|
From the BBC
There's been a bit of chatter between astronaut Christina Koch and the control centre. Temperature is the crew's concern right now. Koch asks mission control: "It is very cold in the cabin, any chance you can make it warmer, or reduce the cabin fan speed a bit more so the ventilation is not blowing as hard?" The control team say that while the crew were asleep they turned one of the knobs and saw a slight temperature increase. "We're going to take a look at some of these shell heaters and we'll let you know when we start putting some of that in work and we can see if that affects the temperature in a positive way," mission control says. "Thank you, Mike," is Koch's response. |
Originally Posted by Jhieminga
(Post 12063208)
The foam caused issues because it struck something on several occasions. That something, the orbiter, is not in the way anymore. The reason for having insulation on the tank is simply to keep the propellant as cold as possible. The Falcon 9's rocket engine runs on LOX and RP-1, and that second part is a refined version of what we put in cars and aeroplanes. They have less to keep cold compared to the needs of the SLS, as that uses both LOX and liquid hydrogen. Without the insulation, you would boil off more propellant and you would need to keep pumping it in at a high rate. They still need to keep replenishing up until tank pressurisation, but at a much lower rate. That's my understanding of the system.
Perhaps a rocket surgeon knows the answer. :8 |
Originally Posted by NineEighteen
(Post 12063021)
The mission is an international collaboration on equipment.
|
Originally Posted by TowerDog
(Post 12063220)
I had expected to hear a sonic boom after a minute or so but it was quiet.
I did watch Endeavour launch back in 1994 but I would imagine Saturn V and SLS were more impressive in terms of raw power? The solid rocket motors are inherently impressive to me, if only because once lit, they cannot be unlit. That demands a certain respect! |
I too watched with more than a little trepidation and then pride. 50 years ago I was doing structural analysis at Rocketdyne on the SSME now known as the RS25, virtually unchanged from those days. (Little known fact: the engine has a spark plug! But we called it the Augmented Spark Igniter, the ASI)
|
Originally Posted by mickq
(Post 12063263)
I too watched with more than a little trepidation and then pride. 50 years ago I was doing structural analysis at Rocketdyne on the SSME now known as the RS25, virtually unchanged from those days. (Little known fact: the engine has a spark plug! But we called it the Augmented Spark Igniter, the ASI)
The same holds for aircraft and even automobile propulsion systems. Until scientific advancements deliver practical means of transiting worthwhile astronomical distances, and new materials that are capable of dealing with the hazards of that concept, I see little benefit from these current jaunts to our own 'back yard'. The proposed Moon Base, would be orders of magnitudes more expensive than even this single use SLS. Seeing 90% of the SLS crash back to earth, or burn-up, demonstrates how little has changed since Apollo. Sure, SpaceX can re-use boosters a few times, but the concept remains unchanged, just a more affordable version of inefficiency. |
Originally Posted by Abbas Ibn Firnas
(Post 12063293)
Is that a case of the old addage 'don't fix it if it's not broken, or the fact that we're still having to use what is essentially, incrementally improved 1940s technology?
The same holds for aircraft and even automobile propulsion systems. Until scientific advancements deliver practical means of transiting worthwhile astronomical distances, and new materials that are capable of dealing with the hazards of that concept, I see little benefit from these current jaunts to our own 'back yard'. |
Given the flight management and computational power has improved so much in the 'old' days the craft would splash down somewhere in the Pacific, Now how soon before they can have the capsules land softly on the flight deck of a Arleigh Burke. None of this ungainly scrambling onto a net and being winched up into a Sea King ..
God Speed Artimis ll and safe return |
Is that a case of the old addage 'don't fix it if it's not broken, or the fact that we're still having to use what is essentially, incrementally improved 1940s technology? $145M each as compared to around $1M for a Raptor with a target of $500K. peak. 71 RS-25 engines built over 50 years whilst Raptor is production is now about 7 a week. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2026/0...5-million.html |
I would have watched the launch on TV if I'd been home - as it turns out I was driving home from a visit to the dentist at the time. Then again, I'm a rocket nerd on a child of the 1960's moon race.
