Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Verge)   NASA trying to turn Orion off and on again   (theverge.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, Kennedy Space Center, Rocket, Lockheed Martin, Orion, Lockheed, Orion's primary contractor, early November, Artemis program  
•       •       •

811 clicks; posted to STEM » on 01 Dec 2020 at 1:01 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



15 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-12-01 12:12:39 PM  
Meanwhile...


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-12-01 1:11:35 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-12-01 1:13:53 PM  

edmo: Meanwhile...


[Fark user image 184x118]


Yeah.

If and when they do manage to launch an Orion on an SLS to the moon, they'll be a couple Starships waiting there for it.
 
2020-12-01 1:15:53 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size


If NASA wants to turn him on, more power to them.   Not my kink.
 
2020-12-01 1:32:32 PM  
How do you turn off and on again a star, let alone an entire constellation?
 
2020-12-01 1:33:02 PM  
I was hoping for it to be the Project Orion nuclear powered rocket engine.
 
2020-12-01 1:47:11 PM  
How is that Space X can produce entirely new rockets in a fraction of the time it takes NASA to change a card. Also wo wants to fly in something that takes a year on the ground to fix an electronics issue?
 
2020-12-01 1:50:45 PM  
No user serviceable parts inside.
 
2020-12-01 2:04:10 PM  

FrancoFile: edmo: Meanwhile...


[Fark user image 184x118]

Yeah.

If and when they do manage to launch an Orion on an SLS to the moon, they'll be a couple Starships waiting there for it.


And probably a Chinese lander or two.  The whole Chinese mission that just landed on the moon is unbelievably complicated (orbit Earth, re-arrange things, go to Moon, undock, land, dock, transfer stuff, undock, return to Earth, make more adjustments...).

Either A: the Chinese don't know how to plan a mission, B: somebody forced them to bring waaay too much moon rock back, or C: they are practicing for a full-blown Moon mission.  Since this is Fark.com, I have to go with C.

Musk considers the Chinese his rivals, certainly not ULA (and is probably less worried about Blue Origin as time goes on and they don't produce another rocket).  Then again, Musk isn't exactly stable and is good at results.  Analysis is less clear.
 
2020-12-01 2:04:50 PM  

eyeq360: I was hoping for it to be the Project Orion nuclear powered rocket engine.


Yeah, no.  That was banned in 1963.

Unfortunately.
 
2020-12-01 2:13:35 PM  
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2020-12-01 2:18:20 PM  

Gerald Tarrant: How is that Space X can produce entirely new rockets in a fraction of the time it takes NASA to change a card. Also wo wants to fly in something that takes a year on the ground to fix an electronics issue?


Both the SLS program and SpaceX are performing as designed.  SpaceX exists to launch payloads and passengers.  SLS and Orion exist to channel money to aerospace contractors.  Efficient workflows decrease the quantity of money channeled to those contractors.
 
2020-12-01 2:20:03 PM  
heres a neat trick for space pod maintenance.
when something breaks imagine you need to fix it ASAP because your family is locked in an airtight freezer and you can't let them out until your shift is over when the part is fixed.
did you make it?  if you didnt then your shiat is not ready to fly.
 
2020-12-01 2:40:35 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: And probably a Chinese lander or two. The whole Chinese mission that just landed on the moon is unbelievably complicated (orbit Earth, re-arrange things, go to Moon, undock, land, dock, transfer stuff, undock, return to Earth, make more adjustments...).


There weren't any rearrangements in Earth orbit, as far as I know.  Just a short wait in a parking orbit until it reached the proper latitude for the trans-lunar burn.

Either A: the Chinese don't know how to plan a mission, B: somebody forced them to bring waaay too much moon rock back, or C: they are practicing for a full-blown Moon mission. Since this is Fark.com, I have to go with C.

I don't know if B requires anybody forcing things -- how much is enough to study?  Nobody's holding a gun to China's head to launch lunar missions at all, so it's a question of ambition.  They clearly wanted to do more than a Luna 16-style mission, which probably could have returned a few hundred grams.  I expect that was a combination of wanting more rock for the scientists to play with, wanting to be seen doing more than repeating an old Soviet mission, and practicing for a crewed lunar mission or robotic Mars sample return where the rendezvous would be indispensable.
 
2020-12-01 2:58:23 PM  

Gerald Tarrant: How is that Space X can produce entirely new rockets in a fraction of the time it takes NASA to change a card.


SpaceX utilizes an rapid iterative process that is based around failure being not only an option, but a necessity.  After building out a basic idea, they keep destroying them to find the weak spots so they can be reinforced.  This is the case with the main tank welds, the pressure release puck and other areas.

Musk has come right out and said that the upcoming 50,000ft test of Starship has a 33% chance of success.  They'll see what works and what doesn't, and improve upon it.  SN8 hasn't even launched yet and SN9 and 10 are already being built.

Meanwhile, the "old guard" way of designing ships are with a cost-plus arrangement that guarantees profits for the primary contractor.  They over-engineer everything on paper and digitally until their mouse balls deflate (literally in the past, figuratively now), then build out with absolutely no worry to cost.  It is a bureaucratic machine that is as much about political handouts (via jobs supplied to as many States as possible) as it is about actually succeeding at anything.  Put simply, it's s social welfare program as much as it is a STEM one.

If you extrapolate out the amount SpaceX has received to operate the flights (7 including Demo 1) over the total expected passenger load (26, 2 on Demo and 6 flights of 4), the total cost ends up being $600M to date to get the first 6 to the ISS.  After the initial contract the cost will go down as subsequent contracts will not have to factor in R&D/engineering costs.   NASA currently places a "cost-per-seat" of $55M for Dragon and $90M for Starliner, so subtracting the R&D portion you end up with $330M "seat" costs to get those 6 there.

Meanwhile, NASA will have spent $17B on SLS by the end of FY2020 without even having a test launch anywhere close due to continued delays and overruns.  Even once (and IF) regular SLS flights occur, they will far surpass $1B per candle lit.

Part of the SLS "social welfare" component was decreeing by law that certain missions could ONLY fly on SLS regardless of how long it takes to build.  One example is the Europa Clipper.  Even that has turned into a boondoggle now as they have found vibration issues with the launch stack that could cause the probe to shake apart on launch.  This is going to take at least a year and a lot of money to fix, on top of the $30M/yr it's costing NASA just to store the completed probe.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.