T-0 is 3:38 on the dot, engines will light at 3:37:54

Test goal is four minutes to get the data they need. Shooting for eight minutes to get extra data.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I have such mixed emotions about this test. I love space stuff so I hope it goes well but at the same time it just seems to make such little sense.

---

Why?

It is firing. All engines on. So far so good.

All of the exhaust is water vapor.

I bet that is LOUD.

Test objective time met.

Hopefully they remembered to torque all the bolts. I can't imagine the forces that are being placed on that tower.

neat

Shut down. Over 8 minutes

I'm happy they are doing the space thing, but-

Couldn't they just say land astronauts on the moon?

Artemis-
"With the Artemis program, NASA will land the first woman and next man on the Moon by 2024, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with our commercial and international partners and establish sustainable exploration by the end of the decade. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap sending astronauts to Mars."

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I have such mixed emotions about this test. I love space stuff so I hope it goes well but at the same time it just seems to make such little sense.

---

Why?

---

• Extreme design costs that were supposed to be smaller because they were reusing shuttle parts
• Expensive engines (up to $150mm apiece) which will never be reused

Those are the two main reasons for me. Just seems like we're spending tens of billions of dollars to get a top-of-the-line 1980's-era rocket.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I have such mixed emotions about this test. I love space stuff so I hope it goes well but at the same time it just seems to make such little sense.

---

Why?

---

The test itself is necessary.

SLS as a program is a giant pork project designed by US senators and not engineers. There are a lot of smart people working on this system but they are working with their hands tied. They were forced to reuse shuttle tech combined with parts of the scrapped Constellation program and have faced some significant engineering challenges.

At the same time, the outside contractors are working on cost-plus and have no incentives to actually get their work done on time. The more time they spend working on components the more they get paid.

Combine those two factors and you have a five year (so far) delay in flight.

500 seconds of run time. Awesome!

By all indications a successful Green Run burn.

That said, the engine that had the fire appeared to be going a bit fuel rich compared to the others, so I'm sure they're going to be looking at that.

Right as a NASAspaceflight was about to end their livestream they realized that over at SpaceX they are now stacking the super heavy booster. So now they are showing that.

Holy ****, that thing is enormous!!!

where can I find this? I do not see space x live

A is A said:

---

where can I find this? I do not see space x live

---

Ignore the title - they are showing SpaceX Boca Chica stacking BN1

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

By all indications a successful Green Run burn.

That said, the engine that had the fire appeared to be going a bit fuel rich compared to the others, so I'm sure they're going to be looking at that.

---

If it did damage the engine, it will probably be a 2 year delay. Hate to say it that way, but anything besides "ready for stacking and roll out" is going to mean delays, and I don't think they will flush it.

I don't think so this time. It's for an unmanned mission, and everything about the RS-25 is understood inside-out. Yes, maybe a month or two for an engine swap, but I don't think a fuel rich burn means another 24 months at this point.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Those are the two main reasons for me. Just seems like we're spending tens of billions of dollars to get a top-of-the-line 1980's-era rocket.

---

That's really an excellent summation of artemis over all.

They're aiming for a November launch (and last I read they were skeptical of hitting that), so they certainly have the time. And I think running fuel rich isn't the end of the world in this case. They ran that engine the full 8 minutes, and NASA is so conservative that you really have to believe that if it was outside of acceptable parameters they would have shut down. It will just depend on the data review to see if anything needs to be done.

I still think Starship is in orbit before SLS flies.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I have such mixed emotions about this test. I love space stuff so I hope it goes well but at the same time it just seems to make such little sense.

---

Why?

---

• Extreme design costs that were supposed to be smaller because they were reusing shuttle parts
• Expensive engines (up to $150mm apiece) which will never be reused

Those are the two main reasons for me. Just seems like we're spending tens of billions of dollars to get a top-of-the-line 1980's-era rocket.

---

I get that.

It's my understanding that SLS is purpose built for going to the moon, while Starship is more for reusable, heavy lift into earth orbit. SLS should be able to put more mass into lunar orbit sooner. Starship would need to refuel in orbit to get to the moon, so that is something that would also need to be figured out and tested. I think part of that involves parts of Starship being in a non-reusable configuration.


SLS was also NASA's answer to ever changing politics. Using a bunch of contractors and cobbling together a system from spare and old parts was their way of making sure the program was uncancelable. It's a cluster ****, but it is the product of repeat cancellations. There's also no way they could have known what 2021 would be like and where commercial rockets were going to be when they started.

I've said all along starship would orbit before SLS. If they're forced to change out an engine, wouldn't it defeat the purpose of the greennrun in general, or are we going with the "well.... if we can just keep it from completely failing Ling enough, it's fine" Morton theikol style, and risk killing a crew, or an IFA.

Abatt I agree, they couldn't have known the future.... but we've known about these rockets for a decade. We could have bailed billions of dollars ago on the nonsense. There IS a much cheaper way to make anlumar launch, even using the Orion. It would take an expenditure less than the cost of a single sls launch, and another 2-3 years, but is a sustainable architecture until starship come online.

And no, starship is not being designed as an LEO workhose, it's intended purpose has always been to take humans as far as Mars, the moon is well within it's design envelope and purpose.

