Space Flight General: Wernher Von Braun Edition

[Anonymous No.10462821]

Old: 10459700

[Anonymous No.10462828]

>>10462799
Those were done after Challenger, although the reason for the failure of Challenger were the side boosters, not the RS-25. Before Challenger the turnaround cost of the Space Shuttle was actually somewhat reasonable, approx. equal to building a new one.

(copying that post in here because I liked the discussion)

[Anonymous No.10462844]

>>10462828
>approx. equal to building a new one
man they just goofed that whole program up from the beginning huh

[Anonymous No.10463040]

>>10462821
SLS is going to be OK, right?

[Anonymous No.10463071]

Bridenstine has floated the idea of using distributed lift for Orion flights.

>NASA would use two rockets: One to launch Orion into low-Earth orbit. One to launch a fully fueled upper stage. They would mate, and then Orion flies its EM-1 mission profile.

Fucking finally! This is something that spaceflight enthusiasts were begging them to do for a decade or more. Maybe even final nail in the coffin for SLS.

[Anonymous No.10463074]

>>10463071
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1105837253765550081

[Anonymous No.10463092]

>>10463074
What private rockets is he talking about? New Genn and Vulcan will come in 2021 and Falcon Heavy can't carry more than 10 tons. So Delta 4 Heavy?

[Anonymous No.10463102]

>>10463092
>Falcon Heavy can't carry more than 10 tons

It can launch 64 tons to LEO.

>inb4 muh payload adapter

Can be easily upgraded for a mere fraction of the cost of a SLS flight.

[Anonymous No.10463124]

>>10463040
Lol probably not

[Anonymous No.10463137]

>>10463092
>>10463102
Delta 4 Heavy has already launched the Orion boilerplate, it's not a human-rated vehicle but EM-1 is unmanned. Falcon Heavy can launch more, but it would require a Starliner-style aerodynamic skirt. Using any of the upcoming commercial vehicles e.g. Vulcan, NG would probably delay EM-1 even more than flying it on the SLS would.

[Anonymous No.10463145]

>>10463137
Also Delta 4 shares a second stage with SLS.

[Anonymous No.10463168]

>>10463102
Yeah, but doing that would also take time. I assume he is heavily hinting at Delta 4 Heavy, since as somebody already said it already launched an Orion so it could quickly fill in for the SLS in case that gets delayed even further.

[Anonymous No.10463176]

>>10462821
The SLS should be canned just like constellation. Over budget and behind schedule.

[Anonymous No.10463185]

Name the rockets in picrelated.

[Anonymous No.10463192]

>>10463137
The wording makes me think he is talking about several launchers being used. Orion itself will be launched on D4Heavy no doubt, but the "fully fueled upper stage" could be launched on any vehicle that is capable enough. I dont know how heavy it is but I assume even a Falcon 9 could do it. So Orion on D4H and transfer stage on Falcon 9 or Atlas 5.

[Anonymous No.10463219]

>>10463071
Bridnestein tweeted his speech

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1105859576023445506

[Anonymous No.10463243]

>>10463219
So he pretty much flat out says Orion+ESM will go on the Delta 4 Heavy.

Transfer stage is then probably going to be a Delta 4 5 meter-stage that would dock onto the Orion and put it into a return trajectory.

[Anonymous No.10463248]

GOX igniter joins the GCH4 igniter

[Anonymous No.10463321]

So to sum it up, we have gone back to the Areas I and V architecture of Constellation?

[Anonymous No.10463351]

>>10463321
Yes, but with actually good, already flying rockets instead of Areses.

[Anonymous No.10463402]

>>10463351
He is clearly talking about the Delta 4 here. That rocket is available since almost 2 decades. This decision is imho the most embarassing NASA could make. This basically acknowledges that all money spent on developing an own launch system was essentially a waste of time and money. We could have had this exact EM-1 15 years ago for the price of two Delta 4 Heavy launches.

[Anonymous No.10463520]

>>10463402
The SLS does serve a purpose as being the only possible super heavy lifter until more modern options start flying. However, the project has been so bloated and so delayed that its usefulness is getting more and more limited.

Imagine if instead of Ares I launching in 2009, SLS (or at the time Ares V) launched. Even with the amount of delays the project had at the time and the high cost per launch, SLS would still have some use (EM-1 happening sooner, and Europa clipper not having to wait). However, SLS has been so delayed and so over budget that it almost seems cheaper to just wait until BFR and New Glenn are done.

[Anonymous No.10463531]

>>10463137
>it's not a human-rated vehicle
But the SLS was going to be, after just one single launch.

[Anonymous No.10463553]

>>10463520
>and Europa clipper not having to wait
Now that they have essentially put it on Falcon Heavy, can everyone please hurry up? No fucking reason anymore this shit needs to wait until 2025.
And if Elon doesn't want to expend a Falcon Heavy for this, I'll find him and kick him in the shins.

[Anonymous No.10463559]

>>10463520
There is a reason why the EM-1 can be done so easily by the Delta 4, it's because the SLS is basically a Delta 4 with solid boosters attached. So if they are now going with the in-orbit assembly architecture this raises some serious questions over why they didn't do that from the beginning. You can indeed do any SLS mission on a Delta 4 by simply developing a tanker-like upper stage that has no payload cabin, but a enlarged fuel tank instead, and attaches on the capsule.

[Anonymous No.10463563]

>>10463531
To be fair towards NASA. They have complete control over the specifications of the parts that go into SLS along with complete control over the testing to "human rate" said parts. NASA can be confident that the SLS is safe for humans to ride on after one launch.

However, NASA can't guarantee that a rocket being made outside of the agency can be safe without significant scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.10463567]

>>10463559
Look, they already did unmanned Orion on a Delta IV Heavy, and it went nowhere near far enough to reach the Moon.
If they do this, it's gonna be the exact same mission, and we will learn nothing.

[Anonymous No.10463574]

>>10463553
I think the delays are due to the Clipper having to be modified to handle the inner Solar system heat. These modifications are necessary because it needs to perform a gravity assist through the inner Solar system which is due to the fact that it's launched from a Falcon Heavy. Europa clipper has loads of sensitive scientific instruments that need to be carefully protected and calibrated.

[Anonymous No.10463579]

>>10463553
FH is not certified for such payloads. Vulcan or DIVH will be used if SLS is not available.

[Anonymous No.10463581]

>>10463567
Of course not, that is not what I said. You send up a second Delta 4 Heavy that has a tanker-like upper stage. The upper stage docks with the Orion in LEO and you could do any mission SLS is supposed to do.

Instead they went down the route to basically redesign the Delta 4 so that the first stage is one big booster instead of three smaller ones, for the sole purpose of being able to attach solid boosters on it.

[Anonymous No.10463585]

>>10463559
>There is a reason why the EM-1 can be done so easily by the Delta 4, it's because the SLS is basically a Delta 4 with solid boosters attached.
False. While the SLS and Delta 4 share similar designs they are very different. An example of this is that the single hydrolox engine on the Delta 4 has roughly the same thrust as one hydrolox engine on SLS, but SLS has four such engines allowing higher thrust-weight-ratios and in turn much higher payloads.

As >>10463567 said too. A Delta 4 heavy only brought Orion to LEO. Which is still less than what SLS can do at it's minimum.

[Anonymous No.10463586]

>>10463553
Well, building a center core is pretty costly, in both money and time. So I imagine they'd want to re-use them as much as possible.

[Anonymous No.10463589]

Oldspace best space.
Only proven and trusted traditional technology can take us to #Mars2120.
I <3 Boeing & Lockheed Martin & Northrop Grumman

[Anonymous No.10463591]

>>10463581
Uh oh, then you need a test mission or twoto validate docking procedures.
Maybe it's a better idea to wait for SLS.

[Anonymous No.10463593]

>>10463531
Human rating doesn't apply to nasa vehicles.

[Anonymous No.10463598]

>>10463585
You should re-read my posts. I was not argueing that one Delta 4 launch can replace the SLS, but two can. One sends the capsule up and another one the transfer stage, which is simply a empty Delta 4 upper stages for the first missions and a modified tanker-like one for the later missions.

The whole point of developing the SLS was that NASA said in-orbit assembly is too unreliable, therefore doing deep space missions on Delta wont happen. Now they are going for exactly that, which means the whole SLS development was pointless.

[Anonymous No.10463604]

>>10463581
Wow. You guys are posting faster than I can respond.

>Tanker rockets and in orbit assembly
A neat idea, but NASA as always been against that idea for anything other than the ISS. Probably because you're sending significantly more mass into orbit or a mission that's built in LEO compared to a "all in one" launch. Which means overall higher costs, typically. In orbit assembly is only necessary if the mission mass is so high that a rocket big enough can't be built to send it all in one go. SLS, BFR, New Glenn, Energia, and Saturn V has shown that larger rockets are possible.

[Anonymous No.10463614]

>>10463071
This idea is clearly lobbyist driven political pressure.
Distributed launch increases mission risk, complexity, and cost.
The whole point of SLS is to have a single large rocket doing the bulk of the hard work in one go.

[Anonymous No.10463618]

>>10463604
The Orion capsule is going to dock on LOP-G anyways. So it is going to have docking hardware no matter what. So you send the tanker rocket up and let Orion dock on it. You know what Orion + tanker rocket looks like now? Exactly like the upper stage of the SLS would look like, because it's the same damn thing.

[Anonymous No.10463620]

reminder that suborbital flight is not spaceflight

[Anonymous No.10463627]

>>10463604
BFR is built from the ground up to utilize tanker flights for any deep space mission. As for SLS, Energia and Saturn V, while they do show large rockets to be possible, they were also very expensive, even more per kg to orbit than smaller rockets.

[Anonymous No.10463628]

I want SLS to die, and I'm happy to see it choke, but this is all a big waste of money.
At this point the first(last?) article will fly for sure, and modifying the mission to involve LEO docking won't win you any time.

