Astronomy / The Universe

[Cade]

Starliner finally docked with the ISS after even more setbacks and delays in the process.

Navigation computer went wrong, thrusters went wrong, it missed the docking window and had to wait for the next one......just Starliner being Starliner.

But it got there in the end.

 

There are now 6 spacecraft docked to the ISS;

Starliner

SpaceX Dragon Crew-4

Northrop Grumman Cygnus space freighter
Soyuz MS-21
Progress 79

Progress 80

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Cade

[Bigsmak]

Still cool though

And every failure and every success gives us more knowledge that will be used for future missions. 

 

 

[Cade]

The Boeing nerds have fallen back on saying "USA needs a backup if something goes wrong with SpaceX".

 

That's their only reasoning for carrying on wasting time and money on shitliner.

 

This is the Starliner control panel.
It looks like it was made in the 1960s.

 

This is Crew Dragon.
This is how the future is supposed to be.

[Unknown user]

30 minutes ago, Cade said:

The Boeing nerds have fallen back on saying "USA needs a backup if something goes wrong with SpaceX".

 

That's their only reasoning for carrying on wasting time and money on shitliner.

 

This is the Starliner control panel.
It looks like it was made in the 1960s.

 

This is Crew Dragon.
This is how the future is supposed to be.

It does look like something a Ukrainian tractor could take TBF

[Ulysses]

On 21/05/2022 at 17:56, Bigsmak said:

Still cool though

And every failure and every success gives us more knowledge that will be used for future missions. 

 

 

 

In the far distant future (assuming humans haven't bollixed it up completely) most of this palaver won't even merit a footnote, but it will have helped make other more noteworthy stuff possible.

[Mikey1874]

 

[Unknown user]

16 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

"Penalty to the rangers"

[Cade]

NASA's much-delayed and way over budget Space Launch System is due for it's maiden flight on the 29th August.

Should be a good show.

 

It's made of some new parts and lots of old parts, including main engines and boosters from the Space Shuttle programme.
So at least they know the engines work.
However, the entire programme has cost $23billion, with the cost per launch being an eye watering $2billion.

None of it is reusable. This is a fire-and-forget dumb rocket, a real relic of the past given new life.
It's quite sad really, when you compare it to the more modern and cutting edge, fully reusable things being made by SpaceX and Blue Origin, among many others.
$2billion per rocket and it's all just scrap metal after it leaves the pad.

 

If this unmanned flight (Artemis 1) goes well then Artemis 2 will send 4 astronauts on a loop around behind the Moon and back again.
Feck knows when that'll happen.

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Cade

[Bauld]

All that fuel wasted to launch some scrap.

 

 

Meanwhile I'm paying through the nose just to heat my home.

[ri Alban]

When are we going to Mars.

[maroonlegions]

8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

When are we going to Mars.

 

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

[graygo]

21 hours ago, ri Alban said:

When are we going to Mars.

 

Steady on, need to get to the moon first.

 

[Maple Leaf]

On 25/08/2022 at 18:41, Cade said:

NASA's much-delayed and way over budget Space Launch System is due for it's maiden flight on the 29th August.

Should be a good show.

 

It's made of some new parts and lots of old parts, including main engines and boosters from the Space Shuttle programme.
So at least they know the engines work.
However, the entire programme has cost $23billion, with the cost per launch being an eye watering $2billion.

None of it is reusable. This is a fire-and-forget dumb rocket, a real relic of the past given new life.
It's quite sad really, when you compare it to the more modern and cutting edge, fully reusable things being made by SpaceX and Blue Origin, among many others.
$2billion per rocket and it's all just scrap metal after it leaves the pad.

 

If this unmanned flight (Artemis 1) goes well then Artemis 2 will send 4 astronauts on a loop around behind the Moon and back again.
Feck knows when that'll happen.

 

 

It all sounds very mid-1960s.  

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, graygo said:

 

Steady on, need to get to the moon first.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by ri Alban

[Cade]

6 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It all sounds very mid-1960s.  

 

It kind of is. 

I'm amazed that the same NASA that came up with the mars rovers, sky cranes and JWST is the same NASA that is moving ahead with SLS, a relic of the past with barely any new ideas on it.

[Dawnrazor]

On 25/08/2022 at 23:41, Cade said:

NASA's much-delayed and way over budget Space Launch System is due for it's maiden flight on the 29th August.

Should be a good show.

 

It's made of some new parts and lots of old parts, including main engines and boosters from the Space Shuttle programme.
So at least they know the engines work.
However, the entire programme has cost $23billion, with the cost per launch being an eye watering $2billion.

