Space and Science BS Thread

This is not a problem anymore. The Polaris Dawn mission used Starlink (at much higher altitudes) and had no issues. Rook even talked about being able to make a cell phone call to his family, not with TDRS or using internet downlink...actual cell service.

 

Really?

I guess the signals bounce a lot, and don't always go in the direction the antenna is pointed.

 

https://x.com/spacex/status/1860083533001424973?s=46

 

For now. Given their future prospects it’s not hard to imagine them increasing coverage outwards. Especially in order to get real time data and possibly live video during fuel transfer tests and HLS work up.

 

VAST is planning to be using laser comms for Haven-1, and the ISS is at ~400km. Starlink is also at ~550km.

 

It was a direct laser connection, I believe. Basically like the direct laser communication between Starlink satellites.

 

Happy Thanksgiving space nerds!!
https://x.com/nasa_johnson/status/1861802885060698421?s=46

 

https://x.com/armstrongspace/status/1862156496693321772?s=46

 

NASA posted this a couple of days ago. Just in time for the holidays!

https://youtu.be/_cgTVTwu4nw?si=WMsx-zyx11_XHMmd

 

The kids weren't too impressed.

 

Eh, what do they know?

 

Jared Issacman nominated to be NASA Administrator. Can’t post the tweets because they reference who nominated him and I don’t want to get the hammer.

If I was the OP here, I’d put up a poll asking how long after January 2025 will SLS be cancelled..

It’s gonna be interesting to see where NASA is at in 4 years.

 

https://x.com/astro_cady/status/1864345094859448575?s=46
https://x.com/astro_cady/status/1864341117283553358?s=46

 

SLS cannot be cancelled. It needs fixed, for sure! NASA needs to have defined goals and defined deadlines for SLS and the Artemis, but so much of SpaceX, Blue, Axiom, etc is tied up in NASA Artemis contracts.

Furthermore, Berger needs to stop putting out fluff pieces with an obvious bias as a SpaceX fanboi. So much doom and gloom was stirred up with that article.

 

What article was that?

Also, SLS is just a component of Artemis, we’ll see how it goes…

 

SLS is everything wrong with the shuttle architecture. Solids, expending super expensive reusable engines, and an overweight capsule originally designed for Mars return, having been axed once, coming back in zombie form to haunt space exploration for a decade and more. The only thing it does /well/ is spending money in lots of districts.

Let's recap.

Solids suck (for crewed missions) because they 1) need to be transported fueled, 2) thus are super heavy but not really efficient (low ISP), and 3) can't be turned off. Failure of booster is loss of mission. Now, that's not a concern for an ICBM, and being able to launch at a minute(man) is a great point in favor. Oh, not to mention how it makes the rocket too heavy for the existing mobile launch tower so we're gonna need to spend a billion (or five) on a new tower. In a couple of years. Oh and solid fuels are about as residue rich as it gets.

RS25s ... seriously, yeah they had 4 flights worth sitting around. Afterwards, it's 100m a pop.. so 400m just for the engines. Oh and while they're high ISP, H2's low density means you need a LOT of tank mass. Sure it 'only emits water' ... if you don't count the massive nasty ton of aluminum oxides coming from the SRBs right next to them that you'll need to get the stack moving in a reasonable timeframe.

Orion ... it's both overbuilt and underbuilt. Too small to be a real long duration hab, in which case why bother, way overmass for a crew return only vehicle. 10400 kg for 4 crew, vs 5500 for 3 crew for an Apollo command module...basically it's vestigial bits of Constellation warmed over again.

SLS needs the axe, like all undead, before it sucks away all the funds for anything else that works.

 

It was the one Berger wrote in late October or early November that cause all this hubbub about SLS possibly being cancelled.

I agree on all points. However, I don't think SLS needs to be axed, I think it needs to be managed better. Bechtel, while taking WAY too long to build ML2 and being WAY over budget, really shouldn't have all the blame put on them. It's hard to build a mobile launcher when the goal is not very well defined and you don't even 100% know what the rocket it will carry will weigh or where the attachment points are. They were set up to fail from the beginning.

Orion is just a crew "shuttle", if you will. It's main objective is to get astronauts to Gateway. But, Gateway isn't what it needs to be either. You can't take an old ISS module, slap it on an outdated satellite BUS and call it a lunar orbiter. What they should do is take an the upper stage of an SLS Mark 1B, including the EUS and make THAT the Gateway. It would be larger, have longer mission time capabilities and you get Gateway in ONE launch instead of several. None of this, launch-Gateway-in-the-trunk business.

There are several other points of Artemis that could be optimized and made better. The AXMEUs, development of different engines, or buying engines from a commercial provider, etc.

 

It’s basically what you end up with when a bunch of politicians with conflicting agendas fund a program. “Give me what I want in order to get re-elected or I won’t go along with it”. It’s not designed to either fail or succeed but to spend money in the “wright” places. That said, it’s hard to imagine Elon being magnanimous and not tipping the scales(or at least trying to) in favor of Spacex. He’s never been shy about his agenda. Things will change, likely at the cost of jobs in some places and to the benefit of economies elsewhere but we’ll see if that follows a plan or is just another trail of unintended consequences. Change is needed, can we get better at the process?

 

SLS is a slapdash architecture based on mistakes in the past. Tons of sunk cost fallacy. The only reason why ML2 needs to be absurdly expensive is that the whole thing still relies on extremely heavy SRBs to get to orbit. Liquid launchers have a fraction of the dry weight, and the prop mass can be pumped in at the pad.

Use commodity launchers and assemble in earth orbit. When Falcon Heavy and New Glenn can put up half the payload at a tenth of the cost, there's just no need for SLS except to haul up orion .. and heck, you can haul up orion on the aforementioned rockets, just not be able to send to TLI (so you'll need a separately launched kick stage). Assuming you can't either 1) just use a crew starship yet or 2) install enough shielding on Dragon to act as a return capsule from lunar velocities.

If you're going that route, just make a gateway-starship.

 

Not sure why Musk or Shotwell would want a monopoly? They need a competitive market to keep driving costs of launches down. More space companies are needed, not less.