[Anonymous No.10463631]

>>10463598
I redirect you to >>10463604

>The whole point of developing the SLS was that NASA said in-orbit assembly is too unreliable, therefore doing deep space missions on Delta wont happen. Now they are going for exactly that, which means the whole SLS development was pointless.
NASA was probably against the idea of in orbit assembly because at the time of the beginning of SLS the technology to do that wasn't really practical for anything other than space stations. However recently technology has advanced to the point where it may be possible. Plus smaller rockets (~10t to LEO) have gotten so much cheaper lately that the cost of multiple smaller rockets is competing with the cost of one big rocket.

Plus, SLS has been so delayed and expensive that if NASA absolutely needed a heavy rocket (~30-100t to LEO) then it's cheaper and faster to just wait until BFR or New Glenn.

[Anonymous No.10463634]

>>10463627
The thing is, SpaceX isn't NASA.
In orbit refueling has never been tried before.
There might be complications.

[Anonymous No.10463647]

>>10463631
The thing is, they can't say "We can't do X because X is too dangerous", and then spend a significant amount of money, and then go back to do X anyways. As I already said, the concept to use two Delta 4 launches instead of developing a new super heavy lifter was there and NASA dismissed it. Them now so blatantly going back to that same identical concpet 15 years later after spending more than 10 billion should have serious consequences.

[Anonymous No.10463648]

>>10463618
>Exactly like the upper stage of the SLS would look like
Not quite, Orion would be upside down, it's nose would dock with the tanker

[Anonymous No.10463654]

>>10463585
SLS gets a lower twr at booster sep than delta iv Heavy, more than 80% of liftoff thrust of SLS comes from the boosters.

[Anonymous No.10463661]

>>10463634
>In orbit refueling has never been tried before.

It is done routinely on the ISS. Not with cryogenic fuel, tough.

[Anonymous No.10463663]

>>10463631
Both of you are wrong - SLS was developed to maintain as much as possible constellation contracts during large economic crisis and "not be The shuttle" whose image was destroyed after Columbia. Orbital assemblies or other architectures have nothing to do with it. Coincidentally there is also no set date before which it must be ready as the only thing resembling that was passed some years ago and ignored by congress who seem to be satisfied with the way the program is going. NASA hasn't even reported how much it will actually cost to launch, and has written the contracts in a convenient way so as to be kept in the dark from the contractors regarding the actual costs of the hardware and its development.
It is not called Rocket to Nowhere just because it's late.

[Anonymous No.10463664]

>>10463604
>SLS, BFR, New Glenn, Energia, and Saturn V has shown that larger rockets are possible.
SLS, BFR, New Glenn are just paper rockets

[Anonymous No.10463671]

>>10463664
Cardboard rockets, hardware exists but the rockets themselves don't yet.

[Anonymous No.10463676]

>>10463664
And the rest are scrap.

[Anonymous No.10463682]

>>10462821
>>10461500
>>10461510
>>10461545
>>10461550
>>10461571
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/nasa-to-consider-use-of-private-rockets-for-first-orion-lunar-mission/

>Big news: NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine says agency will consider launching EM-1 mission of Orion crew capsule around the moon on a private rocket.

That didn't last long.

[Anonymous No.10463685]

>>10463647
>The thing is, they can't say "We can't do X because X is too dangerous", and then spend a significant amount of money, and then go back to do X anyways.
The thing is that "X" wasn't practical to do at the start so avoiding "X" until it could be done was a practical thing to do.

>As I already said, the concept to use two Delta 4 launches instead of developing a new super heavy lifter was there and NASA dismissed it.
NASA probably dismissed it because they had a super heavy launcher on the way because congress demanded that one is built.

>Them now so blatantly going back to that same identical concpet 15 years later after spending more than 10 billion should have serious consequences.
In the end, I agree. While I'll argue that in orbit assembly is still a very immature technology and that heavier launchers should be preferred over smaller ones. I can't disagee with the fact that SLS and alot of projects around it were poorly managed with a short foresight. While NASA definitely should be blamed for some of this, most of the blame falls squarely on the US Congress and the contractors that they were trying to please.

[Anonymous No.10463692]

This or the sidemount shuttle should have been picked when the time was right instead of the Senate Launch System.The big boys intentionally scrapped the shuttle tooling and laid off the personnel though because having a functional rocket wasn't the goal.

[Anonymous No.10463697]

>>10463685
>in orbit assembly is still a very immature
Ridiculous. The ISS exists and was made partly because of the desire to study the assembly of large orbital structures.

[Anonymous No.10463709]

>>10463040
Good riddance

[Anonymous No.10463715]

>>10463661
Yeah, I know, but it's such low quantities, I didn't think it mattered.

[Anonymous No.10463716]

SLS is most likely dead now. What NASA needed SLS for, commercial space industry has capability to do right now for cheaper. They'd sooner cut off their own hand than let the rot creep into their arm and into their own body. Atleast with a hand cut off, they can replace it with a commercial variant that is cheaper and just as proven.

[Anonymous No.10463723]

>>10463682
How will that even work? They don't have any hardware that can pull this off might as well just launch dragon 2 on a falcon heavy and be done with it.

[Anonymous No.10463724]

Next thing you know, a new Gobernment appears, and we SLS Heavy now.

[Anonymous No.10463729]

The Orion capsule has to launch on something. The options are SLS and maybe Delta IV Heavy. SpaceX has no plans to human rate Falcon Heavy and it's payload to Translunar injection at 23 tons (if fully expended), is too small for the Orion capsule + Service module combined mass of 26 tons unfilled. Dragon Crew and Starliner cannot go to the moon, even if their boosters could get them there as they'd be traveling too fast compared to LEO missions. Their heat shields are not strong enough to protect them from lunar return re-entry.

Berger is also being insincere in his later tweets. The Delta IV heavy can launch the Orion capsule to Earth Orbit (it already did). But it can only do about 10 tons to Trans-lunar injection, less than half of what Orion and its service module requires. Turning Delta IV Heavy into a rocket capable of sending 25 tons to the moon would require a fundamental redesign of the rocket, likely with a much more powerful upperstage as well. And on top of that the Delta IV Heavy's unit cost of $480 million only makes it marginally cheaper than the non-recurring unit cost of the SLS, which is $600 million. This is why Delta NASA examined the Ares V and SLS in the first place, instead of just manrating and improving the Delta IV Heavy. They looked at this, years ago, and found Delta IV Heavy would be fine if the goal was just to put Orion into LEO. Sending it to the moon though? Now way.

Berger knows this. He's not stupid. But rocket stuff is highly ideological in its own way and people have wanted to kill the SLS for years. So he's doing what he (and Keith Cowing, and others) always do, which oversimplify a much more complex question and pretend these questions haven't been asked before.

[Anonymous No.10463730]

>>10463040
>>10463716
NASA needed SLS for Lunar Gateway (which NASA announced yesterday that they will go with commercial), Europa Clipper (again yesterday), and finally Orion (which is internally being decided to move towards commercial). SLS has no future as far as I can see.

[Anonymous No.10463731]

>>10463661
And the volume too. There's a difference between a small refill for station keeping and moving enough propellant for a deep space mission.

>>10463663
I was talking mostly about actual uses of the SLS. I'm fully aware that the SLS is a jobs program.

>>10463697
However, there's a difference between making a space station and making a spacecraft in space. Assembly structures such as docking ports and connecting points add dry mass. While this is fine for a space station that does need to move much, for a deep space mission this is absolutely critical because every gram counts. Too much dry mass can easily harm the delta v of a spacecraft to the point where it can't do it's mission anymore. In orbit assembly still needs to find a away to assemble something without adding too much dry mass. Something like this hasn't been tried yet.

[Anonymous No.10463735]

>>10463729
>Orion
That would be the next canned project.

[Anonymous No.10463737]

>>10463729

Want to turn the Delta IV heavy into a rocket that can launch Orion to TLI? Strap on another 2 cores, add $150 million+, and give United Launch alliance another 5 years to work it out. Oh and by the way, everyone was set on retiring the Delta IV heavy by 2024-2025.

It really sounds like then, the "out" is not the Delta IV heavy, but dropping a wad of money on Elon Musk's desk and pay him to human rate the Falcon Heavy and give it a more powerful upper stage to boost its TLI mass to around 35 tons. For SpaceX, that' like $3 billion dollars and 4 years of work. Because those are the options - (1) SLS, (2) improving the Falcon Heavy, (3) massively growing the Delta IV Heavy.

Eric Berger should be ashamed of himself.

[Anonymous No.10463744]

>>10463737
>>10463731

Fundamentally, it is not up to NASA to decide. Obama's man at NASA, Charlie Bolden, tried to engage in anti-SLS shenanigans for years and all Congress did was make him report in to them in person every 6 weeks (they didn't trust him) and mandated use of the SLS for one purpose or another through the law.

Or let me put it another way: Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) will write into the 2020 appropriations bill that the only launcher of the Orion capsule is the SLS, and by law, Astronauts must take Orion to reach the moon, and that will be the end of the discussion.

Congress doesn't care what Presidents and their staff want anymore. I've been preaching that gospel for some time now. Maybe folks will start listening. This is not the 2000s. Presdential Budget Requests are less relevant than ever.

[Anonymous No.10463746]

>>10463685
>The thing is that "X" wasn't practical to do at the start so avoiding "X" until it could be done was a practical thing to do.

In-orbit mating was done reliably as early as Apollo missions.

>NASA probably dismissed it because they had a super heavy launcher on the way because congress demanded that one is built.

Involving commercial launchers into space exploration was decided in 2004. That's also when Delta 4 had its maiden flight and concepts to simply use the Delta 4 and not develop any new launch system was on the table. NASA dismissed it, not W. Bush or the congress. The government said humans need to return to the moon by 2020, how to achieve that goal was up to NASA.

