well that worked out on "For All Mankind".
Yes Stash.

I am clearly the product of castrated machine learning.

You are quite obviously, human.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42480
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2022, 03:41:49 PM »
The Artemis 1 missions launches in 4 days
Maybe.  Last minute scrubs and other delays are quite common with these first launches for NASA.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2550
  • Show me the evidence
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2022, 09:06:45 PM »
It is a big deal.  But it's not quite a big deal yet.  It looks like it's going to be at least 2025 until we've done the same thing that we've done in 1969 and there's no date scheduled for when we go even further.

I don't want to shit on it too much.  It is very cool but sending people to the moon or even Mars is sort of a stunt.  It's not going to do much to increase our understanding of the universe. 

If it were up to me I'd lean heavily on programs like the JWST and planetary rovers.  Science wise I think we get more bang for our buck for those.
Every time you push engineers to the limit, you end up with more useful knowledge than you started.
To solve for Mars for instance, you need to work out how to efficiently turn a poisonous environment into a healthy environment with little resources of energy. Can you think of any other application for these technologies?
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25572
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2022, 02:54:40 AM »
I feel like all these 'tests' is such a wasteful use of resources. Just put some mofos on it that no one will miss if things go awry but at the same time, offer a path to redemption if they can help do something up there.

Even if we just send them out to the infinite expanse to die. Maybe in a few thousand years some alien race can discover their corpses. That'll be neat.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13070
  • I am car!
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2022, 07:18:57 AM »
I feel like all these 'tests' is such a wasteful use of resources. Just put some mofos on it that no one will miss if things go awry but at the same time, offer a path to redemption if they can help do something up there.

Even if we just send them out to the infinite expanse to die. Maybe in a few thousand years some alien race can discover their corpses. That'll be neat.

Convicts in space?
Yes Stash.

I am clearly the product of castrated machine learning.

You are quite obviously, human.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25572
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2022, 07:27:58 AM »
I feel like all these 'tests' is such a wasteful use of resources. Just put some mofos on it that no one will miss if things go awry but at the same time, offer a path to redemption if they can help do something up there.

Even if we just send them out to the infinite expanse to die. Maybe in a few thousand years some alien race can discover their corpses. That'll be neat.

Convicts in space?

They trusted them to build up and settle America and Australia..... Otherwise, why not volunteers? Plenty of idiots were super enthused about a one way trip to Mars.....

Just sign a waiver before they go. All good

Just seems so wasteful launching empty rockets

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15559
  • Djinn
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2022, 08:05:50 AM »
No we've tried that. It didn't work out so well.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13070
  • I am car!
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2022, 08:37:45 AM »
Yeah, Zod busted out of the Phantom Zone mirror right quick. Probably not the best plan of attack.

One of the main reasons for Artemis One being unmanned is the reentry heat shield. Largest ever. The capsule will come in hotter and faster than anything else we've tossed up there before. So if that puppy burns up and tears apart, we'd be looking at another Apollo One debacle/tragedy/set-back.
Yes Stash.

I am clearly the product of castrated machine learning.

You are quite obviously, human.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15559
  • Djinn
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2022, 08:46:46 AM »
It is a big deal.  But it's not quite a big deal yet.  It looks like it's going to be at least 2025 until we've done the same thing that we've done in 1969 and there's no date scheduled for when we go even further.

I don't want to shit on it too much.  It is very cool but sending people to the moon or even Mars is sort of a stunt.  It's not going to do much to increase our understanding of the universe. 

If it were up to me I'd lean heavily on programs like the JWST and planetary rovers.  Science wise I think we get more bang for our buck for those.
Every time you push engineers to the limit, you end up with more useful knowledge than you started.
To solve for Mars for instance, you need to work out how to efficiently turn a poisonous environment into a healthy environment with little resources of energy. Can you think of any other application for these technologies?

I think managing the environment on Earth would fall under that category.  Carbon capture on a massive scale, filtering heavy metals out of the food supply, maybe even building a massive sunshade at L1 to module the amount of sunlight we get.  The SLS program would probably be in line with that last one though.