Orion is a sailing ship that barely carries enough to get to the destination and back.... starship is the jump to steam cargo ships moving passengers as well.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

They're aiming for a November launch (and last I read they were skeptical of hitting that), so they certainly have the time. And I think running fuel rich isn't the end of the world in this case. They ran that engine the full 8 minutes, and NASA is so conservative that you really have to believe that if it was outside of acceptable parameters they would have shut down. It will just depend on the data review to see if anything needs to be done.

I still think Starship is in orbit before SLS flies.

---

I agree on NASA being ultra conservative in testing. The reason they weren't able to continue the last test was because they went slightly above a pressure limit in a hydraulic system. In a real flight it would've been well within parameters but for the test they significantly lowered the threshold, so it got shut down.

And then found a failed valve after correct?

Quote:

---

It's my understanding that SLS is purpose built for going to the moon, while Starship is more for reusable, heavy lift into earth orbit. SLS should be able to put more mass into lunar orbit sooner

---

But I think SLS still can't land people on the moon in just one launch. Is that correct? If so, another strike against it.

Like I mentioned a while back, all this makes Apollo/Saturn that much more impressive.

Single mission per landing, although they will have a small space station in orbit around the moon as part of the process.

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

It's my understanding that SLS is purpose built for going to the moon, while Starship is more for reusable, heavy lift into earth orbit. SLS should be able to put more mass into lunar orbit sooner

---

But I think SLS still can't land people on the moon in just one launch. Is that correct? If so, another strike against it.

Like I mentioned a while back, all this makes Apollo/Saturn that much more impressive.

---

SLS is just the rocket. It's only responsible for getting the payload there and into lunar orbit. It's the payload's job to land and get back off the surface. SLS could certainly "land" people on the moon in one launch in that sense. Initial Block 1 will have a lunar injection payload of 27(?) tons and Block 1B bumps that to 43 with an improved upper stage I believe. Block 2 would have improved boosters (supposed to be able to put 130 tons into LEO) and be used for crewed missions to Mars, but we'll see how that plays out. Starship would require multiple launches to get to the moon. One refueling could deliver 40ish tons. Not sure how or if Starship could get to Mars. I would think it would take multiple refuelings, and that's maybe part of why NASA wants to establish a lunar presence as a hopping off point.

The thing about reusing rockets like SpaceX is doing is that it reduces your payload for a reduction in cost. That's fine (great even for satellite launches), but going to the moon and Mars requires a large payload and a lot of speed. The trade-off is much higher cost for a simpler, more capable launch (in terms of deliverable mass and how far/fast you can send it). It seems like SpaceX will have to figure out in orbit refueling before they can get beyond LEO, but when they do they will be much more cost effective. In the meantime, NASA will push forward with landing on the moon again and possibly Mars.


Saturn V was impressive as it still beats SLS and Starship in capability. It could deliver 50 tons into lunar orbit.

Rewatched the video of the static fire. I think I probably overstated a little, and honestly I think it may have been the lighting playing a trick on me to an extent.

Here's the engines during the first gimballing test when the fire broke out. Engine in question is far right and you can see some orange flame.



Several seconds later, just after the gimbal test stopped:



They all look pretty good here. So maybe not as bad as I first thought. I'm gonna say if it was running fuel rich, it wasn't outside of acceptable boundaries for flight. Again, this is NASA we're talking about, they'd have shut down if it had been unacceptable (unlike SpaceX...what's that? Software too conservative? Just a sec...).

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

It's my understanding that SLS is purpose built for going to the moon, while Starship is more for reusable, heavy lift into earth orbit. SLS should be able to put more mass into lunar orbit sooner

---

But I think SLS still can't land people on the moon in just one launch. Is that correct? If so, another strike against it.

Like I mentioned a while back, all this makes Apollo/Saturn that much more impressive.

---

SLS is just the rocket. It's only responsible for getting the payload there and into lunar orbit. It's the payload's job to land and get back off the surface. SLS could certainly "land" people on the moon in one launch in that sense. Initial Block 1 will have a lunar injection payload of 27(?) time and Block 1B bumps that to 43 with an improved upper stage I believe. Block 2 would have improved boosters (supposed to be able to put 130 tons into LEO) and be used for crewed missions to Mars, but we'll see how that plays out. Starship would require multiple launches to get to the moon. One refueling could deliver 40ish tons. Not sure how or if Starship could get to Mars. I would think it would take multiple refuelings, and that's maybe part of why NASA wants to establish a lunar presence as a hopping off point.

The thing about reusing rockets like SpaceX is doing is that it reduces your payload for a reduction in cost. That's fine (great even for satellite launches), but going to the moon and Mars requires a large payload and a lot of speed. The trade-off is much higher cost for a simpler, more capable launch (in terms of deliverable mass and how far/fast you can send it). It seems like SpaceX will have to figure out in orbit refueling before they can get beyond LEO, but when they do they will be much more cost effective. In the meantime, NASA will push forward with landing on the moon again and possibly Mars.


Saturn V was impressive as it still beats SLS and Starship in capability. It could deliver 50 tons into lunar orbit.

---

Yeah in orbit refueling will be another game changer. It is absolutely required (or in orbit spacecraft assembly) to do anything other than plant-the-flag missions.

At one point back in the Apollo days, engineers were given a $1000 bonus if they could figure out how to shave a point off the lunar lander. I'm surprised they didn't starve the astronauts before sending them to the moon.

So Nelson is the new NASA Administrator. That is probably bad news for Space X.

aTmAg said:

---

So Nelson is the new NASA Administrator. That is probably bad news for Space X.

---

Great news for his pet project the SLS.

About the only thing it's good for....