Author Topic: SLS General Discussion Thread 7  (Read 280956 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« on: 10/10/2021 06:05 am »
Latest thread, following on from this one:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53453.0

Also see: SLS articles:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/news/artemis/

L2 SLS:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=48.0

Make sure your posts are worthwhile and don't get into monotonous "I will reply to everything you say and make my point 500 times until it grinds you into the ground" posts.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1080
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1126
  • Likes Given: 3183
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #1 on: 10/10/2021 07:05 am »
And another one bites the dust.

Anyway, eagerly anticipating seeing Orion on the stack! Not too much longer now!

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1705
  • Likes Given: 939
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #2 on: 10/10/2021 08:01 am »
And another one bites the dust.

Anyway, eagerly anticipating seeing Orion on the stack! Not too much longer now!
Any idea how long after Orion is added, before the stack gets rolled out to the pad?  The pictures should be spectacular.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11396
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 15248
  • Likes Given: 9473
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #3 on: 10/10/2021 09:16 am »
In thread number 6 I gave a bit of a history lesson on the technical reasons behind the N1's demise. That included this part:

Quote from: woods170
Had the engines been properly tested during development, than the Soviet engineers would have noticed that shutting down a NK-33 caused a rather substantial fluid hammer effect, capable of rupturing propellant feed lines. That was the primary cause of the loss of the fourth (and last) N1 flight.

Thanks to forum member GreenShrike I was reminded of the fact that N1 flew not with the NK-33 engine, but its predecessor, the NK-15 engine.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2021 09:17 am by woods170 »

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Liked: 1201
  • Likes Given: 2359
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #4 on: 10/10/2021 04:38 pm »
For all the hate and flaws related to the SLS, two things are sure.

a) if it succeeds, it will be a spectacular light and noise show.

b) if it fails, it will be a spectacular light and noise show.

I wish it to succeeds, of course - NASA never lost a Saturn V, and I'm sure the SLS will fly well. More worried about its future, though...

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11396
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 15248
  • Likes Given: 9473
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #5 on: 10/10/2021 04:45 pm »
For all the hate and flaws related to the SLS, two things are sure.

a) if it succeeds, it will be a spectacular light and noise show.

b) if it fails, it will be a spectacular light and noise show.

I wish it to succeeds, of course - NASA never lost a Saturn V, and I'm sure the SLS will fly well. More worried about its future, though...

SLS won't fail. Too much uber-reliable heritage stuff is in there.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 179
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #6 on: 10/10/2021 04:59 pm »

SLS won't fail. Too much uber-reliable heritage stuff is in there.

Is this sarcasm? Maybe you have SLS confused with another program?

On this subject, what are people's opinions of how Boeings recent problems with software and valves on the Starliner could lead to similar problems on SLS's first flight?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2021 05:01 pm by tea monster »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11396
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 15248
  • Likes Given: 9473
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #7 on: 10/10/2021 05:32 pm »

SLS won't fail. Too much uber-reliable heritage stuff is in there.

Is this sarcasm? Maybe you have SLS confused with another program?

On this subject, what are people's opinions of how Boeings recent problems with software and valves on the Starliner could lead to similar problems on SLS's first flight?

I was NOT being sarcastic. IMO SLS won't fail in some spectacular launch mishap.

I referred to "uber-reliable heritage stuff" because of this:
Launch mishaps are generally caused by propulsion elements misbehaving. That won't happen on SLS as both the RS-25 and the SRM are thoroughly understood and reliable propulsion elements.
The fact that the SLS SRB is 5 segments vs the shuttle's 4 segments is not enough of a difference to cause some spectacular failure. Nor does the slightly changed recipe of the solid propellant.
The tankage isn't new either. They used the exact same setup from the shuttle ET with the main difference being orthogrid and FSW versus stringers-and-skin. The SRB thrust take out is the same as on ET: at the top with a trust-beam in between the two solids.
Like shuttle the core stage structure takes the main thrust from the RS-25s, albeit via a slightly different load path.
So, lots of commonality in general to the shuttle, particularly for those elements that usually cause havoc on new rockets. I expect a nominal launch to orbit.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 179
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #8 on: 10/10/2021 05:47 pm »
I hope you are right.

