back to article NASA sets November date for next SLS Moon rocket delay, er, launch

NASA now hopes to blast an unmanned Orion capsule atop a Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to the Moon on November 14 after suffering, among other delays, a setback due to Hurricane Ian smashing up Florida.  The nearly 100-metre-tall heavy launch vehicle was slowly wheeled back to the hangar on September 26 to shelter from the …

  1. spireite Silver badge

    The SLS will get off the ground.......

    Three options...

    1. The next tornado/hurricane will pick it up even in it's 'hangar'

    or

    2. It'll be after Jesus' second coming

    or

    3. after Elon Musk steps foot on the Red Planet "One small step for man, one giant leap for Autism"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The SLS will get off the ground.......

      ...one giant leap for onanism

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: The SLS will get off the ground.......

      Elon uses various mental conditions as an excuse for being an arsehole - much to the annoyance of all who are genuinely different but are not arseholes.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    If it wasn't hard

    It wouldn't be called rocket science. Despite it's design being constrained by Senate and House committees, the boffins have managed to ready the Artemis for it's first flight without any of SpaceX's Rapid Unscheduled Disassemblies. I'm hoping this time it works. Boffins, your pints await your success.

    1. LogicGate Silver badge

      Re: If it wasn't hard

      You mean: "The boffins managed not to fully test the Artemis before sending it off on it's first flight."

      Testing to destruction is a thing, and by now the Artemis team has all the indications of suffering from go-fever.

      1. LogicGate Silver badge

        Re: If it wasn't hard

        Oh... And rocket science is not the really that hard.

        Rocket engineering on the other hand, is a dicipline that has my respect. Advanced hypergolic plumbing is not in any way easy.

        1. Alistair
          Windows

          Re: If it wasn't hard

          Advanced hypergolic plumbing is not in any way easy.

          As has been eminently demonstrated on SLS testing, staging, launch prep. Someone's not learning quickly is all.

    2. Joe W Silver badge

      Re: If it wasn't hard

      Correction: this is engineering. I doubt there was much science involved - most of the components (and all ideas) come from older launch systems, the whole thing is... well.... sort of not very impressive (except for its size, which does matter to some). The whole concept is pretty much from the 60s. Yeah, better avionics, sure.

    3. Binraider Silver badge

      Re: If it wasn't hard

      Rocket Science is pretty easy. Rocket engineering is hard.

      SLS carries many technical legacies of a system with an awful lot of complexity born of it's 1970's origins and politics. Simplification absolutely is the answer to making rockets big, and relatively cheap.

      Can SLS be made to work? Absolutely. Is it the right solution for spaceflight needs? No. Is it a way of printing money in electoral battlegrounds? Yes.

      Decide what you want people!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Looks like the Capstone tortoise will beat the SLS hare.

  4. croc

    Looks like NASA DID learn a lesson from Challenger

    1. LogicGate Silver badge

      "Launch even if you know you have problems"?

  5. Tom 7

    Makes you wonder

    That something that can do Mach Eleventythree cant even take-off in Mach 0.1. Not sure if I'd like to be one of the first to try it but have they considered launching from tubes - reduces initial take of weight too!

    1. Crypto Monad Silver badge

      Re: Makes you wonder

      It's pretty easy to work out that won't save you much.

      Suppose you accelerate along this tube at 2G. Then in 10 seconds you have covered nearly 1km; that's a big tube to build. In 20 seconds it's nearly 4km. You need enough linear induction motors or whatever(*) with sufficient power to accelerate a hundred tons at 2G for that whole distance - also lifting against gravity (depending on what angle you point this tube at)

      However, after 20 seconds you've reached less than 0.4km/s, only about 5% of low earth orbit velocity.

      Even if this saves you say 10% or 15% of fuel load (I haven't worked it out), the rocket itself is almost the same size and just as expensive to build. So the payback per launch is very small, for a massive piece of infrastructure.

