A thousand nopes. The aerodynamic loads from those boosters sticking out like that would rip it apart.
And, as explained before, pointless.
Artemis Launch
- Thread starter brockrwood
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
And, as explained before, pointless.
CoolRockets
Well-Known Member
Good point
The Atlas V uses up to 5 smaller SRB’s to get sufficient “oomph” on liftoff. I wonder why NASA decided to go with the stretched shuttle SRB, from 4 segments to 5? It seems that multiple smaller SRB’s would be easier to engineer, or maybe already be in existence, as opposed to doing the engineering to stretch the Shuttle SRB to 5 segments. Or, why not just use three or maybe four Shuttle SRB’s?
CoolRockets
Well-Known Member
Too much of not enough SRB
DAllen
Well-Known Member
You think that's pointless you really need to try Kerbal Space Program. All sorts of pointless stupidity in that game and its super fun. That's what that image looks like its from.
I've played KSP on and off for years and have gotten pretty good at it.
Have you ever tried Orbiter? I did once, and I think you have to be about 1 step shy of actually being an astronaut to get anywhere with it!
I successfully flew Apollo 8 in Orbiter, but that was only by using mods that automated a lot of the flying. I just told it the orbit I wanted and it did the burn on its own.
Kerbal, I play with no mods at all. The included navigation aids are sufficient that I have had no problems doing what I wanted.
Well, back to the mission, that animation that you posted is something... now showing Artemis noodling along at 357 mph. One wonders, relative to what? Is it virtually hanging in space waiting for the moon to come hurtling by? As @kuririn noted, some mighty fine orbital mechanics going on here! Flyby tomorrow AM!
ETA: 356 mph, it dropped while I was typing this. It almost looks like you launch one of our rockets so that just at apogee a passing Cessna snags it! (Don't worry! I know that's against the safety code and the barest of common sense! You'd be arrested! Seriously, it was just a comparsion! Newbies, never, ever ever try this!)
ETA: 356 mph, it dropped while I was typing this. It almost looks like you launch one of our rockets so that just at apogee a passing Cessna snags it! (Don't worry! I know that's against the safety code and the barest of common sense! You'd be arrested! Seriously, it was just a comparsion! Newbies, never, ever ever try this!)
CoolRockets
Well-Known Member
Have you tried Spaceflight Simulator?
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,055
Yeah the moon.
Much like that time Batman (1989) launched an anchor out of the batmobile to make a corner.
Edit: Like this!
Or when Spiderman spins out a web while falling to swing back up.
Or when a gymnast grabs a horizontal bar to spin around it.
And very much the opposite of launching a rock with a sling or trebuchet.
Last edited:
Like in roller derby using a whip to speed their jammer through the pack.
We used to have a team here when I was a kid. Used to watch the televised matches.
Roller derby and pro wrestling. Heh.
Earth. The spacecraft is currently within the influence of the moon, which is approaching from behind. Since the moon is attracting it the speed is reducing due to the moon's gravity, but the moon in its orbit is catching up rapidly so the speed would be well in excess of 215mph that I saw recently, if the moon was the reference. The orbit is currently heading towards almost parallel to a raduis to Earth. Given both those indications I am guessing Earth is the reference for velocity.
[edit] Moon's average velocity in space is just under 3700kph (1030m/s, 2300mph).
Last edited:
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,055
Speed of craft relative to Earth
=
Speed of Moon relative to Earth
(very high or 0 depending on reference frame)
+
Speed of craft relative to Moon
That is why I think it’s relative to the Moon, but this can all be looked up, can be specified for different directions, and changes over time. I just can’t get these details right now.
=
Speed of Moon relative to Earth
(very high or 0 depending on reference frame)
+
Speed of craft relative to Moon
That is why I think it’s relative to the Moon, but this can all be looked up, can be specified for different directions, and changes over time. I just can’t get these details right now.
Flyby burn occurred on the backside of the moon, so no live pics.
Here's a pic of the approach: Orion, earth and the moon from one of the SAW cameras,
Here's a pic of the approach: Orion, earth and the moon from one of the SAW cameras,
No, not moon. Yes, Earth. When the speed indicated was down to a couple of hundred MPH the distance to the moon was closing at around one mile per second. Those two do not equate whichever way you choose to cut it. The moon was approaching the spacecraft at somewhere around 2000 MPH but the speed indicated for the spacecraft was only a tenth of that.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 59
A partially valid point... but also partially an apple-to-oranges comparison. While SpaceX is working to lower the cost of the productions of the Raptors through mass production and simplified design, part of the reason for SpaceX's lower costs is that they work their employees like dogs. No company *should* be operated they way that any of Musk's companies operate.
It is also not clear how extensive the testing is on the Raptors. During several of the early Starship prototype flights, the engines were burning themselves up (hence the apple green flames from the burning copper). This just simply shouldn't happen. More extensive ground testing should have been done before the flights were attempted and before large numbers of the engines were built. It is easy to make something cheap when you cut corners.
Since there isn't a practical way to recover the SLS RS-25s, the engines aren't "thrown away." They are just used up. The Saturn V didn't "lose" taxpayer money-- taxpayer money was used for the public purpose that it was intended for. While it is great that Musk is planning to use some of the money that he amassed to help pay for Starship, we can't rely on this always being the case in the future.
