Updates SLS Updates

steph

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,393
Reaction score
713
Points
113
Location
Vendee, France
Damn, that thing is ugly. Buut, if it gets people on the moon, I won't care about the paintjob or lack thereof
 

Thunder Chicken

Fine Threads since 2008
Donator
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
3,248
Points
138
Location
Massachusetts
On EFT-1 Orion had bare STS-style TPS tiles on the back shell. I don't know if this was covered with an ablative coating. The presence of the flag seems to suggest not, but it also looks so good that maybe it was applied after landing? EDIT: It seems that no ablative was applied to the back shell of EFT-1 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Orion_EFT-1_prima_del_lancio.jpg)

Orion-KSC-3.jpg


They used the AVCO ablative material for Orion, similar to the Apollo CM ablative TPS, and it seems that is what is on the back shell of Artemis 1 as well. I don't know if they put a layer of silica tiles under it and covered it with a thin layer of AVCO composite to hold it together or if they just used the AVCO stuff throughout. Some parts of the back shell still look like they were formed with tiles under a thin covering. The "patchiness" of the color might be the black TPS tile coating bleeding through layers of composite with varying thickness.

Orion_Artemis_I_Selfie_1.jpg

 
Last edited:

TheShuttleExperience

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,195
Points
108
Location
Earth
Damn, that thing is ugly. Buut, if it gets people on the moon, I won't care about the paintjob or lack thereof
It depends. Orion itself is a cool spacecraft IMHO. If you will it is actually the Apollo CM reloaded as a bigger 20th century version. But the rest looks strange once attached to the service module. Looks like 18+ content... I don't know who designed this but it just looks very wrong. But I agree, it returns humans to the Moon and that's just awesome. It certainly will be an awesome journey especially with todays multimedia technology. Can't wait to see it happen...

It's actually interesting how they combine the experiences and designs from Apollo and STS into Orion and the SLS.
 

Thunder Chicken

Fine Threads since 2008
Donator
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
3,248
Points
138
Location
Massachusetts
It depends. Orion itself is a cool spacecraft IMHO. If you will it is actually the Apollo CM reloaded as a bigger 20th century version. But the rest looks strange once attached to the service module. Looks like 18+ content... I don't know who designed this but it just looks very wrong. But I agree, it returns humans to the Moon and that's just awesome. It certainly will be an awesome journey especially with todays multimedia technology. Can't wait to see it happen...

It's actually interesting how they combine the experiences and designs from Apollo and STS into Orion and the SLS.
It's interesting in that they got the mandated STS tooling and infrastructure incorporated to make something that actually flies. The ICPS is a modified Delta second stage. The whole thing is one or two steps up from Junkyard Wars. Good looks were not a primary objective.

It's like the story of the pig that could sing opera - it's definitely not the best opera you ever heard but it's a miracle that it can sing at all.
 

TheShuttleExperience

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,195
Points
108
Location
Earth
It's interesting in that they got the mandated STS tooling and infrastructure incorporated to make something that actually flies. The ICPS is a modified Delta second stage. The whole thing is one or two steps up from Junkyard Wars. Good looks were not a primary objective.

It's like the story of the pig that could sing opera - it's definitely not the best opera you ever heard but it's a miracle that it can sing at all.
I think it's quite common in the aerospace and aviation industries. If you fly with a 737 NG or MAX for example you're actually sitting in the fuselage (nose section) of a 707 designed in the 1950s. Skylab was made of remains from a Saturn V actually assigned to fly humans to the Moon while the design of the Shuttle's instrument panels was close to Apollo. Not to mention the human rated Titan rockets for Gemini. That business seems to be a craft room in general, looking on how to scrape the bottom of the barrel. And I guess it saves time and money too. They always use existing hardware and facilities.
 

Thunder Chicken

Fine Threads since 2008
Donator
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
3,248
Points
138
Location
Massachusetts
I think it's quite common in the aerospace and aviation industries. If you fly with a 737 NG or MAX for example you're actually sitting in the fuselage (nose section) of a 707 designed in the 1950s. Skylab was made of remains from a Saturn V actually assigned to fly humans to the Moon while the design of the Shuttle's instrument panels was close to Apollo. Not to mention the human rated Titan rockets for Gemini. That business seems to be a craft room in general, looking on how to scrape the bottom of the barrel. And I guess it saves time and money too. They always use existing hardware and facilities.
There are always engineering constraints. The only question becomes how artificial they are to the solution of the problem.

Airliners have been cutting through the air for decades, and their aerodynamic shapes have reached a high level of refinement to do this job as efficiently as possible. What worked in the 1950s works today. That's a smart engineering choice.

Skylab came out of an Apollo applications project started in 1965 to leverage Apollo and Saturn V hardware for scientific applications. It certainly was constrained by the primary requirements of the lunar program, but it was developed in parallel with the lunar landing program. That made it possible to put a large functioning lab into orbit very soon after the lunar program ended. It was not cobbled together as an afterthought to the Apollo program; it really was a development fork.

