WIederling wrote:

GDB wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Anything substantial known about how the Chinese went by their Moon sample return mission?
More qualified COTS stuff?
Back when, to get high performance we went for some industrial ( even P packaging ) semiconductors for MIRO.
Nothing available in MIL. Worked nicely, ...

While China is not as secretive as Cold War USSR was, it's not open either, there is hope that science findings from it's Lunar and Mars missions will be fully shared. the operative word here is 'hope', not certainty.
Any industrial/technical spinoffs I imagine they'll keep for themselves, whether that's in advance of the state of the art generally, who knows?

Unlike the US Space Program then, any industrial/commercial spinoffs didn't do the USSR much good.
Not that sort of a system.
Some answers as to why, (rather beyond the scope of spaceflight however);

An early doc from my favorite film maker, (who this month dropped 6 films over 8 hours on the BBC i-player and available on this site too), this one filmed just before the USSR collapsed had both good access and with as it turned out, great timing too, if you have i-player access a better version on there;
https://thoughtmaybe.com/pandoras-box/

I'll look into that ... when I have some idle time at hand.

spinoffs are to a large part folklore. fewer things than is "known" passed that line.

Soviets had some very interesting line of sensors and other tech solutions diverging from the west.
( Just like their healt research is much less "expensive prescription drug and machinery" oriented.)

competition is a driver. But in the western system it has developed choking autonomy from lack of regulation.

Soviets had academic and political competition but not for production.
China seems to go for political leadership deciding on objectives and competition/markets for solutions.
( contrast with markets have leadership and look to politics to fix the problems they created

When Frank Borman, after his historic Apollo 8 flight, did a tour, in the UK at the Ministry Of Technology, the Minister, Anthony Wedgewood Benn (prior to 70's 'reinvention' to further left 'Tony Benn'), recalled in his diary how he asked Borman about spinoffs, he replied 'how to manage a large, complex program'. Something lost today it seems.
In fact the main one was the huge influx of what is now called STEM graduates, after Apollo they spread out in other areas of industry, in particular what would now be called 'Silicon Valley', the need to develop very fast, reliable and most of all small computers for the Apollo spacecraft, would go on to bear massive economic fruit.

Come 1975 and the Apollo-Soyuz link up, it would be the lowest an Apollo would ever fly in low Earth orbit, even on missions such as Apollos 7 and 9, plus Skylab. However in 1975 at least, it was the highest a Soyuz could get, the Apollo had to do all the docking, given the Soyuz really could go up, quickly dock with a Salyut and that was it.
Inside the Soyuz's computer was a rotating metal drum, which was a shock to many at NASA.
Now of course in the decades since, Soyuz has been greatly upgraded, still cannot do what Apollo did however.
(Hence my desire to see a proper replacement, at last, for Apollo, in the shape of Orion, it's been far too long after that wrong turn with STS).

GDB wrote:

WIederling wrote:

GDB wrote:

While China is not as secretive as Cold War USSR was, it's not open either, there is hope that science findings from it's Lunar and Mars missions will be fully shared. the operative word here is 'hope', not certainty.
Any industrial/technical spinoffs I imagine they'll keep for themselves, whether that's in advance of the state of the art generally, who knows?

Unlike the US Space Program then, any industrial/commercial spinoffs didn't do the USSR much good.
Not that sort of a system.
Some answers as to why, (rather beyond the scope of spaceflight however);

An early doc from my favorite film maker, (who this month dropped 6 films over 8 hours on the BBC i-player and available on this site too), this one filmed just before the USSR collapsed had both good access and with as it turned out, great timing too, if you have i-player access a better version on there;
https://thoughtmaybe.com/pandoras-box/

I'll look into that ... when I have some idle time at hand.

spinoffs are to a large part folklore. fewer things than is "known" passed that line.

Soviets had some very interesting line of sensors and other tech solutions diverging from the west.
( Just like their healt research is much less "expensive prescription drug and machinery" oriented.)

competition is a driver. But in the western system it has developed choking autonomy from lack of regulation.

Soviets had academic and political competition but not for production.
China seems to go for political leadership deciding on objectives and competition/markets for solutions.
( contrast with markets have leadership and look to politics to fix the problems they created

When Frank Borman, after his historic Apollo 8 flight, did a tour, in the UK at the Ministry Of Technology, the Minister, Anthony Wedgewood Benn (prior to 70's 'reinvention' to further left 'Tony Benn'), recalled in his diary how he asked Borman about spinoffs, he replied 'how to manage a large, complex program'. Something lost today it seems.
In fact the main one was the huge influx of what is now called STEM graduates, after Apollo they spread out in other areas of industry, in particular what would now be called 'Silicon Valley', the need to develop very fast, reliable and most of all small computers for the Apollo spacecraft, would go on to bear massive economic fruit.