Out of curiosity what's your opinion on SpaceX's Starship?  It seems like it's similar to SLS.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2550
  • Show me the evidence
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2022, 07:03:56 PM »
I feel like all these 'tests' is such a wasteful use of resources. Just put some mofos on it that no one will miss if things go awry but at the same time, offer a path to redemption if they can help do something up there.

Even if we just send them out to the infinite expanse to die. Maybe in a few thousand years some alien race can discover their corpses. That'll be neat.
Can we put flat earthers on these one way test rockets? One way or another, there will be fewer flat earthers.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2550
  • Show me the evidence
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2022, 07:22:13 PM »
I think managing the environment on Earth would fall under that category.  Carbon capture on a massive scale, filtering heavy metals out of the food supply, maybe even building a massive sunshade at L1 to module the amount of sunlight we get.  The SLS program would probably be in line with that last one though.
The issue with only trying to solve the obvious problems is that the solutions are often in not obvious places. The process of creativity is really just mixing of old ideas together. Its nearly, if not completely impossible to come up with something that you dont have a references to. The concept is called "the adjacent possible". Solving problems that have similar overlap. E.g. Engineering a habitat on Mars could provide solutions to cleaning up pollution on earth we could never have thought of otherwise. Simply because we HAVE to think differently there to solve a somewhat similar problem.

The other issue with saying we need to solve climate instead of going to space is that the engineers want to solve space stuff. The excitement and challenge of space exploration drives a lot of people to become engineers in the first place. Its a motivator for people to solve bigger problems, that otherwise would have not gone to solve these problems. The world has more engineers working on solving carbon capture BECAUSE of space exploration. And I know quite a few people like this.

Quote
Out of curiosity what's your opinion on SpaceX's Starship?  It seems like it's similar to SLS.
I mean, all rockets look kinda the same, in a similar way that aircraft do. The physics drives the form.
But its a totally different type of rocket in its aspirations in being fully reusable.

IF Starship works as advertised, it will completely change the world in ways people dont really understand. And not just for space nerds, but for everyone.
2 Really big things that we can expect if it works out as planned.

The European Space Agency recently released a series of studies they have been working on in developing Space Based Solar. Basically they put up MASSIVE solar panels in a very high orbit, and those panels beam energy back to earth for 24/7 zero carbon energy. But this is only possible if Starship works out, as its cost to delivering payloads into space is the real magic.

The other is a very recent announcement that SpaceX will start delivering cell phone signals down to earth. Previously you would need special equipment to recieve data from sats. As in, you can make phone calls and text, from literally any spot on the surface of the planet. But these sats are much bigger and there are a lot of them. This may not be a big deal if your in a city, but Im in Africa, I can go to areas where there are 100's of Km without signal.

There are some bigger things that will follow, but they are not announced so I cant speak of them.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15559
  • Djinn
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2022, 11:37:45 PM »
Gentlemen, the day has come. 

Prepare to tighten your sphincters to the max for the next 24 hours.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13070
  • I am car!
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2022, 12:03:09 AM »
Info:



You can watch the Artemis 1 liftoff on Space.com, courtesy of NASA TV, starting at 6:30 a.m. EDT (1030 GMT):


« Last Edit: August 29, 2022, 12:05:02 AM by Stash »
Yes Stash.

I am clearly the product of castrated machine learning.

You are quite obviously, human.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8282
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2022, 05:42:08 AM »
Today's Launch Attempt Has Been Scrubbed.  The CC was saying something about Engine Temperature issue.
Rabinoz RIP

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15559
  • Djinn
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2022, 09:12:18 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/29/artemis-scrubbed-nasa-cancels-moon-launch-engine

The next possible launch date is Friday but so far it isn't looking good since they haven't figured out the problem yet.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2022, 12:29:53 PM »

The issue with only trying to solve the obvious problems is that the solutions are often in not obvious places. The process of creativity is really just mixing of old ideas together. Its nearly, if not completely impossible to come up with something that you dont have a references to. The concept is called "the adjacent possible". Solving problems that have similar overlap. E.g. Engineering a habitat on Mars could provide solutions to cleaning up pollution on earth we could never have thought of otherwise. Simply because we HAVE to think differently there to solve a somewhat similar problem.

The other issue with saying we need to solve climate instead of going to space is that the engineers want to solve space stuff. The excitement and challenge of space exploration drives a lot of people to become engineers in the first place. Its a motivator for people to solve bigger problems, that otherwise would have not gone to solve these problems. The world has more engineers working on solving carbon capture BECAUSE of space exploration. And I know quite a few people like this.

