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.

(Washington Post)   Houston, we've had a problem   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Kennedy Space Center, Rocket, Saturn V, Spacecraft propulsion, NASA, Moon, SLS rocket program manager, Space Shuttle  
•       •       •

1932 clicks; posted to STEM » on 17 Jan 2021 at 9:36 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



51 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-01-17 9:35:04 AM  
Another article here:
Ars Technica
 
2021-01-17 9:55:29 AM  
A successful test would have been a complete disaster.  The end of the cost plus phase.  When the cost plus phase ends, the project is OVER.  It'll fly two or three times and then get put into the museum of human waste and greed.
 
2021-01-17 10:01:13 AM  
"I don't know much more about that than you do. ... Any parameter that went awry on the rocket could send that failure ID."

even on industrial equipment we've gotten away from general alarm faults decades ago.  Even the simpliest have fault strings to at least narrow it down.
 
2021-01-17 10:12:25 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: "I don't know much more about that than you do. ... Any parameter that went awry on the rocket could send that failure ID."

even on industrial equipment we've gotten away from general alarm faults decades ago.  Even the simpliest have fault strings to at least narrow it down.


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2021-01-17 11:01:45 AM  
Buy some engines from Musk. He seems to have worked out a lot of problems.
 
2021-01-17 11:41:11 AM  
The rocket hit a giant paywall and exploded.
 
2021-01-17 12:57:22 PM  
Personally i'd rather have the failures happen during testing than at an actual launch when astronauts lives at stake.   So i am in general ok with this, no lives lost and hopefully the data gained will help fix the issue and make improvements.
 
2021-01-17 1:30:08 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: "I don't know much more about that than you do. ... Any parameter that went awry on the rocket could send that failure ID."

even on industrial equipment we've gotten away from general alarm faults decades ago.  Even the simpliest have fault strings to at least narrow it down.


Shoot, my van has fault strings.  Yeah, there's a "Check engine light", but anything wrong* with the drive train has a code.

*except for the "no start", because the subsystem that records the problem was the problem (didn't like cold weather) and it kept clearing its memory when the temperature went above freezing.
 
2021-01-17 1:40:07 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: A successful test would have been a complete disaster.  The end of the cost plus phase.  When the cost plus phase ends, the project is OVER.  It'll fly two or three times and then get put into the museum of human waste and greed.


The commercial stuff will fly commercial things and line up with government research needs fairly often.  It won't line up with some needs, though. And line up with military needs even less.  We need SLS as a country, to 'get there first.'  If China starts the militarization of space, which they absolutely will, we need to be ready.  Half a trillion dollars is going to seem like chump change if that side of the race gets going, let alone 20 billion or whatever it's at.

I mean ... my 2 cents, but this is an area where you want a multi-pronged attack on the problem.  With the commercial side and the government side both pushing in parallel and coming up with different results, I see us being way, WAY ahead in 10 years.  And I personally like that.  A lot.
 
2021-01-17 2:16:54 PM  
Congress needs to keep its corpulent mitts off anything related to science and engineering. The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound, but the non-stop looting of the treasury to support jobs in various districts (and Congressionally mandated mission-creep) has bollixed the original designs beyond repair.

Contrast the glacial pace of SLS with the technological and commercial success of SpaceX.

For FSM's sake, the Apollo program was cheaper than SLS, and took less time from concept to launch- fifty farking years ago. SLS has been in progress for a decade, and has yet to leave the ground. At this rate, SLS will finally make the trip to Luna ... in time for the 30th anniversary of the founding of the first of China's lunar colonies, Hong Kong in Luna (gotta toss in a classical reference).
 
2021-01-17 2:29:51 PM  

Wenchmaster: Congress needs to keep its corpulent mitts off anything related to science and engineering. The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound, but the non-stop looting of the treasury to support jobs in various districts (and Congressionally mandated mission-creep) has bollixed the original designs beyond repair.


FWIW, I pressed the "Smart" button on this until my finger turned purple. Yet, it only shows "1". WTF?
 
