NASA to Stream Artemis I Rollout, Briefings on Science, Tech Payloads
NASA Mission Update
NASA will hold a trio of media teleconferences the week of Aug. 14 to preview the science and technology payloads that will fly as part of the agency’s Artemis I flight test. NASA also will provide livestream coverage of Artemis I’s move to the launch pad ahead of its targeted no earlier than Monday Aug. 29 liftoff.
Artemis I is an uncrewed flight test, the first in a series of increasingly complex missions to the Moon. Through Artemis, NASA will land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon, paving the way for a long-term lunar presence and serving as a steppingstone to send astronauts to Mars.
Ten shoebox-size secondary payloads, called CubeSats, are hitching a ride to space on Artemis I’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, and several other investigations are flying inside the Orion spacecraft during the flight test. Each of the payloads will perform science and technology experiments in deep space, expanding understanding of lunar science, technology developments, and deep space radiation.
Audio of all three briefings will livestream on NASA’s website. The briefings include (all times Eastern):
Monday, Aug. 15
5 p.m. – Lunar science payloads teleconference with the following participants:
- Jacob Bleacher, NASA chief exploration scientist
- Craig Hardgrove, principal investigator, LunaH-Map, Arizona State University
- Tatsuaki Hashimoto, project manager for OMOTENASHI, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
- Ryu Funase, project manager for EQUULEUS, JAXA
- Ben Malphrus, NASA principal investigator, Lunar IceCube
- Joseph Shoer, architect for Small Sat missions, Lockheed Martin
Tuesday, Aug. 16
Noon – Technology demonstration and solar system science payloads teleconference with the following participants:
- Patrick Troutman, strategy and architectures liaison for NASA’s Moon to Mars Architecture Development Office
- Dustin Gohmert, Orion crew survival systems project manager, NASA’s Johnson Space Center
- Raffaele Mugnuolo, ArgoMoon program manager, Italian Space Agency
- Rob Chambers, director of commercial civil space strategy, Lockheed Martin
- Wesley Faler, team lead, Team Miles
- Julie Castillo-Rogez, NASA principal science investigator, NEAScout, NASA/JPL/Caltech
- Les Johnson, NASA principal technology investigator, NEAScout, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
Wednesday, Aug. 17
Noon – Radiation secondary payloads teleconference with the following participants:
- Ramona Gaza, MARE science team lead, NASA’s Johnson Space Center
- Thomas Berger, Helga and Zohar principal investigator, German Aerospace Center
- Oren Milstein, chief executive officer, StemRad
- Ye Zhang, plant biology program scientist, NASA Biological and Physical Sciences
- Sergio Santa Maria, BioSentinel lead scientist, NASA’s Ames Research Center
- Mihir I. Desai, CuSP principal investigator, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)
To participate by phone, media must send their full name, media affiliation, email address, and phone number no later than two hours prior to the start of each event to: [email protected].
The agency is targeting Thursday, Aug. 18 to roll the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft to NASA Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Pad 39B in Florida and will provide a live stream on the NASA Kennedy You Tube channel beginning at 6 p.m.
View information about the technology and science payloads on Artemis I:
115 responses to “NASA to Stream Artemis I Rollout, Briefings on Science, Tech Payloads”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Through Artemis, NASA will land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon, paving the way for a long-term lunar presence and serving as a steppingstone to send astronauts to Mars.
They ALWAYS mention Mars. Pathetic. Mars is a dead end. Ceres is a far better destination for the first human mission Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit.
its all fantasy
Either way, Mars is the next goal. NASA has zero plans to send anyone to Ceres or any of Gary’s “anywhere but Mars” destinations before Mars.
I think there will be many goals as the cost of investigating them goes down. The ones pursuing the various goals may or may not have a NASA connection. My preference is a comprehensive survey and prospecting of NEOs with an eye towards industrialization. Others prefer the moon, Mars, Venus, or the Trojans of the gas giants. I think the time is approaching when all destinations will be investigated and the ones most fruitful will be swarmed Only the accuracies of current preferences will correlate with the future realities
nasa has no real plans to go to mars either
There are no “real” plans to go to Mars with chemical propulsion.
It was studied to exhaustion, and nothing came of that except “Battlestar Galacticas” that were completely impractical. Nuclear Thermal, much in the news lately because they are spending money on it again, is a dead end because for fantastic expense it only doubles Isp. Far better than that is required to enable any missions beyond the Moon.