I agree with most of this, although personally I think development of technology for space should about genuine scientific research, exploration and things that benefit society as a whole.  Frivolous space tourism for the ultra rich can absolutely do one.

Quote
Quote
Out of curiosity what's your opinion on SpaceX's Starship?  It seems like it's similar to SLS.
I mean, all rockets look kinda the same, in a similar way that aircraft do. The physics drives the form.
But its a totally different type of rocket in its aspirations in being fully reusable.

The space shuttle was mostly reusable.  It was sadly massively expensive, but thatís largely because it was both crewed and had a massive cargo bay.  Useful for some things like putting the ISS together, but simply overkill for many other things.

Quote
IF Starship works as advertised, it will completely change the world in ways people dont really understand. And not just for space nerds, but for everyone.
2 Really big things that we can expect if it works out as planned.

The European Space Agency recently released a series of studies they have been working on in developing Space Based Solar. Basically they put up MASSIVE solar panels in a very high orbit, and those panels beam energy back to earth for 24/7 zero carbon energy. But this is only possible if Starship works out, as its cost to delivering payloads into space is the real magic.

Launch costs are very far from the only technical hurdle.  Notably, they need a way to safely and efficiently transmit the power to the surface.  Even for a small scale test satellite.

Who knows where weíll be by the time they are ready to deploy it on a large scale, if itís ever feasible? There might be other low cost options.  To say it all hinges on Starship seems a bit of a stretch.

Quote
The other is a very recent announcement that SpaceX will start delivering cell phone signals down to earth. Previously you would need special equipment to recieve data from sats. As in, you can make phone calls and text, from literally any spot on the surface of the planet. But these sats are much bigger and there are a lot of them. This may not be a big deal if your in a city, but Im in Africa, I can go to areas where there are 100's of Km without signal.

There are some bigger things that will follow, but they are not announced so I cant speak of them.


Frankly, Iím a little concerned about Starlink and other plans for ďconstellationsĒ of tens or even hundreds of thousands of small satellites.  Thereís a real danger they could clog up LEO.  Apparently the Tiangong space station has already had to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid a potential collision.

Also lots of astronomers are worried about them ruining the night sky.

Iím not saying they are inherently bad, but as private companies get more involved in the space industry, we need to ensure their activities are very well regulated and the likes of Musk donít get to just do whatever they feel like.

Frankly, the massive amount of PR and hype around SpaceX in particular makes me suspicious. 

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2550
  • Show me the evidence
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2022, 11:24:50 PM »
I agree with most of this, although personally I think development of technology for space should about genuine scientific research, exploration and things that benefit society as a whole.  Frivolous space tourism for the ultra rich can absolutely do one.
The first cell phones cost $25000. But super rich people bought them for the slight convienience they gave. This allowed the cell phone producers to get enough money and market feedback to invest in better cell phones. This is a formal way of distributing technology. Lots of new tech is very expensive, so you start by getting the people who can afford it interested. Space tourism helps develop technology so that more people can eventually benifit.

Quote
The space shuttle was mostly reusable.  It was sadly massively expensive, but thatís largely because it was both crewed and had a massive cargo bay.  Useful for some things like putting the ISS together, but simply overkill for many other things.
The space shuttle had many failures. But it was also the very first attempt at a reusable launch vehicle. The first of everything sucked. Cars, airplanes, cell phones, ext. Its only after multiple iterations that things get good. Starship will be the third reusable system after the falcon 9. It wont be the last either as there are loads of other reusable rockets being developed right now.

Quote
Launch costs are very far from the only technical hurdle.  Notably, they need a way to safely and efficiently transmit the power to the surface.  Even for a small scale test satellite.

Who knows where weíll be by the time they are ready to deploy it on a large scale, if itís ever feasible? There might be other low cost options.  To say it all hinges on Starship seems a bit of a stretch.
If you cant get launch cost down, solving the other developmental issues wont matter. Everything else has been solved in principle, just not together and at scale. As mentioned earlier, starship wont be the only reusable launch vehicle, but it will be the first. No other country even has plans for anything as big yet. So at best, the next big fully reusable rocket will happen 10 years after Starship flies. But if Starship does not work out, it becomes far less likely that someone else will invest in an idea that has not proven to work.