SLS was constrained from the get-go to utilize legacy STS and Delta tooling and components, as an afterthought to those programs. Certainly, if the engineers were left to their own devices, they certainly may have used many tried-and-true technologies from those programs for expediency, but to say that forcing them to use all those tooling and supply chains made the SLS program expedient and cost-effective is laughable. Many things from those programs may indeed have been highly-refined and robust engineering solutions, but other things from those programs were technologies maybe best left for the scrap heap of history. I wonder how much 40+ year old tech is on the SLS that could have easily been updated using something newer and more effective and off-the-shelf developed from that 40+ years of experience. Having engineers making those decisions vs. politicians is always preferred.
 

TheShuttleExperience

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,195
Points
108
Location
Earth
Well, I don't know anything about the decision making processes inside NASA since I am not working there 🤷🏻‍♂️😜 But I would assume it's not that easy if you are working for a government agency that depends on tax payer money and political decisions...
 

barrygolden

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
936
Reaction score
291
Points
78
Location
North of Houston
In the Eighty's the " Ride Report" spelled out that NASA needs a defined goal . So we got the ISS. Project Constellation had a plan of a Moon base and permanent presence on the Moon. Artemis has a stated goal of the first woman and first person of color on the Moon. It is funded through Artemis 4 with plans for at least 10 flights in about fifteen years. This will be canceled soon after Artemis 3 if they can land a 12 story building in a rock pile. By 1 launch a year those who thought this up will be long gone along with billons and then what, maybe Space X will bale NASA out with Star Ship. Gateway will have the plug pulled pretty soon , its already being delayed out due to funding so can the Orion with this Service module get to a lunar orbit to dock with the Moonship lander and get home. I dont think the sm is up to the task, might need to use the 2 Apollo Sm's NASA still has. One at JSC and one at KSC. I see a lot of weak links in this plan but I think counting on the Moonship and this SM are showstoppers, never mind no new engine program after Artemis 4
 

Thunder Chicken

Fine Threads since 2008
Donator
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
3,248
Points
138
Location
Massachusetts
In the Eighty's the " Ride Report" spelled out that NASA needs a defined goal . So we got the ISS. Project Constellation had a plan of a Moon base and permanent presence on the Moon. Artemis has a stated goal of the first woman and first person of color on the Moon. It is funded through Artemis 4 with plans for at least 10 flights in about fifteen years. This will be canceled soon after Artemis 3 if they can land a 12 story building in a rock pile. By 1 launch a year those who thought this up will be long gone along with billons and then what, maybe Space X will bale NASA out with Star Ship. Gateway will have the plug pulled pretty soon , its already being delayed out due to funding so can the Orion with this Service module get to a lunar orbit to dock with the Moonship lander and get home. I dont think the sm is up to the task, might need to use the 2 Apollo Sm's NASA still has. One at JSC and one at KSC. I see a lot of weak links in this plan but I think counting on the Moonship and this SM are showstoppers, never mind no new engine program after Artemis 4
I'm not sure where you are getting your information but a lot of it is wildly incorrect and/or fantasy.

First, Orion is not Apollo CM version 2.0 - it is physically much larger and has higher power and habitability requirements for larger crews for longer duration missions. The ESA SM is in all respects a much more powerful and capable system compared to the Apollo SM, and is derived from the ATV which has a proven flight record. Besides, the Apollo SMs are not ever flying, period. That's pure Astronaut Farmer fantasy. They aren't in flight-ready condition in the museums and they would need all sorts of parts, hoses, seals, pyrotechnics and batteries and such installed and replaced that probably haven't been manufactured in decades, all to make an obsolescent and low-performance spacecraft ready for flight. Even if this could be done, the Apollo hardware was very much experimental, and there are many design aspects that probably would not pass safety muster in the modern day. We've learned a lot of bloody lessons since Apollo.

Starship is to be developed as the human landing system (HLS) to bring astronauts from the Gateway to the moon surface and back. Maybe Starship/Superheavy will make SLS and the NASA lunar program obsolete, but SLS is flying around the moon now where the Starship/Superheavy stack has yet to fly even to LEO. Given Musk's shenanigans lately I worry that SpaceX's efforts will be harmed and it may endanger that development program. We shall see.

If they pull the plug on Gateway, the entire project is dead, as it is part of the infrastructure needed to get astronauts to the surface of the moon. Gateway is a must-have with the present architecture.
 

Thunder Chicken

Fine Threads since 2008
Donator
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
3,248
Points
138
Location
Massachusetts
In the Eighty's the " Ride Report" spelled out that NASA needs a defined goal . So we got the ISS. Project Constellation had a plan of a Moon base and permanent presence on the Moon. Artemis has a stated goal of the first woman and first person of color on the Moon. It is funded through Artemis 4 with plans for at least 10 flights in about fifteen years. This will be canceled soon after Artemis 3 if they can land a 12 story building in a rock pile. By 1 launch a year those who thought this up will be long gone along with billons and then what, maybe Space X will bale NASA out with Star Ship. Gateway will have the plug pulled pretty soon , its already being delayed out due to funding so can the Orion with this Service module get to a lunar orbit to dock with the Moonship lander and get home. I dont think the sm is up to the task, might need to use the 2 Apollo Sm's NASA still has. One at JSC and one at KSC. I see a lot of weak links in this plan but I think counting on the Moonship and this SM are showstoppers, never mind no new engine program after Artemis 4
Also, Aerojet Rocketdyne is under contract to produce the new expendable RS-25E engines for after Artemis 4. They are already cutting metal and testing engine components:

 

barrygolden

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
936
Reaction score
291
Points
78
Location
North of Houston
Ok you say that this Orion can do the same LOI burn as was done in Apollo and do the TEI burn as well ? Even in Constellation the Altair lander was to do the LOI burn. for 40 years NASA had lost a flight ready CSM but was found rusting away in the hot TX sun at JSC . it was saved and restored as well as the Saturn 5. Your right no way they would ever use 60 year old flight hardware but I don't think this ESA SM carries enough fuel to fly the Apollo missions. THe Apollo guys figured out the no bucks no Buck Rodgers so the Saturn 5 carried all needed to land on the Moon. I went to work at JSC in 1978 and worked on the Skylab plan if it was to be saved by STS 3. Well it burned up but working with that Apollo//Skylab hardware was awesome.
The Artemis plan as of now call for Artemis 4 to carry Gateway parts but why fly it if it has no use , why spend all that money.
I hear the Space X Moonship will need 7 refueling flights per mission . What will that cost? I see them trying to land this 12 story building 2 times then we'll see if a new congress funds anything past that . I wished NASA had flown all the Apollo missions and then more advanced Apollo Moon missions but no funding. I retired not long ago from Space X in TX and the Lunar Dragon was stored 2 doors down . I am flying advanced Apollo missions with AMSO with new landing sites and will build a Moon base soon.

I know there is talk about taking a Dragon 2 with extra fuel and landing legs to land on the Moon, might be the way to go
 

Thunder Chicken

Fine Threads since 2008
Donator
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
3,248
Points
138
Location
Massachusetts
Ok you say that this Orion can do the same LOI burn as was done in Apollo and do the TEI burn as well ? Even in Constellation the Altair lander was to do the LOI burn. for 40 years NASA had lost a flight ready CSM but was found rusting away in the hot TX sun at JSC . it was saved and restored as well as the Saturn 5. Your right no way they would ever use 60 year old flight hardware but I don't think this ESA SM carries enough fuel to fly the Apollo missions. THe Apollo guys figured out the no bucks no Buck Rodgers so the Saturn 5 carried all needed to land on the Moon. I went to work at JSC in 1978 and worked on the Skylab plan if it was to be saved by STS 3. Well it burned up but working with that Apollo//Skylab hardware was awesome.
The Artemis plan as of now call for Artemis 4 to carry Gateway parts but why fly it if it has no use , why spend all that money.
I hear the Space X Moonship will need 7 refueling flights per mission . What will that cost? I see them trying to land this 12 story building 2 times then we'll see if a new congress funds anything past that . I wished NASA had flown all the Apollo missions and then more advanced Apollo Moon missions but no funding. I retired not long ago from Space X in TX and the Lunar Dragon was stored 2 doors down . I am flying advanced Apollo missions with AMSO with new landing sites and will build a Moon base soon.

I know there is talk about taking a Dragon 2 with extra fuel and landing legs to land on the Moon, might be the way to go
I think you need to seek some reputable sources of information. This is tinfoil hat babble.
 

barrygolden

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
936
Reaction score
291
Points
78
Location
North of Houston
thanks for the chart between Orion and Apollo, how much fuel do they carry and how much thrust does the SPS have ? Are you willing to give NASA an open check book ? I like the idea of going back to the Moon but 6 launches to get Gateway up , what would that cost ? I think Moonship was picked because it does need the gateway with the other options seem to have to use it.
 

Thunder Chicken

Fine Threads since 2008
Donator
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
3,248
Points
138
Location
Massachusetts
thanks for the chart between Orion and Apollo, how much fuel do they carry and how much thrust does the SPS have ? Are you willing to give NASA an open check book ? I like the idea of going back to the Moon but 6 launches to get Gateway up , what would that cost ? I think Moonship was picked because it does need the gateway with the other options seem to have to use it.
If you look at the stack weights the Orion / ESM stack is lighter, mostly due to the fuel requirements and weight of the fuel cells in the Apollo CM/SM stack being replaced with solar cells and batteries.

You seem to have access to the internet and should be able to find the data yourself, but the Apollo SPS had a thrust of 21,900 lbf for up to 12.5 minutes burn duration. LOI burn was only 395 seconds and TEI was only about 150 seconds, with the balance being margin for correction burns to/from the moon.

The ESM engine currently used is a repurposed Shuttle OMS engine that develops 6,000 lbf, but can burn for over 20 minutes, plenty enough dV to do the LOI and TEI.

If you doubt any of this, you can observe the results experimentally. Simply wait and see if we get the Orion capsule back. If the ESM is not up to the task, we won't. :)

Believe it or not, NASA has engineers who actually know how to calculate thrust requirements to push things around in space. It's quite literally their job. It's just Newton's second law from high school physics.

There are many things to criticize about the Orion/SLS program, but there is no need to imagine more.
 
Top