That is not even considering the problem of cosmic radiation, let alone solar events and zero G debilitation, both of which make permanent damage much worse than that from a 1 year ISS tour a certainty. Cosmic rays are the real showstopper and nobody will take a stand about that except the world authority on space radiation, Eugene Parker. And his view generates shock and outrage among NewSpace fans because it makes a mockery of their standard practice of trivializing radiation.
Spacex is scamming, plain and simple, and the Musk worshipers are either gullible fools or simply disingenuous enough to go with it. I had one argue with me back and forth for dozens of comments until it became obvious he was just playing that toxic creep game they love. Disgusting.
The last I read the career lifetime dose was being reduced and that means it is impossible for a Mars mission astronaut to not exceed it, which would indicate nobody is going until that is addressed.
I doubt they would waive it.
no one in the US wants to spend the money to send humans to mars. or at least no large group 100 billlion plus
Musk certainly does, or says he does anyway….and his Cult followers of course believe him. Except maybe for the percentage of them that understand neoliberalism does not tell the truth as a rule. The truth is, like human life, of no value to those who worship mammon.
he wont spend any money on mars this decade
He might end up in prison this decade. His Enron scam of spending billions but never showing exactly what is going on may end there.
Some of it is.
Landing on the Moon is a fantasy until they have a lander other than that bizarro version of the shiny, which was absurd. It reminded me of when they killed Sidemount. It was hard to believe they could do something so stupid. If they had built Sidemount we might actually be landing back on the Moon by now, or close.
“Through Artemis”, as in the SLS, is not a fantasy because they have a working Moon rocket. However, the original goal of the boosters/core/engines Shuttle design was a Saturn V class launch vehicle that expends everything except a tank, and expending it all has thrown that baby out with the bathwater. Fortunately, that can also change. Future iterations of the SLS can be made partially reusable. Because of spacex propaganda people will not acknowledge the Shuttle was actually more reusable than the F9 because it did not expend engines.
A “long-term lunar presence” is a fantasy until they have a way to exploit those ice resources at the poles. My best recommendation is large semi-expendable robot landers to process lunar ice onsite and ferry water shielding up to “Fat Workshops” and when a radiation sanctuary is complete, only then send astronauts.
Mars is absolutely a fantasy. Too much gravity and no ocean makes it a dead end. Even when we finally have “true” spaceships with a kiloton range cosmic ray water shield, tether-generated artificial gravity, closed loop life support, and Nuclear Propulsion, Ceres becomes the place to go, and Mars will likely be bypassed.
Nuclear Thermal is another dead end and while Nuclear Pulse is the only viable option right now, technology is emerging that may soon make some form of Nuclear-Electric Propulsion practical.
As for that toxic creep that I blocked long ago dog-whistling “Gary”, it is well known to the regulars commenting here what he is and the Musk-worship-garbage he posts. One of the most vicious of the borderline sociopath trolls who have cyberstalked me for years. FFS, why doesn’t Messier do something about HIM?
Gary, you made your name a dog whistle, no one else.
Tom….FFS, the spacex legion of cyberthugs has made these forums a cesspool, and you are one of the worst. The most toxic disgusting creeps on the internet. That you and your borderline sociopath buddies have stalked and harassed me for years is the proof.
Using “Gary” instead of my username is a classic harassment dogwhistle signaling your bunch to dogpile me, email moderators, and serial reply with insults until I am banned. That has gone on for ten years. And it is why almost nobody criticizes spacex on these forums.
The spacex fanboys are the garbage people of the internet. Trash.
Your gang has worked directly against the U.S. space program for years and clearly owe allegiance only to your bizarro Cult leader. Your little clique of the worst of the worst also includes Trumpists, Climate Deniers, and extreme right-wing libertarians who also happen to support the ongoing attempted neo-fascist overthrow of the government.
Disgusting traitors and the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.
No, we’ve just replied to you. Generally far more factually than you have posted in the first place.
You lie like the rest of us breathe. A “true” Trumpist.
It was just normal tourist visits on January 6th.
Musk plays the same game…all liars, narcissists, and that attracts a certain kind of fanboy. And here you are, you and Ball Peen and the other borderline sociopaths.