Quote
Frankly, Iím a little concerned about Starlink and other plans for ďconstellationsĒ of tens or even hundreds of thousands of small satellites.  Thereís a real danger they could clog up LEO.  Apparently the Tiangong space station has already had to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid a potential collision.

Also lots of astronomers are worried about them ruining the night sky.

Iím not saying they are inherently bad, but as private companies get more involved in the space industry, we need to ensure their activities are very well regulated and the likes of Musk donít get to just do whatever they feel like.

Frankly, the massive amount of PR and hype around SpaceX in particular makes me suspicious. 
The US government once launched about 1 million needles into orbit to test out a communications system that they never really used. Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris. All governments have been happy to dump unused rocket parts all over earths orbit. Starlink and other constellations make up not even 1% of the stuff we have put in orbit, most of it is uncontrolled trash put up by governments. Private companies are also the ones really looking into creating systems that dont leave stuff in orbit, because if LEO is unusable, then their business's fail.
Before you say that private companies need to be regulated, should we not first ask that the governments clean up their act? Who regulates governments? Because compared to the US, Russian and Chinese governments, private space companies have been angels.

If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15559
  • Djinn
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2022, 04:48:49 PM »
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

JJA

  • 6720
  • Math is math!
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2022, 10:13:10 PM »
The US government once launched about 1 million needles into orbit to test out a communications system that they never really used. Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris. All governments have been happy to dump unused rocket parts all over earths orbit. Starlink and other constellations make up not even 1% of the stuff we have put in orbit, most of it is uncontrolled trash put up by governments. Private companies are also the ones really looking into creating systems that dont leave stuff in orbit, because if LEO is unusable, then their business's fail.
Before you say that private companies need to be regulated, should we not first ask that the governments clean up their act? Who regulates governments? Because compared to the US, Russian and Chinese governments, private space companies have been angels.
Those needles were hair-thin lengths of copper and only lasted a short time before they deorbited and burned up. 

I'm not sure why you think private companies care. These are the same private companies that have been polluting the planet in the name of short term profits since the beginning of the industrial age.

It's governments (spurred by angry people) that pass laws to stop them from dumping toxic waste in your back yard.

If Elon Musk thought creating massive amounts of space trash would make him a buck, he would do it.  You think Exxon would care?

Businesses don't care if they fail or not, the CEOs just care if they get rich from stock sales before hopping to the next company to wreck.

Aw crap I'm ranting again.  See you all next week. :)

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2550
  • Show me the evidence
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2022, 12:29:58 AM »
Those needles were hair-thin lengths of copper and only lasted a short time before they deorbited and burned up. 

From Wiki
- The needles were placed in medium Earth orbit at an altitude of between 3,500 and 3,800 kilometres (2,200Ė2,400 mi) at inclinations of 96 and 87 degrees. -
 - The International Academy of Astronautics regards the experiment as the worst deliberate release of space debris -

That orbit will leave the needles in space for about a million years if not more.

Quote
I'm not sure why you think private companies care. These are the same private companies that have been polluting the planet in the name of short term profits since the beginning of the industrial age.
If you ever purchased a product from an oil company, such as petrol or plastic, then your responsible for promoting these companies that pump oil. Without you, and the governments that subsidized them, there would not have been any pollution. Governments the world round have been giving oil companies tax write offs, so im not sure why you think Governments are a better alternative.

Quote
If Elon Musk thought creating massive amounts of space trash would make him a buck, he would do it.  You think Exxon would care?
The next gen starlink sats change their solar panel orientation during orbit to reduce light pollution on the ground. Because of this these sats will lose about 25% of their life time. Meaning Starlink sats cost 25% more for Elon Musk to avoid light pollution. There are no regulations forcing them to do this, its just what they are doing. How does this fit in your world view?

Quote
Businesses don't care if they fail or not, the CEOs just care if they get rich from stock sales before hopping to the next company to wreck.

Governments don't care if they work or not, the Politicians just care if they get rich from corruption and bribes before hopping to the next tax haven to wreck.

This discussion is way nuanced, and making blanket statements is a very bad way to move conversations forward.

