A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Artemis 3 Mission in 2024



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 3rd 19, 05:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
says...

At a recent event at 1600 Pennsylvania studios, the actor playing the
role of president asked about mission to Mars, and while Bidenstine
stated Gateway/Moon was needed, astronauts who were present disagreed
and told him that bypassing moon was preferable.

SLS/Orion will have its flight around the moon and back. Not sure they
will even land. Funding will shift to Mars, at which point the whole
Gateway/Moon thing will go on backburner and funding redirected to
hardware that can go to Mars.


I disagree completely. President Trump can't tell his elbow from his
asshole and everything that comes out of his mouth is incoherent word
salad. Actions of this Administration speak louder than any words that
come out of Trump's mouth, IMHO.

The moon is where we're going. Mars will wait. SLS isn't capable of
fielding a Mars mission with its pathetic flight rate of at most 2x a
year. There will need to be a *lot* of mass put into LEO for a Mars
mission to take place.

Even Musk's plan to use Starship to go to Mars will take a *lot* of
tanker Starship flights to LEO just to bring up enough propellant for
each Starship that goes to Mars. And the plan is to send two Starships
at a time to Mars. The first two will likely be prepositioned Starships
that will make propellant for the return trip. Not sure if they will be
crewed or not.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #32  
Old August 4th 19, 03:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
says...

On 2019-08-03 12:54, Jeff Findley wrote:

I disagree completely. President Trump can't tell his elbow from his
asshole and everything that comes out of his mouth is incoherent word
salad.


Yet, he has put in place people who blindly follow his wishes,
dissenters get fired fairly quickly. Don't underestimate his power to
change things.


Again, I disagree completely. Zero work at NASA is happening to send
people to Mars. However, NASA is actively working on both Gateway and
on procuring crewed lunar landers for a lunar mission.

Again, this Administration's actions speak louder than Trump's words
when it comes to NASA. Mars simply isn't a priority outside of Trump's
word salad he spewed during the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11.

The moon is where we're going. Mars will wait. SLS isn't capable of
fielding a Mars mission


Oh, but NASA used to claim SLS and Orion would bring men to Mars :-)


Marketing lies, just as it was with Ares V, which was never even built.

The way I see it, once SLS has done its spin around the moon, the
reality of its cost, and availability of SPaceX alternatives (and
potentially others) will quickly kill SLS and the Moon plans and a focus
(longer term) on Mars will happen.


Wishful thinking. Since we're spouting wild-assed guesses, at this
point I think SLS has the political inertia to fly at least three or
four times. Assuming a realistic flight rate for such early
(development) flights, I think that puts us at about 2025 for its last
flight. So about $12 billion more wasted before its canceled.

The moon thing is really just to people can't claim the billions spent
on SLS were for nothing. SLS is not sustainable, but the few engines
they do have will do at least 1 trip to the moon and back.


They have enough former space shuttle hardware (SSMEs and SRB casings)
for four SLS flights. I think that's going to be when it is killed.
When it sinks in that new hardware will have to be built for every
single flight. That ought to also be a time when both Starship and New
Glenn are hopefully both flying, even if they're still tweaking the
designs as they go. Having a couple of (semi-)reusable alternatives
will hopefully highlight just how wasteful all expendable hardware
really is.

Even Musk's plan to use Starship to go to Mars will take a *lot* of
tanker Starship flights to LEO just to bring up enough propellant for



LEO is the keyword here. not "Gateway". LEO lets you deliver fuel much
faster, and with far less hot re-entry than coming back from Gateway.


The Starship tankers won't need to be able to handle a reentry from a
return from the moon and/or Mars. So their thermal protection system
might not need to be quite as complex/expensive. But, the crewed
Starships going to the moon and/or Mars will need to be able to handle
that.

The more SpaceX advances BFR/BFS, the more politicians will shift
towards it instead of the SLS boobdogle.


While I agree, I also think Starship will be very incremental just like
Falcon 9 was going from v1.0 all the way to Block 5 (the "final"
version). So, optimistically, it might take 5-10 years before we see
Starships sending crews in the dozens to Mars and back. It might take
even longer.

Make no mistake, Starship isn't even a sure thing. It must be fully
reusable in order for it to work for Mars missions. Super Booster won't
be much of an issue, IMHO, because it's not that much different than
Falcon 9's first stage in how it will operate. Starship is the big
unknown. If Starship can't be made reusable, it's simply not going to
work for Mars missions. It's got to be able to reenter Mars atmosphere,
land, be refueled, and fly all the way back to earth. That's reusable.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #33  
Old August 4th 19, 07:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niklas Holsti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

On 19-08-04 17:53 , Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2019-08-03 12:54, Jeff Findley wrote:
...
Even Musk's plan to use Starship to go to Mars will take a *lot* of
tanker Starship flights to LEO just to bring up enough propellant for


LEO is the keyword here. not "Gateway". LEO lets you deliver fuel much
faster, and with far less hot re-entry than coming back from Gateway.