>In the end, I agree. While I'll argue that in orbit assembly is still a very immature technology and that heavier launchers should be preferred over smaller ones. I can't disagee with the fact that SLS and alot of projects around it were poorly managed with a short foresight. While NASA definitely should be blamed for some of this, most of the blame falls squarely on the US Congress and the contractors that they were trying to please.

I'd hold my breath about how much one single SLS launch will cost, and if its really going to be less than two Delta 4 launches. Plus, you would have saved all the development cost.

Delta 4 and SLS are basically being built by the same people, and the money is going to the same contractors. So for lobbyists, it would make no difference. It was clearly NASA who fucked up here.

[Anonymous No.10463745]

>>10463731
Every gram counts only if it has to count. Having additional dry mass is irrelevant if the mission profile takes that into account.

[Anonymous No.10463750]

>>10463735
SpaceX has no plans to human rate Falcon Heavy and it's payload to Translunar injection at 23 tons (if fully expended), is too small for the Orion capsule + Service module combined mass of 26 tons unfilled. Dragon Crew and Starliner cannot go to the moon, even if their boosters could get them there as they'd be traveling too fast compared to LEO missions. Their heat shields are not strong enough to protect them from lunar return re-entry.

[Anonymous No.10463752]

>>10463735
Lol, Orion already exists.

[Anonymous No.10463753]

>>10463737
Yeah, maybe Raptor coming online really got them thinking about an hybrid F9 with a raptor upper stage.
That's the only way I can see FH doing the job.

[Anonymous No.10463756]

>>10463729
EM-1 is not meant for human launch. EM-1 is just the launch of the vehicle itself. Given the specifications of Orion's diameter within perfect size fit, 5 meter capsule diameter in a 5.2 meter diameter fairing, it might go to SpaceX

[Anonymous No.10463763]

>>10463750
Well, they don't if it doesn't pay money.
Maybe they just got a proposal.

>>10463752
A prototype exists.

[Anonymous No.10463764]

>>10463729
Did you miss the whole "use two rocket launches and dock in LEO" thing Brindestine said? That is how the mission would be done.

Launch fully fueled Orion+service module on Falcon Heavy into Earth orbit. Launch an upper stage separately on Delta IV Heavy. Dock in Earth orbit, burn for the Moon, and violà! Mission accomplished!

[Anonymous No.10463765]

>>10463756
They plan to launch humans with EM-1 already.

[Anonymous No.10463766]

>>10463750
>dragon and starliner cannot go to the moon
Source on that.
And human rated FH is not a problem as crew can be launched separately on a rated rocket.

[Anonymous No.10463769]

>>10463756
They are doing this for time reasons, not money reasons. They want to launch by 2020. So they are definetely going to use the rocket they know can launch the Orion because it so in the past. For the transfer stage, they will also use the rocket that has the identical upper stage the SLS has (because the transfer stage will simply be an upper stage with an empty cargo bay and a filled up tank).

Involving SpaceX in this would only mean potential further delays because of hardware issues.

[Anonymous No.10463770]

>>10463729
>DIVH
>human rated

Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10463776]

>>10463765
>The crew compartment of the uncrewed EM-1 Orion spacecraft will include two female anthropomorphic phantoms which will be exposed to the intense radiation environment along the lunar orbit, including solar storms and galactic cosmic rays

[Anonymous No.10463777]

>>10463745
Dry mass isn't something that is simply "taken into account" if the dry mass goes up then a spacecraft needs more propellant to move that dry mass. But more propellant means bigger tanks which in turn means even more dry mass... you should see that the issue can easily spiral out of control.

[Anonymous No.10463780]

I just realized bridestine hinted they are going for what is essentially half assed Moon Direct.

[Anonymous No.10463782]

>>10463769
So what's next? Launch SLS with fucking nothing?
Then have to rebuild one to redo EM-1 on it?
It's fucking retarded if SLS isn't officially canned.

[Anonymous No.10463783]

>>10463567
This is more like Gemini-Agena except instead of using it to push them into a high orbit and back they'll use it to push it to trans lunar injection

[Anonymous No.10463784]

>>10463765
>>10463776
Also EM-2 is the crewed launch as far as I know. EM-2 is 2023+ status.

[Anonymous No.10463786]

>>10463783
>Gemini-Agena
Yeah, that went well. Ask Neil.

[Anonymous No.10463800]

>>10463769
Delta Heavy doesn't have the lift. ~10 tons is too low for TLI. Falcon Heavy fully expendable has ~20K+ ton if they don't modify it.

[Anonymous No.10463801]

>>10463631
>the technology to do that wasn't really practical for anything other than space stations
It was literally done in the 60s, look up Gemini-Agena you cocksucker

[Anonymous No.10463805]

How did we get here.
Ares-V/SLS was supposed to be simple.
Slightly modify the Shuttle stack to be an in-line rocket.
Is NASA, dare I say, incompetent?

[Anonymous No.10463806]

>>10463777
>you should see the issue
Not really. I'm not even sure what you are arguing about at this point. Orbital assembly, and this includes refueling, is not a problem and should be the preferred way to do things because otherwise single launch configurations put extreme hard limits on payload as well as inflate costs. You might have taken the "tyranny of the rocket equation" thing a bit far too literally.

[Anonymous No.10463807]

>>10463800
You don't seem to understand what is planned here. Delta 4 will put the capsule and the module into LEO. Another Delta 4 will then put an upper stage into LEO that will dock with the capsule. The upper stage will then burn its remaining fuel and send capsule and service module to translunar return trajectory.

[Anonymous No.10463813]

>>10463801
No need to be rude.

Gemini-Agena was used for docking practice not assembling spacecraft in orbit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the idea of making spacecraft in orbit, but I'm just trying to justify why it hasn't been done before.

[Anonymous No.10463815]

>>10463692
Yeah Jupiter rocket family should have been the next step, the new Saturn V, fuck the SLS

[Anonymous No.10463819]

>>10463801
You're talking about docking, and yes, that's proven technology.
We're talking transferring cryogenic fuels in orbit, which has never been done.

[Anonymous No.10463821]

>>10463692
>because having a functional rocket wasn't the goal.
I hate politics

[Anonymous No.10463833]

I hope SLS just blows up the pad when it doesn't have humans on it.
Then good riddance.

[Anonymous No.10463836]

>>10463807
If that's the case, then chances are, NASA going with the Falcon Heavy is almost a certain. Yesterday's announcements was all about how NASA wants to shift towards a fully reusable and sustainable system for the entire Lunar Gateway project. Falcon Heavy will do two reusable launches, which will be cheaper than a single Delta Heavy launch. This lines up with both the project goals and the cost cutting initiative that Trump/Americans want.

[Anonymous No.10463846]

>>10463836
Maybe if SpaceX develops a new upper stage for Falcon Heavy, otherwise it is useless for assembly plans because it can't stay in orbit for more than a few hours without losing its ability to re-ignite the engine.

[Anonymous No.10463857]

That would take at least 4 more years. By which time SLS would be ready for at least it's first launch.

Maybe.

[Anonymous No.10463860]

>>10463846
My thought exactly.
Raptor is spark ignited, so it's basically infinite relight, as long as batteries are charged.
It's also throttle-able.
Someone is having wet dreams of a FH with Raptor upper stage, after seeing it function.

[Anonymous No.10463868]

>>10463860
That's actually exactly what Air Force wants SpaceX to do but SpaceX told them they are focusing on the Starship. That's why they were excluded from EELV money last year.

[Anonymous No.10463869]

>>10463806
I agree that orbital assembly should be the way to go, just that some kinks need to be worked out first before the idea gets used more.

>Not really. I'm not even sure what you are arguing about at this point.
I'm not even sure myself. I was pointing out how orbital assembly is a young technology and needs work done on it before it gets used more seriously but it seems to have drifted somewhat. It feels like I'm sofly being accused if being against the idea of in orbit assembly.

>Orbital assembly, and this includes refueling
I assume you mean refueling mid mission? I'm for that idea. A propellant depot on one of Mars' moons harvesting hydrolox from water could make Mars sample return missions a possibility.

>otherwise single launch configurations put extreme hard limits on payload as well as inflate costs.
Single launch payloads also means that the spacecraft can be assembled in controlled conditions on Earth which increases reliability. For a space agency like NASA reliability carries more weight than cost.

>You might have taken the "tyranny of the rocket equation" thing a bit far too literally.
While I'm against people who take that to heart and focus on performance (like isp and delta v) above all else. It is still very important. I was part of a design team that designed an upper stage for a launch vehicle and an additional kilogram of extra dry mass caused the stage to not have the delta v necessary to perform it's task. Granted we were pushing the limits on some technologies, but it did show to me that dry mass is absolutely important unless you have a large delta v budget compared to what's required.

[Anonymous No.10463872]

>>10463868
Well, you know, a bigger paycheck can change your mind.

[Anonymous No.10463882]

>>10463872
Not Elon's though. He wants Starship no matter what.

[Anonymous No.10463884]

>we could have had this by now
>instead congress went full greedy retard with their SLS meant only to siphon money to them

Politics has no business in spaceflight

[Anonymous No.10463885]

>>10463786
It went great. That was a problem with the Gemini spacecraft, not Agena or the docking. They did execute it at least once.

[Anonymous No.10463895]

>>10463836
FH likely won't be used for Orion, too thin, while the delta has already launched a boilerplate of it. I actually don't see how spacex rockets fit at all in this unless its to send the crew to the Orion on an F9 Crew Dragon.

>ICPS? transfer stage has to be launched on DIVH
>Orion has to be launched on DIVH
>Crew has to be launched separately on a Dragon or a Starliner
>Transfer stage and Orion must be docked, then crew transferred to it.

An alternative could be to use F9 upper stage launched on FH to act as a transfer stage. I know it can send a Dragon 2 to TLI but I'm not sure if it can Orion since that one is few tons heavier and there's also the docking method thing.