      (*) You could use auxiliary rockets instead of LIMs. But in that case, you might as well attach them directly to the main rocket, and you've just invented booster rockets. No tube required.

      You can do the math for non-human rated loads too. Let's say you can accelerate small payloads at 10G. To get them to 4km/s, which is still only half low orbit velocity, takes 41 seconds by which time you will have covered 82km. They'll still need to fire their own engines to do the remainder. To place them directly into orbit at 8km/s, your super powerful railgun needs to be 392km long.

      1. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: Makes you wonder

        The plan is generally to not get all the way to orbital velocity, but to get out of the pesky atmosphere (or at least high in it) without having to burn fuel (which you had to carry, and therefore burn more fuel to carry the fuel...).

        Those fuel savings are very, very real.

        Whether or not spinlaunch ever manage to put payloads into orbit we do at least know that the maths works.

        1. Crypto Monad Silver badge

          Re: Makes you wonder

          The plan is generally to not get all the way to orbital velocity, but to get out of the pesky atmosphere (or at least high in it) without having to burn fuel (which you had to carry, and therefore burn more fuel to carry the fuel...).

          Those fuel savings are very, very real.

          Real but insignificant. A 10% fuel saving per launch for a $100bn piece of infrastructure doesn't add up. Also, that infrastructure would be inflexible, only working with rockets of a limited range of shape and weight.

          If the atmosphere and/or potential energy were the main problems, then we'd be launching rockets from the top of Mt Kilimanjaro, which is close to the equator and just under 6km above MSL. In practice, the savings are so small that even the ground transportation to get there isn't worth it. The main cost by far is accelerating to orbital velocity.

          Launching small rockets from underneath airplanes *can* be worth it, as Branson has been doing. They get a small but useful head start on velocity (maybe up to 1100km/h ~= 0.3km/s) as well as some altitude (15km?)

          1. John Robson Silver badge

            Re: Makes you wonder

            10% fuel saving?

            It's a significant proportion more than that - tyranny of the rocket equation, the idea is to basically do away with the first stage (and even some of the second stage.

            That's *alot* more than 10% fuel saving.

            1. hplasm
              Headmaster

              Re: Makes you wonder

              Ahem...

              alot != a lot

      2. Binraider Silver badge

        Re: Makes you wonder

        With the not so minor difficulty of making lightweight and complex mechanisms survivable at 10G.

        Bringing humans back to earth (Soyuz) can do that, and it's pretty hairy.

        Shoving a satellite through that kind of abuse you can expect it to break in short order!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Makes you wonder

          Once had a Navy Chief (purposely wrong nomenclature) ask if we could retrofit his dumb gun payloads with fins that would deploy after launch and use GSP to try and steer the projectile in the correct direction.

          When pushed he said that the projectile weighed a ton and would travel over 20 miles. I said that I though there were many problems, GPS lock speed after sitting in a metal gun being just one, but that the acceleration would most likely ruin any electronics anyway. He then admitted that the solid projectile shrank by an inch during launch!

          1. Julz

            Re: Makes you wonder

            Hum, M982 Excalibur amongst others.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur

  6. adam 40

    Will anyone think of ze cheeeldren?

    What about the little cubesats getting a free ride, do they get a recharge?

  7. Spamfast
    Flame

    I'm not a fan of Elon Musk as a person - basicly he's a creepy uncle/Bond villain - but I admire SpaceX and to some extent Tesla, minus the faux 'autopilot' crap.

    Provided RUDs don't kill people - as they did twice with the US Shuttle programme if you remember - then they're par for the course. You collect the data and correct the problems.

    I like the idea of multiple suppliers - redundancy is good for scheduling & price haggling - but the ratio of money given to SpaceX compared to NASA's old buddies for SLS is indiciative of the pork barrel/political contribution mentality that still rules US space funding.

  8. Astarte1

    Safety First

    I hope Shaun's not getting too anxious - he must be getting as fed up as the rest of us.

    Stay comfortable and keep your woolies on.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like