2021-01-17 2:44:39 PM  

Wenchmaster: The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound


It really wasn't.  It had a nice-sounding sales pitch (Use heritage technology so we can just Lego the parts together and fly quickly), but hydrolox first stages and solid boosters were never a good idea.  That, combined with the lumbering, top-heavy contractors and their hidebound 1970s thinking that are inextricably tied to that heritage technology, meant that SLS was going to be a crap program even without the rest of the congressional meddling.

But none of that mattered.  "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors.  It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.
 
2021-01-17 4:03:33 PM  

Destructor: Wenchmaster: Congress needs to keep its corpulent mitts off anything related to science and engineering. The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound, but the non-stop looting of the treasury to support jobs in various districts (and Congressionally mandated mission-creep) has bollixed the original designs beyond repair.

FWIW, I pressed the "Smart" button on this until my finger turned purple. Yet, it only shows "1". WTF?


Continuing Fark database problems?  I saw this a lot over the last few days.
 
2021-01-17 4:03:57 PM  

Professor Science: But none of that mattered. "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors. It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.


My smart clicking finger is now bleeding.
 
2021-01-17 4:05:15 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Continuing Fark database problems? I saw this a lot over the last few days.


I guess it would be awesome if every month or so, you could give some guy like 100 smarts. :-)
 
2021-01-17 4:05:58 PM  

Destructor: Professor Science: But none of that mattered. "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors. It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.

My smart clicking finger is now bleeding.


I just smarted you and it took.

Local browser problem?  I got nothing.

For what it's worth, I'm currently using Dolphin on Android 11 on my phone.
 
2021-01-17 4:07:20 PM  

Destructor: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Continuing Fark database problems? I saw this a lot over the last few days.

I guess it would be awesome if every month or so, you could give some guy like 100 smarts. :-)


Tried refreshing the page?  Just grasping at straws here...
 
2021-01-17 4:11:16 PM  

Destructor: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Continuing Fark database problems? I saw this a lot over the last few days.

I guess it would be awesome if every month or so, you could give some guy like 100 smarts. :-)


OH!  Before I forget!

SpaceX Falcon 9 Starlink launch tomorrow morning (01/18/2021) at 8:45 AM EST.

Two records set if this goes off as planned:

1) EIGHTH flight for this booster

2) New record for booster turnaround - 36 days since its most recent flight.  Current record is 51 days.
 
2021-01-17 4:21:07 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: SpaceX Falcon 9 Starlink launch tomorrow morning (01/18/2021) at 8:45 AM EST.


I will try to be there. Should be spectacular!!!

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: 1) EIGHTH flight for this booster

2) New record for booster turnaround - 36 days since its most recent flight. Current record is 51 days


Simply breathtaking.
 
2021-01-17 5:09:07 PM  

Professor Science: Wenchmaster: The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound

It really wasn't.  It had a nice-sounding sales pitch (Use heritage technology so we can just Lego the parts together and fly quickly), but hydrolox first stages and solid boosters were never a good idea.  That, combined with the lumbering, top-heavy contractors and their hidebound 1970s thinking that are inextricably tied to that heritage technology, meant that SLS was going to be a crap program even without the rest of the congressional meddling.

But none of that mattered.  "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors.  It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.


I forget where I read this, but...

NASA spent hundreds of millions of dollars to perfect the highly efficient and reusable Space Shuttle Main Engine,

Then spent a couple of billion more to make them single-use.
 
2021-01-17 6:51:30 PM  
Got to give space x some props for how they handle testing. Or at least the messaging around testing. "If it lights, yay! If it goes boom, awesome - we learned something new! Next 3 prototypes are already in production." . Here, "we get one test and it better go perfect... It didn't go perfect."
 