No. We say truthful things like this:
A Starship being refueled at a high orbit and carrying less than full load can reach Mars in 2 to 3 months. The use of electrostatic and electromagnetic shielding with soft habs and PE storm shelters means radiation is a non-issue with respect to long term health for those so traveling.
Also:
At the cost per pound to LEO of $35+/-50% which the Starship system creates, that above can and likely will happen.
Absolute B.S.
Blocking someone to keep from being bothered their posts, then bypassing the block out of a deep seated need to be bothered about them sounds a bit obsessive.
a long term presence is possible with SLS and current rockets but it will be a small one 6-8 people. doing not much
Well, we disagreed/agreed on that (Gateway) before (because of radiation) if you recall.
It is just more of the permanent damage the astronauts suffer on the ISS and is unacceptable in my view. We know all we need to know about that.
The only other possibility I can see is….a lava tube find. That would solve so many problems it would make a Moonbase almost a sure thing. We could actually just move right in with inflatable structures. Getting water would be a problem because there are no geologically likely lava tubes anywhere near the poles but that could be solved in a couple ways.
Just need a lava tube….and a lander.
and 80 billion dollars
The new stealth bomber program will cost at least 203 billion.
The Ohio submarine replacement fleet has a life-cycle cost of 347 billion.
The Space Force yearly budget for satellites is now 24.5 billion and that will go up and up.
And every year the ISS is in operation is another 4 billion.
Tell me why we cannot have a Moonbase Robert..
because there is no desire to spend that kind of money on a lunar base. few if any see the reason for it those all have reasons solid ones
No solid reasons for cold war toys anymore. Not in the age of drones and hypersonic missiles. Bombers are targeted on the ground and they can’t buy enough to keep them in the air 24/7, Submarines are being tracked by sea gliders now and cannot hide….it is all just Military Industrial Complex robbery. And the Trump Force weaponizing Earth orbit? The new money machine. Might as well build spaceships and put the nukes in deep space. Cost about the same. It’s true. .
the subs are important.
Not anymore because of UUV sea glider technology. Boomers used to disappear into the depths but that is not happening. They are constantly tracked due to the oceans of the world being infested with cheap sea glider drones. They can be destroyed at any time now and are no longer a viable deterrent. And with a 347 billion dollar life cycle cost that is as bizarre as it gets. The Navy does not want to talk about that. I wonder why?
you asked I answered
And I replied….
Space is the answer to most of the world’s problems. Nuclear deterrence, asteroid and comet defense, Climate Change, and we can even create new worlds to live inside of instead of on the surface of. Vast oceans for submarines to explore beneath the surface of a dozen or more icy bodies. It is all out there waiting. The biggest obstacle is NewSpace, which is not about space at all, but only about filthy lucre. They see no money to be made with a Moonbase but gazillions from rural video gamers and megaconstellations of space junk.
who knows…its going to be evolution
Or extinction. Maybe life is just too stupid to survive in this universe.
The answer to the Fermi Paradox. We do not seem to be truly intelligent.
We’re intelligent enough to destroy ourselves. No other species can make that claim…at least on this planet.
Yes…my definition of “truly” intelligent would not be that. Any aliens observing us would probably categorize us as having a kind of faux cleverness, but not really capable of surviving.
It will be hard to do given NASA is only expecting the SLS/Orion to be able to launch every two years or so… Because the flight rate is going to be so low they will probably follow the Apollo model of picking a different landing site on each mission based on the expected science it will generate.
Tom being candid…your guess, my guess, SLS fan guess, Bill’s guess …all of them are how it could work out. the only thing I am pretty sure of is that Gateway will go forward. but the lunar landing. it wont happen this decade…oh mayb 2028 or something and its hard to see where it all goes
the lunar landing wont happen for the simple reason that there is not enough money chasing all the projects. a second reason is that the hardware needs more money than is there and the third reason is that without money the hardware is behind schedule…but right now whatever hardware that they come up with all combined will likely cost 6-8 billion a mission…and I dont think that they have that
now can they reduce the cost of the hardware go from one every two years to two a year. I dont think so unless PAINFUL P A I N F U L political choices are made…and I dont think that the courage is there to do it
a more likely “thing” is that eventually what SLS flights fly this decade will probably be used to make Gateway permanently crewed. doing what who cares…but I just dont see a landing. my scenario you replied to is the very best one possible with SLS and the current lander system
Will disagree. If NASA requests it. The SpaceX Moonship (HLS lander) could do multiple descends and ascends to various locations on the Moon with each Astronauts tour with the SLS/Orion taxicab. Of course that requires a propellant depot in Lunar orbit with supporting tanker flights.