I hope you enjoyed your rant, see you next week
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #25 on: August 31, 2022, 12:18:13 PM »
I agree with most of this, although personally I think development of technology for space should about genuine scientific research, exploration and things that benefit society as a whole.  Frivolous space tourism for the ultra rich can absolutely do one.
The first cell phones cost $25000. But super rich people bought them for the slight convienience they gave. This allowed the cell phone producers to get enough money and market feedback to invest in better cell phones. This is a formal way of distributing technology. Lots of new tech is very expensive, so you start by getting the people who can afford it interested. Space tourism helps develop technology so that more people can eventually benifit.

Are you suggesting the space tourism could be available for regular people? Or even just quite rich people? The carbon footprint would be horrendous.

Space tourism is the most wasteful use of resources I can think of.  Until weíve completely decarbonised energy supply with buckets of spare capacity, it shouldnít be allowed.

Quote
Quote
The space shuttle was mostly reusable.  It was sadly massively expensive, but thatís largely because it was both crewed and had a massive cargo bay.  Useful for some things like putting the ISS together, but simply overkill for many other things.
The space shuttle had many failures. But it was also the very first attempt at a reusable launch vehicle. The first of everything sucked. Cars, airplanes, cell phones, ext. Its only after multiple iterations that things get good. Starship will be the third reusable system after the falcon 9. It wont be the last either as there are loads of other reusable rockets being developed right now.

I wouldnít say sucked, was just really big.  For some missions, like assembling the ISS, having a crewed vehicle with an enormous cargo bay was useful, but it was kind of overkill for a lot of things.

The basic principles of its reusability seemed to make more sense than boosters and vehicles landing like Thunderbird rockets though.  I donít know why no one took the concept further.

Quote
Quote
Launch costs are very far from the only technical hurdle.  Notably, they need a way to safely and efficiently transmit the power to the surface.  Even for a small scale test satellite.

Who knows where weíll be by the time they are ready to deploy it on a large scale, if itís ever feasible? There might be other low cost options.  To say it all hinges on Starship seems a bit of a stretch.
If you cant get launch cost down, solving the other developmental issues wont matter. Everything else has been solved in principle, just not together and at scale. As mentioned earlier, starship wont be the only reusable launch vehicle, but it will be the first. No other country even has plans for anything as big yet. So at best, the next big fully reusable rocket will happen 10 years after Starship flies. But if Starship does not work out, it becomes far less likely that someone else will invest in an idea that has not proven to work.

Likewise, if they donít solve the other technical issues, it wonít matter how low the launch costs are.  Being ďsolved in principleĒ isnít really good enough, and Iím not sure thatís exactly true either.

Quote
Quote
Frankly, Iím a little concerned about Starlink and other plans for ďconstellationsĒ of tens or even hundreds of thousands of small satellites.  Thereís a real danger they could clog up LEO.  Apparently the Tiangong space station has already had to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid a potential collision.

Also lots of astronomers are worried about them ruining the night sky.

Iím not saying they are inherently bad, but as private companies get more involved in the space industry, we need to ensure their activities are very well regulated and the likes of Musk donít get to just do whatever they feel like.

Frankly, the massive amount of PR and hype around SpaceX in particular makes me suspicious. 
The US government once launched about 1 million needles into orbit to test out a communications system that they never really used.

And that was one of the main drivers for the first treaty on responsible use of space.

Quote
Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris.

Which should be stopped.

Quote
All governments have been happy to dump unused rocket parts all over earths orbit. Starlink and other constellations make up not even 1% of the stuff we have put in orbit, most of it is uncontrolled trash put up by governments. Private companies are also the ones really looking into creating systems that dont leave stuff in orbit, because if LEO is unusable, then their business's fail.

There are currently about 2000 Starlink satellites in orbit, but plans are to increase it to 40000.  And thereís at least 6 other companies wanting to do the same.  That compares to about 5000 total operational satellites in orbit now.  The US Space Surveillance Network is tracking about 22000 objects in orbit, including the operational satellites.  Although there are many more objects too small to track.