2021-01-17 7:13:38 PM  

Professor Science: Wenchmaster: The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound

It really wasn't.  It had a nice-sounding sales pitch (Use heritage technology so we can just Lego the parts together and fly quickly), but hydrolox first stages and solid boosters were never a good idea.  That, combined with the lumbering, top-heavy contractors and their hidebound 1970s thinking that are inextricably tied to that heritage technology, meant that SLS was going to be a crap program even without the rest of the congressional meddling.

But none of that mattered.  "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors.  It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.


And Truman-like hearings on waste fraud and abuse should prove it emasculate Shelby and his corrupt welfare for Alabama once and for all.

Again: move all Federal programs to Blue states.
 
2021-01-17 7:14:11 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Destructor: Wenchmaster: Congress needs to keep its corpulent mitts off anything related to science and engineering. The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound, but the non-stop looting of the treasury to support jobs in various districts (and Congressionally mandated mission-creep) has bollixed the original designs beyond repair.

FWIW, I pressed the "Smart" button on this until my finger turned purple. Yet, it only shows "1". WTF?

Continuing Fark database problems?  I saw this a lot over the last few days.


All Hail the Glow Clou....
 
2021-01-17 7:32:25 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-17 7:45:50 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: A successful test would have been a complete disaster.  The end of the cost plus phase.  When the cost plus phase ends, the project is OVER.  It'll fly two or three times and then get put into the museum of human waste and greed.


no biggie

the public (taxes) is paying for everything.
 
2021-01-17 7:50:44 PM  

Wenchmaster: Congress needs to keep its corpulent mitts off anything related to science and engineering. The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound, but the non-stop looting of the treasury to support jobs in various districts (and Congressionally mandated mission-creep) has bollixed the original designs beyond repair.

Contrast the glacial pace of SLS with the technological and commercial success of SpaceX.

For FSM's sake, the Apollo program was cheaper than SLS, and took less time from concept to launch- fifty farking years ago. SLS has been in progress for a decade, and has yet to leave the ground. At this rate, SLS will finally make the trip to Luna ... in time for the 30th anniversary of the founding of the first of China's lunar colonies, Hong Kong in Luna (gotta toss in a classical reference).


lazy sit at home stock owners who love socialism hate you!!

get a job!
 
2021-01-17 7:52:04 PM  

rej1138: Professor Science: Wenchmaster: The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound

It really wasn't.  It had a nice-sounding sales pitch (Use heritage technology so we can just Lego the parts together and fly quickly), but hydrolox first stages and solid boosters were never a good idea.  That, combined with the lumbering, top-heavy contractors and their hidebound 1970s thinking that are inextricably tied to that heritage technology, meant that SLS was going to be a crap program even without the rest of the congressional meddling.

But none of that mattered.  "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors.  It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.

I forget where I read this, but...

NASA spent hundreds of millions of dollars to perfect the highly efficient and reusable Space Shuttle Main Engine,

Then spent a couple of billion more to make them single-use.


NASA didn't spend shiat.

you, the Taxpayer, did.
 
2021-01-17 7:52:54 PM  

Destructor: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: SpaceX Falcon 9 Starlink launch tomorrow morning (01/18/2021) at 8:45 AM EST.

I will try to be there. Should be spectacular!!!

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: 1) EIGHTH flight for this booster

2) New record for booster turnaround - 36 days since its most recent flight. Current record is 51 days

Simply breathtaking.



skeet skeet!!
 
2021-01-17 7:54:10 PM  

Professor Science: Wenchmaster: The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound

It really wasn't.  It had a nice-sounding sales pitch (Use heritage technology so we can just Lego the parts together and fly quickly), but hydrolox first stages and solid boosters were never a good idea.  That, combined with the lumbering, top-heavy contractors and their hidebound 1970s thinking that are inextricably tied to that heritage technology, meant that SLS was going to be a crap program even without the rest of the congressional meddling.

But none of that mattered.  "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors.  It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.



and???

the stock owners kinda' like it.
 
2021-01-17 8:30:26 PM  
and

Linux_Yes: NASA didn't spend shiat.

you, the Taxpayer, did.