None of it is reusable. This is a fire-and-forget dumb rocket, a real relic of the past given new life.
It's quite sad really, when you compare it to the more modern and cutting edge, fully reusable things being made by SpaceX and Blue Origin, among many others.
$2billion per rocket and it's all just scrap metal after it leaves the pad.

 

If this unmanned flight (Artemis 1) goes well then Artemis 2 will send 4 astronauts on a loop around behind the Moon and back again.
Feck knows when that'll happen.

 

Is it no' a wee bit rusty.

[ri Alban]

Pulled that fae planet of the apes.

[Mister T]

On 25/08/2022 at 23:41, Cade said:

NASA's much-delayed and way over budget Space Launch System is due for it's maiden flight on the 29th August.

Should be a good show.

 

It's made of some new parts and lots of old parts, including main engines and boosters from the Space Shuttle programme.
So at least they know the engines work.
However, the entire programme has cost $23billion, with the cost per launch being an eye watering $2billion.

None of it is reusable. This is a fire-and-forget dumb rocket, a real relic of the past given new life.
It's quite sad really, when you compare it to the more modern and cutting edge, fully reusable things being made by SpaceX and Blue Origin, among many others.
$2billion per rocket and it's all just scrap metal after it leaves the pad.

 

If this unmanned flight (Artemis 1) goes well then Artemis 2 will send 4 astronauts on a loop around behind the Moon and back again.
Feck knows when that'll happen.

 

I was lucky to see a space shuttle launch in 2020. We were miles away from the launch pad and it was unbelievably loud. This thing will be mental.

[Cade]

Launch window tomorrow is about two hours long and starts at roughly 13:30 BST.

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Cade

[Mister T]

8 hours ago, Mister T said:

I was lucky to see a space shuttle launch in 2020. We were miles away from the launch pad and it was unbelievably loud. This thing will be mental.

Doh. I meant 2000.

[JFK-1]

8 hours ago, Mister T said:

I was lucky to see a space shuttle launch in 2020. We were miles away from the launch pad and it was unbelievably loud. This thing will be mental.

 

My cousins were in Kissimmee which is 50 miles from the launch site during a shuttle launch at night. They were in a villa watching on TV when one decided he was going to go outside, "maybe I will see it"

 

He was scoffed at, "it's 50 miles away" but as they sat watching the launch on TV he began yelling come outside I can see it. They didn't believe him but went out to humour him and sure enough there it was.

 

It was so bright even at 50 miles away they could clearly see the shuttle on the boosters. They saw it make that post launch roll the shuttle did from 50 miles away.

 

Artemis 1 dwarfs the shuttle, this is going to be some show. They say will rattle windows 50 miles away.

[JFK-1]

20 hours ago, Cade said:

 

It kind of is. 

I'm amazed that the same NASA that came up with the mars rovers, sky cranes and JWST is the same NASA that is moving ahead with SLS, a relic of the past with barely any new ideas on it.

 

I think if it suits the purpose it doesn't need to be new. And I don't know if there even is another way to do this. Following Kennedy's pledge to put a man on the moon "before this decade is out" they became obsessed with making it before that decade was out after his assassination. I suspect they might not have made it before the decade was out if not for that.

 

The first plan was to build a giant rocket even bigger than this one, which presented massive engineering problems, and which they ultimately concluded if we go down this path, we're not going to the moon before the 1970's.

 

They switched to the Apollo system, and Artemis is very similar, because it was the quickest path to the same objective. And given that this is a tried and tested method, I don't think they needed anything novel. Just landing on the moon is novel enough for anyone under 50.

 

And there will be differences. Apollo astronauts typical spent a matter of hours up to maybe a few days at most on the moon. When NASA lands in 2025 the landing vehicle with two astronauts will be on the moon for a week.

 

There's one major difference from Apollo. When Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon the command module that would take them back to Earth orbited above with only one astronaut, Michael Collins. Pity no one remembers him, only Armstrong and Aldrin.

 

But this time as the two astronauts spend a week on the moon there will be four others orbiting in the command module, and I don't get that. Launching a big rocket like that trying to escape Earth orbit every last pound of weight is critical.

 

Why would you carry four crew and all the resources they will need just to orbit the moon? When Michael Collins managed it alone in 1969. And what are they doing on the surface for a week? Gathering rocks? You could gather more rocks than they could carry off the moon in a lot less than a week.