As to the 'uber-reliability' of the shuttle hardware that SLS is based on, well, the record isn't as enthusiastic as you are: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17623.0

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11396
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 15248
  • Likes Given: 9473
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #9 on: 10/10/2021 06:24 pm »
I hope you are right.

As to the 'uber-reliability' of the shuttle hardware that SLS is based on, well, the record isn't as enthusiastic as you are: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17623.0

From RS-25B forward there were NO RSLS aborts. That's the full latter half of the shuttle program having NO RSLS aborts. The RS-25s flying on SLS are of the even later (and even more reliable) RS-25C and RS-25D variants.

The case where a RS-25 stopped working in mid-flight was a one-off, early in the program, with the earlier and less reliable first version of RS-25. Never happened again in the 115 launched that followed after it. So, no concern for the engines flying on SLS.

Foam strikes have no bearing on SLS. APU fires are not a thing either. The two or three that happened were all in the early stages of the shuttle program. Improvements to the APUs prevented repeats of the fires. The APUs on SLS are modified shuttle APUs and thus of the design that flew WITHOUT fires for over 115 missions.

O-ring failures ceased to be a problem after the post-Challenger full SRB joint redesign. From STS-26 forward the prior O-ring problems never repeated themselves. The SLS SRBs are flying with the same post-Challenger joint design. So, no problem expected there.

All supposed reliability problems you pointed at were fixed long ago, in the first half of the STS program. Except for STS-93, which was an outlier due to aging wiring (which you don't have on a brand-new expendable rocket). The need for pins to plug oxidizer ports was eliminated by a injector plate design modification post-STS-93. The RS-25s flying on SLS have that design modification.

The entire second half of the shuttle program showed very high reliability of the propulsion elements and their associated systems. Those very same propulsion elements and systems are being flown on SLS. So, I don't expect catastrophic failures coming from those elements.

If anything causes a SLS launch go wrong I fully expect it to be something else than the legacy elements.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2021 06:27 pm by woods170 »

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1101
  • Likes Given: 3027
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #10 on: 10/10/2021 08:30 pm »
And another one bites the dust.

Anyway, eagerly anticipating seeing Orion on the stack! Not too much longer now!

Same!  Has Orion Stage Adapter been installed yet?
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Conexion Espacial

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Liked: 2366
  • Likes Given: 1798
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #11 on: 10/12/2021 03:18 pm »
One of the liquid hydrogen storage tanks (LH2) being built on Launch Pad 39B is nearly complete, the next step is to paint the tank.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2021 04:03 pm by Conexion Espacial »
I publish information in Spanish about space and rockets.
https://twitter.com/conexionspacial

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Florida
  • Liked: 4719
  • Likes Given: 1011
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #12 on: 10/12/2021 03:52 pm »
So will it be finished before the WDR? Or could it delay the WDR occurrence late next month? Or has the WDR slipped out into later in December?

You would want all of your GSE that will be used for a launch to be exercised in a test (WDR) to say that the pad and vehicle are ready for the next step: LAUNCH.

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #13 on: 10/13/2021 12:23 am »
I thought I read somewhere that the completed stack will be rolled out for pad GSE interface checks, then rolled back to the VAB, then rolled out again for launch.  Correct?  I assume the KSC bus tours will be halted during both roll-outs/back.  Thanks for any info.
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP*, STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink 4-24, Artemis 1 (*@KSC, not Baikonur!)
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch)

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #14 on: 10/13/2021 12:48 am »
And another one bites the dust.

Anyway, eagerly anticipating seeing Orion on the stack! Not too much longer now!

Same!  Has Orion Stage Adapter been installed yet?

