Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Good on local taxpayers for not wanting to own a White Elephant. Unfortunately for New Mexico they are stuck with theirs. Given money spent on it should be Gold Elephant.
92
This is probably a bigger deal than people realize. This thing is literally a spacecraft on wheels. 30 days of life support is insane.
93
To add an intrigue, Sputnix has announced today's launch fo six commercial spacecraft, namely two Zorkiy-2M and four SITRO-AIS.
94
Seriously this spacecraft is cursed... first it's software, then sticky valve, then faulty valve and now helium leak... all the while the spikes in spending

It's a human spacecraft, the most complex type of spacecraft ever built.
The real fault isn't in the spacecraft but the manner in which its maker initially conducted testing of flight hardware and software, with some lack of initial oversight by NASA (a discussion found ad nauseum in the general thread). It's also a new spacecraft, while SpaceX was able to leverage their much of their original Dragon technology in Crew Dragon development.

Valves are faulty all the time and have been on all US vehicles, but human spacecraft have workarounds typically; even Crew Dragon has had issues. One valve, on the returned DM-1 spacecraft, caused it to be totally destroyed on a ground test. That thing was in orbit and docked to the ISS with that fault. Ponder on that one.

The helium leak is ridiculously minor but as the first crewed mission, they are showing far better judgement than on OFT-1 to be cautious and thorough.
95
This seems to exaggerate the risks.  The suits will be tested this Summer and we might expect manufacture and flight of dozens of these suits before a Hubble mission.
The Hubble servicing mission proposed by Isaacman was the second Polaris missions, so no suit use in space other than the float-about-a-bit test on Polaris Dawn.

With a cooperative and opportunistic attitude, I have no doubt that NASA could test the suits to its satisfaction before the servicing mission.  For instance, testing on the ISS.  NASA's astronauts will be wearing these suits uphill, after all.
Or just not rush to do the mission as Polaris 2 and instead fly it later with more mature suits and more operational experience. With all the costs to NASA other than launching the capsule (mission planning, crew training, new hardware development and testing) 'saving' the cost of paying SpaceX for a crew launch is not worth the risk vs. paying them at a later date for a more mature mission. The 'free' mission isn't free to NASA.
To me, this seems like the Dragon propulsive landing problem all over again.
Propulsive landing was abandoned by SpaceX as base-first capsule entry moved off of the critical path for MCT with the switch to 'bellyflop' entry. Development effort (time and money) for propulsive landing then went from being justified scale R&D and operational experience for the a future vehicle, to a dead-end that needed to justify its own funding for Dragon alone, and parachutes + splashdown were deemed the cheaper and faster option.
It's not just a high-risk (to Hubble, not to mention the servicing crew) option, it's an unnecessary risk. There is no urgent rush to save Hubble

Hubble is down to three working gyros (one of which is spotty), so while it might be hasty to say the need is *urgent*, we might at least have to say that time is not an inconsiderable consideration. If the gyros finally fail, you no longer have a stable  target to dock with or latch on to, and that is a problem regardless of whether you are using a crewed Dragon or tug like that of Momentus or Northrop.

That being the case, it is something for NASA to start thinking hard about, now.
As mentioned in the same post you quoted, that calls for a stopgap mission to add a stabilising platform (one that can be nearly CoTS too, as the MEVs are operating successfully in orbit latched to host satellites), not any urgency for a more complex and manned servicing mission, which can come later. Purchase a MEV, purchase a launch (how about Falcon 9?), and stabilise Hubble for at least an extra decade regardless of whether the gyroscopes meet their predicted lifetimes or not. Then your complex mission can be planned and prepared for with care rather than an artificial hurry.



tl;dr: servicing mission with Dragon at some point in the future - maybe a good idea. Servicing mission on Polaris 2 - likely a bad idea.
97
12 miles on a single charge isn't much. It's 2024, can't they extend the range to at least 25 miles?
The devil is always in the details. The 12 miles might be a minimum reserve to get back to the Moon base.  Some renderings of the Toyota Lunar Cruiser show an extended solar panel for recharging along the way.  So the 12 mile range might not mean what you think it does.


Also consider the scale of this rover.  If it's intended to fully shelter 2 astronauts for 30 days, carry 30 days worth of consumables, offer some sort of "comfort" space (sleeping), and some sort of toilet facility (unless we plan on diapers), some sort of airlock, AND move at a decent pace on the lunar surface (over rough terrain!)?  We're talking an off-road capable RV on the Moon.  That is a lot to power, and it's probably limited on space for the batteries.  It won't be traveling fast, I'm guessing under 15mph for sure.  12 mile minimum range per charge is fine if the objective is reuse around a permanent base.  And if they can work out charging stations a distance away from base, the 12 mile limit isn't such a big deal.  This can scale, and that's the important part.
98
Seriously this spacecraft is cursed... first it's software, then sticky valve, then faulty valve and now helium leak... all the while the spikes in spending

The "faulty valve" is NOT related to Starliner. It was the Atlas V's Centaur LOX relief valve that was just replaced. The helium leak within Starliner is the problem being looked at now.

My biggest worry is if the launch slips once more past the 25th, Starliner might have to be destacked.
99
https://spacenews.com/nasa-and-esa-complete-agreement-for-cooperation-on-mars-rover-mission/

Great news. NASA and ESA have reached a formal agreement on continuing ExoMars.
Looks like one stipulation is that since the US is giving the plutonium, the launch must be from a US rocket.

Well, it does seem that there will be other bennies granted to NASA, even if they have yet to be worked out: "The expectation among Mars researchers is that NASA will gain the opportunity to select members of the Rosalind Franklin science team through a participating scientist program."

Still, this looks like a win-win for both agencies.
100
Seriously this spacecraft is cursed... first it's software, then sticky valve, then faulty valve and now helium leak... all the while the spikes in spending
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0