[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'I')t's worth the little bit of money that nasa actually gets, comparatively, I hope you agree with me on that at least.

[Tanada]

I dug it up just for you Sixstrings because you said you were looking for a NASA/Space thread, as opposed to the Orbital/SpaceX/Elon Musk/Moon threads.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'I') dug it up just for you Sixstrings because you said you were looking for a NASA/Space thread, as opposed to the Orbital/SpaceX/Elon Musk/Moon threads.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'N')asa doesn't deserve or get anything anymore if I had my way. We made it to the moon on lovely roman candles. It was nice. I liked it, even attended a Space Shuttle liftoff. It was amazing.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'C')hina will just steal his tech with espionage.

[Subjectivist]

NASA duplicates Apollo XV experiment in vacuum chamber in Cleveland, Ohio.

http://youtu.be/KDp1tiUsZw8

http://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs

[Subjectivist]

Orion was test launched this morning on a Delta IV Heavy because the rocket is not built yet. If Orion is successful that will put pressure on NASA to actually build this launcher.

http://youtu.be/UEuOpxOrA_0

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ASA entered a new era of space exploration on Friday when its Orion capsule splashed down in the Pacific Ocean after going farther from the planet than any spacecraft built for humans in more than 40 years.

The maiden test flight -- made without astronauts aboard -- is a step toward eventually getting astronauts to deep space: first to help snag an asteroid, and then, NASA hopes, to Mars. Orion lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Fla., at 7:05 a.m., a day after gusty wind and problems with several valves forced officials to cancel the mission.

But on Friday, the 4.5-hour mission appeared to go off flawlessly. "There's your new spacecraft, America," said Mission Control commentator Rob Navias shortly before Orion hit the water.

As it sent back stunning images broadcast on NASA’s website, Orion orbited the Earth twice, shot up to an altitude of about 3,600 miles above the Earth. That was farther than any spacecraft designed for humans had gone since the Apollo 17 moon mission in 1972.

It splashed into the Pacific Ocean at 11:29 a.m.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'O')rion was test launched this morning on a Delta IV Heavy because the rocket is not built yet. If Orion is successful that will put pressure on NASA to actually build this launcher.

http://youtu.be/UEuOpxOrA_0

[Sixstrings]

Here's an article in the Guardian saying the same thing I said in my above post:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Orion: a last-ditch effort by a fading empire that will never strike back

When a space startup has twice the force for a fraction of the cost, you know the US government has a problem

Friday’s Orion launch was a galvanizing moment for the traditional, government-led spacecraft movement in the United States. This Bush-era program was decried as wasteful and directionless spending – a “rocket to nowhere” – and cancelled four years ago. But the Empire rallied and revived Orion and the massive proposed rocket that’s supposed to propel it to deep space. After all, the Death Star wasn’t built in a day; it was devised by some very talented engineers. And from their point of view, it’s a shame anyone would blow it up.

But there are some people out there who say Orion is too big not to fail. Earlier this year, the US Government Accountability Office took Nasa to the woodpile for fuzzy math, and offered its own accounting of how much it costs to develop Orion and its rocket through its first two flight in 2017 and 2021: $20bn, with a full $9bn spent on Orion.

And of course there’s that other curse haunting Orion: It won’t carry actual people until around 2022.

And that’s if the budgets hold out. The incoming Congress may not shut down a program like Orion, but they can starve it of fuel until it enters a netherworld of delays, life-support funding and lethargy. When it flies on missions, it will be outdated. Orion is particularly vulnerable since, you know, Nasa has not set a destination for it to go. If the first manned test flight is in 2021, when will the actual mission to Mars be funded and staged? It takes a very optimistic person to think the funding and tech will be ready by 2022 – or even 2025.

...

So far his claims about SpaceX have come true, and soon he’ll be fighting, with the lobbyists and the politicians who play favorites, for satellite contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Combine that kind of force with Elon Musk’s capsule full of actual people returning to space – under a Nasa contract to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station – and you have a private startup that can beat Nasa or any other government agency back to the moon, if it so chooses.

Return of the Jedi, indeed.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/05/nasa-orion-launch-space-startup

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')hen he gets to pretend he is smarter than NASA. Your/his patriotism needs a refresher.

[Subjectivist]

The New Horizns Pluto space probe has been activated in preparation for its July flyby of Pluto. When it was launch Pluto was considered the ninth planet, since then Pluto and Ceres were reclassified as Dwarf Planets. Here is a nifty animation of the Plutonium power cell on the probe that caused so many conniption fits in the anti sience protest community.

http://youtu.be/4qkvoVRdoNg

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'D')id you read the Guardian article? It says the Orion may never go anywhere other than ISS shuttling, that any interesting mission just keep getting put off years and years, it's not even going to do any cool mission for ten years or whatever.

Assuming NASA doesn't cancel it.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk gets it done for a fraction of what Boeing-Lockheed wants to charge.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he world's biggest rocket that could take humans to Mars in the 2030s is a step closer to reality.

NASA has completed a crucial hot fire test of its RS-25 engine flight controller at Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.

A 3D printed 'shock absorber,' intended to give astronauts a smoother ride, was tested during the 365-second event.

[Subjectivist]

The last American on the surface of Luna has decided to try and get your attention towards NASA to be favorable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Harrison H. Schmitt', 'W')hy NASA’s Artemis Matters | Aviation Week Network
Harrison H. Schmitt
5-7 minutes

The Artemis program to return to the Moon and to ultimately explore the lunar south pole region, like its Apollo predecessor, has a geopolitical context that extends far beyond its technical objectives. China and Russia have created another grave threat to free societies on Earth comparable to and potentially greater than that posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War period, 1945 through 1991.

