User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:17:26 PM EDT
In the last test for the Green Run, the SLS core stage will go through an 8 minute test burn of its 4 RS-25 main engines. Half way through the test makes it a complete test as they are mainly testing the profile through max-q. The engines will run at 109% rated thrust. Once the test is done, the core will be sent to the VAB at KSC, refurbbed, and joined with the two now stacked four segment SRB's. From there its ML testing and finally the Artemis 1 test mission around the moon. Livestream starts at 4:20pm:  Hot Fire Engine Test for the Artemis Moon Rocket SLS, Starship/Superheavy, VulcanCentaur, and New Glenn will make up a great stable of vehicles |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:21:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Andy Griffith or Fred Sanford deliver that to the test stand?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:23:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Artemis is the name of a great Irish pub in Berlin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:25:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Can it do a flip?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:25:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can it do a flip? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:29:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Burning it at 4:20, eh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:30:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Why is thrust greater than 100% a thing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:30:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Elon will be drilling Pluto for dilithium crystals before that shit bird does anything interesting. NASA as a launch platform is tarded. At least the JPL piece still makes interesting probes/landers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:30:50 PM EDT
[#8]
Does China need it to launch anything to the moon?
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:30:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Burning it at 4:20, eh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:38:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Starship/Super Heavy are the only ones that will even fly. SLS will be a 1 hit wonder just like the last rocket NASA designed and nobody remembers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:40:03 PM EDT
[#11]
SLS is just about the biggest example of the sunk cost fallacy you’ll ever see.
Back in 2010 it looked sort of reasonable to spend $2 billion per rocket and $600 million per Orion capsule. Today SpaceX can deliver that payload with 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches and a Dragon launch for less than 25% of the price. Yet the government spending keeps on rolling with our money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:43:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is thrust greater than 100% a thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:49:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Starship/Super Heavy are the only ones that will even fly. SLS will be a 1 hit wonder just like the last rocket NASA designed and nobody remembers. S/SH is easily 5-10 years from operational human flights. Especially with that 'we're going to catch the booster' idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:50:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is thrust greater than 100% a thing? Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is thrust greater than 100% a thing? It all goes back to the original design specifications for the SSME back in 1969; per wiki: The 100% level does not mean the maximum physical power level attainable, rather it was a specification decided on during engine development—the expected rated power level. When later studies indicated the engine could operate safely at levels above 100%, these higher levels became standard. Maintaining the original relationship of power level to physical thrust helped reduce confusion, as it created an unvarying fixed relationship so that test data (or operational data from past or future missions) can be easily compared. If the power level was increased, and that new value was said to be 100%, then all previous data and documentation would either require changing, or cross-checking against what physical thrust corresponded to 100% power level on that date. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:54:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is thrust greater than 100% a thing? Has to do with the design of the RS-25. The rated power of 100% is based on the expected power during the design of the SSME. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25#Engine_throttle/output |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 12:56:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is thrust greater than 100% a thing?  These go to 11.mpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 1:07:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Starship/Super Heavy are the only ones that will even fly. SLS will be a 1 hit wonder just like the last rocket NASA designed and nobody remembers. I'm glad they are doing it in parallel. SpaceX is only one tragedy away from completely doing a 180° on their mission. Falcon is a money maker but Starship only exists because Elon owns the majority stake and does whatever the hell he wants. If he got in a car wreck and died, I wouldn't be 100% confident that whoever inherited his stake would be so committed to his vision of the future. I could absolutely see SpaceX ending up being run by a board of directors that played it safe and just ran satellites and NASA astronauts to orbit in the absence of maverick ownership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 1:08:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cancelling the Constellation program was the dumbest thing they ever did. S/SH is easily 5-10 years from operational human flights. Especially with that 'we're going to catch the booster' idea. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Starship/Super Heavy are the only ones that will even fly. SLS will be a 1 hit wonder just like the last rocket NASA designed and nobody remembers. S/SH is easily 5-10 years from operational human flights. Especially with that 'we're going to catch the booster' idea. That's a fair bet considering the time it took from Falcon's first launch period to the first time launching with Humans on top this past summer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 1:12:33 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a fair bet considering the time it took from Falcon's first launch period to the first time launching with Humans on top this past summer. Its roughly twice the height of Starship..lolThis past year showed it is tough times in the commercial launch industry. SpaceX had 3? missions or so. The rest were Starlink launches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 1:20:48 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Burning it at 4:20, eh? Good One! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 1:25:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Just some info on the RS-25.