Quote:
You have BO at least CLAIMING they'll have a heavy lifter flying next year. You have spacex with a heavy lifter already flying now. You have ULA with a smaller lift, but high energy upper stage ready to go.... why are we still not exploring earth orbit rendezvous for Orion? EOR, even if you give ULA 2 billion to build an adapter and set a centaur up for the lunar injection burn, and SpaceX 2 billion to man rate the Falcon Heavy( or hell, don't man rate heavy.... put the orion on heavy empty, rendezvous a dragon with it in orbit, no man rating required), plus pay for an Orion and the 4-6 launches necessary to set it all up with an unmanned test flight and a manned circumlunar flight, you STILL are cheaper than paying for two SLS flights to donthe same thing.
Ag_of_08 said:
Now we have vulcan/centaur coming online with a good, proven upperstage. We have falcon heavy that can heavy lift, and blue origin is claiming they will be flying the new Glenn next year. The launch costs on all of these are low enough to make the plans viable.
Exactly. I do respect Bezos ability to do two things;Maximus_Meridius said:Ag_of_08 said:
Now we have vulcan/centaur coming online with a good, proven upperstage. We have falcon heavy that can heavy lift, and blue origin is claiming they will be flying the new Glenn next year. The launch costs on all of these are low enough to make the plans viable.
Quote:
General Atomics' Christina Back: Nuclear thermal propulsion "will enable spacecraft to travel immense distances quickly"
WASHINGTON The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency awarded a $22 million contract to General Atomics to design a small nuclear reactor for space propulsion, the agency announced April 9.
General Atomics, based in San Diego, California, was selected for the first phase of a program known as a DRACO, short for demonstration rocket for agile cislunar operations. The project is to demonstrate nuclear thermal propulsion or the use of a nuclear reactor to heat up rocket fuel to generate thrust.
DARPA's Tactical Technology Office in May 2020 solicited proposals in a "broad agency announcement." The goal is to test a nuclear thermal propulsion system in orbit by 2025.
Space propulsion systems in use today include electric and chemical propulsion, but other options might be needed for future exploration beyond Earth's orbit, DARPA noted. "The DRACO program intends to develop novel nuclear thermal propulsion technology. Unlike propulsion technologies in use today, NTP can achieve high thrust-to-weights similar to chemical propulsion but with two to five times the efficiency.'
The ability to monitor cislunar space the volume of space between the Earth and the moon will require a "leap-ahead in propulsion technology," said DARPA.
The DRACO program will attempt to demonstrate a nuclear thermal propulsion system on orbit. A nuclear reactor will heat propellant to extreme temperatures before expelling the hot propellant through a nozzle to produce thrust.
Christina Back, vice president of nuclear technologies and materials at General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems, said nuclear thermal propulsion is a "leap ahead of conventional propulsion technology and will enable spacecraft to travel immense distances quickly."
"Agile spacecraft are critical to maintain space domain awareness and significantly reduce transit times in the vast cislunar region," Back said in a statement to SpaceNews.
For space exploration such as human missions to Mars, Back said, "nuclear propulsion will allow for more versatility of launch windows, and enable longer stays on the planet itself."
Honestly speaking? I think SLS will (eventually) fly, and I might actually be convinced it would be this decade. Will Artemis reach the moon this decade? Nope. I personally believe Elon has time to get Starship ironed out, fly to the moon, build a stadium and sell tickets to tourists to see Artemis land on the moon.Ag_of_08 said:
They might get the contract, but I don't think it will ever fly. There's too much private money getting thrown at space.
I personally think artmeis will implode within three years, especially if SLS has ANY failures.They'll make a big scene if the "national " team lander getting the contract, but I don't see one ever landing...
The BE-4 appears to be ready to go. I think ULA knows what's riding on the whole thing, and would have ditched them a year ago if delivery wasn't in sight. ULA cannot afford o have vulcan hamstrung, they don't have the engine supply to keep atlas going, and a loss of the vulcan as an option would effectively bankrupt them. They'd go hat in hand begging to buy Merlins or raptors before they'd give it up, or transition to a man rate-able version of something like the rs-60
CanyonAg77 said:
Did I miss the Google Translate for this thread?
ULA BO SLS LSMFT????
"Excuse me stewardess, I speak Nerd."
Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco?Ag_of_08 said:CanyonAg77 said:
Did I miss the Google Translate for this thread?
ULA BO SLS LSMFT????
"Excuse me stewardess, I speak Nerd."
Lsmft I'm not sure off the top of my head what you're referring to.
Bo is blue origin
Sls is the space launch system ( big orange waste of money)
ULA is united launch alliance... Boeing/Lockheed/Grumman/others
We're talking about blue origin's big dreams of a heavy lifter rocket called New Glenn, and the BE-4 engine that will power it. ULA are also buying that engine to replace the controversial use of the Russian engine they're currently using on the Atlas V launch vehicle. Both are either super well kept secrets, or BO is full of **** and going to take ULA down with them.
SLS is the bloated, obsolete orange monstrosity, designed by committee for the sole purpose of keeping certain Alabama senators constituents happy. It is the current center of the artemis program, allegedly NASAs plan for moon and Mars flights.
I'm guessing you meant the RS-68?Ag_of_08 said:
I think the biggest issue they had, at the time, with aj-rd was what aj-rd was proposing. The functionally where pushing for a version of the rs-60 from what I remember, but ULA new the hurdles in place to man rate that.
Either BO has the BE-4 ready, or they're in for a helluva lawsuit/legal battle. There's almost no alternative at this point, and I can't come up with a viable scenario at all, unless the figure out how to make some rs-25b derivative work.... I mean Boeing is not a confidence inspiring organization, but even they know that it will likely cost them the entire company to have the engines fail at this point.
What's hilarious is that this interview was in 2015.Quote:
Q: How does Blue Origin fit into the NGLS plans?
A: One of the things policymakers have said is that it's time to move off the Russian engine, the venerable RD-180 that we have underneath the Atlas, and move onto an American engine. I agree. I think now is the time. We went out looking for candidate engines to put underneath our rocket, specifically our Next Generation, and we found that the Blue Origin engine had a couple advantages. First off, it was three years into a development cycle. It takes five to seven years to develop an engine. They were the only folks out there really actively developing a new engine anywhere near our size class. And, with the partnership we put together with Blue Origin and (owner) Jeff Bezos, that engine is largely funded. So we chose that engine. ...
I'm also going to share with you that we have a backup. Engines are tough. Rockets are hard in general, and the engine is probably the most complex thing on a launch vehicle of the nature we build. We have a backup plan. Aerojet Rocketdyne (which has a Huntsville facility) also has come forward with a rocket engine that is very attractive in its technology and its performance. They're a couple of years behind Blue. We're going to bring them both along parallel for at least a couple more years until it's clear. Now I fully expect Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin to succeed, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't manage that risk by having this backup plan.
lead said:Quote:
You have BO at least CLAIMING they'll have a heavy lifter flying next year. You have spacex with a heavy lifter already flying now. You have ULA with a smaller lift, but high energy upper stage ready to go.... why are we still not exploring earth orbit rendezvous for Orion? EOR, even if you give ULA 2 billion to build an adapter and set a centaur up for the lunar injection burn, and SpaceX 2 billion to man rate the Falcon Heavy( or hell, don't man rate heavy.... put the orion on heavy empty, rendezvous a dragon with it in orbit, no man rating required), plus pay for an Orion and the 4-6 launches necessary to set it all up with an unmanned test flight and a manned circumlunar flight, you STILL are cheaper than paying for two SLS flights to donthe same thing.