I'm fine with my tax dollars going to a space program.  There is plenty of stupid waste that any of us could argue about when it comes to govt spending.

The problem is the main, or one of the main, vendors here has in the last year or so proven they can't safely design a commercial jet, can't safely test launch their space crew capsule, and now can't safely test fire their blockbuster rocket.

At some point you have to have the ability to tell them fix it on their own dime or piss off.
 
2021-01-17 9:07:39 PM  

Destructor: Buy some engines from Musk. He seems to have worked out a lot of problems.


Yeah, he's still got a few kinks to work out on his super-heavy class rocket too.

media4.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2021-01-17 10:45:13 PM  

rightClick: and Linux_Yes: NASA didn't spend shiat.

you, the Taxpayer, did.

I'm fine with my tax dollars going to a space program.  There is plenty of stupid waste that any of us could argue about when it comes to govt spending.

The problem is the main, or one of the main, vendors here has in the last year or so proven they can't safely design a commercial jet, can't safely test launch their space crew capsule, and now can't safely test fire their blockbuster rocket.

At some point you have to have the ability to tell them fix it on their own dime or piss off.


But that vendor used your tax money to buy the right senators or congress folk.  The very people who are supposed to represent you, the taxpayer, is being bought by the taxes you paid, to keep the vendor in the gravy.  You paid, but you are getting the shaft.  Meanwhile the parties who are supposed to do a job are just sucking down that sweet tax money.  And they are telling you to keep paying, or you go to prison.  Where you might be forced into nonconsenting butt sex, by a murderer.
 
2021-01-17 11:40:21 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Professor Science: Wenchmaster: The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound

It really wasn't.  It had a nice-sounding sales pitch (Use heritage technology so we can just Lego the parts together and fly quickly), but hydrolox first stages and solid boosters were never a good idea.  That, combined with the lumbering, top-heavy contractors and their hidebound 1970s thinking that are inextricably tied to that heritage technology, meant that SLS was going to be a crap program even without the rest of the congressional meddling.

But none of that mattered.  "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors.  It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.

And Truman-like hearings on waste fraud and abuse should prove it emasculate Shelby and his corrupt welfare for Alabama once and for all.

Again: move all Federal programs to Blue states.


Yay!  Lets repeat the f&@king stupid idea.
 
2021-01-17 11:48:58 PM  

Professor Science: Wenchmaster: The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound

It really wasn't.  It had a nice-sounding sales pitch (Use heritage technology so we can just Lego the parts together and fly quickly), but hydrolox first stages and solid boosters were never a good idea.  That, combined with the lumbering, top-heavy contractors and their hidebound 1970s thinking that are inextricably tied to that heritage technology, meant that SLS was going to be a crap program even without the rest of the congressional meddling.

But none of that mattered.  "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors.  It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.


We should definitely just quit being in space.  And stop trying.  We don't really have any need to compete with the other space-capable countries.  Once the Chinese steal everything Elon has, let them do all the hard work and we can just ride along when they let us.  Like we did with Russia for nearly a decade.  As for military technology, what is China gonna do in space?  Nothing.  They wouldn't try to take over the world, no matter how easy it would be.  I'm sure Taiwan is totally safe, and Japan, and South Korea.  No advantage to space based weapons at all, from what I can see.
 
2021-01-18 1:58:50 AM  

Invincible: If it goes boom, awesome - we learned something new!


If it goes 'boom', it destroys a multi-million dollar test stand or launch pad which will take a very long time to rebuild.
 
2021-01-18 4:43:52 AM  
SLS is not in space, had not launched, and barely resembles a system
 
2021-01-18 4:55:05 AM  
From TFA:  "But NASA said it recently had made significant progress, and on Saturday, the agency and Boeing had hoped a successful test would place the program on course to return astronauts to the moon for the first time since 1972."

Just a heads up, everybody, and hold onto your hats:  NASA lied.

