Space and Science BS Thread

From that link:
“Currently, the nominal plan is to launch astronauts into an exotic high lunar orbit with NASA’s own SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft – an inconvenient orbit only needed to make up for said spacecraft’s shortcomings.”
I haven’t heard that before, and my understanding is the NRHO is actually harder to get into, not sure why SLS/Orion capabilities would limit us to that orbit, any insight from the peanut gallery? My immediate reaction is that teslarati is talking out of their ass about something they don’t know anything about, but that’s me.

 

Years behind and billions over budget. It could be that one of the hurdles they've been struggling with is it's ability to put astronauts into the orbit they'd like. Don't really know, NASA isn't as transparent as we'd like. The only reason we have so much info on spacex is 1, musk likes to give us hope with tweets, and 2 they can't/arent hiding what they're building.

 

The NRHO is supposed to allow a few advantages:
1- Access to the poles esp the South
2- Allow constant and direct communication with Earth
3- Be maintained with lower fuel requirements.

What the article is saying the whole Artemis Program is in question IMHO.

 

SLS doesn't have the dV to put orion into anything but the halo orbit. NRHO is less dV than LLO.

I think the critics are a little misguided, though - if you were talking going from TLI to LLO, yes, it's a 'tollbooth', however, if you want a permanent 'support base' to service multiple sites, gateway isn't an entirely stupid idea.

Earth <> LEO 10k m/s
LEO <> NRHO 3.9k m/s
NHRO <> LLO .73k m/s


LEO < GATEWAY > LLO - 4.6k m/s
LEO <> LLO 4k m/s

So - it takes more dV to go to gateway then back to low lunar orbit, than just going straight to low lunar orbit.

So why not go LEO <> LLO every time?

a) you only need to put the stuff into gateway once, then reuse it while it's there.
b) 'stuff' can go there by slow boat (electric propulsion)
c) easier stationkeeping

Of course, starship/HLS changes a ton of this. Easy refuel means that they could stage stuff in a polar low lunar orbit instead, for instance. But the idea that you send people on smaller, faster vehicle, and stuff (that stays in lunar orbit) via slow boat isn't a horrible idea.

 

It’s interesting how B in this publication and BO in their ‘objection’ of the HLS contract focus on the legacy infrastructure that employs 10s of thousands of workers in pretty much every state…

Shameless, wasteful practices that are so risk adverse they’re recycling 1960 era designs.

 

Biden and crew tasking NASA with starting a feasibility study into SLS' future isn't the death dagger yet, but it was for me. I was formerly an engineering technician on the Tosc contract for Jacobs, the prime for SLS.

I've moved onto greener pastures, pastures that aren't affected by who is president. Tosc is having a terrible time retaining qualified/trained technicians with processing flight hardware experience. It has reached such a critical point now that I really believe that the labor pool shortage will delay Artemis I. You won't hear that in the news but NASA allowed Jacobs to so vastly underbid the contract that it is really biting them....

 

The problem is bureaucracy. NASA needs a budget, they're not allowed to sell products or services, so they're forced to rely on government. Congressmen make deals to give them money, but tack on requirements like minimum number of jobs for their state, reuse of old parts, etc. Do that long enough and your agency becomes a money disappearing dinosaur that loses sight if it's original purpose.

This is every where. Vocational skills are in high demand as there are not enough skilled people to fill the needs. This leads to good pay, benefits, etc because employers have to compete with each other for employees. I'm just waiting for spacex to hire machinists in Texas, want to get out of California, not move to a worse part of it...

 

Ahh, thank you, that’s what I couldn’t find anywhere. Three-body orbital dynamics FTW, I suppose.

I do find the ~7 day orbital period an interesting wrinkle, though - not that any return from the moon can be ‘quick’, but if there’s ever a medical/equipment emergency that mandates evac ... it might be a while before that can happen.

 

NASA has outlived its usefulness. Time for the government to get out of space and leave it up to folks driven by the one thing that has always spurred the greatest advances.

Greed!

 

I had this argument with my friend a couple days ago and you're kind of right. NASA and other government agencies have pioneered many great technologies. Historically they would create them, and then release them for the private sector to capitalize on them. They didn't do that with space flight until very recently and so it stagnated. Now however we might be witnessing the start of the private space race. If it succeeds NASA can hitch rides to space and focus their budget on other cheaper techs.