Anyway, Iím not just pulling my concerns out of my arse, there are several experts who cite Starlink as the current biggest collision risk, and theyíre just getting started:

In August 2021, Hugh Lewis, the head of the Astronautics Research Group at the University of Southampton, U.K. and Europe's leading space debris expert, told Space.com that Starlink satellites represent the single main sources of collision risk in low Earth orbit.

According to computer models, at that time, Starlink satellites were involved every week in about 1,600 encounters between two spacecraft closer than 0.6 miles (1 kilometer). That's about 50% of all such incidents. This number rises with every new batch of satellites launched into space. By the time Starlink deploys all 12,000 satellites of its first-generation constellation it could reach 90%, Lewis said.

Lewis also expressed concerns that Starlink's operator SpaceX, a newcomer into the satellite business, is now the single most dominant player in the field whose decisions can affect safety of all operations in low Earth orbit.


https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

Quote
Before you say that private companies need to be regulated, should we not first ask that the governments clean up their act? Who regulates governments? Because compared to the US, Russian and Chinese governments, private space companies have been angels.

They should ALL be better regulated, through international treaties.

PS. Good to hear about the new possible launch.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2550
  • Show me the evidence
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #26 on: August 31, 2022, 11:02:50 PM »
Are you suggesting the space tourism could be available for regular people? Or even just quite rich people? The carbon footprint would be horrendous.

Space tourism is the most wasteful use of resources I can think of.  Until we’ve completely decarbonised energy supply with buckets of spare capacity, it shouldn’t be allowed.
You need a better imagination. One F9 flight uses the same amount of fuel as a single international flight. Lots of celebrities and rich people fly themselves all over the world. There are a lot of much more wasteful things than rocket flights. Some rockets, such as Blue Origins current tourist ride rocket use hydrogen and oxygen only. The Starship only has CO2 and water as an emission, which is far better than airline emissions.

Every rocket launch invests in future capability that will drop costs further down the road. We are practically seeing this happen right now.

Quote
I wouldn’t say sucked, was just really big.  For some missions, like assembling the ISS, having a crewed vehicle with an enormous cargo bay was useful, but it was kind of overkill for a lot of things.

The basic principles of its reusability seemed to make more sense than boosters and vehicles landing like Thunderbird rockets though.  I don’t know why no one took the concept further.
The issue with the Shuttles mode of reusability is that it needed a lot of additional mass to land. Those wings where heavy and are useless in space. Starship uses lighter flaps just for control on the way down. The Space Shuttle Orbiter was very very heavy all by itself.

Its a bit like a flying car. You can make a good car, or you can make a good plane. But if you combine them you end up with a bad car that flies badly. That was the space shuttle. It was a great first attempt, but there are better ways to do it.

Quote
Likewise, if they don’t solve the other technical issues, it won’t matter how low the launch costs are.  Being “solved in principle” isn’t really good enough, and I’m not sure that’s exactly true either.
There have been extensive studies done on space based solar. China is launching their first test bed later this year / next year. USA military has done massive studies on this. And now ESA is on it. All 3 of these institutes have enough confidence in the technological readiness that they are pushing forward on it. Europe specifically wants zero carbon 24/7 energy. There are a lot of technical issues to solve, but most of them are along the lines of, "how do you assemble a 4km wide solar collector in space". You solve this by launching people in space. None of them are fundamental show stoppers.


Quote
And that was one of the main drivers for the first treaty on responsible use of space.

Quote
Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris.

Which should be stopped.

But it did not, because no one regulates governments. If you put all your power in governments, then you have no regulations at all. If you put your power in corporations, then at least you still have regulations from government. Your options are no regulations vs regulations.

Quote
There are currently about 2000 Starlink satellites in orbit, but plans are to increase it to 40000.  And there’s at least 6 other companies wanting to do the same.  That compares to about 5000 total operational satellites in orbit now.  The US Space Surveillance Network is tracking about 22000 objects in orbit, including the operational satellites.  Although there are many more objects too small to track.

Anyway, I’m not just pulling my concerns out of my arse, there are several experts who cite Starlink as the current biggest collision risk, and they’re just getting started:

In August 2021, Hugh Lewis, the head of the Astronautics Research Group at the University of Southampton, U.K. and Europe's leading space debris expert, told Space.com that Starlink satellites represent the single main sources of collision risk in low Earth orbit.