Not Sure If A CSB:  When my Dad worked for NASA in the early-90s, he was tasked with designing a really high-speed engine inlet for a project that later got cancelled.  Now, the specs ticked his memory, and he did some digging - a lot of the baseline work for this sort of thing had been done during the XB-70 Valkyrie project (with handy XB-70 pic for reference)

Fark user imageView Full Size


Dad found literal buildings worth of XB-70 test data in the NASA archives, and was actually rather proud of himself when he went to his leadership to give them the good news:  they could skip months of research and design, and millions of dollars of work.

Since you're on Fark, you know what happened next, but I'll just go over the low points:  He was told in no uncertain terms to never do anything like this again, and the test data was later sequestered.  NASA didn't want information and data, they wanted money to reinvent the wheel on a regular basis.  They haven't changed a bit, and they never, ever will.

/Elon will have guys on the Moon, and NASA will still be trying to get SLS to work.
//For just a few billion more dollars
 
2021-01-18 7:24:50 AM  

Befuddled: Invincible: If it goes boom, awesome - we learned something new!

If it goes 'boom', it destroys a multi-million dollar test stand or launch pad which will take a very long time to rebuild.


So smaller booms earlier in the process, then? How much did this test stand cost and how many times are they going to use it? I suspect the answers are "a lot" and "never".
 
2021-01-18 8:41:42 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: From TFA:  "But NASA said it recently had made significant progress, and on Saturday, the agency and Boeing had hoped a successful test would place the program on course to return astronauts to the moon for the first time since 1972."

Just a heads up, everybody, and hold onto your hats:  NASA lied.

Not Sure If A CSB:  When my Dad worked for NASA in the early-90s, he was tasked with designing a really high-speed engine inlet for a project that later got cancelled.  Now, the specs ticked his memory, and he did some digging - a lot of the baseline work for this sort of thing had been done during the XB-70 Valkyrie project (with handy XB-70 pic for reference)

[Fark user image image 800x629]

Dad found literal buildings worth of XB-70 test data in the NASA archives, and was actually rather proud of himself when he went to his leadership to give them the good news:  they could skip months of research and design, and millions of dollars of work.

Since you're on Fark, you know what happened next, but I'll just go over the low points:  He was told in no uncertain terms to never do anything like this again, and the test data was later sequestered.  NASA didn't want information and data, they wanted money to reinvent the wheel on a regular basis.  They haven't changed a bit, and they never, ever will.

/Elon will have guys on the Moon, and NASA will still be trying to get SLS to work.
//For just a few billion more dollars


The way it's going, it's gonna be Elon, Elon's baby girl, Elon's friends, Jeff, Richard, the Chinese, and the guys from Copenhagen Suborbitals partying it up on the Moon to welcome NASA bringing in the latest addition to the Buzz Aldrin Moon Museum of Technology: the first (and only) SLS moon rocket.
 
2021-01-18 8:51:03 AM  
I went to OAN's website last night (so you don't have to) and the headline for this story was "NASA tests largest rocket in the world".  Gotta keep that "We're #1" theme coursing through the headlines.
 
2021-01-18 9:14:21 AM  

Professor Science: Wenchmaster: The basic engineering concept for SLS was sound

It really wasn't.  It had a nice-sounding sales pitch (Use heritage technology so we can just Lego the parts together and fly quickly), but hydrolox first stages and solid boosters were never a good idea.  That, combined with the lumbering, top-heavy contractors and their hidebound 1970s thinking that are inextricably tied to that heritage technology, meant that SLS was going to be a crap program even without the rest of the congressional meddling.

But none of that mattered.  "Shuttle heritage technology" was never selected for its engineering merits, but for the continuity of funding to politically connected contractors.  It's been a corporate welfare program since day 1.


The concept itself was sound from an engineering perspective. In lieu of inventing new equipment and control systems, use off-the-shelf designs which have actually flown successfully and combine them to handle the Earth-Luna-Earth trip. IIRC, there were several design proposals considered, but NASA went with SLS because of a cultural preference for the "bigger hammer" approach (largely to appeal to Congress by comparing the design to the Saturn V).