Not sure the Moonship as currently envisioned is even necessary for manned Lunar exploration if the drive to go was there. The Falcon9 launch system is orbiting every month more than SLS can do in a launch. Some orbital docking and refilling and a trip to the moon is possible in Dragon as the heat shield is rated for Lunar return. Consider that a dozen Falcons could orbit over 180 tons including a Dragon and a lander. Under a billion in launches. Very little imagination is required to see how that could get people to the moon fairly rapidly.
Missing element being the drive to go soonest. And if Starship goes operational sooner than I expect, cost could come down considerably more.
And don’t forget there is the FH that could easily send a lunar modified dragon to the Lunar Gateway as needed at a fraction of the cost of the SLS/Orion. But if NASA dares to use it SLS/Orion will be seen as an over priced waste, so NASA won’t use Dragon as look as SLS/Orion are in existence.
FH would be fine if we went the hypergolic route..but it has EELV shroud constraints. Keep that a sat/probe launcher.
So you don’t think the Dragon would fit on it?
If I had to do the Falcon Heavy route, I might just use it like Von Braun used the ferries in Colliers…maybe Starship is a tripropellant that can be launched once on methane. Hypergolics can last years.
FH has enough capacity to either throw a light weight capsule to NHRO it self or to lift an stage into obit that another craft could dock to and be propelled to the moon. No need for hypergolic methane could last for months in orbit and hydrogen for weeks.
Methane isn’t a hypergolic. Hypergolics are ambient temp–lasts for years
It is likely that some of these arguments will be reinforced over the next three weeks. SLS and Starship trying maiden launches in that time frame. I would not be surprised to see several scrubs each as they are both new launch systems with essentially zero flight history.
SLS has some major legacy components in a totally new configuration. Considering the glitches in the admittedly minimal testing program, a trouble free flight would be a miracle. Assuming it gets the Orion through the flight and back to Earth intact, at least three years before the second flight. Depending on the issues that do or do not arise, that second flight may well have to be a repeat of the first to retire the risks. If a crew is placed on the second flight after a sparkling first flight, it will still be a high risk mission with so much hardware new to that flight.
Starship first flight seems to be even higher risk from where I sit. I expect numerous issues with the first flight. My prediction is that the Starlinks are deployed, (possibly making it a profitable mission anyway) but both stages have problems with the simulated landings. Somewhere between three and five launches before intact recovery of the first stage. Ten or so before intact recovery of the second. The strength is in the vehicle manufacturing which suggests that even these development missions could be profitable and frequent. Even with my reservations, I expect Starship to be in full service before the SLS is ready for a second flight.
As previously noted, if wrong I’ll take my crow barbecued Memphis style.
Dragon’s heat shield is not rated for lunar return. Per Jim Bowersox, PICa-X is up to suitable, but the shield would need to be redesigned and thickened to handle the higher speed reentry, the GPS based nav system and the comm system are not suitable for lunar orbit missions, either. Then there’s that return burn to consider.
None of those issues are insurmountable, but the current vehicle is not ready for the task.
I accept that I have been somewhat misinformed. What kind of time and money do you think would be required to bring those systems up to speed?
My opinion being that weight penalties are far less important when the launch costs are reasonable. I speculate that a Falcon/Dragon mission to the Lunar surface with astronauts could be done for less than the annual costs of the SLS/Orion combo on the first mission. Including development of all the upgrades including refilling, Subsequent ones considerably less with development costs and risks retired. Especially if the surface habitat, rovers, spacesuits, and other equipment can be used by later missions.
Given that the communications and navigation have to be developed for lunar HLS anyway, none of those issues seem huge to me. My gut guess from seeing how SpaceX rolls, is a year or two to develop and do a first uncrewed test flight, but that is just a WAG. Cost… who knows?
Remember it will still have its abort motors available. In terms of the heat shield, being capable of a lunar return and be rated for it are two different things and only SpaceX knows how much of the Red Dragon /Gray Dragon remains as part of the crew Dragon.
“only SpaceX knows…”
Ken Bowersox was in charge mission assurance at SpaceX when it was developed. I trust his knowledge on the topic.