What the fuck are they thinking?

[Anonymous No.10463898]

>>10463846
Depends on length/type of orbit the mission requires and if they can extend it with bit more juice with some mods.

All these small issues will be something engineers will have to plan for.

[Anonymous No.10463901]

[Anonymous No.10463902]

>>10463882
Yeah, but why not collect the money? If it's more than you're expanding?
It will help him build a better water-tower, ahem, starship.

>>10463885
It nearly killed 2 astronauts.

[Anonymous No.10463903]

>>10463884
There are only three things which are absolutely certain.
>Death
>Taxes
>And government meddling in spaceflight

[Anonymous No.10463914]

Constellation > SLS

Change my mind.

[Anonymous No.10463915]

>>10463901
I'm not very familiar with this rocket, so why is the center engine on the core stage off center?

[Anonymous No.10463916]

[Anonymous No.10463923]

>>10463914
>Constellation
>Sending crew on a SRB.
Remember to like this comment, and pay on patreon.

[Anonymous No.10463924]

>>10463813
Those are the same fucking thing you shithead. They practiced docking by assembling a spacecraft in orbit, and then fucking flying it. It's been done four times, and used twice. There was never an issue with the actual docking.

[Anonymous No.10463930]

>>10463860
It was someone's wet dream to have a reusable launch vehicle. Now SpaceX has it. It was someone's wet dream to finally have a US crew vehicle. Now SpaceX has one. It was someone's wet dream to have NASA fund better alternatives than the monkeysink called SLS, now its happening.

If you're saying Falcon Heavy won't be used for this current fling of Orion because its someone's wet dream, well, that wet dream is probably going to come true.

What's left for SpaceX wet dreamers is the Starship/SuperHeavy for Mars that's currently in the process of being developed.

[Anonymous No.10463937]

>>10463884
>meanwhile in an alternate dimension
>"NASA just hinted Jupiter might be delayed to 2021 because of issues with the engine bay and potential vibration interaction with the Solid Rocket Boosters, these news are coming soon after it was revealed that a LOX tank dome was dropped and damaged during assembly"
>"Jeff Bezos successfully launched another tourist group including his wife to the Bigelow Lunar Hotel, there were some minor telemetry issues but otherwise the journey is proceeding normally"
>"Small spaceplane start up lead by paypal billionaire Elon Musk, SpaceEx, declared bankrupt after years of suspicious financial activities and relations with the Russian military from which it was purchasing rocket components for its winged expendable vehicles"

[Anonymous No.10463940]

>>10463930
Here's what I think SLS/orion/gateway can go suck a dick.
NASA can't into rockets anymore.
They'd better just focus on science payloads.

[Anonymous No.10463943]

>>10463819
No, I'm talking about assembling a rocket in orbit from a command/service assembly and a propulsion module, which was executed flawlessly during Gemini 10 and Gemini 11. Gemini 8 the Gemini spacecraft broke (thruster stuck open) and Gemini 9 the Agena failed to ditch the fairing.
On Gemini 12 the Agena boost engine broke.

[Anonymous No.10463944]

>>10463930
Alternatively...

The betting against SpaceX don't seem to pay off. "SpaceX will be a failure" "SpaceX won't succeed in reusable rockets" "SpaceX wont be able to make Falcon Heavy" "SpaceX won't have crewed vehicle" "SpaceX won't make BFS" All of them have been proven to be false dreams.

[Anonymous No.10463949]

>>10463930
I strongly doubt that Orion will ever be launched on a Falcon. It's written into law that Orion will launch on SLS. Also, Orion is a bit wider than a Falcon and would require a new adapter to safely secure Orion. SpaceX won't develop this unless they get paid specifically for it, and NASA (being strong armed by Congress) isn't willing to pay for it.

[Anonymous No.10463953]

>>10463944
Let's all have a prayer for ULA, ArianeSpace, an Roskosmos. They milked us drie until they couldn't.

[Anonymous No.10463955]

>>10463949
Laws can be changed when management finds better solutions.

[Anonymous No.10463961]

>>10463949
Or, you know, Orion no more.

[Anonymous No.10463963]

>>10463944
Most of those are strawmen arguments.

[Anonymous No.10463969]

>>10463963
I have to admit, I'm having a hard time imagining their water-tower flying through the sky.

[Anonymous No.10463978]

>>10463969
Most of those are still strawmen arguments. For example, who in his right mind would say SpaceX will never have a crew if NASA gave them 3 billion (!) to develop a crew capsule.

[Anonymous No.10463984]

So.. The only "downside" and frequent counterargument is that distributed lift approach requires additional orbital docking / assembly and orbital refueling. Yet we already did it in the 60s, and do it quite often on the ISS. I dont think its that hard.

However, the important thing is that from a long term perspective, its not optional! If we ever want to have serious space presence and eventual space colonization with hundreds of people living and working in space, we need to master such operations anyway! They need to become routine, there is no way around that. So why not do it sooner rather than later?

Distributed lift is the future. Its cheaper and less risky than one big booster, and any additional complexity it brings is only something we need to learn anyway.

[Anonymous No.10463986]

>NASA states, with 65% confidence, that the Ares-I w
ill be operational in March 2015 to carry the Orion
spacecraft with a crew for the first time. Current
budget constraints and high technology requirements
continue to push out this schedule with recent esti
mates now placing this first flight into 2016.

[Anonymous No.10463993]

>>10463984
We didn't do cryogenic fuel transfers.
Cryogenic is the key word.
It's fucking unstable as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10464006]

>>10463978
>>10463963
Its strawman if no one says those things, but these were all common argument against SpaceX. Heck, there's still argument SpaceX against's the latest ventures of SpaceX, their Starlink satellite network. Once (or if) Starlink launches successfully, people will say "well those were strawman arguments duh."

You don't want to believe, but thats how human minds work. The psychology behind that is called Hindsight bias. "Everyone knows SpaceX could do it, arguing against it is strawman" Its a very real bias that effects a very large chunk of people everyday.

[Anonymous No.10464013]

it was supposed to be so simple

http://directlauncher.org/media/video/shuttle-to-jupiter.htm

[Anonymous No.10464019]

>>10463993

We need to learn it anyway, otherwise we will never colonize space. Better start sooner.

But whatever, orbital fuel transfer can wait a little. Orbital docking/assembly easy and the low hanging fruit.

[Anonymous No.10464020]

>>10464006
Okay then tell me who said developing the Dragon 2 will be a failure because I doubt anybody would say that.

[Anonymous No.10464039]

>>10463984

This.

>hurr durr, I am too chickenshit to dock 3 modules launched separately in LEO, total launch cost: 3 x $150 million = $500 million
>Lets launch the whole complex in one go, total launch cost: $2 billion!

Idiotic.

[Anonymous No.10464042]

fuck SLS

[Anonymous No.10464045]

>>10464006
Well, retards still doubt re-usability, when some block 5 cores have done 3 re-flights with no sign of giving up.
ESA now has a F9 copycat project, but are 10 years late to the party.
ULA seems confident they can keep throwing hardware away.
So far, SpaceX seems to have taken gambles that payed off. Doesn't mean they'll inevitably do so in the future.
But they're one step ahead, for certain.
>>10464019
Sure, let's just not do it where it involves a Billion dollar spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.10464046]

>>10464042
>fuck SLS
Be careful there. You might invoke the Rule 34 Gods.

[Anonymous No.10464049]

>>10464020
Are you going to say everyone was positive about SpaceX Dragon2 delays?

There are plenty of SpaceX skeptics that had to be dragged to reality every inch of the way to today.

[Anonymous No.10464056]

>>10464039
$2 billion is only for that launch. Its not even accounting for all the development time/years wasted.

[Anonymous No.10464061]

>>10464039

>3 x $150 million = $500 million

3 x $150 million = $450 million

FTFY.

[Anonymous No.10464062]

Just replace the ARES models with SLS thats basically the same outcome only even worse

[Anonymous No.10464065]

>>10464049
Russians are bitter about it.
They just lost their goldmine.

[Anonymous No.10464067]

[Anonymous No.10464073]

>>10464065
>>10464020
I just did some digging around on Google to see the skeptics, it looks like Reddit has an active SpaceX board.

[Anonymous No.10464077]

>>10463819
Why transfer fuel when you can just strap on a whole stage with both rockets and tanks?

>Someone is having wet dreams of a FH with Raptor upper stage, after seeing it function.
Seeing as how Falcon upper stage is same diameter with only one engine, shouldn't that be possible? The trick would be making it worth the trouble for SpaceX to take it on while they're trying to get SS going on a near skunk works schedule.

>>10463869
>A propellant depot on one of Mars' moons harvesting hydrolox from water
wut
One moon is tiny as fuck, the other is very probably a loose pile of rocks. I doubt that either have any water. (I read their Wikipedia articles yesterday, not expecting to use that info today.)

>>10463884
And it would have even used those precious Shuttle SRBs and their 'bama jerbs. That pic shows just how brainlessly obvious the idea was.

>>10463937
>and relations with the Russian military from which it was purchasing rocket components for its winged expendable vehicles
I got a good laugh from that. Considering how SpaceX started with being cock-blocked by the Russians, that's a great alternate history.

>>10463969
>I have to admit, I'm having a hard time imagining their water-tower flying through the sky.
See pic, that's what I think of every time I see that janky little thing. It's both hilarious and awesome.

[Anonymous No.10464083]

>>10463869
>Phobos base
It's the exact same thing as the gateway for the moon.
Seriously limits your landing area while not providing anything at all.
Fucking useless.

[Anonymous No.10464086]

>>10464077
>wut
>One moon is tiny as fuck, the other is very probably a loose pile of rocks. I doubt that either have any water.
I was just coming up with ideas without really researching them, sorry. I just looked it up, Phobos extremely dry at the surface and Deimos is so powdery at the surface that it's hard to tell if water is there.