The execution- muddled and fumble-fingered to death by political considerations- sucked ass. The suckage was mostly due to political appeasement by NASA administrators, who once again ignored the engineers in favor of catering to the whims of politicians. Then came the mission creep- partly political, and partly from the NASA tradition of trying to squeeze the absolute maximum utility out of the piddling sums Congress gives the agency.

In lieu of building massive lifters to carry huge amounts of fuel, equipment, and crew to Luna and back in one long maneuver, break the trip into stages. Use smaller rockets to preposition equipment and fuel in Earth orbit, then launch the crew to meet the equipment there. Transfer crew to the spacecraft which will make the trip to Luna and back carrying the lander/ascent module, then boost to Lunar orbit. Landing crew descends to the surface in the landing/ascent module. Science and propaganda ensues (not necessarily in that order). Away team launches from surface in ascent module. Ascent module links up with transfer craft in Lunar orbit. Spacecraft leaves ascent module in Lunar orbit and boosts for home. Crew transfers from orbit-to-orbit spacecraft to the Earth landing module, leaving the spacecraft in Earth orbit.

The orbit-to-orbit spacecraft can be re-used multiple times simply by refueling it in orbit.. Properly designed, the Lunar descent module could also be re-used. Any time someone wants to return to Luna, we pre-launch fuel and other equipment to Earth orbit before sending the crew(s) up to meet it. None of this requires a ginormous honkin' rocket- just a bunch of smaller lifters for the hideously expensive task of getting up out of Earth's gravity well. All of the above could be scaled up slightly to accomplish manned missions elsewhere in the system, too.

And all of it with off-the-shelf equipment and technology.
 
2021-01-18 9:29:40 AM  

Wenchmaster: The execution- muddled and fumble-fingered to death by political considerations- sucked ass. The suckage was mostly due to political appeasement by NASA administrators, who once again ignored the engineers in favor of catering to the whims of politicians.


Bingo! The actual problem.

Everybody talks about how it took 10 years.  Nobody talks about how it was shut down for a few of those years.  Or how it was supposed to just be a cargo rocket for a few of those years.  Which gets us back down to about 6 actual years of development, with everybody shiatting on it the whole time.  And everybody else trying to railroad it with special projects.

All four rockets lit up, the electronics system shut down properly when a fault was detected, and they may have to replace a sensor or upgrade a blanket or something?

Looks like a good test.  It was just a technical failure.  Which I'm told is the best kind of failure.
 
2021-01-18 12:21:47 PM  

hodgemann: I went to OAN's website last night (so you don't have to) and the headline for this story was "NASA tests largest rocket in the world".  Gotta keep that "We're #1" theme coursing through the headlines.

Technically

, they're correct.


SLS will hold that title for a month or two while SpaceX builds the first Super Heavy.

Anyone knows what the Vegas line is on whether Super Heavy flies before SLS?
 
2021-01-18 12:57:11 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Anyone knows what the Vegas line is on whether Super Heavy flies before SLS?


No idea how Vegas feels, but I'll bet my last quatloo on Super Heavy.  This delay pretty well kills off the last shred of a chance that SLS would fly in 2021.  I haven't been able to keep up with the latest forecasts out of SpaceX, but I'd expect a Super Heavy test flight before summer.  If you want to restrict "Super Heavy flies" to meaning that the Super Heavy/Starship stack puts a vehicle in orbit, things get a bit less certain but I'd still lean strongly against SLS.
 
2021-01-18 1:53:58 PM  

Professor Science: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Anyone knows what the Vegas line is on whether Super Heavy flies before SLS?

No idea how Vegas feels, but I'll bet my last quatloo on Super Heavy.  This delay pretty well kills off the last shred of a chance that SLS would fly in 2021.  I haven't been able to keep up with the latest forecasts out of SpaceX, but I'd expect a Super Heavy test flight before summer.  If you want to restrict "Super Heavy flies" to meaning that the Super Heavy/Starship stack puts a vehicle in orbit, things get a bit less certain but I'd still lean strongly against SLS.