 

I'm looking forward to splashdowns. There will be 6 in the capsule when Artemis is manned, Apollo carried only 3. 

[Unknown user]

From what I've read its raison detre was to keep NASA going, and it's shit. It's taken so long to build that much of it's obsolete, and it cost $23 billion.

 

Interested to read a rebuttal from someone who knows more!

Edited August 29, 2022 by Smithee

[JFK-1]

27 minutes ago, Smithee said:

From what I've read its raison detre was to keep NASA going, and it's shit. It's taken so long to build that much of it's obsolete, and it cost $23 billion.

 

Interested to read a rebuttal from someone who knows more!

 

If it efficiently puts men on the moon and brings them safely back it's not shit, it's a functioning machine. And if that were so easy you can be guaranteed others would already have been doing it. Getting back there before anyone else does is more critical than it was first time round.

 

This time we're going back to build a permanent base on the moon, and there will be areas which are better than others for specific purposes. Lunar daytime lasts about 2 weeks and will be scorching hot all year round, it has no seasons. So for example a good location for crew quarters might be a crater wall that's shaded in the daytime.

 

Among other things we're going to see happening on the moon is obviously science labs. They're going to be doing things like melting metals and making alloys on the moon. Which in those lower gravity conditions may present methods to create purer, harder, lighter and more durable alloys which might not be possible on the Earth. And we don't know what's below the surface, there might be rare and highly useful minerals.

 

Same thing with chemicals/drugs. They will be looking at the reaction of chemicals in this lower gravity plus just beyond the walls they have a perfect and entirely free vacuum which offers further experimental opportunities. We may be able to create much improved or even new drugs.

 

Say the metal thing turned out to be true, say for example on the moon you can make a very hard and light alloy no rocket could penetrate. Imagine the scramble to mass produce that alloy. And to mass produce it you're going to need something a kin to a steel works with melting furnaces and rolling mills.

 

And that takes a lot of space and again there will be sites far better than others to build such a facility on the moon. I foresee a "moon grab" and the first in there will not only have first choice they will quickly learn exactly what is a perfect spot for a specific purpose. And start mapping such sites.

 

This rocket gives the US and by extension Europe too a massive lead in the colonisation of the moon that's going to happen. We will quickly see a space station orbiting the moon, that's already being prepared.

 

This will be modular like the ISS so it will be easily extendable as needed and is going to be  staging post to send both people and machinery to the surface and receive anything being sent up from the surface. Getting that built first too is huge leap ahead of the rest.

 

So my thinking is, if this thing works, achieves the objective, who gives that it's perceived to be not up to date. Nobody else has anything that can do this. Twenty first century or otherwise. This will be seriously pissing China off.

[Cade]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

From what I've read its raison detre was to keep NASA going, and it's shit. It's taken so long to build that much of it's obsolete, and it cost $23 billion.

 

Interested to read a rebuttal from someone who knows more!

 

It's just not a very advanced rocket. No new and innovative ideas on it.

Re-uses engines and boosters from the Space Shuttle that they had in storage.
None of it is reusable.
Political interference has caused the costs to spiral (considering the state of US politics, that's not really a surprise)
It may be expensive as feck and little more than a Saturn V tribute act, but it will be the first deep space, human-rated spacecraft for many years and an important step towards the rest of the solar system.
We'll have to see how SpaceX's full scale orbital test of Starship goes later in the year to see if there is a better alternative.
 

 

[Lovecraft]

31 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

It's just not a very advanced rocket. No new and innovative ideas on it.

Re-uses engines and boosters from the Space Shuttle that they had in storage.
None of it is reusable.
Political interference has caused the costs to spiral (considering the state of US politics, that's not really a surprise)
It may be expensive as feck and little more than a Saturn V tribute act, but it will be the first deep space, human-rated spacecraft for many years and an important step towards the rest of the solar system.
We'll have to see how SpaceX's full scale orbital test of Starship goes later in the year to see if there is a better alternative.
 

 

I'm pretty sure it will go further out than any human-rated craft too, so that's quite a big deal.

 

I think this is just a reminder to everyone that China/Russia won't be the only ones up in space.

 

 

[Mysterion]

 

They are having a wee problem filling up the tanks/engine 3 but working through it. 

There is a 2hr launch window. 

If it fails to launch then the next launch days are Friday or Monday however there are concerns about the weather for those days.

[Mysterion]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

None of it is reusable.

 

The SRBs are usually multiuse. After separation they were always collected during the shuttle days and refurbished for future missions. Surely they haven't regressed ?  

