Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Avatar2go wrote:Orion completed it's lunar close approach burn, and is now on an Earth reentry trajectory. The burn was nominal. Some great imagery of the lunar surface, again.
There will be a media briefing at 5 pm ET to discuss the lunar flyby, status of Orion, and the re-entry preparations.
GDB wrote:
All good, I was watching the stream. All very fascinating and yes, enjoyable.
Put's you in the mood for things like, slipping the DVD containing this on;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls2No9izqAA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006p5f
Works a lot better than it sounds, with actors lip synching taped conversations, including from behind the Moon so never broadcast, including Aldrin and Collins comparing lunar features to generously proportioned female posteriors!
One persistent issue has been with devices called latching current limiters in one part of the spacecraft’s power system. Those devices, similar to circuit breakers, have opened at least 17 times during the course of the mission without being commanded to do so, NASA officials said at a Dec. 8 briefing, but have not significantly affected spacecraft operations.
“It’s not a big deal because they can be recommanded on,” said Philippe Deloo, ESA program manager for the service module. “We don’t have an idea of what is the root cause. We are investigating, looking at all possible options.”
One possibility, he said, is that electromagnetic interference or noise in the power system is causing the latching current limiters to open. Another possibility is they are being affected by transmissions from spacecraft antennas. Engineers are doing as much testing as they can before the end of the mission to identify the cause. “This is going to be a difficult one to troubleshoot.”
Zimmermann emphasized the issue was not serious. “When they open uncommanded, the effect on the mission is not that big,” he said, noting it affects only one of eight power lines on the spacecraft. “It is a glitch, not a mission-critical failure."
Tugger wrote:Some good pics of the capsule.
It was interesting to see it in the water with the recovery team next to it.
For some silly reason I didn't realize it would be floated into the Portland's well-deck (had the helo lift to the deck stuck in my brain)
The pic with the team next to it gave me scale I hadn't expected. So much larger compared to Apollo. (I knew it was, just the pic emphasized it, showed it for what it is)
Tugg
BEG2IAH wrote:Looks like yesterday's Stennis test of newly built RS-25E didn't last the planned 500 seconds, but 209.5. Anyone knows why they aborted the test? Is it a ground issue? There was a tornado 5 miles from the test stand and you can hear thunder and see lightning fairly close. The engine looks mighty and mean...
https://youtu.be/L6iUDc3C3YI?t=500
BEG2IAH wrote:Looks like yesterday's Stennis test of newly built RS-25E didn't last the planned 500 seconds, but 209.5. Anyone knows why they aborted the test? Is it a ground issue? There was a tornado 5 miles from the test stand and you can hear thunder and see lightning fairly close. The engine looks mighty and mean...
https://youtu.be/L6iUDc3C3YI?t=500
The hot fire test was shut down early by a non-flight system used to monitor the engine. NASA and Space Launch System lead engine contractor Aerojet Rocketdyne are analyzing data to review the monitoring system, evaluate engine performance, and identify the reason for the early test cutoff. Because the test was being done for redesigned engines in support of Artemis V and beyond, no impacts to RS-25
BEG2IAH wrote:Avatar2go, thank you as always!
Avatar2go wrote:Here is some footage from the WB-57 observation aircraft used to spot Orion re-entry. The main parachutes really hit the brakes on Orion.
https://youtu.be/fT05ILwNA6I
Avatar2go wrote:Artemis 1 Orion capsule disassembly continues. Heat shield is next to be removed.
The Orion avionics modules are off-boarded and under refurbishment for use on the Artemis 2 Orion. NASA still hoping to accelerate that process and launch in 2024, but many milestones to meet beforehand.
aumaverick wrote:
I bet NASA is using that new non-caloric silicon-based kitchen lubricant they've been working on for that heat shield. It creates a surface 500 times more slippery than any cooking oil and surely helps Orion speed through re-entry.