Come 1975 and the Apollo-Soyuz link up, it would be the lowest an Apollo would ever fly in low Earth orbit, even on missions such as Apollos 7 and 9, plus Skylab. However in 1975 at least, it was the highest a Soyuz could get, the Apollo had to do all the docking, given the Soyuz really could go up, quickly dock with a Salyut and that was it.
Inside the Soyuz's computer was a rotating metal drum, which was a shock to many at NASA.
Now of course in the decades since, Soyuz has been greatly upgraded, still cannot do what Apollo did however.
(Hence my desire to see a proper replacement, at last, for Apollo, in the shape of Orion, it's been far too long after that wrong turn with STS).

On the other hand, perhaps that is not the right way to think about the future at all, and ‘looking back to Apollo’ is precisely what is wrong with SLS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... agon-moon/

texl1649 wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... agon-moon/

I'm not a big fan of that article...

Quote:

This commercially developed spacecraft has given our nation the means to carry crews to the moon — and perhaps beyond — much faster and cheaper than has ever been envisioned.

Except, no, it hasn't.

Crew Dragon is only designed as a LEO shuttle to and from the ISS, and maybe as a standalone temporary space lab if anyone ever orders a DragonLab mission. It cannot and will never get us to the moon or beyond, and neither will the CST-100.

SpaceX has a proposal to get humans to the Moon, but only in the form of a specially designed Starship. Given they're still clearing shrapnel from the last suborbital Starship prototype down in Texas, it's fair to say we're not quite there yet, despite the rapid progress.
None of the other commercial Moon mission designs are any further along.

The truth is, SLS/Orion was designed from the ground up as a man-rated system to take us well beyond Earth orbit, and is the only thing on the horizon that can do this, despite how frustratingly bloated and sluggish the program is.
There is no money to be made in space exploration... Only a massive government funded effort can get us there at the moment. Maybe NASA can let SpaceX or Blue Origin take the reigns on the next one instead of Boeing, but until then, it's SLS or bust.

Francoflier wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... agon-moon/

I'm not a big fan of that article...

Quote:

This commercially developed spacecraft has given our nation the means to carry crews to the moon — and perhaps beyond — much faster and cheaper than has ever been envisioned.

Except, no, it hasn't.

Crew Dragon is only designed as a LEO shuttle to and from the ISS, and maybe as a standalone temporary space lab if anyone ever orders a DragonLab mission. It cannot and will never get us to the moon or beyond, and neither will the CST-100.

SpaceX has a proposal to get humans to the Moon, but only in the form of a specially designed Starship. Given they're still clearing shrapnel from the last suborbital Starship prototype down in Texas, it's fair to say we're not quite there yet, despite the rapid progress.
None of the other commercial Moon mission designs are any further along.

The truth is, SLS/Orion was designed from the ground up as a man-rated system to take us well beyond Earth orbit, and is the only thing on the horizon that can do this, despite how frustratingly bloated and sluggish the program is.
There is no money to be made in space exploration... Only a massive government funded effort can get us there at the moment. Maybe NASA can let SpaceX or Blue Origin take the reigns on the next one instead of Boeing, but until then, it's SLS or bust.

But why is it really SLS or bust, even if just to go to the moon again? Two launches via FH seem like, per Bridenstein, an option to get to the moon. The Orion seems too heavy for no real reason, partially an artifact of the fact that it was designed to go to the asteroid belt at one point, and the interior volume of Dragon is not an issue for a command module.

A single launch to TLI seems almost foolish today vs. two given that...in orbit rendezvous are much easier and less risky with modern guidance/controls vs. when we had to rely on Neil Armstrong’s guts/skill. Finally, the cost to launch all of that on a disposable, vastly more expensive launch system makes the whole program...much more likely to face cancellation. Another take/perspective with some analyses/links;

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon ... on-launch/

texl1649 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... agon-moon/

I'm not a big fan of that article...

Quote:

This commercially developed spacecraft has given our nation the means to carry crews to the moon — and perhaps beyond — much faster and cheaper than has ever been envisioned.

Except, no, it hasn't.

Crew Dragon is only designed as a LEO shuttle to and from the ISS, and maybe as a standalone temporary space lab if anyone ever orders a DragonLab mission. It cannot and will never get us to the moon or beyond, and neither will the CST-100.

