Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:40 am
Let's hope the power supply lasts that long!
New Horizons is powered by a plutonium thermoelectric generator, so it should have power until about 2065.Krulle wrote:Let's hope the power supply lasts that long!
Read the article. Its explained there.Werra wrote:How does one get a name like "The Trampoline"?
It's like saying:Werra wrote:How does one get a name like "The Trampoline"?
while your space industry failing spectacularly.I suggest that the USA bring their astronauts to the International Space Station using a trampoline.
CNSA begs to differ...dragoongfa wrote:So the US is back in the space race? Finally, perhaps this time greed will bring some progress because the lack of nationalistic spacepenis envy has caused things to stall.
Not much of a progress on that front, they have sent a Rover to the dark side of the moon but NASA actually sent humans there more than 50 years ago. Then again they are Chinese; they have a monetary angle into it as well, we just have to find it .GeoModder wrote:CNSA begs to differ...dragoongfa wrote:So the US is back in the space race? Finally, perhaps this time greed will bring some progress because the lack of nationalistic spacepenis envy has caused things to stall.
While I think there's value to having redundant systems, I'm sure the administration is getting hounded by people asking why we're spending so much to complete an over-budget, oft-delayed full-expendable heavy launch vehicle when SpaceX has a cheaper reusable heavy launch system available right now that can do most of what SLS is supposed to do. But Congress' pork barrel committee has saved SLS before over the President's objections; I expect they'll do it again. That said, I'm beginning to doubt it will ever actually fly. I wouldn't be surprised if the BFR will be operational before SLS even makes its first test flight.danuis wrote:There's some bad mojo going around the SLS, the current administration is putting up cuts for the SLS, NASA is pushing expanded upper stage to the 4th mission - if it ever flies that many - and all booster upgrades have fallen into historical silence. Orion is being mused to being put onto a commercial launch as well.
Thoughts?
I'm perfectly happy to see everyone getting into the space race, and in particular we need a Chinese space station so that Sandra Bullock has an emergency sleepover spot when the satellite apocalypse happens. But "catching up"? I think you're being generous.GeoModder wrote:CNSA is catching up, and does sofar a good job on it.
Moving Europa Clipper to a commercial launch, deferring Block 1B and moving formerly co-manifested payloads to commercial launches meant the only purpose left for SLS was Orion launches. And if they're already doing Orion launches with commercial launchers for $700M cheaper without the SLS...well, that purpose kind of evaporates. Of course, it never really existed, but it's going to be hard to go back to pretending it's there after admitting the alternatives exist.Arioch wrote:While I think there's value to having redundant systems, I'm sure the administration is getting hounded by people asking why we're spending so much to complete an over-budget, oft-delayed full-expendable heavy launch vehicle when SpaceX has a cheaper reusable heavy launch system available right now that can do most of what SLS is supposed to do. But Congress' pork barrel committee has saved SLS before over the President's objections; I expect they'll do it again. That said, I'm beginning to doubt it will ever actually fly. I wouldn't be surprised if the BFR will be operational before SLS even makes its first test flight.danuis wrote:There's some bad mojo going around the SLS, the current administration is putting up cuts for the SLS, NASA is pushing expanded upper stage to the 4th mission - if it ever flies that many - and all booster upgrades have fallen into historical silence. Orion is being mused to being put onto a commercial launch as well.
Thoughts?
Well...they're making progress, at least. They've substantially improved on the Soyuz with their Shenzhou, which the slowly-disintegrating Russian space program has failed to do. At least they're not complaining that they wouldn't be able to spend as much money on rockets if they built reusable vehicles and making nutty accusations of subsidies that don't even come close to working mathematically, or pretending that salvaging dropped engines with a helicopter would be a competitive approach.Arioch wrote:I'm perfectly happy to see everyone getting into the space race, and in particular we need a Chinese space station so that Sandra Bullock has an emergency sleepover spot when the satellite apocalypse happens. But "catching up"? I think you're being generous.GeoModder wrote:CNSA is catching up, and does sofar a good job on it.
