91

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: Artemis II : Discussion Thread

« Last post by catdlr on 02/06/2026 08:40 pm »

Place holder post Challenger
Place holder EELVs
Place holder new entrants


To be continued.  Need to think where I was going with this. 


* this is why MSTs were called gantries in the early days. 

Moderation

Jim, it would be really helpful for all of us if you could start a thread on this and share everything you remember. The facts you cherish and hold dear could be a great benefit to everyone and also bring you closer to us, given your many years of experience in the aerospace industry. I don't want this knowledge buried in an Artimus II discussion when it could be more visible in its own dedicated thread. And based on your vast experience, you could probably start many great knowledge-based threads just waiting for us to read.

Tony

92

Blue Origin / Re: Blue Moon MK1 - Crewed: Speculation

« Last post by Tywin on 02/06/2026 08:38 pm »

I let this here too:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/2019849701730971680

Blue to save Artemis!!

93

Blue Origin / Re: Blue Origin project Jarvis/Clipper - reusable NG 2nd stage

« Last post by Tywin on 02/06/2026 08:25 pm »

@meekGee I told you

94

Space Policy Discussion / Re: Golden Dome

« Last post by Blackstar on 02/06/2026 08:16 pm »

95

Space Policy Discussion / Re: Jared Isaacman as NASA's 15th administrator

« Last post by Blackstar on 02/06/2026 08:13 pm »

96

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9/Crew Dragon : Crew-12 : CCSFS SLC-40 : 11 February 2026 (11:01 UTC)

« Last post by haywoodfloyd on 02/06/2026 08:10 pm »

Don't forget it's NET.

97

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 6-104 : CCSFS SLC-40 : NET 16 February 2026 07:05 UTC

« Last post by Galactic Penguin SST on 02/06/2026 08:08 pm »

Delayed to NET February 16 per SpaceX's mission page to clear SLC-40 for Crew-12, now that launches are delayed (a confident sign of the latter still planned on February 11 with 6-103 on the 14th).

Updated February 3, SFN Launch Schedule https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
Launch 16 February 07:05 to 11:05 UTC = 16 Feb 2:05 to 6:05 am EST

SpaceX showing this as NET February 21 now, perhaps to allow 10-36 to launch first.

98

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9/Crew Dragon : Crew-12 : CCSFS SLC-40 : 11 February 2026 (11:01 UTC)

« Last post by Galactic Penguin SST on 02/06/2026 08:04 pm »

Sounds like they are pressing on to the 11th:

https://twitter.com/Space_Station/status/2019863820835930343

@NASA's @SpaceX Crew-12 mission is targeted to launch to the orbital outpost no earlier than 6:01am ET on Wednesday, Feb. 11.

99

SpaceX General Section / Re: SpaceX potential IPO

« Last post by RedLineTrain on 02/06/2026 07:53 pm »

I think we shouldn't believe anything reported about the nitty-gritty details of xAI's debt.  xAI most recently used an SPV for Nvidia chips that was perhaps at least partially owned by Nvidia, financed with loans from the private market (Apollo and the like), and with a 5-year lease of the chips to xAI.  Similar arrangements were made for the natural gas turbines.

Point is that any number of details on these transactions could impact the debt liabilities.  We may learn more in the draft S-1 registration statement.

100

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: Artemis II : Discussion Thread

« Last post by Jim on 02/06/2026 07:48 pm »

1.  STS, among others, would like to have a chat. The GH2 umbilical to the External Tank (the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate - GUCP) was hooked up AFTER the vehicle arrived at the launch pad. In fact, it was sitting on the opposite side of the ET, where even the RSS (Rotating Service Structure) didn't cover it. Hooking up the GUCP, which was situated on the FSS (Fixed Service Structure), to the ET was done fully out in the open air. And that was done succesfully, on 130 space shuttle missions. For ~ 5 missions it gave trouble, but that wasn't because it was done out in the open air, but because some jokers at MSFC hadn't correctly alligned the ET-side of the GUCP during ET construction (clocking issues - L2 on this site has some great stuff with regards to GUCP issues).

2.  Same for example for Saturn IB. The Hydrolox umbilicals to the S-IVB stage were hooked up to the vehicle out in the open. There only was a glorified wind-and-rain protection in the form of the LC-34 MST.

3.Saturn V had an MST available for on-pad work to the vehicle. But again, that MST was mostly a glorified wind-and-rain protection device. Yet it was used several times to do re-work on stage umbilicals while the Saturn V vehicle was already sitting on the launch pad.

4. One of the mistakes made with SLS, IMO, is not having an MST for the vehicle. When Artemis 1 was hit by a bunch of hydrogen umbilical trouble, as well as valve issues etc, it had to roll back to the VAB three separate times. Which was silly and unnecessary had a proper MST been available.

MSTs were out-growths of gantry* cranes uses to erect vehicles on the pad.
As missiles were turned in launch vehicles by adding payloads and more stages, the needs to service the upper sections of the vehicle grew.  Attaching umbilicals was done at the pad.  As payloads became more sophisticated, either a clean enclosure, a white room or airlock for entering the fairing was added.  The MSTs were usually open and any weather protection was addedmostly for personnel and not really a 'hardening" of the MST.  The "white room", "Universal Environmental Shelter", "Green Room" was only for payload/spacecraft protection/access.   

This build the launch vehicle on the pad was a bottle neck to higher flight rates.  So the mobile concept was conceived where vehicle buildup and testing were done in an assembly building and the vehicle was moved to the pad on a mobile umbilical tower. Saturn V and Titan III launch facilities were built to this.  The fallacy of the concept was that it would only work efficiently if there were no payloads.  The payloads were not design to the same practice.  They still required servicing at the pad. The Saturn V arming tower (MSS), which originally was only for destruct charge installations, now had to support Apollo spacecraft propellant load (six difference systems:  CM RCS, SM RCS, SPS, LM RCS, DPS & APS), S-IVB APS prop load, S-II insulation inspection post propellant offload, and LM exterior and interior access.  Titan III had to do payload testing, prop load and encapsulation.     The MSS for Saturn V provided no weather protection for the Saturn vehicle and the Apollo spacecraft was some what covered.  The Titan MST provided no vehicle protection.  Moving these tasks to offline facilities like Atlas Centaur did (Delta did it partially) would have sped things up.  After all, Skylab which completed most of its work in the VAB (and had no hypergols) launched only a month after roll out where as the lunar missions were 2-4 months.  The KSC industrial area would have required a propellant loading facility and move Apollo spacecraft stacking from the MSOB to this new facility. The VAB would have to designed/modified to handle hypergol leaks.  Also make the S-IVB APS be loaded offline and installed as units in the VAB.  Also, do more electrical testing in the VAB vs pad. 

The shuttle, it was supposed to be a minimal pad with a crew access tower.  But DOD requirements to install payloads at the pad vs OPF drove the need for the RSS with the PCR.  As time progressed more servicing requirements were placed on the FSS/RSS. FWD RCS, FC reactants, OMS pods, APUs, etc all required servicing.  As the vehicles and impact sensitive TPS experienced the Florida weather, the more protection and coverings were added to the pads.

Place holder post Challenger
Place holder EELVs
Place holder new entrants


To be continued.  Need to think where I was going with this. 


* this is why MSTs were called gantries in the early days.