The Starship tankers won't need to be able to handle a reentry from a
return from the moon and/or Mars. So their thermal protection system
might not need to be quite as complex/expensive. But, the crewed
Starships going to the moon and/or Mars will need to be able to handle
that.


A fall-back alternative might be for a Starship, returning to Earth from
Mars, to use its remaining fuel not for landing, but to brake into a low
orbit around Earth. A tanker could then refuel the Starship with enough
fuel for reentry and landing on Earth.

However, braking into LEO from a Mars-return trajectoy may need
considerably more fuel than a mere landing on Earth after an aerobraking
re-entry, so this fall-back method would probably reduce payload
capacity; the question is by how much, and I suspect by a lot. This
could perhaps be solved by refueling the returning Starship in low Mars
orbit, after launch from Mars and before trans-Earth injection, using
tankers (or Starships acting as tankers) from Mars, but that is getting
a bit complex...

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
  #34  
Old August 4th 19, 10:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
says...

On 2019-08-04 10:53, Jeff Findley wrote:

Again, I disagree completely. Zero work at NASA is happening to send
people to Mars. However, NASA is actively working on both Gateway and
on procuring crewed lunar landers for a lunar mission.


Is there a budget for gateway?


Yes. NASA has already issued a contract for the first module. Cite:

NASA Awards Artemis Contract for Lunar Gateway Power, Propulsion
May 23, 2019 - RELEASE 19-042
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...-contract-for-
lunar-gateway-power-propulsion

Is there a budget for a lander?


For crewed landers, that remains to be seen, but NASA has already issued
contracts for the precursor uncrewed landers. Cite:

NASA picks three companies to send commercial landers to the moon
June 4, - 2019 Stephen Clark
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/06/0...-companies-to-
send-commercial-landers-to-the-moon/

One of the contractors backed out, so there are now two active
contractors for this part of the return to the moon. Cite:

NASA terminates lunar lander contract with OrbitBeyond
July 30, 2019 - Stephen Clark
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/07/3...-lunar-lander-
contract-with-orbitbeyond/


If it is all at the "thinking about concepts" stage, isn't that too
different than thinking about concepts to Mars?


Yes, because NASA is actively working on contracts and funding for
sending crew to the moon. They are *not* doing that for Mars. They're
paying lip-service to Mars (i.e. spin by the marketing people). Part of
this is the typical HLV type justification for SLS, whose role in the
crewed return to the moon has already been minimized to simply launching
Orion.

Commercial partnerships are being forged to build and launch Gateway as
well as uncrewed and crewed landers. So, the SLS folks are getting
justifiably worried that they simply aren't needed anymore (they're
not).

Here's a cite that includes a "time-line" for Artemis. Note that all
the crewed flights "planned" are to the moon. The notional "to Mars"
mission isn't until the 2030s. Cite:

NASA - Explore Moon to Mars
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/moon2mars/

If a politician has stated that we should go to the Moon by 2024, but
budgets have not been allocacated for more than the on-going SLS work,
can NASA really actively woirk on landing on moon? pay to have suits
developped beyond marketing prototype ?


No bucks, no Buck Rogers. But do note that applies to Mars too. Money
has been allocated to start building Gateway (i.e. moon). Absolutely
zero has been allocated towards any crewed Mars mission.

Again, this Administration's actions speak louder than Trump's words
when it comes to NASA. Mars simply isn't a priority outside of Trump's
word salad he spewed during the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11.


While I agree that NASA has changed fron advertising SLS/Orion as being
part of a plan to go to Mars to being part of a plan to get to the Moon,
and the branding has changedf to Artemis to further focus on Moon,
having a tight deadline without additional budgets seems to point to
politicial PR speak without NASA having the means to actually get it done.


Exactly. It's all marketing branding in an attempt to make Artemis look
bigger than it really is. Nothing about Artemis would help send crew to
Mars. Everything about Mars is different than the moon, so the
solutions to get there, land there, make propellant there, perform EVAs
there, and get back to earth are *all* different.

Things that are different just aren't the same. This whole "moon to
Mars" is simply marketing bull****, IMHO. The evidence is in where the
money is being spent (and where it is not being spent).