I was a fan of Ares and SLS because I like space hardware and I'll gladly fork over the appropriate portion of my paycheck to pay for it, but I'm really starting to think that this is all for the best. I kind of lost confidence in the concept of government-led space programs when they canceled the SSTO. In hindsight, Ares/Constellation was kind of dead on arrival... it failed to inspire anyone. It was a rehash of a 45 year old Apollo system reusing 33 year old Space Shuttle parts. There was nothing in it that was new or innovative or inspiring. SLS/Orion is really more of the same.Mjolnir wrote:Moving Europa Clipper to a commercial launch, deferring Block 1B and moving formerly co-manifested payloads to commercial launches meant the only purpose left for SLS was Orion launches. And if they're already doing Orion launches with commercial launchers for $700M cheaper without the SLS...well, that purpose kind of evaporates. Of course, it never really existed, but it's going to be hard to go back to pretending it's there after admitting the alternatives exist.
It doesn't end there. The whole Gateway/Orion/SLS setup was contrived so each part justified the others:
They are now talking about combining multiple launches in LEO. But that means you are no longer limited to the TLI performance of SLS, and you can assemble the vehicle you need from much larger parts in LEO and then go straight to the actual moon. No need to limit your architecture to components massing 10 metric tons or less, no need to detour to some "Gateway" station along the way. Develop a reusable lander and you can operate it from a surface base and rendezvous with transports in LLO, and actually be working on the moon instead of talking about someday doing it while you piece together an intermittently-occupied space station.
- Orion needed SLS to get launched direct to TLI. The idea of doing multiple launches and doing rendezvous in LEO was taboo.
- SLS couldn't launch Orion, a co-manifested payload, and a service module big enough to reach low lunar orbit, so the Gateway was created to give it somewhere to go in an orbit it could reach, NRHO.
- Building Gateway needed the capabilities of SLS Block 1B to get an Orion with a Gateway component as co-manifested payload to NRHO. Again, combining propulsion and payload launches in LEO was taboo, so was just launching Gateway components without an Orion.
I had expected a token Block 1 launch to get "the SLS" flying (Block 1 really being basically half a SLS, with a Delta IV second stage), followed by years more development with the status as an "operational" system to protect it from cancellation. It's starting to look like they delayed too much for things to work out this way, though.
Sure, they're making progress. The Chinese space program is impressive, especially compared to Roscosmos who seems content to feed off the rotting 28-year-old carcass of the Soviet space program (I say that without meaning to offend any of our Russian readers... NASA was not in a much better state before the shift in focus to private commercial spaceflight). I think that anyone who can land a craft on the Moon has accomplished an impressive feat, but let's not pretend that the Chinese are breathing down our necks just because they accomplished something that Soviet Luna and US Surveyor craft did in 1966. I'm sure that the Chinese selected the far side of the Moon so that they could say they did something that no one has ever done, but no one ever did it because there was no compelling reason to. Aside from the need to establish relay satellites for communication, there's nothing particularly hard or special about landing on the far side of the Moon.Mjolnir wrote:Well...they're making progress, at least. They've substantially improved on the Soyuz with their Shenzhou, which the slowly-disintegrating Russian space program has failed to do. At least they're not complaining that they wouldn't be able to spend as much money on rockets if they built reusable vehicles and making nutty accusations of subsidies that don't even come close to working mathematically, or pretending that salvaging dropped engines with a helicopter would be a competitive approach.
Making progress is reason enough for being generous. As least as long as it lasts.Arioch wrote:Sure, they're making progress. The Chinese space program is impressive, especially compared to Roscosmos who seems content to feed off the rotting 28-year-old carcass of the Soviet space program (I say that without meaning to offend any of our Russian readers... NASA was not in a much better state before the shift in focus to private commercial spaceflight). I think that anyone who can land a craft on the Moon has accomplished an impressive feat, but let's not pretend that the Chinese are breathing down our necks just because they accomplished something that Soviet Luna and US Surveyor craft did in 1966. I'm sure that the Chinese selected the far side of the Moon so that they could say they did something that no one has ever done, but no one ever did it because there was no compelling reason to. Aside from the need to establish relay satellites for communication, there's nothing particularly hard or special about landing on the far side of the Moon.Mjolnir wrote:Well...they're making progress, at least. They've substantially improved on the Soyuz with their Shenzhou, which the slowly-disintegrating Russian space program has failed to do. At least they're not complaining that they wouldn't be able to spend as much money on rockets if they built reusable vehicles and making nutty accusations of subsidies that don't even come close to working mathematically, or pretending that salvaging dropped engines with a helicopter would be a competitive approach.