I've been more nervous about this launch than any I can remember since Apollo - just seems like for all the money spent, the systems are far from mature. I drove up to watch a couple of the Shuttle launches while I was doing testing at the Pratt facility in Palm Beach Florida back in ~1984. First one was a bit of a bust because we didn't know where we were going, but the second I drove up the night before and slept in the car (along with hundreds of others) along the Indian River across from the Cape. Impressive to watch, then roughly a minute later - just as the Shuttle disappeared through a layer of clouds - the sound hit. OMG - like someone beating on my chest with bass drum mallets! And given the time delay, we must have been 10 or more miles away!
Originally Posted by B Fraser
(Post 12063231)
I was surprised at how early the propellants were loaded. The foam suffers from a number of issues including the "popcorn" effect and woodpecker damage as seen on the shuttle programme. As far as I can tell, it's not needed on the SLS and simply reduces the useful payload. The Saturn V S2 and S3 stages used the same fuels.
Perhaps a rocket surgeon knows the answer. :8 Ice still formed, but as noted - unlike the Shuttle - there was nothing to hit and do damage. As far as payload impact of the foam - liquid H2 boils off so fast that the loss would be a concern, plus the third stage had to keep that stuff from boiling off for a couple hours in orbit before the final burn to send them to the moon. And don't forget - the ice that doesn't shed isn't light either. |
Originally Posted by Kiltrash
(Post 12063368)
Given the flight management and computational power has improved so much in the 'old' days the craft would splash down somewhere in the Pacific, Now how soon before they can have the capsules land softly on the flight deck of a Arleigh Burke. None of this ungainly scrambling onto a net and being winched up into a Sea King ..
God Speed Artimis ll and safe return |
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 12063375)
The RS25 is 1960s technology but at 2020s prices. Chalk and cheese when compared to a modern generation engine like the SpaceX Raptor 3.
$145M each as compared to around $1M for a Raptor with a target of $500K. peak. 71 RS-25 engines built over 50 years whilst Raptor is production is now about 7 a week. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2026/0...5-million.html https://www.nasa.gov/dr-robert-h-god...t%20technology. If we also consider the boosters, the technology goes back centuries. Hardly 'chalk and cheese'... Interesting combination for rocket fuel though :) |
Hardly 'chalk and cheese'... Interesting combination for rocket fuel though https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif |
Wonder if when DJT calls them on Easter Day he gets the answer phone message that his call is important to them and to please leave a message...sorry political drift
|
One of my neighbors have friends in high places and got invited to the NASA VIP section for launch and took this picture.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....659d09ec5.jpeg |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 12063384)
Impressive to watch, then roughly a minute later - just as the Shuttle disappeared through a layer of clouds - the sound hit. OMG - like someone beating on my chest with bass drum mallets! And given the time delay, we must have been 10 or more miles away!
. |
There is good in America
"We‘re going back to the fricking moon. That‘s why!" The response was hailed across social media and even got a response from NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, who wrote on X that the child was "definitely getting a bag of NASA gear." |
ROFL.....
NASA pays $100M for Microsoft 365 licensing across the agency. They standardized every system on Microsoft. They put Microsoft Surfaces on the Orion spacecraft as the crew's personal computing devices. And the first technical crisis of humanity's return to the Moon was Reid Wiseman radioing Houston to say he has two Microsoft Outlooks and neither one works. Mission Control's response? "With your go, we can remote in and take a look." The same exact workflow your company's IT helpdesk uses when you submit a ticket on a Monday morning. Except the user is traveling at 4,275 mph, 30,000 miles from Earth, and the Wi-Fi situation is considerably worse. This spacecraft survived hydrogen leaks, helium leaks, a faulty heat shield, and a broken toilet. Outlook broke anyway. The toilet actually got fixed faster. The real story here is that Microsoft has achieved something no other software company in history can claim: a support ticket from lunar transit. Their enterprise sales team should frame this. "Battle-tested in space" is a positioning statement most B2B companies would mass murder for, and Microsoft accidentally earned it because Outlook crashes everywhere, including orbit. Outlook remains the only software in human history that performs identically whether you're in a cubicle in Redmond or aboard a spacecraft bound for the Moon. Universally, reliably broken. And we keep buying it anyway. |
Who else noticed the crew evacuation baskets breaking free at the point of launch and running down the wires from the tower towards the safety room ? Was it intentional ? See 16:52 in this excellent collection of engineering and alternative view footage.
The exhaust from the SRBs seems to be a little dark at the point of ignition, was that a concrete rich exhaust plume ? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:52. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.