SpaceX could also deliver a number of HLS to the Moon if needed.
But it’s more likely it will be fitted out to allow an extend stay at a site, perhaps several weeks, with rovers provided for exploration. Since NASA is unlikely to make full use of its 100 ton capability weight could be allocated to shielded shelters within the HLS to reduce their radiation exposure durning while on the lunar surface.
Lunar Starship should be cargo only at first. One way to serve as base stations in a line from flatter areas to more challenging ones. Rovers travel from one to the next.
Fill LS with moonrocks…so no biggie if it crashes. SLS crew, Starships for cargo. Let the two compete in the field.
There’s no point in making lunar Starships cargo-only when Polaris and DearMoon should demonstrate manned flight before Artemis III. It may be that most Starships bound for the Moon do end up carrying nothing but cargo, but that will be as adjuncts to a manned effort.
It could very well be years, if ever, before the shiny is even carrying satellites, let alone humans.
The SLS is going to the Moon in two weeks:)
Yes, and it is also possible that the networks may work together to charter a Starship to take their reporters to the Artemis landing site. It will allow them to provide the type of extended coverage that cable news channels use for their business model. Imagine them being able to broadcast live from the lunar surface the landing of the first NASA astronauts since Apollo, and to interview them as they set first foot on the Moon.?
BTW, not sure if you saw the Reuters report, but it looks like ESA is discussing with SpaceX the possibility of buying some Falcon flights for the missions impacted by the Russia invasion.
I saw that. Regular, frequent cadence is probably one of SpaceX’s best selling points right now.
If NASA (really Congress) insists on using the SLS/Orion/Gateway scheme to get people to the Lunar surface. Only 2-4 people periodically due to the low flight rate of the SLS.
a guess is that they can come up with two flights of SLS/Orion and some lander at about 10-12 billion total. that would be enough to crew a lunar base for a year with 4 people. they would call that “even”
It took NASA and the folks at Lockheed almost 16 years to build the Orion. Do you really think it will be possible for NASA to design a lunar lander in under a decade at the pace they work at? Indeed, even during Apollo it took NASA some eights years to design, build and flight test the LEM when NASA was in a race to do so.
NO I dont think anyone can build a lander in under 10 years that has an acceptable safety level and margins. and is tested. the level of safety v risk is to great for something “cheap”
Given that NASA will only be testing SLS-Orion once and SLS Block 1B not at all because of expense and production time, I’d say that cheap hardware is likely to be better and safer hardware because it can actually be tested affordably and on a reasonable schedule.
Given that NASA will only be testing SLS-Orion once and SLS Block 1B not at all because of expense and production time, I’d say that cheap hardware is likely to be better and safer hardware because it can actually be tested affordably and on a reasonable schedule.”
isnt the plan to do the same thing with the lunar lander ie test once and then fly with people?
the entire “prelanding” testing for all the parts bothers me a lot. and I suspect is its “fault” line in some form or fashion in terms of a landing happening this decade or this part of this decade. but lets see what happens its fun to watch
That is what NASA has agreed to pay for. I wouldn’t be hugely surprised if Musk sent one or two additional landers ahead – unmanned – full of useful cargo before the first landing with crew aboard. But even if not, that’s one test more, sans crew, than SLS Block 1B is going to get.
I will be very extremely surprised quite pleasantly if he does that. I dont think he has the money
The RL10 is about as simple, powerful, efficient, and dependable, as a small rocket engine can get. All the work to make it variable thrust was done in 2009 (CECE) and the technology put on the shelf. So I think…..it could be the key to getting a lander built very very quickly. Almost all the work has already been done.
I agree with that
that is probably more likely but they will try for 4 people over a year
True. But that isn’t going to prevent SpaceX from going to the Moon much more frequently and with much larger crews. How long the powers-that-be insist on flogging the SLS-Orion dead horse will be strictly a political issue.
No doubt that once the hardware is available in the form of the Moonships, tankers & Shelby Depot tankers in addition to transport Starships. Some paying customer will ask SpaceX to provide logistics services and bases on the Lunar surface. Heck, maybe even the litigious bald gnome after hell freezes over.