There should be more missions to check these moons out though.

[Anonymous No.10464088]

>>10464020
Not him and don't remember specific stuff about the dragon being "impossible", but plenty for landing rockets, reusing rockets, reusing rockets more than once, the bfr, the falcon heavy, and dear moon. Similar pessimism regarding spacex ability to launch geo sats was quite common before they did it.
I do remember some claims that since they are cancelling red dragon and propulsive landing the dragon capsule is done for though.

There seems to be this pattern where one would state his common sense that something spacex is trying to do is impossible, stick to his words while evidence is piling up on the contrary, and after while pretend nothing happened and he knew spacex were right all along but they weren't doing anything ground breaking or special anyway. Sour grapes essentially.

Arianne and the recent flyback booster are a great example of that. As well as the ULA study into re-usability that showed how pointless and futile it is to attempt it. ULA deserves some credit for not shamelessly copying F9 after all that though.

[Anonymous No.10464094]

>>10464061
>he doesn't understand contracting math

[Anonymous No.10464099]

>>10464083

Provides material for ISRU and radiation shielding.

[Anonymous No.10464102]

>>10464086
>There should be more missions to check these moons out though.
That I will absolutely agree about. The Russians had ONE JOB and they fucked it up twice.

[Anonymous No.10464105]

>>10464088
>ULA deserves some credit for not shamelessly copying F9 after all that though.
You just know, some part of them is dying to do the same thing.
When a F9 core gets to its 10th flight, it will be clear they're way too expensive.
SpaceX still charges full price, because why not?

[Anonymous No.10464111]

>>10464099
>ISRU
The idea of ISRU on Mars is, you bring Hydrogen with you, and make CH4.
I wouldn't bet on CO2 being on Phobos.

[Anonymous No.10464120]

>>10464111
>bring hydrogen
Please no. As for martian moons there are some suspicions at least one of them has both water and co2 ices.

[Anonymous No.10464138]

>>10464120
Anyways, I'm against it.
If you're gonna find water, that would be on Mars itself.
Why bother making ISS2 on a useless rock, when you can do same on the surface?
I swear, it all looks like they just want to delay everything to get a constant influx of moneys.

[Anonymous No.10464146]

>>10463969
It's more of a flying rocket test stand

[Anonymous No.10464149]

>>10463715
Orbital refueling is still orbital refueling, dumbass

[Anonymous No.10464152]

>>10464138
Obviously the moons must never be the primary target but they should be kept in mind as potential fuel depot if the resources are there. Assuming it is cost effective to bother vs just using the hopefully large martian surface installations for fuel of course.

[Anonymous No.10464156]

>>10464138

>Why bother making ISS2 on a useless rock, when you can do same on the surface?

We dont know if Mars gravity is enough for safe human colonization. Mars with 0.38 G might yet turn out to be a dead end. In which case, only rotating space stations remain viable (and Venus).

Phobos has enough resources for a small O'Neill cylinder with 1G artificial gravity and thick radiation shielding. Deimos too.

[Anonymous No.10464158]

>>10464149
dumbass, they were not cryogenic propellants, so that would be a first.
>>10464152
If you do that, you're limited to equatorial landing sites. It will also delay Mars landing by 10 years.
I think SpaceX knows better and will not suck up to that delay plan.

[Anonymous No.10464164]

>>10464156
>We dont know if Mars gravity is enough for safe human colonization.
So let's have them in 0G?
Seems useful information.

[Anonymous No.10464169]

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3pGNTIC4c

[Anonymous No.10464172]

>>10464156
If NASA wanted to test gravity rings, they had all leisure to do so in the last 30 years.
Except they didn't.
So from here we can only say 1/3 gravity is better than none.

[Anonymous No.10464174]

Any ideas what the SLS issues might be that triggered this bridenstine statement?

The whole commercial vehicle launch thing seems fishy as fuck.. come on there's no way they can pull something like that in an year. 5 maybe yes, but not 1.

Docking ports, unique rendezvous with fueled stages none the less, payload adapters, multiple launches because the only vehicles that can lift the masses involved will never be man rated. All this for a simple test flight of a vehicle that's not even being tested.

If they are seriously considering that, something really bad must have happened that told them SLS won't be ready any time soon.

[Anonymous No.10464179]

>>10464172
If they tested it already they wouldn't have all those tasty grants ahead of them now...

[Anonymous No.10464180]

>>10464164

No, I am talking about rotating space stations.

>So from here we can only say 1/3 gravity is better than none.

Nope. If 1/3 is not enough to prevent health issues, then 0 is better than 1/3. You can build rotating space stations in 0G. You cannot do so easily in 1/3 G (sloped rotating structures perhaps can be build, but thats very cumbersome).

[Anonymous No.10464186]

>>10464180
>If 1/3 is not enough to prevent health issues
We have no data. Because it's never been tested. Simple as that.
Setting up a ring station from phobos will take decades. Meanwhile they'll get no gravity.
It's fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.10464195]

Reduced gravity health issues being identical to microgravity is pure speculation and shitflinging.
Clearly there is no interesting in spin gravity platforms for testing by anyone involved so field testing it will be.

[Anonymous No.10464202]

>>10464174
NASA isn't making the decisions on a whim, they've suspected for years SLS is going to be delayed/cancelled, so they have researched into alternative methods.

They have now gone the alternative method of transportation.

>But why now?

Timing, one of the key senator pushing for SLS has been voted out. The current administration seeks to focus on budget cuts, maturity of commercial capabilities like Falcon 9/Heavy, general push towards a more sustainable effort to get to space rather than rely on the old blackhole projects.

[Anonymous No.10464206]

>>10464174
>If they are seriously considering that, something really bad must have happened that told them SLS won't be ready any time soon.
Trump is taking potshots at SLS, that's why.
Literally. He's here right now with a Springfield shooting all of the SLS components.
We've tried to stop him by blocking off the doors but he's finding ways around them.
I can hear him crawling in the walls.

Send help.

[Anonymous No.10464207]

>>10464174
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1105836930460200960

>Sen. Wicker asks about status of EM-1, first SLS/Orion mission. NASA has informed Congress of further delays, he said.

>Bridenstine: SLS is struggling to meet its schedule. Looking at options, including launching Orion by June 2020 on a commercial rocket (!)

[Anonymous No.10464209]

>>10464195
It's actually puzzling me.
Even Kubrick imagined it back in the days, and we never tried it.
Why the fuck would you not try it?

[Anonymous No.10464215]

>>10464206
Die.

[Anonymous No.10464216]

>>10464186

>We have no data. Because it's never been tested. Simple as that.

Indeed. We need to consider both possibilities.

>Setting up a ring station from phobos will take decades. Meanwhile they'll get no gravity.

Nope, rotating stations can be as simple as two connected tin can modules. You dont need to stay in 0G until the ring is completed, there can be smaller rotating stations nearby.

You need a thick ring station for radiation shielding (GCRs), but not for gravity.

[Anonymous No.10464224]

>>10464216
It's gonna take much more time making it out of Phobos than launching both modules from here.
What you don't get is that metallurgy is fucked if there isn't coal around.

[Anonymous No.10464234]

>>10464215
Please. We sent a team of interns outside to try to reason with him.
They never returned.
We're fashioning flamethrowers from the welding equipment we have on hand and are performing tests on each other to make sure that he isn't disguising himself among us.
We don't know how long we can last.

[Anonymous No.10464237]

>>10464209
Pure speculation on my part but I think the idea that for any meaningful human spaceflight you need Apollo tier budgets was too ingrained in the nasa and the aerospace people.
Spin gravity means testing something either for distant journeys or prolonged stays on others moons or planets, both of which would required budgets even more massive than Apollo.
So, if Apollo budgets are a no-go because they are too big, then working toward something that would require even more impossibly massive budgets seems kind of pointless, no?
Better to focus on the things at hand, the things that are real and not a dream.

[Anonymous No.10464244]

>>10464206
Sorry fellow bernout I'm homeless after taking too much loans for campaign donations. #resist

[Anonymous No.10464250]

>>10464237
Yeah, shear stupidity.
What's funny is how they keep going on about how 0G is bag for health.
They didn't even try 0.1

[Anonymous No.10464266]

LOL! OLDSPACE is SEEEETHING!!

[Anonymous No.10464278]

For doubters:
muh foetus development in low gravity.
Foetus is in basically water.
It doesn't feel gravity because it's floating all the fucking time.
I'm volunteering for making babies in space.

[Anonymous No.10464287]

>>10464111
Uhhhh
Bro there's water on Mars, bringing hydrogen would be stupid

[Anonymous No.10464290]

>>10464278
Please be in London.

Seriously though floating != zero g. Micro-gravity will fuck shit up.

[Anonymous No.10464295]

>>10464266
Oldspace seething needs something catchy like satania.

[Anonymous No.10464304]

>>10464287
Well electrolysis is a power hungry process.
>>10464290
I'm pretty sure it will be fine.
Would help with some gravity, but not sure how much it would help.

[Anonymous No.10464316]

>>10464013

[Anonymous No.10464323]

why did you doubt him

[Anonymous No.10464325]

>https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1105902269655121920
>week until the study on the commercial vehicle EM1 mission is done
At least we'll know soon whether that's bullshit or something strange and interesting. But a week? Do their printers even work that fast?

[Anonymous No.10464372]

>>10464045
SpaceX would be very vocal about big costsavings though reusability if they had any. The fact that they are very secretive about the costs does not imply they are very succesful in reusing boosters.

[Anonymous No.10464377]

>>10463978
They gave boeing 4+ billion to do the same damn thing (Starliner) and they still haven't done it.

[Anonymous No.10464381]

So what did we learn?
Orbital stations are retarded.
Zubrin was right all along.
>>10464372
They're just taking the full pay until competition happens. And I don't blame them.