The launch of Artemis I on the Space Launch System (SLS) begins the implementation of America’s and the free world’s response to the broad challenges in space posed by the aggressive hegemonic aims of China and Russia.

Now, as recognized by then-Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in the 1950s and 1960s, respectively, space dominance—and specifically the exploration and eventual settlement of the Moon—play a great psychological role in forming the attitudes of people who ultimately will choose between tyranny and freedom.

Success in meeting challenges in space will have profound effects on shaping the hopes and fears of peoples and nations. Artemis’ success will depend on full-throated political support from all sectors of American leadership as well as on funding levels that provide sufficient management reserves to solve technical issues without schedule slips.

The Space Launch System can constitute the beginning development and sustained availability of Apollo-Saturn V class of launch vehicles and spacecraft that routinely access the surface of the Moon with explorers, workers, cargo and settlers. With the addition of upper stages to the SLS comparable to the S-II and S-IVB of the Saturn V and a propulsive Service Module to the Orion spacecraft, the mountainous risk management difficulties now faced by Artemis can be greatly reduced.

Flexible lunar-landing spacecraft and roving and service vehicles are required that can integrate the lessons of Apollo into a vast array of new data about the Moon and new commercial space technologies. Each utilitarian hardware development also should fully utilize the capabilities of the human eyes, brain and hands to reduce risk in each task undertaken, from landing to exploration to construction to lunar resource acquisition. The planning and operational advantages available to Artemis through the vast reservoir of data provided by Japan’s Selene, India’s Chandrayaan, the U.S.’s Grail and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft will greatly reduce some of the navigational and exploration uncertainties faced in the Apollo era. Every new mission, however, will experience new surprises that must be overcome.

As a scientific follow-up to the Apollo 17 mission, a landing at the lunar south pole would extend knowledge of the disposition of volatile resources and of material ejected from the 12-km-deep (7.5-mi.), 2,500-km-dia. South Pole-Aitken basin on the lunar far side. On the other hand, an attempt by Artemis to land at the lunar south pole should be preceded by less complex missions, as was done prior to the Apollo 11 landing in 1969.

Although the lessons from the Mercury and Gemini programs became foundational for human spaceflight, those of the non-landing flights of Apollo 8, 9 and 10 gave skilled workers, engineers, astronauts, flight controllers and managers the experience necessary for success on Apollo 11 and subsequent landings. A new generation of skilled workers, engineers, astronauts, flight controllers and managers can gain critical experience if there are two or three initial Artemis landings at lower-latitude sites that represent fewer, but never zero, operational challenges as well as important exploration targets. The last landings prior to the first in the lunar south pole area might be at a lower latitude within reach of a permanently shadowed crater, but such landings could limit the added difficulties in navigation, lighting and thermal environments presented by landing near the lunar south pole.

A landing near the lunar south pole will be tough, given the orbital constraints imposed by the lunar Gateway station as well as by possible landing site locations. Further, there will be rapidly variable lighting, extreme thermal changes and the currently unknown nature of surface materials inherent in the region. Early Artemis crews will be constrained further by a compressed training schedule relative to Apollo 17’s that will limit their pre-flight field exploration experience. In addition, the current flight profile for a SpaceX Starship landing apparently would not allow the crew to have direct views of their landing sites.

Whatever course is selected for the sequencing of Artemis missions, I have the utmost confidence in the motivation, courage and competence of the hundreds of thousands of young Americans that will see Artemis through to success, whatever unanticipated operational obstacles come their way.

Harrison Schmitt was a lunar module pilot for Apollo 17 and the last person on the Moon. Later a U.S. senator from New Mexico, he is now an aerospace consultant and lunar research scientist.

[Tanada]

With all due respect to Schmidt, the only real scientist who has visited the surface of the moon in person; The days of NASA are past. Whether you love him or hate him SpaceX project Starship is going to make Artemis obsolete within a year. That is completely ignoring the fact that Artemis is over a decade late and tens of billions over budget to get what is essentially a disposable rocket that requires dangerous SRB boosters just to get off the launch pad. It is like they took every bad lesson from the Space Shuttle and applied it to the "space launch system" while throwing out every good idea.

Way back in the 1990's the DC-X program pioneered vertical launch and vertical landing. It was proposed back then that two properly designed liquid fueled boosters could be used to replace the SRB's on the shuttle and return to base for landing. NASA dropped that ball hard and stuck with the expensive and not actually reusable SRB's. In reality the SRB is just a shell that has to be taken completely apart, cleaned, refilled and reassembled. Compare that to the Falcon-9 booster that can land, get a safety inspection that takes a week or so, and then refill the tanks and fly again. That was what NASA promised for the Space Shuttle, 24 flights a year for each shuttle on a two week cycle. They never came anywhere near that cycle time.

SpaceX Starship launch system has a heavier payload than Artemis and is 100% return to launch site for inspection and refueling. It is basically ready for an all up test flight but the FAA keeps coming up with creative delays because having SpaceX launch Starship makes Artemis an also ran but failed project. NASA has even covertly admitted that support missions using Starship for their moon missions would be very helpful. What they do not outright admit is it has a much larger payload to the ISS altitude and to the Lunar surface at less than half the price of the Artemis system which is 1970's thinking dressed up as a new vehicle.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')What Is Starship Payload Capacity?

In addition to its dry mass of 85 tons, the Starship has a fuel capacity of 1200 tons via its rockets.payloads are 150 t each to the moon and at least a 50 t return.A pair of aft fins and two canards allows you to make a splash as the Starship reenters belly-first.


Is SlS More Powerful Than Starship?

The space craft SLS will be considerably weaker than the Starship.The SLS will be able to launch 95 tons in LEO, whereas the ISS can launch 150 tons in LEO.In addition, because Starship can be reusable completely and rapidly, it’s much less expensive than SLS at 1/10th the cost of launch.