According to SN, the adapter has been installed.
Note:  Still puzzled by NASA's decision to use a dummy motor in the launch escape tower (tower jettison motors will be active).  If there is a launch failure, wouldn't you want to at least recover the Orion capsule?  On the other hand, NASA would have much bigger problems on its hands if there was a launch failure.
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP*, STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink 4-24, Artemis 1 (*@KSC, not Baikonur!)
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch)

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1398
  • Likes Given: 3480
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #15 on: 10/13/2021 01:50 am »
...
Note:  Still puzzled by NASA's decision to use a dummy motor in the launch escape tower (tower jettison motors will be active).  If there is a launch failure, wouldn't you want to at least recover the Orion capsule?  On the other hand, NASA would have much bigger problems on its hands if there was a launch failure.

At first that seemed strange to me as well, but I now think it makes a lot of sense.

They will have had to weight the chance of launch failure combined with the benefit of the recovered capsule (and real-life LES test) against the chance of a false alarm from the Emergency Detection System and the resulting loss of launch vehicle and mission.  With an inactive LES, a false EDS alarm can be monitored and later analyzed (perhaps even resolving the issue to the satisfaction of all concerned without reflying the mission), and the mission can continue on to other test objectives.

Starliner's Launch Abort Motors were inactive during OFT-1, and unlike with Artemis-1, they had previously tested ULA's Emergency Detection System on earlier Atlas V flights.

I don't recall the SuperDraco status for DM-1.

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #16 on: 10/13/2021 02:11 am »
...
Note:  Still puzzled by NASA's decision to use a dummy motor in the launch escape tower (tower jettison motors will be active).  If there is a launch failure, wouldn't you want to at least recover the Orion capsule?  On the other hand, NASA would have much bigger problems on its hands if there was a launch failure.

At first that seemed strange to me as well, but I now think it makes a lot of sense.

They will have had to weight the chance of launch failure combined with the benefit of the recovered capsule (and real-life LES test) against the chance of a false alarm from the Emergency Detection System and the resulting loss of launch vehicle and mission.  With an inactive LES, a false EDS alarm can be monitored and later analyzed (perhaps even resolving the issue to the satisfaction of all concerned without reflying the mission), and the mission can continue on to other test objectives.

Starliner's Launch Abort Motors were inactive during OFT-1, and unlike with Artemis-1, they had previously tested ULA's Emergency Detection System on earlier Atlas V flights.

I don't recall the SuperDraco status for DM-1.


Good points.
Note:  Starliner's abort motors will be armed for OFT-2.
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP*, STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink 4-24, Artemis 1 (*@KSC, not Baikonur!)
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch)

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6062
  • Liked: 8626
  • Likes Given: 839
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #17 on: 10/13/2021 04:22 am »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1447999228198883333

Quote
NASA MSFC director Jody Singer, in opening remarks at the @astrosociety’s von Braun Symposium, says she wanted to show the latest image of SLS as it’s prepared for Artemis-1, but couldn’t get it in time. Instead she shows this pic… from mid-Sept.

Quote
Thought: it’s tough to build public interest in a return-to-the-Moon program when the latest image of the rocket that is one of its foundations, being prepared for its first launch, is nearly a month old.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7910
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9213
  • Likes Given: 10995
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #18 on: 10/13/2021 05:02 am »
Not sure where this quote is from in your post...
Quote
Thought: it’s tough to build public interest in a return-to-the-Moon program when the latest image of the rocket that is one of its foundations, being prepared for its first launch, is nearly a month old.

...but I wanted to make the observation that the public being excited about the SLS for the Artemis program is like someone being excited about their flight to some far away vacation destination on an airliner. The method of transportation is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Oh, an SLS launch will get press coverage, but SLS supporters shouldn't be expecting the public to sing the praises of the SLS, not when all the video of the astronauts will be from within the Orion MPCV.

Bottom line is that the public will be interested in the return-to-the-Moon program because of what it means to them, not because of the rocket that launched them. And if the public supports the goals of the Artemis program, then the SLS will have a continuing use...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Liked: 653
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 7
« Reply #19 on: 10/13/2021 05:32 am »
The method of transportation is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Well, IMO large rockets (like other complex high-energy technologies) are cool in themselves, in one way.

But yes, of course the real attraction is regaining HSF BLEO capability after almost 50 years without it.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1