Avatar2go wrote:aumaverick wrote:
I bet NASA is using that new non-caloric silicon-based kitchen lubricant they've been working on for that heat shield. It creates a surface 500 times more slippery than any cooking oil and surely helps Orion speed through re-entry.
The two Orion heat shield materials are Avcoat and 3DMAT. The former was developed for Apollo and refined since then, the latter was developed specifically for Orion.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/turni ... -shield-x2
The alternative PICA material used on smaller reentry vehicles and Crew Dragon, had higher temperature ratings and less weight, but was not viewed as structurally reliable enough for the higher weight and reentry velocity of Orion. Research on that continues.
The non-ablative heat shield tiles used by the shuttle, did not have the necessary temperature range to be used for Orion.
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/4a/e5/ea/4ae5eae6895cc2cf4412ae481545e0b6--christmas-vacation-cousins.jpg
aumaverick wrote:Not to diminish the significance of this mission, but is Artemis II essentially a scaled-up flight of Apollo 8? Extra crew person, no lunar lander, shakedown of the space craft outside of LEO, fly-by of the moon, and return home?
bobinthecar wrote:Apollo 7 10/11/68, Apollo 8 12/12/68, Apollo 9 3/3/69, Apollo 10 5/18/69, Apollo 11 7/16/69. Anyone see the problem? What has changed?
bobinthecar wrote:Apollo 7 10/11/68, Apollo 8 12/12/68, Apollo 9 3/3/69, Apollo 10 5/18/69, Apollo 11 7/16/69. Anyone see the problem? What has changed?
Avatar2go wrote:bobinthecar wrote:Apollo 7 10/11/68, Apollo 8 12/12/68, Apollo 9 3/3/69, Apollo 10 5/18/69, Apollo 11 7/16/69. Anyone see the problem? What has changed?
What has changed is the budgeting level and scheduling. Artemis currently operates on about 15% of the Apollo budget. The estimate for Artemis through the first 4 missions, is about 40% of the Apollo budget, but that includes the Gateway space station, multiple lunar landers and rovers, communication & navigation satellites and upgrades, new spacesuits, plus the CLPS robotic missions.
Artemis is a very comprehensive program to provide the resources around the moon for a lasting human presence, and is being done for less cost than either Apollo or Shuttle, using a mostly flat budget, except for surges at the launches.
In contrast, Apollo was an extremely ambitious mission with a Presidential mandate & deadline, such that the budget was inflated to match the costs, as needed.
You can either inflate the schedule to meet the budget (Artemis), or you can inflate the budget to meet the schedule (Apollo).
One disadvantage of the Apollo program, was that it was not sustainable. Thus the US space program shifted to LEO activities, with the Shuttle and the ISS.
The Artemis program is designed to be sustainable, which means it has to remain below a specific threshold of the total NASA budget, both now and into the future.
Figure 3. Comparing current major human spaceflight programs to similar programs during Apollo. The differences between funding are stark: current programs are subject to flat budgets while Apollo programs enjoyed significant upfront R&D investment. Apollo programs are normalized to 2019 dollars via NNSI and to the same start years as their modern counterparts.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3737/1
bobinthecar wrote:The Artemis budget is projected to be 93 billion through 2025. That number doesn't even land anyone on the moon. That budget does not take in to account any delays or inflation. That number doesn't take in to account the fact that the engines had already been developed and a sore of them are holdovers from the shuttle. That number doesn't take in to account the fact that the SRBs are basically shuttle SRBs with an additional segment. For 257 billion (in today's dollars) NASA got from the Apollo program an entirely new rocket using two entirely new engines and all the related hardware to land people on the moon 6 times out of seven attempts. None of the resources for a lasting presence have been developed under the Artemis budget nor are they projected to be part of the 93 billion spent.
Calling Apollo unsustainable without pointing out the fact that the CBO has said that Artemis is unsustainable just shows your bias or ignorance.
Fact is the budget's are going to be about the same when it's all said and done. Spaceflight is not cheap. However, there is absolutely no reason for the glacial pace and endless delays being foisted on the taxpayer by ULA.