What Artemis does is make it more politically acceptable to keep dumping
money into SLS by painting SLS as key part of some (virtual) plan to get
to the Moon, knowing full well that SLS will be canned at an opportune
time. And to me, opportune time is after SLS has done its test flights
and does a final spin around the Moon with someone in it.


Exactly. It's an act of desperation to justify SLS, even though the
only payload designed to be launched on SLS is Orion. Well and possibly
the Congressionally mandated Europa probe. Cite:

Europa or Enceladus? If NASA switches from SLS to Falcon Heavy, it won't
have to choose - by Mark Whittington ? October 10, 2018
https://spacenews.com/europa-or-ence...s-from-sls-to-
falcon-heavy-it-wont-have-to-choose/

In terms of the lander, how does this work? Does NASA decide on the
concept and overall design, and then ask for bids to exceute this? or
does it just ask for bid for *any* design for a Mars Landder giving only
"must fit within X kg mass and such and such size requirements" ?


They're seeking proposals from contractors. It remains to be seen what
the contracts will look like. But given what I've read about NASA
Administrator Bridenstine, the contracts are far more likely to be a
public/private partnership or a "commercial" contract than they are to
be "cost-plus" contracts.

And at what point would NASA have to go to RFP and decide on a
contractor? Is it allowed to do this if no budget has been set for this?


Ultimately, Congress has to allocate funds to pay the bills.

If NASA were to go to RFP today and gets answers tomorrow, can it go to
COngress next week and says "landing on moon will cost $X" and get that
budget allocated? (akaL money shifted around) or must it wait full
budget cycle to get approval?


You really need to read up on the current news. Cite:

NASA?s Budget Gets a Boost for the Artemis Moon Initiative
By: David Dickinson - May 22, 2019
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astr...-budget-boost-
artemis-moon-initiative/

NASA administrator says it will cost an extra $20 to $30 billion to send
astronauts back to the Moon - Jim Bridenstine finally dished on the
details - By Loren Grush @lorengrush - Jun 14, 2019, 8:11am EDT
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/14/1...rator-artemis-
moon-return-cost-estimate-20-30-billion-dollars-bridenstine

Wishful thinking. Since we're spouting wild-assed guesses, at this
point I think SLS has the political inertia to fly at least three or
four times.


The have enough SSMEs for that. But how many centre stages and SRBs have
been built?


One core stage has been built. As for SRB case segments, Google is your
friend:

SLS requires Advanced Boosters by flight nine due to lack of Shuttle
heritage components - by Chris Bergin May 8, 2018
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...osters-flight-
nine-shuttle-heritage/

After that, NASA would presumably be paying for "advanced boosters" for
SLS Block 2. Likely based on the composite wound (expendable) booster
casings that Northrup Grumman Innovation Systems has developed for
OmegA.

Make no mistake, Starship isn't even a sure thing.



Which is why there is *some* logic in continuing SLS/Orion in case
SpaceX doesn't deliver, so NASA still has something, anything to play
with in space.


IMHO, there is no logic in continuing with SLS. We'd be far better off
adapting Artemis to use existing launch vehicles. If they're good
enough for DOD, they're good enough for NASA. And considering DOD
always wants two providers, NASA gets two "certified" providers too.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #35  
Old August 4th 19, 10:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
lid says...

On 19-08-04 17:53 , Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2019-08-03 12:54, Jeff Findley wrote:
...
Even Musk's plan to use Starship to go to Mars will take a *lot* of
tanker Starship flights to LEO just to bring up enough propellant for

LEO is the keyword here. not "Gateway". LEO lets you deliver fuel much
faster, and with far less hot re-entry than coming back from Gateway.


The Starship tankers won't need to be able to handle a reentry from a
return from the moon and/or Mars. So their thermal protection system
might not need to be quite as complex/expensive. But, the crewed
Starships going to the moon and/or Mars will need to be able to handle
that.


A fall-back alternative might be for a Starship, returning to Earth from
Mars, to use its remaining fuel not for landing, but to brake into a low
orbit around Earth. A tanker could then refuel the Starship with enough
fuel for reentry and landing on Earth.


Orbital mechanics is a harsh mistress. The fact is the mass of heat
shields for reentry (i.e. aerodynamic braking) is *far* less than the
mass needed to do propulsive braking into the earth orbit.

However, braking into LEO from a Mars-return trajectoy may need
considerably more fuel than a mere landing on Earth after an aerobraking
re-entry, so this fall-back method would probably reduce payload
capacity; the question is by how much, and I suspect by a lot. This
could perhaps be solved by refueling the returning Starship in low Mars
orbit, after launch from Mars and before trans-Earth injection, using
tankers (or Starships acting as tankers) from Mars, but that is getting
a bit complex...