I do hope that the Starship program is successful and that it will result in significantly lowered launch costs. However, most likely it will take much longer than what a lot of people are led to believe, and the costs very well be more that what is projected today.
Until there is a fully reusable heavy lift system, the SLS will work fine to get the Artemis program started. Let's celebrate Artemis I, and take whatever Musk says with a 25 lb sack of salt.
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,055
I don't know where that is from. Is it a video I missed?
What I know is the speed of the Moon relative to Earth in this context is either:
a) 1 km/s circumferentially (if you take the Moon-Earth system as a spinning dumbbell or an orbiting Moon)
b) 0 (if you take the Moon-Earth system as a stationnary dumbell and ignore orbital motion)
Maybe we have to distinguish speed relative to Moon from speed realtive to surface of Moon. A Blackbird going Mach 3 relative to surface of Earth is still going 0 relative to (away from or towards) Earth.
Last edited:
The launch did some damage to the launch pad, including blowing the doors off launch pad elevators.
It's not for us to say how Elon Musk's private company "should" be operated. I personally consider work-life balance important and would not want to work for Musk, but if other people are workaholics like Musk, or are willing to put up with Musk's demands because they really want to work on such an ambitious program, that is their business; not mine, and not yours. If you ever watch interviews with Apollo engineers, the environment they describe is a lot like working for Elon Musk nowadays - possibly even worse.
Likewise, it is not for us to say how SpaceX "should" be running their test programs. Their methodology is different from NASA's - they test hardware often and look at failures as a learning opportunity, not as a disaster. They wreck a lot of hardware testing this way, but the results speak for themselves when you compare SpaceX's progress from the 2010's to now to the progress of NASA and Blue Origin, who insist on getting things exactly right the first time. There is also no reason to believe corners are being cut, given the Falcon 9's track record.
Each RS-25 costs $40 million? Wow. Of course they were designed to be re-used. Shouldn’t an expendable one cost less?
The Ars Technica website says you can buy two Atlas V launches for the price of just one main engine on an SLS rocket.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...g-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/amp/
My word.
Last edited:
No. Far worse.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/So $146million for each of the RS-25 motors in the current program.
Also, development costs for the RS-25 engines, in 2020 dollars, is $6.8billion. That includes the extra engineering effort to give them a life expectancy of 7.5 hours operating time. Much of that money would not need to have been spent if they were for single use.
https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/sts-program-development-cost
Last edited:
DAllen
Well-Known Member
Did y'all miss the part where congress was dictating specifics into the SLS design? Maybe blame needs to be put where it belongs...
I work for MDOT (Michigan department of transportation) and as annoying as the State Capitol legislature is they never give us specific design criteria. Why? Because that would be dumb. We design and maintain roads based on local needs, budget and established standards. This is how Congress needs to operate NASA. Give them a budget, a general goal and then let the engineers do their freaking job. Once congress starts doing that, then talk about whether or not they're wasting money.
I work for MDOT (Michigan department of transportation) and as annoying as the State Capitol legislature is they never give us specific design criteria. Why? Because that would be dumb. We design and maintain roads based on local needs, budget and established standards. This is how Congress needs to operate NASA. Give them a budget, a general goal and then let the engineers do their freaking job. Once congress starts doing that, then talk about whether or not they're wasting money.
Well, there's a reason folks here and other places were calling it the " Senate Launch System".
And Congress does this virtually everywhere else as well. They choose military weapons for the military, tell the railroads and the Post Office, and a host of others how to do business, and on, and on, and on. It's frustrating, but its the system that we have, and I really don't see much possibility of it changing any time soon.
DAllen
Well-Known Member
And what do you know…Falcon 9 launch tonight is not landing the booster so it’ll burn up in atmo.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
but is also is on something like its 10th or 11th mission.
DAllen
Well-Known Member
Right but it illustrates my previous point that reusable is not always the right answer.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 59
While the Space Shuttle Main Engines were designed for re-use, the SLS RS-25s are designed for only four long burns. This allows for hot fire testing and a couple of aborted launches. So the entire notion that NASA is "throwing away" reusable engines just isn't true. Of course, the first batches of SLS RS-25s are rebuilt from formerly re-usable SSMEs, but those engines have already served a long life, and they would have been thrown away if it wasn't for the SLS program. Newly built SLS RS-25s are simplified and are designed as single-use engines.
Sure, there probably are opportunities to lower their cost (and I hope that the costs can be lowered). And, sure, SpaceX does have some real innovation (buried in there with the huge amounts of hype and misinformation). But the often-heard claim that SLS is throwing away reusable motors is 100% baloney.
Let's enjoy the SLS launches and tune out the Musk hype.
Sure, there probably are opportunities to lower their cost (and I hope that the costs can be lowered). And, sure, SpaceX does have some real innovation (buried in there with the huge amounts of hype and misinformation). But the often-heard claim that SLS is throwing away reusable motors is 100% baloney.
Let's enjoy the SLS launches and tune out the Musk hype.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 59
Given that public money is being spent on lunar Starship (which is aiding the entire Starship development program), and given that NASA is contracting with SpaceX to carry humans, NASA absolutely should have criteria for safety and mission success. We also need more transparency.
Like I said, SpaceX is accomplishing a lot, and I hope that Starship is successful. But we can't just turn over public money and take it on faith that Musk will do the right thing.
Similar threads