SpaceX has a proposal to get humans to the Moon, but only in the form of a specially designed Starship. Given they're still clearing shrapnel from the last suborbital Starship prototype down in Texas, it's fair to say we're not quite there yet, despite the rapid progress.
None of the other commercial Moon mission designs are any further along.

The truth is, SLS/Orion was designed from the ground up as a man-rated system to take us well beyond Earth orbit, and is the only thing on the horizon that can do this, despite how frustratingly bloated and sluggish the program is.
There is no money to be made in space exploration... Only a massive government funded effort can get us there at the moment. Maybe NASA can let SpaceX or Blue Origin take the reigns on the next one instead of Boeing, but until then, it's SLS or bust.

But why is it really SLS or bust, even if just to go to the moon again? Two launches via FH seem like, per Bridenstein, an option to get to the moon. The Orion seems too heavy for no real reason, partially an artifact of the fact that it was designed to go to the asteroid belt at one point, and the interior volume of Dragon is not an issue for a command module.

A single launch to TLI seems almost foolish today vs. two given that...in orbit rendezvous are much easier and less risky with modern guidance/controls vs. when we had to rely on Neil Armstrong’s guts/skill. Finally, the cost to launch all of that on a disposable, vastly more expensive launch system makes the whole program...much more likely to face cancellation. Another take/perspective with some analyses/links;

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon ... on-launch/

I don't disagree, but then I suppose it becomes a matter of moving goalposts.
As you said, SLS was built for a different purpose than jut going to the Moon, but it's hard to align a program that takes a decade or two of development with an administration that changes every few years, along with their idea of space exploration. At the end of the day, something needs to get built as if we scrap a program every time congress changes their mind, nothing will ever get done.

That said, there's nothing that prevents gradually shifting the Moon exploration/occupation program to private companies and keeping the massive SLS capability for Mars and beyond exploration once the apetite (and budget) for it comes back. It's not going to be a fast-paced program anyway.

As for the multiple launches + in-orbit assembly option, it does create challenges, not the least being that you need to build a fuelled spacecraft in orbit that needs to start-up and accelerate itself into lunar transfer trajectory instead of just flinging everything and everyone straight to the Moon from the ground. It sounds elegant but I suspect it's not as easy to implement as it sounds. It means that apart from launching all the pieces, you also need to send a crew or two at some stage to bolt it all together, then probably another launch to fuel it up.
That all needs to be developed from the ground up. The launchers may be available already, but none of the actual hardware that would allow us to assemble such a ship capable of going to the Moon from there exists. Not even on paper.

One option later for Orion, maybe once developed and flown, New Glenn?
Might be a cheaper way to take crews to the Lunar Gateway facility.
I suspect the former NASA Administrator made the FH case as it had flown and of course, to put pressure on the SLS team.
In future, NASA needs to be tougher on legacy contractors, however and I think this is what many critics of NASA miss, said big established contractor have a lot of friends on Capitol Hill.
Another way the endemic financial corruption of the political system costs taxpayers, often due to the recipients of said funding (corruption in most other Western nations), who ironically often rail against taxes and 'big government'.

Well, I hope we can agree at least that if SLS had flown in 2016 as it was supposed to, and if the cost per launch hadn’t ballooned from $500MM to something in the range of a few billion, we wouldn’t be here debating it’s relative worth vs. cancellation options moving forward, wondering if it will finally fly in 2022.

The political changes over time become more difficult to blame when a program essentially triples in cost and takes an extra decade, is all I am asserting. I don’t know anyone who believes the crewed lunar landing will actually happen by the end of 2024, at this point, either. If anything, it’s more likely to be pushed to 2030 or beyond given the inability to even put the Block 1 thru a full test fire.

SLS was hated since its beginning. Lets face it - while being a political rocket, I believe it is good that America finally has a rocket which is useful for ambitious missions. It might be that SpaceX will offer something useful, as well. But having SLS is not a bad thing since it is a capable rocket after too many years of LEO crawling.

texl1649 wrote:

Well, I hope we can agree at least that if SLS had flown in 2016 as it was supposed to, and if the cost per launch hadn’t ballooned from $500MM to something in the range of a few billion, we wouldn’t be here debating it’s relative worth vs. cancellation options moving forward, wondering if it will finally fly in 2022.

The political changes over time become more difficult to blame when a program essentially triples in cost and takes an extra decade, is all I am asserting. I don’t know anyone who believes the crewed lunar landing will actually happen by the end of 2024, at this point, either. If anything, it’s more likely to be pushed to 2030 or beyond given the inability to even put the Block 1 thru a full test fire.