Refueling in Mars orbit might make a lot of sense if you expect to do
propulsive entry back into earth orbit. That Mars tanker could
presumably land back on Mars to be refilled again by the in-situ
propellant production equipment. But you'd have to "run the numbers" to
see if this even makes any sense.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #36  
Old August 5th 19, 12:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
says...

On 2019-08-04 17:24, Jeff Findley wrote:
Is there a budget for gateway?


Yes. NASA has already issued a contract for the first module. Cite:



Thanks for all the explanations. I was under the impression that it was
still "all talk and no budget" stage. (supported by some of the
arguments on the space suits).


Suits aren't Gateway. Gateway has been "in the works" longer than any
other part of this "return to the moon" program that they just branded
Artemis. I guess you have to give it a cool sounding name because
reasons.

For crewed landers, that remains to be seen, but NASA has already issued
contracts for the precursor uncrewed landers. Cite:



Are these experiment landers relevant/related to Artemis in other than
PR purposes of pretending to go to the moon?


Obviously they'll gather data on potential crewed landing sites. Plus
it gives NASA "experience" with operating lunar landing programs, even
if they're small and uncrewed.

You do remember that before Apollo 11, there was a *huge* uncrewed set
of missions to the moon, right? Those weren't just for fun. They were
a critical part of the overall program because they gathered necessary
data prior to crewed landings.

Yes, because NASA is actively working on contracts and funding for
sending crew to the moon. They are *not* doing that for Mars.


Didn't Bush Jr, in killing Shuttle, lift the prohibition to research
going to Mars? I realie there is no fiunded project to GO to Mars, but
doesn't NASA have on-going R&D on such a potential trip?

(I know R&D doesn't equate budget to bend metal)


NASA has been studying crewed missions to Mars since the 60s. NTRS is
littered with literally thousands of studies on thousands of topics. No
program is "real", IMHO, until they start bending metal and flying.

Commercial partnerships are being forged to build and launch Gateway as
well as uncrewed and crewed landers. So, the SLS folks are getting
justifiably worried that they simply aren't needed anymore (they're
not).


With a limited number of flights on Shuttle leftovers, they would know
very well that when the time comes to order new SSMEs, new this and new
that, the costs will be so hight that NASA will likely use commercial
services.


There are lots of people in NASA (many of whom working on SLS/Orion) who
think they can "justify" its existence just as the space shuttle did.
We spent billions each year on the shuttle that in hindsight could have
been better spent. Hell, many in the sci.space newsgroup argued in the
1990s that the shuttle should be canceled because the cost was too high
for too little benefit.

They're seeking proposals from contractors. It remains to be seen what
the contracts will look like. But given what I've read about NASA
Administrator Bridenstine, the contracts are far more likely to be a
public/private partnership or a "commercial" contract than they are to
be "cost-plus" contracts.


So more likely to be private sector R&D and design than NASA imposed design?


Yes.

Ultimately, Congress has to allocate funds to pay the bills.


Is this something which can be done quickly by shifting funds, or
something that is long and tedious and involves government shutdown etc?
In other words, with a 2024 deadline, could the budgeting process take
long enough to make meeting deadline impossible?


NASA has very limited ability to "shift funds" due to the high level of
Congressional earmarks in its funding bill. Congress needs to allocate
money specifically for Artemis or it simply won't happen.

IMHO, there is no logic in continuing with SLS.


Until there is a working replacement for Orion, there is some logic in
continued work in case nobody else comes up with a capsule. Remember
that a big goal is to remove the requyirement to launch US astronauts on
Russian rockets.


Commercial crew is the replacement for Russia launching crew to ISS.
That has nothing to do with Orion.

As to proper timing for when SLS is put out of its misery, that is
another story.


That all depends on the politics of the situation. Eventually even the
Superconducting Super Collider was canceled and the US is now no longer
the leader in high energy particle physics facilities.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #37  
Old August 5th 19, 01:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Scott Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:43:23 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
says...

If Moon manned landing missions were resumed, what would be a
realistic schedule?

Apollo flew about 3 times per year, and had massive amounts of funding.

Given future funding, maybe one per year going forward? One every
two years? That would be a lot slower than Apollo, but still having
five missions per decade will do a lot of science over time, that
would be 10 missions over the next 20 years.

Plus doing things not done by Apollo, such as the mission the south
polar area, missions to the far side of the Moon, missions to
mountainous areas, etc.


If Congress continues to fund SLS/Orion ($2+ billion a year just for
SLS), then the flight rate will be at most twice per year. At first, it
will be only once a year, once crew is flying, IMHO.