Stranger things have happened.
why would SpaceX do that? there is no money in it Musk has never developed a human flight capability without NASA money
Musk is developing Dear Moon without NASA money. There are a lot of ways to make money both going to the Moon and doing things there. The interesting thing will be to see which Musk decides to pursue first.
with no real progress
That need not be the case. A LESA base can be landed…an uncladded Mars Basecamp lander tested there with RL-10s, etc.
I dont see how that is safe
No more unsafe than Starship
which I dont think is a good safety level now
Starship is in many ways a Shuttle redux. And we know that “airliner” philosophy killed two crews. No escape system is unacceptable.
the irony of it is that the shuttle management system failed before the hardware
Jimmy Carter signed the check after being convinced it was a good deal. They went cheap on everything, and it ended up costing as much per launch as the Saturn V but instead of going a quarter million miles up it went a couple hundred.
Reaganomics pushed NASA to make good on their promise to “make space pay for itself.” Instead, Challenger destroyed itself.
There is no cheap.
Interesting chicken-and-egg question, but I think you’re right. The hardware failures that eventually did in both Challenger and Columbia were observed, in non-fatal form, quite early-on, but were hand-waved away by NASA management precisely because nothing bad had happened – until it did. So, yeah, the proclivity to define deviance down among NASA lifers wearing their “management hats” was definitely pre-existing when the first ice chunks fell and the first abnormal SRB field joint O-ring wear was noted.
thanks. and I agree with your comments
Shuttle development is interesting because it was the first human spaceflight vehicle developed on a fairly limited budget with very imprecise goals other than really to go and return and go again. the performance goals in terms of things like X range were far more important then really even the goal of go return and go again
but they managed to do it with really alimited budget but in the end the thing that faltered was some basic safety flaws …but again they were lucky as none of them “bit them” right away (although some were close) and had they had the management system to pick up on the failures…and see them for what they were they still would have been ok.
the closest modern airline analogy is the DC10. there were some issues early on with how the risers that vented the main cabin to the cargo bay “worked” in the event of a cargo door sealing issue. they got some hints early on with partial depress issues caused by improper door sealing…that the cabin floor was collapsing due to bad venting…and recognized those problems. But McDee management got an agreement with the FAA to make it a “repair on D check” in stead of a red bulletin . this eventually ended up on two major hull losses with people.
SLS has attempted to correct that by well testing back t o Apollo standards.. (this is also true of Webb) which is why I would be surprised if the booster did not fly flawlessly
Orion on the other hand is a curious thing. what it seems like is that either Orion is having problems OR they simply did not have the money to do that kind of testing on SLS and Orion at the same time…and are now catching up with Orion.
NASA’s development cost on SLS and Orion are really not that out of line with development costs on major US projects these days they are costly but usually fool proof once they are finished.
I have to point out the fundamental flaw in your analogy Robert, not that any analogy is perfect. Rockets are not airliners….and that is essentially what killed those astronauts. The whole philosophy of operating airliners under the aegis of strict regulations in a safety culture brought the number of airline disasters down to zero in 2017. The first year that had happened since commercial aviation began.
But rockets that carry human beings into space are not going to have that level of safety for the foreseeable future. Not anymore than operating fighter aircraft will. Fighters have ejection seats and rockets have (ideally) escape towers. The Shiny has nothing.
with out an escape system no human is going to ride on Starship for a very very long time
Polaris-3
if it goes. only a fool would
Starship does not need an LES because it does not need to launch its crew with it. Hence Polaris 3. As planned the crew will launch in Dragon and dock to a Starship that is already in orbit. Starship plans to bring refueling into the equation of HSF and it opens a lot of options. Imagine how limited aviation would be if you couldn’t refuel the plane and had to carry the amount of fuel needed for a round trip at the start of the trip. It would affect the range, speed and cargo and passenger carrying capacity of the aircraft.
Anyway here are some options with starship. Since you don’t need to launch the crew with the lander, the HLS version of starship plans to refuel from a depot and take a slower 9 day trip to the moon and wait for it’s crew in NHRO. Any craft that can dock with HLS and carry crew can in theory land on the moon. This is the option that SLS exploits but if you can create a craft that travels to NHRO with crew you might be able to exploit this option.
Starship could also act as a taxi from LEO to NHRO to LEO and transfer it’s crew to the gateway or a lander in NHRO. Allowing the use of Dragon or CST-100 to carry and return crew.