According to computer models, at that time, Starlink satellites were involved every week in about 1,600 encounters between two spacecraft closer than 0.6 miles (1 kilometer). That's about 50% of all such incidents. This number rises with every new batch of satellites launched into space. By the time Starlink deploys all 12,000 satellites of its first-generation constellation it could reach 90%, Lewis said.

Lewis also expressed concerns that Starlink's operator SpaceX, a newcomer into the satellite business, is now the single most dominant player in the field whose decisions can affect safety of all operations in low Earth orbit.


https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

Starlink sats are very low. They fly far below the ISS or Hubble. If there is a collision, they will deorbit in weeks. Everyone is scared of satellite collisions, and rightfully so. Its not cool when things break up there. But this is a problem humanity needs to figure out. Because China and Russia are also planning there multi-thousand sat constellations, and they wont care about US astronomers or collisions concern half as much as SpaceX does.

Quote
They should ALL be better regulated, through international treaties.
The US tends to avoid signing international treaties when it does not suit them. And China wont be signing anything that they dont want to either. No way to force them other than war. And I dont suspect Russia will be signing anything with the US or Europe any time soon.
So we are still back to completely unregulatable governments, or regulated private industry.
I will rather go for private industry that can be held accountable for their actions.

Quote
PS. Good to hear about the new possible launch.
Be prepared for a lot of scrubs. This is not criticism, its just rockets.
The SLS is based off the space shuttle that had about 1 scrub for every launch attempt. They got every second attempt right, so lets hope Sat goes well.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2022, 11:16:07 AM »
Are you suggesting the space tourism could be available for regular people? Or even just quite rich people? The carbon footprint would be horrendous.

Space tourism is the most wasteful use of resources I can think of.  Until weíve completely decarbonised energy supply with buckets of spare capacity, it shouldnít be allowed.
You need a better imagination. One F9 flight uses the same amount of fuel as a single international flight. Lots of celebrities and rich people fly themselves all over the world. There are a lot of much more wasteful things than rocket flights. Some rockets, such as Blue Origins current tourist ride rocket use hydrogen and oxygen only. The Starship only has CO2 and water as an emission, which is far better than airline emissions.

A long haul international flight carrying hundreds of people, maybe.  You know some people think that we should we cut down on international travel as much as possible?

But space tourism isnít going replace travel, itís a whole new wasteful industry that gives a few people a quick joy ride in space.

As for the fuel, starship burns kerosene, similar to aviation fuel.  Hydrogen isnít free energy, you either produce it from fossil fuels, releasing CO2 or have to put energy into electrolysis for green hydrogen.   

Quote
Every rocket launch invests in future capability that will drop costs further down the road. We are practically seeing this happen right now.

Costs are going down, but thereís a limit to how much you can reduce fuel usage, governed by rocketry equation.  Itís never going to not use a shit load of fuel.

Quote
Quote
I wouldnít say sucked, was just really big.  For some missions, like assembling the ISS, having a crewed vehicle with an enormous cargo bay was useful, but it was kind of overkill for a lot of things.

The basic principles of its reusability seemed to make more sense than boosters and vehicles landing like Thunderbird rockets though.  I donít know why no one took the concept further.
The issue with the Shuttles mode of reusability is that it needed a lot of additional mass to land. Those wings where heavy and are useless in space. Starship uses lighter flaps just for control on the way down. The Space Shuttle Orbiter was very very heavy all by itself.

Its a bit like a flying car. You can make a good car, or you can make a good plane. But if you combine them you end up with a bad car that flies badly. That was the space shuttle. It was a great first attempt, but there are better ways to do it.

Much simpler solution for the boosters though.  But not as fancy to watch.

Quote
Quote
Likewise, if they donít solve the other technical issues, it wonít matter how low the launch costs are.  Being ďsolved in principleĒ isnít really good enough, and Iím not sure thatís exactly true either.
There have been extensive studies done on space based solar. China is launching their first test bed later this year / next year. USA military has done massive studies on this. And now ESA is on it. All 3 of these institutes have enough confidence in the technological readiness that they are pushing forward on it. Europe specifically wants zero carbon 24/7 energy. There are a lot of technical issues to solve, but most of them are along the lines of, "how do you assemble a 4km wide solar collector in space". You solve this by launching people in space. None of them are fundamental show stoppers.