Boeing is having a hard time building the SLS core stage. And while
they claim they've discovered ways to make that go faster, I'll take
that claim with a grain of salt until they prove they can ramp up the
flight rate to something "reasonable", which is 2x a year for SLS.

In reality, 2x a year is a pathetic flight rate and worse than Apollo
did 50+ years ago.


We have had zero a year for the last 50 years.

Wouldn't 20 per decade be an enormous improvement over that?

Plus the sustainability to continue that for 2 or 3 decades or more?
  #38  
Old August 5th 19, 05:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

"Scott Kozel" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:43:23 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
says...

If Moon manned landing missions were resumed, what would be a
realistic schedule?

Apollo flew about 3 times per year, and had massive amounts of funding.

Given future funding, maybe one per year going forward? One every
two years? That would be a lot slower than Apollo, but still having
five missions per decade will do a lot of science over time, that
would be 10 missions over the next 20 years.

Plus doing things not done by Apollo, such as the mission the south
polar area, missions to the far side of the Moon, missions to
mountainous areas, etc.


If Congress continues to fund SLS/Orion ($2+ billion a year just for
SLS), then the flight rate will be at most twice per year. At first, it
will be only once a year, once crew is flying, IMHO.

Boeing is having a hard time building the SLS core stage. And while
they claim they've discovered ways to make that go faster, I'll take
that claim with a grain of salt until they prove they can ramp up the
flight rate to something "reasonable", which is 2x a year for SLS.

In reality, 2x a year is a pathetic flight rate and worse than Apollo
did 50+ years ago.


We have had zero a year for the last 50 years.

Wouldn't 20 per decade be an enormous improvement over that?


That assumes there's more than 2-3 flights... total.

I just don't see SLS being sustainable at its price, especially with Falcon
Heavy flying and BFR possibly coming along sooner than SLS.


Plus the sustainability to continue that for 2 or 3 decades or more?

At that cost, it's not sustainable.

And keep in mind right now the first few SLS flights will be flying
re-vamped SSMEs. Once those run out, we need new ones.


--
Greg D. Moore
http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #39  
Old March 3rd 20, 08:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

Tsk tsk tsk.

Pages on pages of warbling about an imagined "lack of progress" shows that not one of you has bothered to do some cursory research on this subject.

The suits are being built under the xEMU program, scheduled for a demonstration flight on the ISS within the next few years and demonstrated.[1] They have been under development for several years now.

All components of the SLS supply chain have been or are in the process of being contracted for roughly a decade of flights.[2] Replacements for Shuttle-era equipment have been under development for several years now, and will be phased-in as the left-over stock is depleted.[2] The SSME replacements (the RS-25E) are being designed to utilize more efficient manufacturing techniques to reduce cost,[3] and the SRB replacements (BOLE) are being designed using common technology with Northrop Grumman's upcoming OmegA launch vehicle, including new lightweight composite SRB casings.[4]

It's kind of baffling that

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QVeNY4HdNM
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunch...ls_production/ (easier to link this than link each individually)
[3] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...ine-rs-25-run/
[4] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...0190002126.pdf
  #40  
Old March 3rd 20, 08:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 1:38:30 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Tsk tsk tsk.

Pages on pages of warbling about an imagined "lack of progress" shows that not one of you has bothered to do some cursory research on this subject.

The suits are being built under the xEMU program, scheduled for a demonstration flight on the ISS within the next few years and demonstrated.[1] They have been under development for several years now.

All components of the SLS supply chain have been or are in the process of being contracted for roughly a decade of flights.[2] Replacements for Shuttle-era equipment have been under development for several years now, and will be phased-in as the left-over stock is depleted.[2] The SSME replacements (the RS-25E) are being designed to utilize more efficient manufacturing techniques to reduce cost,[3] and the SRB replacements (BOLE) are being designed using common technology with Northrop Grumman's upcoming OmegA launch vehicle, including new lightweight composite SRB casings.[4]

It's kind of baffling that

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QVeNY4HdNM
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunch...ls_production/ (easier to link this than link each individually)
[3] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...ine-rs-25-run/
[4] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...0190002126.pdf


Accidentally hit post too early. Was going to cap it off by saying, "It's kind of baffling that these misconceptions went uncorrected for so long."
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024 Rocket Man[_2_] Policy 18 April 23rd 19 09:54 PM
ISS mission extended to 2024 Greg \(Strider\) Moore Space Station 7 January 13th 14 01:27 PM
ASTRO: NGC 2024, the Flame Nebula in Orion George Normandin[_1_] Astro Pictures 6 April 14th 08 04:56 PM
Bush administration to adopt Artemis Society plan for moon mission... Dholmes Policy 1 January 13th 04 03:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.