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 1:30:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They want to catch the booster... Its roughly twice the height of Starship..lolThis past year showed it is tough times in the commercial launch industry. SpaceX had 3? missions or so. The rest were Starlink launches. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's a fair bet considering the time it took from Falcon's first launch period to the first time launching with Humans on top this past summer. Its roughly twice the height of Starship..lolThis past year showed it is tough times in the commercial launch industry. SpaceX had 3? missions or so. The rest were Starlink launches. I'm guessing the "catch the booster" plan is aspirational at best and you'll see hundreds of Starship launches with boosters landing on remote pads or drone ships before they even attempt to try and catch a booster on the launch pad. But you never know. SpaceX doesn't seem to have a problem with blowing shit up in the process of development. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 1:35:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is thrust greater than 100% a thing? There is what it's DESIGNED to do....and then what it CAN do. The 100% is the designed rating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 1:37:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They want to catch the booster... Its roughly twice the height of Starship..lolThis past year showed it is tough times in the commercial launch industry. SpaceX had 3? missions or so. The rest were Starlink launches. Falcon flew 26 times in 2020. Half were Starlink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 2:35:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm glad they are doing it in parallel. SpaceX is only one tragedy away from completely doing a 180° on their mission. Falcon is a money maker but Starship only exists because Elon owns the majority stake and does whatever the hell he wants. If he got in a car wreck and died, I wouldn't be 100% confident that whoever inherited his stake would be so committed to his vision of the future. I could absolutely see SpaceX ending up being run by a board of directors that played it safe and just ran satellites and NASA astronauts to orbit in the absence of maverick ownership. Starship and Super Heavy are designed to be money makers with many applications. I would not count the company out if Elon was no longer pushing things. Every space program is one tragedy away, or two in the case of the SSP. SpaceX is willing to fail now in an effort to save lives and money in the future. I honestly think the SLS will make one launch and never go again. It will take 5 tries before they get it off the pad along with 16 programmed holds in every attempt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:10:17 PM EDT
[#26]
LOX and LH2 loading complete
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:12:04 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS is just about the biggest example of the sunk cost fallacy you’ll ever see. Back in 2010 it looked sort of reasonable to spend $2 billion per rocket and $600 million per Orion capsule. Today SpaceX can deliver that payload with 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches and a Dragon launch for less than 25% of the price. Yet the government spending keeps on rolling with our money. Agreed. If there was any actual fiscal responsibility involved, SLS would have been cancelled by now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:19:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... This past year showed it is tough times in the commercial launch industry. SpaceX had 3? missions or so. The rest were Starlink launches. lolwut? SpaceX had 4 missions to the ISS alone in 2020 (2 crewed and 2 supply runs). Not sure how many satellite launches, but I'm guessing between the commercial ones and the government ones, probably at least another 6 or 7. I believe that 14 of their 26 launches in 2020 were Starlink, so your numbers are wrong. ... as an aside, SpaceX would be smart to actually prioritize Starlink launches over commercial satellite launches, because the ROI for Starlink will almost certainly be higher. There's definitely going to be a huge first-mover advantage, and the faster they can get the Starlink network up an operational, the more money they will be printing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:24:28 PM EDT
[#29]
To top it off.
This hunk of junk will run on a test stand. Get taken apart, shipped to another location in parts, get put back together and not get a wet start or test run before launch. SpaceX builds on site, puts it on the pad for testing that includes a full hot start of the boosters and if things are healthy does the launch. If not (Starship) they swap the damn engine as it sits on the pad. The old school way of doing things is no longer acceptable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:26:09 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryI love how it still "costs" over $100 million per engine to build something that was designed in the 1970s.  Meanwhile, Musk claims that it costs about $1 million to build a Raptor engine. Granted, Musk is probably |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:27:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Thanks guys. I was not using the best keywords when searching.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:29:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm guessing the "catch the booster" plan is aspirational at best and you'll see hundreds of Starship launches with boosters landing on remote pads or drone ships before they even attempt to try and catch a booster on the launch pad. But you never know. SpaceX doesn't seem to have a problem with blowing shit up in the process of development. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's a fair bet considering the time it took from Falcon's first launch period to the first time launching with Humans on top this past summer. Its roughly twice the height of Starship..lolThis past year showed it is tough times in the commercial launch industry. SpaceX had 3? missions or so. The rest were Starlink launches. I'm guessing the "catch the booster" plan is aspirational at best and you'll see hundreds of Starship launches with boosters landing on remote pads or drone ships before they even attempt to try and catch a booster on the launch pad. But you never know. SpaceX doesn't seem to have a problem with blowing shit up in the process of development. When I first heard it, I thought it sounded goofy - but when you look at just how ridiculously accurate SpaceX has gotten in landing Falcon cores, and how accurate the SN8 prototype was (even without directional thrusters, and just using the engine gimbal) when it was coming in for its (crash) landing , I am not even very skeptical any longer. I bet they can figure it out pretty quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:38:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To top it off. This hunk of junk will run on a test stand. Get taken apart, shipped to another location in parts, get put back together and not get a wet start or test run before launch. SpaceX builds on site, puts it on the pad for testing that includes a full hot start of the boosters and if things are healthy does the launch. If not (Starship) they swap the damn engine as it sits on the pad. The old school way of doing things is no longer acceptable. So what gets taken apart on this for shipping to KSC? The flame trench at the pad would be completely destroyed with an 8 minute full power run test. SpaceX ships new falcon boosters across the country behind a truck. They aren't built at KSC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:43:01 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:47:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ahead of schedule. Is that a first for the SLS program?