In what universe can New Glenn send 33.5t to NHRO?
In relation to whether or not there should be an uncrewed flight test of block 1B before crew fly on it: In a worst case scenario trajectory-wise for an EUS failure, like a failure to separate from the core stage or a failure to light any of the RL-10s (somehow), could Orion abort to orbit on just it's SM? How close will the core stage get to orbit when lofting the EUS?I would like to see an uncrewed test but can see an argument for skipping it.
But if a failure of the EUS could mean a less than nominal reentry then I feel like a test flight is non-negotiable.
Quote from: JEF_300 on 09/27/2023 04:27 amI would like to see an uncrewed test but can see an argument for skipping it.Other than expediency and money (which have nothing to do with safety), what argument is there for skipping an uncrewed test flight of a new upper stage?
I would like to see an uncrewed test but can see an argument for skipping it.
#Artemis II milestone achieved ✅All four RS-25 engines have been successfully installed on Core Stage 2 for the @NASA_SLS rocket. Up next is functional testing of Core Stage 2 in preparation for roll out and delivery.Learn more: https://go.nasa.gov/46vU0F9
Looks like NASA is going all in on EUS for Artemis IV.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 11/17/2023 06:25 pmLooks like NASA is going all in on EUS for Artemis IV.Free is committing a couple lies of omission. The DCSS tooling is available thru at least early 2024 and he has an unused contract option, originally intended for Europa, available to activate it for a fourth ICPS. Was reported on this website:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/09/lack-of-sls-rockets-limit-nasa-artemis-manifest/
They’re both right. The iCPS line is moth balled (shutdown), but it could be started back up.
Brian Dewhurst's budget chart. Notes that for years Congress dictated $ for SLS/Orion/EGS in the law, not just report. Limited flexibility. NASA worked since establishing M2M prog off to convince Congress not to do that. In FY24 they agreed. Thankful.
One of the people familiar with Boeing's internal meeting on Thursday said the space agency had come to the company earlier this year and said, in effect, that Boeing would receive less funding as SLS development wound down. The company was given the choice to "stretch" the funding it would receive or pause for a year due to the delays in the Artemis mission. Boeing chose to stretch the funds, and that was a driver of the cuts this week.
Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere; pointers to that appreciated.I'm trying to understand whether the capabilities of SLS in ~2024 are significantly different than the capabilities that would have been provided by the National Launch System (NLS) design in ~1994.Glancing through the "Cycle 0" Martin Marietta trade studies for NLS (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930007493) makes it look similar in size and scope, though likely with different (older) manufacturing techniques. Was STME different in any significant way from RS-25E? If you put 4 of them under a core, with Shuttle-derived solids, don't you end up with the same boost phase performance and thus the same requirements for the upper stage? Have we really gone nowhere in 30 years, or does SLS perform better than NLS would have?
The STME was the precursor to the RS-68
As someone who greatly respects science and strongly supports space exploration, the more I have learned about Artemis, the more it has become apparent that it is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
Bloomberg not mincing wordsQuote As someone who greatly respects science and strongly supports space exploration, the more I have learned about Artemis, the more it has become apparent that it is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-10-17/michael-bloomberg-nasa-s-artemis-moon-mission-is-a-colossal-waste