[Cade]

32 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

The SRBs are usually multiuse. After separation they were always collected during the shuttle days and refurbished for future missions. Surely they haven't regressed ?  

Nope, these ones are single use.

They've only got 8 left over from the Shuttle programme, which is why the Artemis programme has been limited to 4 flights.

Northrop Grumman have been given a contract to make new ones in the future.

 

[Mysterion]

6 minutes ago, Cade said:

Nope, these ones are single use.

They've only got 8 left over from the Shuttle programme, which is why the Artemis programme has been limited to 4 flights.

Northrop Grumman have been given a contract to make new ones in the future.

 

Thanks.

 

I guess it's a good way to kickstart the Artemis program and gaining some value from the leftover kit.

[Cade]

Countdown halted at T-40 minutes.

 

One of the four main engines wasn't cooling down to launch temperature correctly.
NASA are scrambling to fix it and get it launched before the Moon moves out of range.

[Unknown user]

This is the thing I've seen

 

 

[Pap]

Been postponed.

[Armageddon]

How can't we do this in 2022 but they managed it in 1969.......................................... oh wait

 

Wait till they get there and there's no flag hahaha

[Cade]

USA!
USA!
 

[Maple Leaf]

6 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

My cousins were in Kissimmee which is 50 miles from the launch site during a shuttle launch at night. They were in a villa watching on TV when one decided he was going to go outside, "maybe I will see it"

 

He was scoffed at, "it's 50 miles away" but as they sat watching the launch on TV he began yelling come outside I can see it. They didn't believe him but went out to humour him and sure enough there it was.

 

It was so bright even at 50 miles away they could clearly see the shuttle on the boosters. They saw it make that post launch roll the shuttle did from 50 miles away.

 

Artemis 1 dwarfs the shuttle, this is going to be some show. They say will rattle windows 50 miles away.

 

I had a similar experience when I was on vacation in New Smyrna Beach, just south of Daytona Beach.  It was a spectacular sight, but silent.  it took several minutes for the sound to arrive.

[Cade]

Meanwhile, at SpaceX.......all 33 Raptor engines have been fitted to their first Super Heavy Booster and they're currently conducting some sort of test.

A full burn static fire can't be far away.

 

NASA haven't said that they'll go for the next moon launch window this friday, so they may have to wait longer than that to get SLS off the ground.

 

Not much chance of SpaceX doing a full orbital test before SLS goes up, but they're the big competition.

[Cade]

NASA going for another attempt this Saturday.

2 hour launch window opens at 18:14 UTC (19:14pm BST)

 

Admitted that not doing a full wet dress rehearsal was a mistake.

[Cade]

SLS launch cancelled again after a fuel leak

 

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Cade]

Rocket being rolled back into the hangar for repairs.

 

Launch will likely be in mid/late October, depending on how the repairs go.

 

And absolute shambles and a huge embarrassment for NASA and the USA.

 

[Jambo_jim2001]

6 hours ago, Cade said:

SLS launch cancelled again after a fuel leak

 

USA! USA! USA!

 

I'd be pissed, especially the price of fuel as it is, SLS --Scary Leaking Spaceship

[Mikey1874]

 

[Mikey1874]

 

[Cade]

SpaceX carried out two major tests yesterday.

A spin-prime test of a large number of the 33 Raptor 2 engines fitted on the super heavy booster (spin prime is doing the entire launch sequence without actually firing the engines).
And they also did a static fire of all 6 Raptor 2 engines on Starship.

 

They're getting closer and closer to a full orbital launch and return mission with the complete ship.

If they can pull that off, it changes everything.

[Mikey1874]

 

[Cade]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220013431/downloads/HLS IAC_Final.pdf

 

NASA finalises the plan for the new moon landings.

Lots of moving parts.

Multiple launches into Earth orbit to fuel Starship for the trip to the moon, then SLS fires the crew to the moon, where they then transfer to Starship for the landing.
 

[Maple Leaf]

19 hours ago, Cade said:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220013431/downloads/HLS IAC_Final.pdf

 

NASA finalises the plan for the new moon landings.

Lots of moving parts.

Multiple launches into Earth orbit to fuel Starship for the trip to the moon, then SLS fires the crew to the moon, where they then transfer to Starship for the landing.
 

 

Any idea why it's so complicated?  The Apollo missions were simple in comparison.

[Cade]

Because the Moon is just a stepping stone towards Mars, so they're going big (hence Starship and Near Earth Orbit refuelling)

[Mikey1874]