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:49:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ahead of schedule. Is that a first for the SLS program? Not if you include spending money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:49:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cancelling the Constellation program was the dumbest thing they ever did. S/SH is easily 5-10 years from operational human flights. Especially with that 'we're going to catch the booster' idea. Obama cancelled that on purpose to give the flegling chinese a chance to catch up and surpass us. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:50:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is thrust greater than 100% a thing? Likely there is a 100% of nominal planned use. A little extra of anything is never bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:54:59 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS is just about the biggest example of the sunk cost fallacy you’ll ever see. Back in 2010 it looked sort of reasonable to spend $2 billion per rocket and $600 million per Orion capsule. Today SpaceX can deliver that payload with 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches and a Dragon launch for less than 25% of the price. Yet the government spending keeps on rolling with our money. +1 SLS is already obsolete. The entire thing needs to be shitcanned (again) but this time forever. But I guess they need to test fire their 50 year old rocket engines to get the rust out of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 3:59:17 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:02:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what gets taken apart on this for shipping to KSC? The flame trench at the pad would be completely destroyed with an 8 minute full power run test. SpaceX ships new falcon boosters across the country behind a truck. They aren't built at KSC. The article reads as if it comes off the pad and torn down for refurbishment then reassembled. SpaceX does ship F9s, puts them in the hangar and on to the pad for testing. Currently the Stsrships and SH are made on site and just trucked over to the pad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:10:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The article reads as if it comes off the pad and torn down for refurbishment then reassembled. SpaceX does ship F9s, puts them in the hangar and on to the pad for testing. Currently the Stsrships and SH are made on site and just trucked over to the pad. Unless something fucks up and needs heavy repair it isn't getting disassembled. If there is an Artemis 2 it won't be going to Stennis for testing. Straight to KSC from MAF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:13:49 PM EDT
[#43]
a starship and superheavy will likely be CHEAPER TO BUILD then a single engine on SLS... even if they arent landed
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:14:19 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ahead of schedule. Is that a first for the SLS program? They just forgot to account for daylight savings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:14:21 PM EDT
[#45]
If Biden cancels SLS, will G.D. applaud him, or hate him?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:20:50 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Biden cancels SLS, will G.D. applaud him, or hate him? LOL  Attached FileTaken before Constellation program was canceled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:23:31 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Biden cancels SLS, will G.D. applaud him, or hate him? The right thing to do is the right thing to do. I'm not a groupthinker tho |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:26:14 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a fair bet considering the time it took from Falcon's first launch period to the first time launching with Humans on top this past summer. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Starship/Super Heavy are the only ones that will even fly. SLS will be a 1 hit wonder just like the last rocket NASA designed and nobody remembers. S/SH is easily 5-10 years from operational human flights. Especially with that 'we're going to catch the booster' idea. That's a fair bet considering the time it took from Falcon's first launch period to the first time launching with Humans on top this past summer. Maybe. But they are going harder on starship than theyve ever gone even with f9. Id say 10 years is a bit much. Years at least for sure. Sooner if blue origin emerges as an actual competitor (lol) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:46:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed. If there was any actual fiscal responsibility involved, SLS would have been cancelled by now. Constellation wouldve never been cancelled. Ares 1 was deving the bigger SRBs, J2X (I think), Orion, and was a stop gap for commercial crew. From there Ares V was going to use the same upper stage, SRB's, and Orion. From there it moves to construction of a Mars transfer vehicle with NERVA propulsion. Wouldve been less expensive and more consistent than trying to dev it all in one shot like with SLS. Im not a SpaceX fan boy like most here, I just like rockets. Of course, SLS would be cancelled and then a new system would start development. At which point you would recycle your argument, rinse, repeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:54:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To top it off. This hunk of junk will run on a test stand. Get taken apart, shipped to another location in parts, get put back together and not get a wet start or test run before launch. SpaceX builds on site, puts it on the pad for testing that includes a full hot start of the boosters and if things are healthy does the launch. If not (Starship) they swap the damn engine as it sits on the pad. The old school way of doing things is no longer acceptable. Second, FH will be doing vertical integration for NROL missions. Atlas, Vulcan, etc will all still be vertically integrated and will be single use. There is some possibility that Vulcan will end up with a system to reuse the engine sections but thats years away. Starship again, is at the least, 5 years out for manned missions. More likely to be around 10 years. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File