31

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

« Last post by VSECOTSPE on 03/23/2023 11:04 pm »

The pressurized rover will be provided by JAXA, NASA has no plans for its own pressurized rover. However, NASA does have plans for a LTV (lunar terrain vehicle) for a which a draft RFP has been issued.

Of course.  That doesn’t make it immune from delays in the ostensible 9/31 launch date for Artemis VII or development issues at JAXA.

My opinion, but LTV, while necessary, doesn’t justify a ~$100 billion investment in Artemis over a decade or so.  If the program isn’t putting some fundamentally new surface capabilities — like a pressurized rover or a habitat — within the planning horizon, I don’t see the point behind such an expensive, slow Apollo retread.  There’s a lot better things the nation could apply those taxpayer dollars and that technical workforce towards. 

YMMV...

32

Advanced Concepts / Re: Human consciousness transportation through computers?

« Last post by Robotbeat on 03/23/2023 10:49 pm »

You’re making a ton of claims about how the brain/mind ACTUALLY works that goes far beyond the current understanding of neuroscience. In other words, you’re treating unfounded hypotheses as settled scientific law. This is, frankly, balooney.

33

SpaceX General Section / Re: Starlink @ War - UPDATE ONLY

« Last post by OceanCat on 03/23/2023 10:41 pm »

Using Starlink Paints a Target on Ukrainian Troops

Units scramble for solutions as Russia learns to locate and jam the vital comsat links.

...

One Ukrainian drone operator with the call sign of “Professor” also reported prolonged jamming that prevented his team from using his Starlink unit. Professor said the jamming began two to three months ago, and that its intensity varied from place to place. “In one place everything’s fine, and in another—it doesn’t work,” Professor said. At times the jamming would continue all day. “It’s really powerful,” Professor said. Sometimes if there is no signal for the Starlink, the drone operator Professor tries a novel solution: he places it in a hole. The signal then returns, although only sometimes.

...

Fortunately for Ukraine, GPS jammer signals are low power. This means that dirt or concrete can block the jammer signal. As long as a Starlink device has a barrier between it and the Russian jamming signal, it can continue to function, according to Clark. A drone pilot with the call sign of Morgenshtern says he’s seen similar problems with other gear that uses GPS. “I think they introduced some more advanced equipment, or just their number increased,” he said.

...

One drone unit commander near the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut said his problems were unrelated to GPS jamming. Sometime in January, the commander said, Starlink uplink had been degraded to the point that his units often couldn’t make audio calls. Instead, the device could only send and receive text messages. The Starlink terminal also took longer to find satellites. Clark said these problems were likely due to advanced jamming systems that attack the uplink of information to a satellite. The Russian military typically keeps these systems in reserve to defend Russian territory itself. They are theoretically vulnerable to Ukrainian strikes as they must be deployed within dozens of kilometers from their target and are not highly mobile.

...

It isn’t all bad news for Ukraine, though. Two officers responsible for drone operations reported no issues with jamming. Similarly, neither Professor nor Morgenshtern said they were currently seeing Starlink jamming. It’s unclear why jamming would have subsided for these units. Russian forces could be rotating jamming operations across the front, focusing on high-priority areas. Ukraine may also be targeting Russian electronic-warfare units. Ukraine regularly shoots down Russia’s Orlan drones, for example, which can carry electronic-warfare payloads. 

34

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

« Last post by yg1968 on 03/23/2023 10:16 pm »

In a year or so, Artemis III will be out in 2026+ and the pressurized rover will have slipped over the planning horizon.

The pressurized rover will be provided by JAXA, NASA has no plans for its own pressurized rover. However, NASA does have plans for a LTV (lunar terrain vehicle) for a which a draft RFP has been issued.

35

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

« Last post by VSECOTSPE on 03/23/2023 10:11 pm »

Thank you for the correction.

Afer correction:
Latest Growth              0.1    0.0    0.1    0.1    0.1    0.2
(FY24 Minus FY23)

A fuller accounting... Orion/SLS budget growth over the past half-decade:

          ($B)                 FY18   FY19   FY20   FY21   FY22   FY23   FY24   FY25  FY26   FY27   All Years

FY20 Minus FY19     0.5       0.4      (0.4)     (0.4)    (0.2)    0.0                                                    (0.1)

FY21 Minus FY20                 0.0      1.2       0.6      0.5       0.3      0.1                                         2.7

FY22 Minus FY21                            (0.1)     0.5      0.5      0.3      0.4       0.3                             1.9

FY23 Minus FY22                                        0.0      0.0       0.3      0.2      0.2       0.0                  0.7

FY24 Minus FY23                                                   0.1       0.0      0.1      0.1       0.1       0.2      0.6

Total                           0.5       0.4      0.7      0.7      0.9       0.9      0.8      0.6       0.1       0.2      5.8

There’s a consistent bow wave of ~$0.5B to ~$1.0B in total growth in each fiscal year from FY18 thru FY25.  I suspect that will continue after FY25.  Based on past experience with United Space Alliance and United Launch Alliance, I don’t see any reason to believe that Orion/SLS contract consolidation will reduce costs, especially in the absence of any competition.