You could also send propellant to lunar orbit allowing LEO to surface missions with refueling to return to LEO or repeated surface missions with the same HLS staying in lunar orbit for more than one mission.
“Imagine how limited aviation would be if you couldn’t refuel the plane and had to carry the amount of fuel needed for a round trip at the start of the trip.”
Rockets are not airplanes.
Isaacman said Polaris III will launch with people aboard in an interview with Tim Dodd.
Likely Starship will have the same abort options the Shuttle Orbiter had, but unlike the Orbiter be capable of aborting from the launch pad to separation of the Super Booster. Also odds are the crew would be able to survive a water landing with the Starship if necessary unlike the Shuttle Orbiter.
That said, wouldn’t it be great if SpaceX did a Max Q abort test of the Starship like it did with the Crew Dragon and/or a Pad Abort test off a retired Super Booster?
Not likely to happen. Not enough T/W, nowhere to land.
A “soft landing” in the ocean far down range as planned for the first orbital flight would likely work. Sure the Starship would be scrapped but the crew would survive. Yes, thrust would be an issue for the Pad Abort option, something the Shuttle Orbiter also lacked, so it’s likely not feasible unless the crew Starship has an Abort System for the crew compartment. That actually might be the solution, a crew shuttle Starship with an Abort System that would be used for the Earth to orbit run where they transfer to the Starship used to take them to the Moon to land.
Dump LOX except the header tank? Has that been studied for emergency T/W improvements?
No time to do that when SH is blowing up behind you.
Doesn’t matter where the abort happens. The two stages will have 0 relative motion with respect to each other at the moment of abort. No way SS can outrun the shrapnel from an exploding SH at the T/W it would have. I’m not even certain the engines could be lit and brought up to thrust before an exploding SH took it out. See below for my analysis, posted in two parts. As for a water landing, that is a possibility. Better pack a life boat or raft!
Nope, not gonna happen. Here’s my analysis of why:
Reasons why StarShip (SS) Will Not Work As A Launch Escape System
First off, some assumptions:
StarShip Total Thrust: ~3.30 million pounds (all six engines firing)
StarShip Total Mass: ~2.82 million pounds
Thrust / Weight Ratio: 1.17
Relative Speed Between Super Heavy an StarShip During All Phases Of Flight: 0
The last number, T/W, is the important one in this discussion. Let’s compare that to some other launch escape systems:
Apollo Launch Escape System:
Launch Escape System Thrust: 147,000 pounds
Command Module Weight: 13,000 pounds
Thrust / Weight Ratio: 11.3
Orion Launch Escape System:
Launch Escape System Thrust: 400,000 pounds
Command Module Weight: 22,900 pounds
Thrust / Weight Ratio: 17.5
Starliner Launch Escape System:
Launch Escape System Thrust: 160,000 pounds
Command Module Weight: 28,660 pounds
Thrust / Weight Ratio: 5.58
Crew Dragon 2 Launch Escape System:
Launch Escape System Thrust: 128,000 pounds
Command Module Weight: 26,576 pounds
Thrust / Weight Ratio: 4.82
First, let’s consider the case where, at any phase of flight, there is no thrust from Super Heavy. In this case, a fully fueled and loaded StarShip would depart the vicinity of the failing (and possibly exploding) Super Heavy at about the same speed as a Saturn V at launch. In other words, very slowly.
In the case of there being any remaining thrust from the Super Heavy, it’s even worse. Given the low thrust/weight ratio, a StarShip cannot outrun a firing Super Heavy, especially one that has burned off very much of its propellant and thus is much lighter than at launch.
But the fun doesn’t stop there. StarShip has no parachutes. Or landing legs. So it *has* to land on a SpaceX pad with chopsticks. It is quite possible that there are parts of the abort envelope where a StarShip can’t make it to orbit, but also can’t make it to the nearest SpaceX pad. I guess SpaceX could preposition a line of floating oil-rig derived pads to cover this eventuality though.
Given all this, it does not appear that relying on StarShip as a launch escape system for Super Heavy is possible given its slow acceleration from the “scene of the crime”.
Not included in this discussion is what would happen if the StarShip stage itself experienced a problem.
Given that, what would the chances be of redesigning the cargo area of StarShip to be detachable with its own Launch Escape System? I would say not very good. Given the mass of that section when loaded, any Launch Escape System would need relatively large rocket motors to achieve an acceptable Thrust to Weight ratio, which would impact cargo mass very significantly.