I get why China and Russia want it to fail.  Why is everyone else hoping it fails?  Even SpaceX doesn't want it to fail.  As long as it's there, and everyone else is behind SLS once it's up, he gets multi-tiered bragging rights.  So aside from foreign interests, who wants it to fail?

I've noticed everyone biatches about new stuff and how much it costs, every single time.  From the Roman spear upgrades, to the first Trebuchet, all the way up through the VTOL, and Rockets.  Even things like the Osprey, or the F-35?  Might have the wrong # for that one.  I hear endless biatching, but when you really look at the arms races, those keep us ahead on an exponential curve where we're the only ones left who can afford to be ahead.

We'd be even better off if we didn't constantly have leaks like the post-WW2 nuke leaks, or the 'surprise everything looks like our F15' leaks, or whatever.  So ... again, why the hate for SLS?  I was actually pissed off that they diverted money for SLS to the stupid border wall.  I'd MUCH rather have that spent on SLS.  Yeah, you can spend it on bread, but charities can do that if you let them.  The big stuff needs a less-than-starved NASA and space force.

My semi-informed 2 cents.  I suspect I'm missing some major point or another, but .... heck, Civ2 taught me to build the rockets.
 
2021-01-18 2:05:40 PM  

aungen: Professor Science: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Anyone knows what the Vegas line is on whether Super Heavy flies before SLS?

No idea how Vegas feels, but I'll bet my last quatloo on Super Heavy.  This delay pretty well kills off the last shred of a chance that SLS would fly in 2021.  I haven't been able to keep up with the latest forecasts out of SpaceX, but I'd expect a Super Heavy test flight before summer.  If you want to restrict "Super Heavy flies" to meaning that the Super Heavy/Starship stack puts a vehicle in orbit, things get a bit less certain but I'd still lean strongly against SLS.

I get why China and Russia want it to fail.  Why is everyone else hoping it fails?  Even SpaceX doesn't want it to fail.  As long as it's there, and everyone else is behind SLS once it's up, he gets multi-tiered bragging rights.  So aside from foreign interests, who wants it to fail?

I've noticed everyone biatches about new stuff and how much it costs, every single time.  From the Roman spear upgrades, to the first Trebuchet, all the way up through the VTOL, and Rockets.  Even things like the Osprey, or the F-35?  Might have the wrong # for that one.  I hear endless biatching, but when you really look at the arms races, those keep us ahead on an exponential curve where we're the only ones left who can afford to be ahead.

We'd be even better off if we didn't constantly have leaks like the post-WW2 nuke leaks, or the 'surprise everything looks like our F15' leaks, or whatever.  So ... again, why the hate for SLS?  I was actually pissed off that they diverted money for SLS to the stupid border wall.  I'd MUCH rather have that spent on SLS.  Yeah, you can spend it on bread, but charities can do that if you let them.  The big stuff needs a less-than-starved NASA and space force.

My semi-informed 2 cents.  I suspect I'm missing some major point or another, but .... heck, Civ2 taught me to build the rockets.


I absolutely do not want SLS to fail, though I can see how it might appear that way.  What I want to fail is the current way Congress / NASA does business.  I want NASA to be freed from micromanagement by peabrains in government that cannot see further than a two-year election cycle and don't care how many astronauts are killed and how much money is wasted as long as the Holy Pork (and Votes) continue to flow.

I want an end to the Cost-Plus contracts, and the arrogant complacency where the powers that be keep their heads buried in the sand like ostriches, proudly proclaiming that SLS is "the most powerful rocket in the world", as if Starship / Super Heavy isn't breathing down their necks.

But the engineers and technicians who are actually building the thing?  Best of luck to ya, mates!  It's a tough job, and yer bosses are making it ten times harder.  I don't know how you manage to stick it out.  Folks are right, though, when they say that having more than one option is a good thing.