[Anonymous No.10464390]

>>10464325
It's just a 'what if? study' and not an incredibly serious implementation proposal so it shouldn't take too long; also, just because it was announced today doesn't mean it was started today. This study is primarily the White House just lighting a fire under the contractors' asses, reminding them despite the importance of their program that they are not irreplaceable and that the White House wants them to hurry the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.10464392]

>>10464381

>Orbital stations are retarded.

Huh?

[Anonymous No.10464400]

>>10464392
They do nothing.
Have you watched the ISS for the last decades?

[Anonymous No.10464406]

>>10464400

There is a lot of good research going on at ISS.

[Anonymous No.10464413]

>>10464400
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station

[Anonymous No.10464426]

>>10464406
It's fucking useless.
What we learned from it is that 0G is different from 2G.
Duh.
We didn't need it at all. Mir was enough.
To be frank, ISS was supposed to be a gateway at the start (as the freedom station or something)
Then we get another gateway project.

[Anonymous No.10464434]

>>10464406
>>10464413
Is it worth the money, though?
Guess what? 0G fucks things up? Who would have guessed.
Going to space should only be about going to space. And seriously, 0G should not be a problem.

[Anonymous No.10464441]

We need a station like this. Musk pls...

[Anonymous No.10464449]

This will also do. But nothing smaller.

[Anonymous No.10464452]

>>10464434
Its always worth the money to have a permanent base up in the Space. Especially if your national security depends upon it.


Here's the picture. Every dollar spent on space is worth 10x that amount in outcome. Not only in direct economics benefit but also scientific research that allows breakthrough research in 0-g. In short, investment in space is investment in future.

[Anonymous No.10464456]

[Anonymous No.10464464]

[Anonymous No.10464466]

>>10464452
You know, as it is going, I can see NASA go under.
Potus will certainly pull some plugs when China does into Mars.
You had 20 fucking years lead, NASA.

[Anonymous No.10464470]

>>10464466
The congress decided to allow a monopoly. It wasn't NASA. Monopoly stagnated the industry.

[Anonymous No.10464504]

I can't imagine anyone at NASA think any of these station plans are any good.
If you know anything about orbital mechanics and delta-v, you just know it's just delaying things.

[Anonymous No.10464544]

>>10464452
The future doesn't matter to those who will be out of office when the glory comes in

[Anonymous No.10464568]

>>10464464
OH SHIIII
>https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1105879804790951937

[Anonymous No.10464581]

>>10464568
Eric Berger is full of shit. Its going to be delta 4 launches.

[Anonymous No.10464585]

>>10464464
>Senator Shelby wants to: Know your location

[Anonymous No.10464587]

>>10464568
REEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10464597]

>>10464585
>>Senator Shelby wants to: Know your location
Up here, faggot

[Anonymous No.10464615]

>>10464581
Berger thinks it's going to be a Delta IV plus a Falcon Heavy launch for the extra stage. I bet bids will be made for all kinds of different combinations.

In fact, I bet Musk will offer to both launch Orion, and then launch a Dragon 2 with crew to dock with it. That way Falcon Heavy doesn't need to go through human rating to pull off Lunar missions, it just needs to get Orion up to LEO safely.

[Anonymous No.10464618]

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy3KMDazG8o

Skip to 21 minutes for the current SLS delays/alternative.

[Anonymous No.10464621]

>>10464618
>SLS can't meet schedule of June 2020
>we're seeking alternatives
They want to consider commercial rocket because date is very important.

They want to keep the SLS for EM-2.

[Anonymous No.10464624]

>>10464621
until it rolls around

[Anonymous No.10464633]

>>10464615
NASA is doing that because they want to keep the June 2020 launch date. Which company has the reputation to be really expensive, but also really good at keeping launch dates? ULA. Which rocket has the same upper stage as the SLS and actually already flew the Orion capsule once? Delta 4. It's pretty damn obvious what the plan is. Distributing the launches over both SpaceX and ULA would only make things more complicated and thus risk the June 2020 goal, especially since SpaceX is not exactly known to be very reliable with time goals.

[Anonymous No.10464638]

>>10464441
We need Starship to get the medium sized ones up. The 330 should work with F9/FH now, so we're waiting on Bigelow for those, but haven't heard much from them since BEAM was attached to ISS.

[Anonymous No.10464641]

>>10464618
>25 minute 30 secs
>we can't do it directly like SLS
>but we can use 2 Heavy Lift rockets

>we can use off the shelf capability right now for docking in orbit
So most likely SpaceX proposal. ULA is not really into off the whole shelf uses.

>expenses

Might need congress's help with that, if they do Delta IV procurement, might be more expensive. If they do Falcon Heavy, might be cheaper. They don't want to give it away yet.

>when will this feasibility investigation be done
Few weeks

[Anonymous No.10464642]

>>10464618
Not to sound pessimistic, but I really hope an investigation and through purging happens in the wake of SLS.

The SLS project will take 9 (or more years) to launch an unmanned test payload. The Ares V was 6 years long and didn't have much to show.
All while the SLS becomes almost as expensive per launch as the Saturn V while having less payload capability. IIRC Saturn V is the most expensive launch vehicle ever.

It's obvious that something shady is going on with SLS, and something needs to be done to prevent it from happening again.

[Anonymous No.10464653]

>>10464641
No, off the shelf actually means they can only use Delta 4s. They could not use Falcons without modifications.

[Anonymous No.10464654]

>>10464621
Also, they want to keep SLS for EM-2 and forward. Mainly for the human component.

[Anonymous No.10464660]

>>10464641
>So most likely SpaceX proposal. ULA is not really into off the whole shelf uses.
That may also support a very Musk-like possible proposal.
>>10464615

>Elon: You know what's cooler than just an unmanned lunar free return trip? A manned lunar free return trip.

[Anonymous No.10464663]

How will FH send Orion to the moon when it has only 75% the TLI payload capability required in fully expendable mode?

[Anonymous No.10464669]

>>10464663
It doesn't, and it can't. You guys should listen to the video in the congress hearing. It is clear as day he was talking about Delta 4 launches.

[Anonymous No.10464671]

>>10464663
Baby Raptor Stage 2. The one the Air Force dropped some R&D cash on.

[Anonymous No.10464674]

>>10464669
Delta IVH can't do it either.

[Anonymous No.10464678]

>>10464581
>>10464615
Berger's idea for one D4 and one FH is logical:

1.) ULA cannot build and certify two D4H's in 15 months, so a second rocket is needed.

2.) D4H has already launched an Orion boilerplate and the SLS shares it's second-stage, so it's logical that the capsule would launch on one because little modification would have to be done for integration.

3.) A fully expendable Falcon Heavy with no payload could likely boost Orion to the moon. Also, it could feasibly launch the thirty ton ICPS stage into LEO fully fuelled for rendezvous.

4.) SpaceX are adept at orbital rendezvous and recently docking.

[Anonymous No.10464680]

>>10464671
it would be easier and cheaper to build a 3rd stage with merlin vacuum, and merlin vacuum has higher ISP than raptor anyways lmao

[Anonymous No.10464682]

>>10464674
Delta 4 will bring it into LEO and a second Delta 4 will bring the upper stage into LEO and they will mate and then Orion goes to the moon. Bridenstine wants to save the 2020 date, not do experiments with combining Delta 4 and FH launches or whatever.

[Anonymous No.10464686]

>>10464678
>ULA cannot build and certify two D4H's in 15 months,

lol, of course they can.

[Anonymous No.10464690]

>>10464678
There's also political considerations for the timing: this mission could happen only a couple weeks ahead of the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

[Anonymous No.10464696]

>>10464686
I'm guessing you don't know how the D4 production line works then...

[Anonymous No.10464697]

>>10464686
Of course but not without billions of dollars cost overrun.

[Anonymous No.10464702]

>>10464690
real or fake picture?

[Anonymous No.10464704]

>>10464696
It's just a rocket how hard can it be?

[Anonymous No.10464706]

>>10464702
real, 4th of July with a slow shutter

[Anonymous No.10464707]

>>10464696
They have 4 launches scheduled for this year and 2 for 2020. Means they actually have a capacity for exactly two additional launches in 2020.

[Anonymous No.10464708]

>>10464704
Its not like its a brain surgery or anything, DURRR.

[Anonymous No.10464715]

>>10464669
Yes the delta IV heavy can send more. Are you aware you are moron?

[Anonymous No.10464718]

>>10464715
Jesus Christ, why are SpaceX fanboys so easily triggered?

[Anonymous No.10464720]

>>10464406
>Still no centrifuge to test sub 1g gravities on smaller mammals

The most important thing we need to know is this and they still haven't fucking done it, but they are happy to send up some kiddies science fair project. What a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.10464721]

>>10464715
What?

[Anonymous No.10464722]

>>10464704
The Delta 4s are ordered years in advance, take around 8-months to build and usually spend 3 months sitting at a VAB before launch. The Delta 4 production line is currently being winded down with no new orders being accepted. They cannot be ordered on short notice...

[Anonymous No.10464727]

>>10464721
He's retarded...

[Anonymous No.10464730]

>>10464722
What's your source on the claim that it can't be done?

[Anonymous No.10464731]

>>10464722
This is such bullshit. Call ULA and say you give them 500 million dollar for a Delta 4 heavy by the end of the year and you shall receive.

[Anonymous No.10464734]

>>10464731
Or just pay 90 mil for a FH lol

[Anonymous No.10464741]

>>10464734
And like another billion for modifications so that FH can actually do the mission requirements lol

[Anonymous No.10464742]

>>10464734
REEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10464745]

>>10464722
SpaceX's situation is even worse, ironically. There's been speculation that they will only ever build one block 5 FH.

[Anonymous No.10464746]

>>10464741
What mission requirements? slap a STAR in the payload fairing

[Anonymous No.10464751]

>>10464718
Are your feelings hurt?