I think you might be underestimating the challenges.  They might not be show stoppers, but need to be solved as much as launch costs, which takes considerable time and resources.  Also, I believe automated assembly is one of the things they are working on to make it feasible large scale.

Quote
Quote
And that was one of the main drivers for the first treaty on responsible use of space.

Quote
Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris.

Which should be stopped.

But it did not, because no one regulates governments. If you put all your power in governments, then you have no regulations at all. If you put your power in corporations, then at least you still have regulations from government. Your options are no regulations vs regulations.

NASA, the ESA, JSA etc donít blow up satellites in orbit.  That would be the military and the US hasnít done it since the Cold War.

Are you suggesting we give the power of anti satellite weapons to private companies and then regulate them not to use them? 

This argument makes no sense, and has nothing to do with my point, which is whether systems like Starlink present a significant risk. 

Quote
Quote
There are currently about 2000 Starlink satellites in orbit, but plans are to increase it to 40000.  And thereís at least 6 other companies wanting to do the same.  That compares to about 5000 total operational satellites in orbit now.  The US Space Surveillance Network is tracking about 22000 objects in orbit, including the operational satellites.  Although there are many more objects too small to track.

Anyway, Iím not just pulling my concerns out of my arse, there are several experts who cite Starlink as the current biggest collision risk, and theyíre just getting started:

In August 2021, Hugh Lewis, the head of the Astronautics Research Group at the University of Southampton, U.K. and Europe's leading space debris expert, told Space.com that Starlink satellites represent the single main sources of collision risk in low Earth orbit.

According to computer models, at that time, Starlink satellites were involved every week in about 1,600 encounters between two spacecraft closer than 0.6 miles (1 kilometer). That's about 50% of all such incidents. This number rises with every new batch of satellites launched into space. By the time Starlink deploys all 12,000 satellites of its first-generation constellation it could reach 90%, Lewis said.

Lewis also expressed concerns that Starlink's operator SpaceX, a newcomer into the satellite business, is now the single most dominant player in the field whose decisions can affect safety of all operations in low Earth orbit.


https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

Starlink sats are very low. They fly far below the ISS or Hubble. If there is a collision, they will deorbit in weeks. Everyone is scared of satellite collisions, and rightfully so. Its not cool when things break up there. But this is a problem humanity needs to figure out. Because China and Russia are also planning there multi-thousand sat constellations, and they wont care about US astronomers or collisions concern half as much as SpaceX does.

Incorrect, they are in orbit below most other satellites, but above the ISS and Chinese stations.  You may be confusing their initial orbit with their operational orbit.

Iíve already said, Iím just as concerned about other companies doing the same thing.  And Iíd be equally concerned about similar plans from national agencies.

You seem to be a big fan of SpaceX and are defending it to the hilt, but Iím just talking about the general idea of putting tens or hundreds of thousands more satellites in LEO.  Because a lot of experts say itís risky.  SpaceX are just ahead at the moment.

I notice you donít say anything about the link I gave, btw.

Quote
Quote
They should ALL be better regulated, through international treaties.
The US tends to avoid signing international treaties when it does not suit them. And China wont be signing anything that they dont want to either. No way to force them other than war. And I dont suspect Russia will be signing anything with the US or Europe any time soon.
So we are still back to completely unregulatable governments, or regulated private industry.
I will rather go for private industry that can be held accountable for their actions.

The US reluctance to sign treaties it doesnít like applies just as much to US businesses as it does to national agencies. 

You seem determined to make this into a private sector vs public sector argument, as opposed to talking about the risks of this kind of system.  Interesting.

Quote
Quote
PS. Good to hear about the new possible launch.
Be prepared for a lot of scrubs. This is not criticism, its just rockets.
The SLS is based off the space shuttle that had about 1 scrub for every launch attempt. They got every second attempt right, so lets hope Sat goes well.

Of course, itís not easy.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42480
Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2022, 02:01:48 PM »
Every rocket launch invests in future capability that will drop costs further down the road.
Unless you have a NASA style cost plus contract, of course.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: SLS launches in 4 days
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2022, 06:48:21 AM »
Not looking too good.  Hazardous hydrogen leaks apparently.

Use more PTFE tape maybe?