No argument from me there...
The way this program has either been completely underestimated in complexity and cost from the start and/or used as a gravy dispenser by its government-friendly contractors is absolutely appalling, and one hopes that congress will manage to look past the bribes into bringing more serious contractors next time around, now that there are more to choose from.

Francoflier wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Well, I hope we can agree at least that if SLS had flown in 2016 as it was supposed to, and if the cost per launch hadn’t ballooned from $500MM to something in the range of a few billion, we wouldn’t be here debating it’s relative worth vs. cancellation options moving forward, wondering if it will finally fly in 2022.

The political changes over time become more difficult to blame when a program essentially triples in cost and takes an extra decade, is all I am asserting. I don’t know anyone who believes the crewed lunar landing will actually happen by the end of 2024, at this point, either. If anything, it’s more likely to be pushed to 2030 or beyond given the inability to even put the Block 1 thru a full test fire.

No argument from me there...
The way this program has either been completely underestimated in complexity and cost from the start and/or used as a gravy dispenser by its government-friendly contractors is absolutely appalling, and one hopes that congress will manage to look past the bribes into bringing more serious contractors next time around, now that there are more to choose from.

I do think that whatever happens with SLS, whether it has a short operational life or not, the way that program was managed is the last of it's kind, simply because a decade ago there were no alternatives.
But as Robert Zubrin put it in 2018, the FH launch was 'a shot heard around the world'.
The Shuttle was also years late and well over budget, yet many look on it with nostalgia, when JFK set NASA on a course to the Moon the hope was for a first landing in the last quarter of 1967.

Here's the thing, China is not standing still, try bleating about costs there, overruns I suspect can mean more than someone losing their job, it's up to the US, if you want the next human on the Moon to be planting the flag of the PRC and unlike Apollo, likely there to set up a base.

Interestingly, NASA just released an inspirational PR video on the Artemis program:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsIhTw0CK8U

Pretty nice, but the cynic in me has a feeling they're about to ask for more money...

NASASpaceflight review of the green run...

https://youtu.be/_b6gR0qFzj0

Green Run V2 coming up in about 7 minutes.....

Full duration run complete....

Successful, though only 4 mins were needed for data, simulating a full burn on a launch is a much needed boost;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56442020

Over 8 minutes. It feels like an eternity to watch when you're used to the ~3 minutes of the F9 first stage or <2 minutes for any solid rocket boosters. I assume that its a very different experience for the astronauts too.

Here's a video of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBgbieQnwaI

Nice gimbaling action @ 1:56 and towards the end again @ 8:20.
It seemed like the thermal insulation on the right of the camera was on fire for a while, at least at the beginning, though it's probably a non-event since it would stop quite quickly in flight.

I would have loved to see a shot from further out towards the end just to see the size of the cloud they created...

Now to pack it up and ship it to Florida.

mxaxai wrote:

Over 8 minutes. It feels like an eternity to watch when you're used to the ~3 minutes of the F9 first stage or <2 minutes for any solid rocket boosters. I assume that its a very different experience for the astronauts too.

You should try it when you're standing in a field, looking almost straight up with binoculars.

Nomadd wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Over 8 minutes. It feels like an eternity to watch when you're used to the ~3 minutes of the F9 first stage or <2 minutes for any solid rocket boosters. I assume that its a very different experience for the astronauts too.

You should try it when you're standing in a field, looking almost straight up with binoculars.

I do wish to witness a SLS launch in person, one day. Fingers crossed that borders open up again before SLS gets cancelled.

SLS core stage offloaded at KSC this morning.

https://youtu.be/z6d2zjw5CXA

One heck of a machine to annoy the pesky neighbors...

SLS core stage was stacked today.

Amazing how the VAB can make even the largest pieces of hardware seem small.

https://youtu.be/5n8AY-k-Su4

zanl188 wrote:

SLS core stage was stacked today.

Amazing how the VAB can make even the largest pieces of hardware seem small.

https://youtu.be/5n8AY-k-Su4

WOAH! seems like the first flight is coming together. Last I saw it slipped to early next year right? So the stack will be "tested"until then?

I did a google search and saw the first flight ( unmanned ) is scheduled for Nov. '21??

What are the odds NASA meets that deadline?