[Anonymous No.10464752]

>>10464745
Elon said 20 cores total I think, both FH and F9

[Anonymous No.10464755]

>>10464752
4 FH cores and 16 F9's would probably cover all of their business handily

[Anonymous No.10464759]

>>10464746
Launch an Orion and a transfer stage that can dock with the Orion. Delta 4 can already do that because Delta 4 and SLS have the same upper stage.

[Anonymous No.10464762]

>>10464731
You better call ula at once and inform them of this it could be a game changer.

Per chance have you ever thought of rockets involving coke and mentos?

[Anonymous No.10464765]

>>10464759
I thought the idea at hand was FH launches the stuff that gets the modules out around the moon, while DIVH launches the modules themselves

Either way Orion is stupid

[Anonymous No.10464767]

>>10464722
>with no new orders being accepted

Dumbest thing I read all day.

[Anonymous No.10464772]

>>10464731
They want to get rid of the DVH because it's fucking expensive to operate and regularly scrubs (remember NROL-71?). ULA really wants to focus on Vulcan, but they've still got DVH launches scheduled until 2024.

>>10464745
I assume your referring to A6 and STP-2 sharing the same side boosters, they have different core boosters btw. Nobody actually knows how quickly SpaceX can build an FH...

>>10464746
The requirements for this mission would be interesting, FH doesn't need to be human-rated but it's still very untested right now, maybe not so much by the end of summer...

[Anonymous No.10464775]

>>10464765
Yeah, Bridenstine is totally betting the June 2020 launch date on SpaceX developing a new upper stage for which they don't even have adequate engines for within 15 months.

[Anonymous No.10464777]

NRO is basically the only reason DIVH exists right now

[Anonymous No.10464781]

>>10464759
Two delta fours cannot be provided by 2020 unless they take the ones being made for the upcoming military sat launches and even then its a big question.
ULA can't launch two of those in a rapid succession as well.
One DIVH is a stretch, two is shitposting.

[Anonymous No.10464782]

>>10464777
Yep, all the D4H's remaining launches are NRO missions scheduled up to 2024. They were all part of one final block buy contract.

[Anonymous No.10464801]

>>10464775
Why would they need to develop new upper stage for FH?

Chances are its Delta Heavy for launching the vehicles, and Falcon Heavy for sending to Mars. This way NASA/SpaceX don't have to do anything but do a bit of docking modification.

[Anonymous No.10464806]

>falcon heavy launches a fueled Delta IVH upper stage into LEO
>Delta IVH launches Orion into LEO

[Anonymous No.10464813]

What ever happened with ZUMA anyways

[Anonymous No.10464818]

>>10464801
Because the transfer stage that would be capable enough to put Orion into a moon orbit is too big for the Falcon fairing. In would also not make much sense anyway to put the transfer stage into the fairing. You would rather just produe a second stage that has enough fuel in its tanks left so that it can dock with Orion in orbit and then burn into TLI.

[Anonymous No.10464820]

>>10464806
DCS is 4m wide and 8m tall, F9 fairing is 5.2m wide and 13m tall. DCS weighs 30 tons fuelled, Falcon Heavy is the only vehicle that can currently launch such a payload...

[Anonymous No.10464821]

>>10464818
Oh, and before you ask, the Falcon second stage is both too small to do that and it also can not coast long enough to serve as the transfer stage.

[Anonymous No.10464825]

>>10464806
FH can't launch the icps because it needs pad support. It can however launch its own upper stage with adhoc docking adapter on top and it will send the orion to the moon assuming the rendezvous doesn't take ages causing oxygen boiloff.

[Anonymous No.10464826]

>>10464818
>>10464821

Wrong >>10464820

Also the FH second stage arguably has more coasting ability due to kerosene vs hydrogen, stop spreading misinformation.

[Anonymous No.10464832]

>>10464821
>can't coast long enough
You've made plenty of claims ITT and all of them wrong. How do you do it?

[Anonymous No.10464833]

>>10464813
nobody knows

[Anonymous No.10464837]

>>10464813
Classified.

[Anonymous No.10464845]

>>10464826
It would not fit the fairing. 30 tons is also way more than the adapter can handle. Of course you could modify the fairing and design a new adapter, then it could fit but that would cost money and especially time.

[Anonymous No.10464848]

>>10464813
>custom payload adapter from Northrop Grumman malfunctioned failing to detach the sat once it was delivered to its orbit
>sat was de-orbited alongside the upper stage during its routine de-orbiting maneuver

[Anonymous No.10464853]

>>10464813
>Be glowniggers
>Launch gorillion dollar glownigger shit
>Haha yeah the uh adaptor thingy totally failed yeah...... :^)

[Anonymous No.10464855]

>>10464316
thanks for webm

[Anonymous No.10464858]

>>10464826
>due to kerosene vs hydrogen

Due to kerosene being known to freeze during coasting?

[Anonymous No.10464859]

>>10464845
The whole mission will cost money. And SX are the only ones who can offer quick modifications, Musk also mentioned they can stretch the upper stage.

[Anonymous No.10464868]

>>10464858
>things that never happened

[Anonymous No.10464869]

>>10464845
>>10464859
I recall that Musk has said they could go through the work to develop a larger fairing, just that they won't do it unless someone actually wants it. That may be part of this proposal.

[Anonymous No.10464874]

>>10464848
>upper stage magically had no problems deorbiting on schedule even with a large heavy payload on the end of it
People actually believe this shit

[Anonymous No.10464876]

>>10463902
apollo almost killed three
Shuttle killed 14
building a spacecraft in orbit from multiple launches is proven technology that works

[Anonymous No.10464882]

>>10464859
>stretch the stage
No point. Just shove external tanks as "payload" + docking adapter inside the fairing.

[Anonymous No.10464886]

>>10464876
>apollo almost killed three
>almost

[Anonymous No.10464887]

>>10464874
Then there's a stealth sat up there somewhere.

[Anonymous No.10464891]

>>10464876
>killed 3 and almost killed another 3

[Anonymous No.10464894]

>>10464820
DCSS is 14m tall and 5 metres wide. No chance it fits into Falcon fairings, even if they come up with an enlarged one.

[Anonymous No.10464897]

>NASA is finally overcoming the damage that the Obama administration did to it
Based.

[Anonymous No.10464899]

>>10464897
go back to pol

[Anonymous No.10464926]

>>10463901
cringe

>>10463916
based

[Anonymous No.10464930]

>>10464899
You first, incel.

[Anonymous No.10464939]

>>10464858
Yes, but when it doesn't freeze it lasts a lot longer than hydrogen does due to a much slower boil off rate. Falcon Heavy's second stage is actually heavier the F9s, because it contains extra hardware such as radiators to prevent the kerosene freezing, in turn allowing long coast phases.

>>10464845
This diagram ignores the DCS's shape, it's only 4m wide at the top and tapers significantly closer to the bell, I think it could fit if stored upside down. The adapter point is valid, but that as you mentioned can be modified.

>>10464874
Evidence actually points to Zuma being a small satellite, as the booster RTLS'd.

[Anonymous No.10464945]

>>10464894
>>10464939

Your right, I was mistakenly using the 4m wide version. 5m wide fits in the F9s 5.2m fairing but it's too long.

[Anonymous No.10464957]

>FH launches Orion + half fueled stage 2 to LEO
>F9 launches half fueled stage 2 to LEO
>dock and refuel FH S2
>send to moon
>recover FH boosters on drone ship
>recover F9 core on drone ship
Rate my plan

[Anonymous No.10464982]

>notice me senpai!

[Anonymous No.10464983]

When will we be able to send people out to Saturn for a few month stay in orbit? That would be the ultimate sight seeing trip.

[Anonymous No.10464992]

>>10464982
>we can provide what NASA needs (if NASA wants to change the Orion capsule to be smaller/lightweight)
>but we can't match the performance needed for EM-1 in its current form

[Anonymous No.10464994]

>>10463984
good post thanks
>>10464049
NASA had to be dragged every inch of the way lmao that's why it took so long
>>10464715
you need Delta IV Heavy just to get Orion into orbit dumbass
>>10464886
I wasn't counting ground mishaps, but you're right
>>10464957
JWST tier non-existent technology makes it unfeasible, it needs to be done with shit that exists
cryogenic refueling doesn't exist right now (but will soon, probably)

[Anonymous No.10465011]

>>10464994
>falcon
>cryogenic fuel

[Anonymous No.10465014]

>>10465011
oxygen is cryo and oxidizer is part of the propulsion system
sorry I misspoke, I meant cryogenic propulsion system refueling

[Anonymous No.10465028]

>>10463895
>FH likely won't be used for Orion, too thin
Orion is as wide as the Falcon fairing, it wouldn't be a problem aerodynamically.

[Anonymous No.10465041]

>>10463915
To avoid having to redesign the shuttle tank as much as possible, it was designed to take the RS-25 thrust as a side load. This doesn't really make sense tho because a design with bottom mounted engines in a symmetrical layout would be much simpler.

[Anonymous No.10465052]

>>10463949
>It's written into law that Orion will launch on SLS
It was written into law that Europa Clipper would have to launch on SLS as well, that's being directly challenged by NASA because even including the added cost of having to manage the probe on a much longer deep space cruise launching on a commercial rocket would be ~$700 million cheaper according to them.

[Anonymous No.10465053]

>>10464042
STS is CUTE!

[Anonymous No.10465066]

>>10465052
Not only cheaper, but most likely faster delivery even though Falcon Heavy might be slower initially, they can launch faster and by the time it arrives to Europa, it will be sooner than if NASA waited for SLS to launch Europa with its faster speed.

[Anonymous No.10465067]

>>10464156
>Phobos has enough resources for a small O'Neill cylinder
Phobos has a mass of 10.6*10^15 kg and is made of mostly metal oxides, it has the resources to build a thousand fuckoff-huge O'Neill cylinders.

[Anonymous No.10465072]

>737 MAX-8 is grounded worldwide after two crashes kill all aboard
>SLS cancelled
What's the atmosphere like at this company right now?