36

ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan / Re: Atlas V N22 - Starliner CFT (Crewed) - Canaveral SLC-41 - NET mid May 2023

« Last post by FutureSpaceTourist on 03/23/2023 09:55 pm »

More details on reasons for delay:

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1639036619742392320

Boeing’s first crewed Starliner flight is delayed till at least the summer, NASA said today.

Debate over spacecraft batteries, other items and last-minutes tests of Starliner’s backup flight software made its late April launch window a no-go

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/nasa-delays-boeing-starliners-debut-crewed-voyage-2023-03-23/

37

Boeing Starliner (CST-100) Section / Re: Boeing Starliner (CST-100) Master Update Thread - April 2019 onwards

« Last post by FutureSpaceTourist on 03/23/2023 09:54 pm »

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1639036619742392320

Boeing’s first crewed Starliner flight is delayed till at least the summer, NASA said today.

Debate over spacecraft batteries, other items and last-minutes tests of Starliner’s backup flight software made its late April launch window a no-go

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/nasa-delays-boeing-starliners-debut-crewed-voyage-2023-03-23/

38

SpaceX Super Heavy/Starship (BFR/BFS) - Earth to Deep Space / Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion

« Last post by alugobi on 03/23/2023 09:52 pm »

This might be Zack's best deep dive yet.

Jax is quite good as the ring watcher guy. His study of the reinforcements they've made to the aft barrel sections and qd panel on all the ships through 30 was most enlightening. If 24 fails in flight at that section of the structure, then they'll have to redo them all again, or skip to 31.

39

ESA Launchers - Ariane, Soyuz at CSG, Vega / Re: High-Level Advisory Group on Human and Robotic Space Exploration for Europe

« Last post by Asteroza on 03/23/2023 09:52 pm »

So, um, how real is this?

Saying LEO space industry is a EU strategic need now is good but, it feels like fear of missing out (FOMO)


It's almost saying x-prize or commercial cargo/crew/station open contracting.  But is ESA really willing to back that? They would have to openly declare a commercial station spec (or more accurately a EU/ESA module hosting spec since commercial providers would build the base hosting station), plus cargo upmass/downmass spec with late load, plus astronaut rotation spec. Adding an RLV requirement will force some innovation and/or merging of commercial startups.

They would also have to dual provider everything to/in LEO, with both providers preferentially EU based. Beyond LEO might be single provider.

So at a minimum, this smells like slapping Arianespace down a level while pulling up Avio to have the fig leaf of two primary providers, and thus anoint two official EU commercial space providers. All the light/medium rocket people will have to fight for table scraps. Plus where does that leave EHLL and Argonaut? Are they going to treat a european moon landing the same way as HLS?


One way to go about it is to unilaterally declare an equatorial LEO EU strategic propellant reserve need. That needs at least two depots, and you can accrete a man tended station onto one and a fulltime manned station onto the other. Tweaking the mass specs for some ESA modules (say crew accommodation) to be attached to the depots to require a Starship scale RLV forces everyone to up their game for EHLL, but still leaves medium lift a market for delivering small unit payloads that can work as commercial modules, plus astronaut delivery. With EHLL class RLV providers and a propellant depot, supporting EU moon landings is comparatively easier (and comparatively easy to drop as an overbudget prestige program while leaving a stable LEO industrial foundation for commercial work).

There's also another path, if you assume EU alone can't support dual commercial providers. EU is not the only group feeling FOMO. With ISS partners feeling like tag alongs on Artemis and getting functionally ejected from ISS as 2030 approaches, there is a stage being set for the EU and Japan. They may feel individually they can't support multiple providers to properly incubate a commercial space industry. Getting ESA and JAXA to jointly commit to a strategic propellant reserve could split the difference, with each partner committing to supply one domestic commercial provider of the same spec at least, thus resulting in at a minimum 2 providers. This assumes two medium-ish commercial providers (A6 and H3) in the short term, Avio possibly competeing from the EU side, and assorted startups, while long term at least one EHLL class RLV. EHLL ostensibly is being pursued for two reasons, having a EU "Le Starship", and SPS building. Both ESA and JAXA have declared SPS research.

40

Polls Section / Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX orbital flights in 2023

« Last post by Comga on 03/23/2023 09:49 pm »

Here is my analysis of this year's SpaceX launches poll.
Same method as previous years.  Least squares fit of a Gaussian to the data points.
Adaptation for new groupings-of-five is to use the central value i.e. 83 for the 81 to 85 bracket, etc..
The mean of the Gaussian fit is 91.3, and the arithmetic mean is 89.1.
The Poll does indicates a lack of faith in SpaceX reaching Musk's target of 100 launches.
Only 6 votes were for more than 100 launches.
On the other hand, the least number voted for was the low 60's, so none of us expect SpaceX to launch fewer time in 2023 than they did in 2022. 
Again, the voting was brisk at the start, slowed after 2 days, then dropped to a trickle.
The concensus formed early and the few votes after that, including a small number of votes that were held until close to the end, didn't make a big difference.
FWIW There seemed to be a slight preference for the "even" fives, N6-N0 vs "odd" fives, N1-N5, like there was preference for even numbers in previous polls.

edit: repost with fixed graph lables