Are you you referring to the Orion docking test? They just moved the SpaceX capsule to the far docking ring in anticipation of the launch. The Space.com article mentioned July 30 launch.

bt

This would be Artemis I, which is the first "all-up" test of the Orion MPCV and Space Launch System super heavy-lift rocket. It is scheduled for a 22 November 2021 launch.

https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1

bikerthai wrote:

Are you you referring to the Orion docking test? They just moved the SpaceX capsule to the far docking ring in anticipation of the launch. The Space.com article mentioned July 30 launch.

bt

This is for the starliner launch...

For lack of a better place to post it-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... oon-delay/

It would appear the moon landing by the end of 2024 won’t happen, because the suits won’t be ready on time

And as is usually the case, Musk has already said SpaceX can try to deliver suits by then.

SLS umbilical release and retract test:

https://youtu.be/oeuU_ffBlGI

Let’s find all those hydrogen leaks now please…

zanl188 wrote:

SLS umbilical release and retract test:

https://youtu.be/oeuU_ffBlGI

Let’s find all those hydrogen leaks now please…

Cool video.

Has the first flight of Artemis I been delayed and is now scheduled to be launched in January 2022?
I guess it's still better than Boeing's "Starliner"... and way more complex

The second European Service Module - which will be used on the first crewed flight - has been delivered to NASA. Following acceptance tests in Bremen, it is currently underway to KSC aboard an An-124.
https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2021/ ... y-to-nasa/

bajs11 wrote:

Has the first flight of Artemis I been delayed and is now scheduled to be launched in January 2022?
I guess it's still better than Boeing's "Starliner"... and way more complex

No date set yet. First quarter of ‘22 seems likely.

Orion stacked yesterday.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2021/10/ ... pacecraft/

Orion stacking pix.

https://images.nasa.gov/search-results? ... arEnd=2021

That's not how you do it. You're suppose to use a rusty crane in the middle of a field.

Nomadd wrote:

That's not how you do it. You're supposed to use a rusty crane in the middle of a field.

In the end, you will build rokkits with the things you have on Mars, not with the things you wish to have on Mars...

zanl188 wrote:

Orion stacked yesterday.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2021/10/ ... pacecraft/

The fact that they're doing this "a little after midnight, EDT" is rather telling - it sounds like NASA realizes that they're up against it, and that there is a TON of PR repercussions revolving around the time frame for this launch. I'm actually impressed.

zanl188 wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

Has the first flight of Artemis I been delayed and is now scheduled to be launched in January 2022?
I guess it's still better than Boeing's "Starliner"... and way more complex

No date set yet. First quarter of ‘22 seems likely.

NASA tweeted that launch is now planned for Feb 2022.

For all the criticism and delays…I am really looking forward to watching this thing go. Going to be an absolute marvel

Coldest month of the year for the first all-up test.

KFLLCFII wrote:

Coldest month of the year for the first all-up test.

Naaah, no O rings this time. 0 rings.

SRB time from stacking to launch will have to be waivered.

flyingturtle wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

Coldest month of the year for the first all-up test.

Naaah, no O rings this time. 0 rings.

Even though most, if not all of the SRB segments are sourced directly from previously-flown STS missions?

https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/06/22/s ... tage-test/

Also thinking of the general cold-soak which, after a potential successful launch of Artemis 1, may mask any potential unknown warmer-environment issues during the (crewed) launch of Artemis 2 which has a higher chance of launching in warm weather than cold.

FGITD wrote:

zanl188 wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

Has the first flight of Artemis I been delayed and is now scheduled to be launched in January 2022?
I guess it's still better than Boeing's "Starliner"... and way more complex

No date set yet. First quarter of ‘22 seems likely.

NASA tweeted that launch is now planned for Feb 2022.

For all the criticism and delays…I am really looking forward to watching this thing go. Going to be an absolute marvel

still whole a lot less delayed than the "Lateliner"
I wouldn't be surprised if Artemis 2 crewed mission will be launched before the next Starliner launch

SLS engine #4 controller issue may push rollout into 2022.

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/new ... -artemis-i

zanl188 wrote:

SLS engine #4 controller issue may push rollout into 2022.

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/new ... -artemis-i

SLS/Orion delayed at least another month. Will be March earliest.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/scien ... 022-02-03/

Artemis 1 status briefing:

https://youtu.be/txuP7_Fby3k

Rollout from VAB starting soon:

https://youtu.be/tdBFSfz8WmY

NASA says rollout starts in about 3 hours.

https://youtu.be/RxzC2S8Z2Ng

That's a big rocket...
Good to see the crawler back in action too, now with a skyscraper stuck on top of it.

SLS will roll back in the hangar after the dress rehearsal on the launch pad. It will then roll back out for launch by this summer, hopefully.