 

Thanks for the reminder…

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/nasa-has-begun-a-study-of-the-sls-rockets-affordability/

I forgot this was happening in the background.

Take this with the info I posted earlier (and a successful Starship), Artemis as we know it will be canceled within a year.

 

CNC machinist?

https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/SpaceX-cnc-machinist-Jobs-EI_IE40371.0,6_KO7,20.htm

I’m open to an invitation for a Texas BBQ at your place if it works out

 

I think the problem is two-fold: politics and bureaucracy.

As a kid, my Dad worked for a NASA contractor. The whole drive to the moon was politically driven - beat the Russians. The technology that came out of the space program, as good as it was for society, was unfortunately secondary. Of course, the people working the program put their heart and souls into it. But, once we landed on the moon, the race was won. No one (in politics) cared about going back. We went back 6 times (5 to the surface) only because the rockets were built. (Actually, there are 3 more that were ready to go when the program was cancelled.) For years, after Apollo 11, people were let go to "save money" - if you were still employed, you worked under a cloud of "when will I be let go"? The 50's and 60's were great - the 70's, not so much.

The shuttle design was a compromise design. Far from the best design, it was the "cost effective" one - mandated my congress.

The SLS design - evolutionary (barely) not revolutionary. Again, designed in a political climate that was not really interested in space exploration - just sound bites. The contract awarding and building boondoggle is another problem - not the subject here (but a byproduct.)

Over time, NASA went from people focused on building a new spaceship to save my job in a bad (limited funding) political climate. The focus changed from creating bleeding edge technology to a risk-averse, test everything 1000 times to make sure it will work, then test it again ideology. Look back to the 50's and 60's - NASA launched rockets almost every day. OK, not quite, but you get the idea. Today, not even once a decade. The pioneering spirit is gone.

Somewhere along the way, NASA got big and bloated. There are so many teams working on the project - some with overlapping functions - every team works independently, and thinks they know best. The attitudes are more "do it my way" instead of "let's figure out how to do this the best way".

Now, factor in the hiring processes. Some employees, a lot of contractors. That is not the problem - the issue is how the gov't awards contracts. The hoops the contract companies jump through, who they know, the special type of companies allowed to bid on the various contracts. None of this is focused on getting the best people to build the best product they can. Today, many look at this as a job, not as an opportunity to build the largest rocket in the world.

Also, throw in the latest wokeness - "First woman and next man" on the surface of the moon. What happened to best qualified? I'm saying anything bad about women astronauts - NASA has many of them, and they all do great work. But the focus is political.


My intention was not to offend anyone, just express my dissatisfaction with an organization that once was the best of the best.

 

Yes, but the only positions are in California.

 

Take a job in California then transfer when other facilities open up. Most companies like to have some established employees as a core at new facilities.

 

Pretty much nail on the head. There is still a need for them however. While Private companies will start producing the ride to space, there won't be that many private companies that are going to create things like Billion dollar space telescopes or exploratory rovers. The good news is that those projects are much cheaper than rocket development. So in THEORY we should see more of those.

 

Yes.

I always though NASA was supposed to oversee the development of projects, including funding. The work was to be done by private companies. Sure, NASA may come up with the requirements, but they did not do the building. Hence the "Administration" in the name.

Competition is important - I get that. But I think there needs to be an overseeing body, so we all focus on the same thing, and go forward in the same direction.

Oh wait -

Maybe personal greed has replaced national pride in people.....

 

Greed was always the motivation. You don’t think aerospace companies spent money on development without a clear path to profitability, do you?

Successful aerospace companies became multi billion dollar enterprises.

 

Sorry about that- got a pop up that I didn’t want to give my email to get beyond.

Nothing at McGregor?

Elon put out a call for all sorts of job types to move to the Brownsville area for Starbase jobs. Good luck, I hope you find something soon

 

I know that.

But, there used to be an attitude of building because it was the right thing to do, not just to make money.

And, unfortunately today, it's not "make money", it's "how much can we bilk the gov't out of".