But Damn!  The desire to see something kick Sen. Shelby in the balls is *SO* strong!
 
2021-01-18 3:39:45 PM  
Wenchmaster: In lieu of building massive lifters to carry huge amounts of fuel, equipment, and crew to Luna and back in one long maneuver, break the trip into stages. Use smaller rockets to preposition equipment and fuel in Earth orbit, then launch the crew to meet the equipment there. Transfer crew to the spacecraft which will make the trip to Luna and back carrying the lander/ascent module, then boost to Lunar orbit. Landing crew descends to the surface in the landing/ascent module. Science and propaganda ensues (not necessarily in that order). Away team launches from surface in ascent module. Ascent module links up with transfer craft in Lunar orbit. Spacecraft leaves ascent module in Lunar orbit and boosts for home. Crew transfers from orbit-to-orbit spacecraft to the Earth landing module, leaving the spacecraft in Earth orbit.

The orbit-to-orbit spacecraft can be re-used multiple times simply by refueling it in orbit.. Properly designed, the Lunar descent module could also be re-used. Any time someone wants to return to Luna, we pre-launch fuel and other equipment to Earth orbit before sending the crew(s) up to meet it. None of this requires a ginormous honkin' rocket- just a bunch of smaller lifters for the hideously expensive task of getting up out of Earth's gravity well. All of the above could be scaled up slightly to accomplish manned missions elsewhere in the system, too.


Someone read the book version of The Martian.  Something similar is exactly how they did the Aries missions to Mars.
 
2021-01-18 4:30:07 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: I absolutely do not want SLS to fail, though I can see how it might appear that way. What I want to fail is the current way Congress / NASA does business. I want NASA to be freed from micromanagement by peabrains in government that cannot see further than a two-year election cycle and don't care how many astronauts are killed and how much money is wasted as long as the Holy Pork (and Votes) continue to flow.

I want an end to the Cost-Plus contracts, and the arrogant complacency where the powers that be keep their heads buried in the sand like ostriches, proudly proclaiming that SLS is "the most powerful rocket in the world", as if Starship / Super Heavy isn't breathing down their necks.

But the engineers and technicians who are actually building the thing? Best of luck to ya, mates! It's a tough job, and yer bosses are making it ten times harder. I don't know how you manage to stick it out. Folks are right, though, when they say that having more than one option is a good thing.

But Damn! The desire to see something kick Sen. Shelby in the balls is *SO* strong!


That makes a lot of sense.  I bet those guys are real tired of politicians, as well.  The Shuttle was basically 1/3 of the big vision, and we settled big-time.  We've been half-arsing it for a long, long time.  Politicians are equally the only way it could have happened, and the single biggest problem with getting it done.  Personally, I want to see people on the moon, and want to see that orbital thing, and then the real trip to Mars.

That is literally my dream come true.  NASA tested on us while we were at the south pole.  The darkness, isolation, extreme cold, low oxygen environment.  They watched for physical, mental, and social influence of the time spent in isolation.  We took tests every week, and it was hard to watch - things I could do a month ago were just out of my reach, suddenly.  And it got worse, and worse.  But the therapies did seem to help those who weren't in the control group (like I was).
 
2021-01-18 4:42:14 PM  
Warmachine999: Someone read the book version of The Martian.  Something similar is exactly how they did the Aries missions to Mars.

No doubt someone has, but I have neither read the book nor seen the movie. Most of the text I posted is from a letter to NASA written and signed by several hundred science students and professors ... in 1983. I was one of those students.
 
2021-01-18 4:58:14 PM  

Wenchmaster: Warmachine999: Someone read the book version of The Martian.  Something similar is exactly how they did the Aries missions to Mars.

No doubt someone has, but I have neither read the book nor seen the movie. Most of the text I posted is from a letter to NASA written and signed by several hundred science students and professors ... in 1983. I was one of those students.


Well, in the interest of Science, give the original book a read.  THEN see the movie, which while somewhat true to the book did some things differently.  Not horribly different, but different enough.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


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.