When is the NASA SLS launch date?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Oh, there isn't much scenery it hasn't seen before on that route!
I agree I was going to edit the lyrics... but at 3am, I just posted it, and went back to bed, after seeing it was rolling.

The other option was ROLL ON by Alabama, but that needed a a bunch of edits, I wasn't doing at that hour. 😆
 
If NASA can launch multiple SLS missions without a failure, it will be a miracle. How can they design a multi-billion dollar rocket that has nefarious fuel links on every first attempt at launching this lemon? It's unfathomable. It's not like rockets haven't been launching with LOX and liquid H2 for, oh say, 50+ years.
 
If NASA can launch multiple SLS missions without a failure, it will be a miracle. How can they design a multi-billion dollar rocket that has nefarious fuel links on every first attempt at launching this lemon? It's unfathomable. It's not like rockets haven't been launching with LOX and liquid H2 for, oh say, 50+ years.
And they have been having problems with hydrogen plumbing for 50+ years. The Apollo 11 launch was almost scrubbed because of a leaky hydrogen line fueling the third stage. A pair of technicians and a safety guy had to go up the LUT and repair it.
 
It's too bad there's not a live stream of the roll back. It would be boring, but I'd still like to have it on a screen in the background to watch here and there as I worked.
 
Most folks don't have a clue in regard to the complexity of hydrogen transfer lines. I didn't until I worked at a place here in Colorado that made them.

There's a lot going on there, and it's ripe with opportunity for failure.
 
Most folks don't have a clue in regard to the complexity of hydrogen transfer lines anything engineering related.
FTFY.

Otherwise, we wouldn't be getting all of the comments about "it's decades old technology!", "just add a section to the booster, how hard can it be!", etc etc

Just do this, just do that.....nevermind all of those things are actually incredibly complex. The word "just" is doing a lot of work in those types of comments.
 
FTFY.

Otherwise, we wouldn't be getting all of the comments about "it's decades old technology!", "just add a section to the booster, how hard can it be!", etc etc

Just do this, just do that.....nevermind all of those things are actually incredibly complex. The word "just" is doing a lot of work in those types of comments.
BINGO. Give this guy a prize.

I think the worst one I ever heard was "Just add two more boosters to make a Falcon Super Heavy."
 
BINGO. Give this guy a prize.

I think the worst one I ever heard was "Just add two more boosters to make a Falcon Super Heavy."
What could go wrong? Just strap another couple of boosters on. It works in Kerbal!

To be fair, I think Atlas kind of set us up for some of that thinking. Want a little more capacity? Here's another solid rocket booster! I know that the engineering behind that couldn't have been easy, especially if the core stage was designed to take 0-5 SRBs depending on the needs of the launch customer.
 
What could go wrong? Just strap another couple of boosters on. It works in Kerbal!

To be fair, I think Atlas kind of set us up for some of that thinking. Want a little more capacity? Here's another solid rocket booster! I know that the engineering behind that couldn't have been easy, especially if the core stage was designed to take 0-5 SRBs depending on the needs of the launch customer.
What I always thought was really wild about the different Atlas V configurations is that the boosters are not even symmetrically spaced around the core because of the raceways and other protrusions.

atlas5-comparison2.jpg
 
What I always thought was really wild about the different Atlas V configurations is that the boosters are not even symmetrically spaced around the core because of the raceways and other protrusions.

View attachment 539338
Yeah, I saw where somebody on this forum actually simulated the sideways motion that these thinsg do at liftoff, due to the asymmetry. Wild stuff! Sure doesn't look anything like the Mercury-Atlas boosters!
 
Sure doesn't look anything like the Mercury-Atlas boosters!
There is no commonality. The only reason it's called the Atlas is Lockheed-Martin owning the name and building on the legacy, since the original builder of the Atlas ICBM was Convair, whose space systems division was sold off to Martin Marietta, which later merged with Lockheed to become Lockheed-Martin.
 
FTFY.

Otherwise, we wouldn't be getting all of the comments about "it's decades old technology!", "just add a section to the booster, how hard can it be!", etc etc

Just do this, just do that.....nevermind all of those things are actually incredibly complex. The word "just" is doing a lot of work in those types of comments.

Because it would be easy to make a really fast Kia Soul if we'd "just" take out the tiny engine and drop in a V-12 powerplant from a Dodge Viper. I mean, sheesh, all the parts are OFF THE SHELF and we've been building cars for a hundred years. How hard could it be?
 
Because it would be easy to make a really fast Kia Soul if we'd "just" take out the tiny engine and drop in a V-12 powerplant from a Dodge Viper.

You laugh, but I was at a car show where someone managed to shoehorn an LS1 into a Miata. I'm not saying it was easy, but it was done. And that's not even the craziest engine swap I could talk about. I think the cummings diesel into a Trans-Am was about the absolute most bizarre that comes to mind right now.
 
You laugh, but I was at a car show where someone managed to shoehorn an LS1 into a Miata. I'm not saying it was easy, but it was done. And that's not even the craziest engine swap I could talk about. I think the cummings diesel into a Trans-Am was about the absolute most bizarre that comes to mind right now.
Exactly. If you know cars, you know that it can be done. But it isn't going to be easy, cheap, or fast. And it may not be particularly reliable or easy to maintain.
 
What I always thought was really wild about the different Atlas V configurations is that the boosters are not even symmetrically spaced around the core because of the raceways and other protrusions.

View attachment 539338
#1 and #3 look really unpleasant from a symmetry perspective. Do you know if the core stage is the same with all of the different options?
 
Hi TRF colleagues,

So, here is a big question.

I guess that we are talking about the type of fuel that the rocket uses.

Let's say that the type of fuel that the Artemis I uses inevitably causes problems -- that the type of fuel is turning the Artemis I into a lemon. Yes, perhaps from time to time the rocket could take off successfully and achieve mission objectives. Overall, however, let's say that the design is bad, and that therefore we need to start over.

So, what type of fuel should Artemis use?

Stanley
 
Hi TRF colleagues,

So, here is a big question.

I guess that we are talking about the type of fuel that the rocket uses.

Let's say that the type of fuel that the Artemis I uses inevitably causes problems -- that the type of fuel is turning the Artemis I into a lemon. Yes, perhaps from time to time the rocket could take off successfully and achieve mission objectives. Overall, however, let's say that the design is bad, and that therefore we need to start over.

So, what type of fuel should Artemis use?

Stanley
Hoo boy, that's a can of worms. You're basically at RP-1 (kerosene) like Saturn V first stage, Falcon 9, etc. or LNG like Starship, New Glenn, etc. There's advantages and disadvantages of both and many people more qualified than I to discuss the tradeoffs.
 
Hi TRF colleagues,

So, here is a big question.

I guess that we are talking about the type of fuel that the rocket uses.

Let's say that the type of fuel that the Artemis I uses inevitably causes problems -- that the type of fuel is turning the Artemis I into a lemon. Yes, perhaps from time to time the rocket could take off successfully and achieve mission objectives. Overall, however, let's say that the design is bad, and that therefore we need to start over.

So, what type of fuel should Artemis use?

Stanley
@boatgeek is basically correct. I can only stand by my opinion that more energy-dense fuels are better for first stages, but it would require an intensive design study for me to say more than that.
 
Back
Top