[Anonymous No.10465076]

>>10464206
I appreciated your humor.

[Anonymous No.10465079]

>>10465067
wtf i love phobos now

[Anonymous No.10465083]

lol SLS/Constellation are probably one of the most costly failures in US history unfortunately....

[Anonymous No.10465085]

>>10465072
J U S T

[Anonymous No.10465087]

>>10465079

[Anonymous No.10465089]

>>10465083
Oh you sweet summer child...

[Anonymous No.10465092]

>>10465089
Whats that story on this boat?

[Anonymous No.10465094]

>>10464209
>Why the fuck would you not try it?
If we prove that you can solve all of the health problems associated with living in space by spinning your habitat, then we will have successfully de-justified 99% of the research we do on the ISS. This is why there has never been even one centrifuge satellite full of mice launched into Earth orbit, 'solving' the health effects of zero G is more important to these people than just finding the most practical solution, which is obviously not going to involve rejiggering human biology. To paraphrase Zubrin, when pilots started flying high enough to get altitude sickness and hypoxia, there was a real push by doctors against compressed oxygen supply systems as being too dangerous to use and that we should try to develop the medicine needed to solve the problem. However, since a pill that makes you immune to oxygen starvation is impossible, the military rightfully said 'fuck off' and told the engineers to develop the oxygen supply they'd need. Manned spaceflight is currently stuck in a nightmare dimension where for some reason retarded medical scientists are catered to instead of the engineers that can draw up an artificial gravity solution in an afternoon and fly it in three years.

[Anonymous No.10465096]

[Anonymous No.10465097]

>>10465092
>$20 billion+ and counting
>only 3 boats
>cancelled
>meme guns that don't even have ammo
>ships already falling apart and will likely be decommissioned soon

[Anonymous No.10465102]

>>10464304
Gravity is probably needed because there are biological functions on a cellular level that rely on some chemicals literally being heavier than others and settling on one side of the cell. plants for example use grains of starch that sink to the bottom of their cells to tell which way is up. In micro-gravity that doesn't happen and the plant kinda just grows in all directions, regardless of where the light source is located. I don't know offhand of any equivalent system in animals but that's what we have lab mice for I guess.

[Anonymous No.10465104]

>>10465087
What happened to that anon who posted comfy renderings of future space stuff?

[Anonymous No.10465105]

>>10465097
Damn I was hoping they made the meme guns real, but I guess the dream was too big. Sleep well lightning gun.

[Anonymous No.10465109]

>>10465102
Our gut, lymph, and circulatory systems are adapted to 1G pulling down on them for proper circulation. There's also the whole process of childbirth which ideally needs a bit of a gravity assist, although that would only become an issue when we actually send people into space for long enough periods of time for them to start having kids.

[Anonymous No.10465110]

>>10465104
Which ones?

[Anonymous No.10465112]

>>10465105
The ship itself was canned but I haven't heard anything about development stopping on the Blitzer railgun system.

[Anonymous No.10465118]

>>10465105
Chinese are doing the meme guns real. So the spirit of meme gun lives on.

[Anonymous No.10465126]

>>10464680
>merlin vacuum has higher ISP than raptor anyways lmao
No, MVac gets 348 Isp and Raptor SL gets ~355. It also gets more than twice the thrust which means fewer gravity losses and they can add more propellant mass too.

[Anonymous No.10465128]

>>10465104

[Anonymous No.10465132]

>>10465118
Fuck commies!!!

[Anonymous No.10465133]

>>10464746
Falcon Heavy won't need any kick stages, in expendable mode it gets better payload performance than Delta IV Heavy all the way out to Pluto. If anything Delta IV Heavy would need the kick stage.

[Anonymous No.10465134]

>>10465128

[Anonymous No.10465139]

[Anonymous No.10465145]

>https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1105932985298313216
>Comment from Sen. Richard Shelby on today's announcement by Jim Bridenstine:

>“While I agree that the delay in the SLS launch schedule is unacceptable, I firmly believe that SLS should launch the Orion.”

Aka, REEEEEE MUH STATE JOBS

[Anonymous No.10465148]

[Anonymous No.10465151]

Who will build the first rotating space station?

[Anonymous No.10465152]

[Anonymous No.10465163]

>>10465145
God I fucking hate this cunt, fortunately they have probably brought in enough Mexicans to get him out next election.

[Anonymous No.10465171]

>>10465145
>I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT MY PORK ROCKET SHOULD KEEP GETTING FUNDED

[Anonymous No.10465173]

>>10465109
>Our gut, lymph, and circulatory systems are adapted to 1G pulling down on them for proper circulation.
Yeah but I was talking about neonatal development shit, if you're a fetus floating in the womb your fluids are all neutrally buoyant and won't act like you're in gravity. Also the practical solution to childbirth in space is just to have all pregnant women stretch out their vaginas with massive dildos for nine months until when labor kicks in they can just reach right up there. Don't say it can't be done, I've seen women handling things bigger than a baby's head for sure.

[Anonymous No.10465179]

>>10465134
>fell for the He3 meme
ruined

[Anonymous No.10465182]

>>10465151
Can't be sure but I'm fairly certain it won't be a government, they'll spend 100 billion and ten years just getting a module or two up. Looking at promising modules and the launch systems that can actually carry them I'd have to put my money on Bigelow in cooperation with SpaceX, but I've never seen any of the Bigelow modules shown in a rotohab configuration although I'm sure it could be done.

[Anonymous No.10465183]

>>10465145
When is that guy gonna have a stroke and expire?

[Anonymous No.10465189]

I PUSH MY FINGERS INTO MY

[Anonymous No.10465190]

>>10465179
>Lunox
>ox
>helium
Why would someone name a 3He company "Lunox"?

[Anonymous No.10465192]

Peregrine Lander, CLPS contract with NASA

[Anonymous No.10465197]

>>10465189
CUT MY PROGRAM TO PIECES
THIS IS MY ONLY LAUNCH
SUFFOCATION
NO FUNDING
DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF I BLOW UP WHILE FLYING.

[Anonymous No.10465198]

>>10465192
Artemis 7, CLPS contract with NASA

[Anonymous No.10465202]

>>10465198
Nova-C Lander, CLPS NASA Contract

[Anonymous No.10465203]

>>10464638
>so we're waiting on Bigelow for those, but haven't heard much from them since BEAM was attached to ISS.

https://www.space.com/39752-bigelow-space-operations-private-space-stations.html
>Bigelow Aerospace is on track to launch its first two B330 modules in 2021, Bigelow said. And in October of last year, the company announced that it's working with United Launch Alliance to get a B330 into orbit around the moon by 2022.

>Also today, Bigelow announced that BSO has established a partnership with the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space, which manages the ISS U.S. National Laboratory.

[Anonymous No.10465206]

>>10465202
fuck

[Anonymous No.10465209]

>>10465110
>Which ones?

>>10465110
>>10465128
>>10465134
>>10465139
>>10465148
>>10465192
>>10465198
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10465213]

>>10465209

[Anonymous No.10465216]

>>10465206
lots of cool vehicles to look at here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services

[Anonymous No.10465218]

>>10465190
I don't know, but the sign clearly mentions He3

[Anonymous No.10465219]

>>10465209

[Anonymous No.10465221]

>>10465213
Imagine flying out to gateway only to pass several significantly larger commercial LLO stations on your way in. Jesus Christ how embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.10465223]

>>10465190
>Why would someone name a 3He company "Lunox"?
Implies a history maybe?
That the company started out selling oxygen or even hydrolox, and has expanded their goods and services to He3?

[Anonymous No.10465226]

>>10465218
Oh, I see it now. Different companies I guess. Gonna have to think of a creative way to shop that.

[Anonymous No.10465233]

>>10465072

I will let you know when I visit india.

[Anonymous No.10465243]

>>10465226
Like so?

[Anonymous No.10465247]

>>10465243
Blank for edits

[Anonymous No.10465311]

[Anonymous No.10465320]

>>10465311
Dude shitty raindrop on lens effects LMAO

[Anonymous No.10465330]

>>10465311
Could starship even launch in the rain?
IIRC most rockets can't handle that.

[Anonymous No.10465338]

>>10465330
Elon Musk can make anything possible, this thing doesn't even need a heat shield cause it's so cool (figuratively and literally, methane sweat)

[Anonymous No.10465369]

This bread is going stale! I baked a new bread:

>>10465364
>>10465364
>>10465364
>>10465364
>>10465364

[Anonymous No.10465370]

>>10465330
why cant rockets launch in the rain?

[Anonymous No.10465379]

>>10465369
>page 4
literally kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10465380]

There's another possibility we may not be considering about EM-1. Looking at budget figures, Orion may not actually be ready for manned operations at all until as far out as 2023. NASA may go full-bore and cut Orion out of the plans entirely. What would they replace Orion with? Well, the Dragon 2 was built with possible lunar missions in mind. Let's say that NASA is flipping the table, and intends to take CCDev to another level. How might you do that?

Have two Falcon 9's set up, one with crew dragon on Pad 39A, and another with a super-stretched second stage plus nosecone at LC-40. They launch, and the super-stretched F9's second stage pops off to reveal a docking adapter. They dock in LEO, and the extra fuel capacity in the extra-long second stage is sufficient for a lunar free return trajectory (or maybe even orbital insertion and return).

[Anonymous No.10465387]

>>10465380
>Orion may not actually be ready for manned operations at all until as far out as 2023.
Source?

[Anonymous No.10465682]

>>10465330
Yes, BFR is more weather proof than Falcon 9, which can launch in the rain.

IIRC only Shuttle couldn't launch in the rain because the droplets would have shredded the heat shield tiles.

[Anonymous No.10466041]

Why the fuck did somebody make a new thread

[Anonymous No.10466372]

>>10466041
Because OP is always a faggot, but some are really eager to prove it.