So with this particular rocket, you either better get used to people dying, or pray that one never fails.
Yes, I recall that first fatal cargo door failure on the DC-10. It was the airline you recently flew for that took that one in the shorts if I recall correctly. I suppose it’s still part of company lore.
As the Aussies say, you’re not wrong about SLS and Orion not being more than modestly atypical of big government development projects. That doesn’t make SLS and Orion okay so much as it indicts government development practices, especially cost-plus contracting and all of the perverse incentives it embodies.
I wish such costly and lengthy exercises did always produce foolproof results. Sadly, that is not true. The F-35 is probably the best recent high-profile example, though there are probably some who would nominate the Ford-class CVN instead.
for the MOST Part cost plus contracts exist for two reasons. the first is that the government does not want to really own up to what something will cost or two there is no real way of knowing what it was going to cost to do X.
the Ford CVN and the F35 is a great example of both of these. but primarily the latter…SLS is totally foundational on the first (as is Orion) Webb is a sort of midway example of both.
that has really not a lot to do with how “safe” they are. the harder you push technology the less reliable it is. the prime issue with the Ford is really “are carriers still something we want to base our naval strategery on
SLS “I think” that every one knew what it was going to cost. when they did it I predicted about 25 billion to get to Block 2 and thats probably not far off. That came from really internal NASA documents. What Bill, Kay and the gang were selling was “cheap” but they were quoting “sidemount” cost
but the only reason the US spent that money was pork and to keep the space industrial complex as it existed “then” in operation
its an open unprovable notion if they would simply spent the cost per year of Orion and SLS absent them to try another way to the moon. What is less so in my view is that the congress would not tolerate a lower safety level than SLS offers
few in congress really understand Challenger or Columbia
Why? SpaceX didn’t buy the assets or legacy of North American Rockwell…
? ? what
You do know that every astronaut that was killed involving spaceflight died in a North American Rockwell vehicle.
X-15 Two killed
Apollo CSM Three Killed
Shuttle Orbiter 14 killed
The question is which of the legacies for Starliner is greater, the McDonnell Douglas legacy or the North America Rockwell legacy…
Orion only carries 4 people and launches about once a year. Even that is too much for SLS alone.
The glorious and wondrous F9H can probably send about 20 tons (a wild guess) a mission to resupply the “Gateway.”
The showstopper is that one year is going to permanently damage the crew even worse than ISS and a solar event will inevitably increase that already worse damage. They have mentioned “periodically” manning the Gateway and that is possible. So, it would not be a permanent presence like the ISS has been.
The amount a rocket can send to it’s destination is not limited by how much it can lift at once when Orbital assembly(docking) or refueling(depots/tankers) are used.
Resupply. Pay attention.
It is like I pushed your NewSpace program button. The miracle of depots and that stuff….I simply replied to your inference that SLS was not capable of supporting Gateway. It is capable of transporting 4 people there. Resupply can be accomplished with vehicles not human-rated, like FH.
Actually NASA is talking about being able to do flights every two years or so. But I imagine they could get to annual flights with enough funding.
Why don’t you guys choose a different forum to hold an argument.
Got something to say about space? If not, perhaps you should go find another forum.
The SLS was built with our taxpayer dollars, roughly $250 from every household in America, so we should be able to complain about the waste. And so far it has been a lot less entertaining than Starship which Elon Musk is paying for.?
250 dollars per person and complaining about going to the Moon instead of DOD waste. LOL. Transparent: it is all about supporting the Cult Leader instead of the nation of birth.
And that is what is happening in this country; populism, treason, insurrection. All of it can be traced back to one thing- the rich evading taxes and regulation. Their faux think tanks have pushed free-market ideology decade after decade. Our post-depression mixed economy is now failing because of that. It all goes back to that, which is likely going to end as badly for them as it does for the rest of us.
It looks like keeping with the tradition of SLS the rollout is being delayed…
How far past the “use by” date are the boosters? Also, do you happen to know how many different wavers SLS/Orion have accumulated by now?
No idea, but it is NASA so what could go wrong?
Incidentally Jeff Foust tweeted that the batteries on several of the CubeSats have gone dead from the delays and won’t be replaced…
Necrosats. They crawled into SLS to die.
It will be OK, don’t worry. It is not going to blow up….like some companies are famous for.