All things NASA & SpaceX. Past, Present & Future.

[M'Kyuun]

Now that we're full circle and we have both crew and capsule back, the way forward is looking very promising. I wonder how many other countries, in light of the successful amalgamation of government and private resources brought to bear, will follow our lead. It's really a shame that ideological, political, and theological differences divide us globally, as it's rather daunting to think what we as a united people could accomplish. Alas, I'm proud to see that NASA logo on this ship. 

[Thom]

Very cool! Welcome back, guys! Now who's next?

[sh9000]

 

[505thAirborne]

 

[505thAirborne]

Everyone watching this: That was so cool.... ouch!! 

SPACEX: Good Job everyone. 

[Jaustin89]

35 minutes ago, 505thAirborne said:

Everyone watching this: That was so cool.... ouch!! 

SPACEX: Good Job everyone. 

I've seen a lot of people taking the engines not being able to arrest decent as a failure; it's really not.

From someone that's followed space technology for decades and has worked in the industry for the past 7 years that was probaby the biggest leap in rocket technology proven by a single test vehicle since the 50's; and they nailed everything but the landing on the first try. Getting the issues with the header tank pressure solved and landing is fairly easy compared to the stuff they pulled off yesterday.

Congrats to Space X on a damn near flawless test. Once they get that bird running and human rated it's going to change everything about spaceflight.

 

If you want detailed analysis from someone that knows what they're talking about rather than most news outlets going "Space X's latest test exploded on landing" over a 10 second clip of the fireball check out Scott's video on it.

 

[slide]

SpaceX Rocket: explodes

Elon Musk: 

Edited December 10, 2020 by slide

[M'Kyuun]

It's unfortunate that the media, and humans in general, tend to crave bad news and failure over anything positive.  As for myself, it seems to me that every new accomplishment by SpaceX elevates what once was science fiction into reality.  It's exciting. They've more than proven that they have the right stuff for this generation and its goals of furthering human work in space. At this point, NASA sits on the sidelines, launching the occasional satellite with little fanfare or media attention, and with little in the way of notable innovation, at least not on the scale that SpaceX is currently trailblazing.  The Mars rovers are still some of the most amazing accomplishments by NASA, as well as Apollo, and the OSIRIS-REx probe.  It's a shame that stuff like OSIRIS, which is an incredible accomplishment, essentially gets overlooked b/c, I imagine, there's really no human drama involved. Apollo suffered the same fate pretty much as soon as Neil and Buzz stepped foot on the moon.  Norman Mailer, in his book Moonfire, essentially says the media became bored once they landed safely.  Apollo didn't interest the media again until Apollo 13, and once that ended, thankfully, well, Apollo never again enjoyed much media attention, despite its increasingly successful contributions to science.  It's a sad but true commentary on the obtuse and negative nature of humanity.  

[Thom]

Saw that flight and loved every second of it. Kept thinking 'go baby. go!' And 'please don't mess up!!' But yes, that was an awesome flight. Poor bird just didn't have enough room to slow down. But, onto the next one!

[JB0]

Not gonna lie, I love that a rocket exploding as it lands is a "failure" instead of just "Well, landing a rocket is hard, it is impressive they got as close as they did".

[M'Kyuun]

As incredibly impressive as landing a rocket on its tail is, since they're positioning this one on its side in flight and using conventional stabilizers to control its flight aerodynamically, why not just land it that way? Install some retractable gear and let it glide in. Or, put some chutes in the nose in case there's an engine fault, at least as a backup, so the entire rocket isn't a loss. I don't think they should abandon what they're doing, but given the amount of money that's wrapped up in each rocket, not to mention the blood, sweat, and tears involved, have a contingency plan in place just in case. That would be my approach if I ran a space agency.

[505thAirborne]

Hopefully the next SN8 Rocket they build will have some type of retractable landing gear like the Falcon 9 boosters have, that should make it easier/safer to land. 

 

[slide]

1 hour ago, 505thAirborne said:

Hopefully the next SN8 Rocket they build will have some type of retractable landing gear like the Falcon 9 boosters have, that should make it easier/safer to land. 

They just need to figure out how to not let the fuel tanks lose pressure in the tanks to the point where it [apparently] didn't flow properly.

"engine rich exhaust"

 

Considering how far they've come in this short time that's a trivial hurdle.

[Jaustin89]

7 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

As incredibly impressive as landing a rocket on its tail is, since they're positioning this one on its side in flight and using conventional stabilizers to control its flight aerodynamically, why not just land it that way? Install some retractable gear and let it glide in. Or, put some chutes in the nose in case there's an engine fault, at least as a backup, so the entire rocket isn't a loss. I don't think they should abandon what they're doing, but given the amount of money that's wrapped up in each rocket, not to mention the blood, sweat, and tears involved, have a contingency plan in place just in case. That would be my approach if I ran a space agency.

It's got flaps for attitude control but it has nowhere near enough lifting surface to glide just fall slowly; they're also designing it to be landable on Mars with a variant without flaps and only vacuum optimized engines for the moon or other locations with negligible atmosphere both of which need propulsive landing for anything this size. Trying to get a 12 story building gliding in Mars' atmosphere would take far more wing area than is practical and aerodynamically landing with the moon's "atmosphere" is a complete non-starter.

[Thom]

13 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

As incredibly impressive as landing a rocket on its tail is, since they're positioning this one on its side in flight and using conventional stabilizers to control its flight aerodynamically, why not just land it that way? Install some retractable gear and let it glide in. Or, put some chutes in the nose in case there's an engine fault, at least as a backup, so the entire rocket isn't a loss. I don't think they should abandon what they're doing, but given the amount of money that's wrapped up in each rocket, not to mention the blood, sweat, and tears involved, have a contingency plan in place just in case. That would be my approach if I ran a space agency.

It's also weight. Yes, there's weight in the fuel needed to slow it down and land, but that lessens as they go along. The weight from the gear, which will always be a complicated set up, would be something carried all the way from launch to landing. Also, getting it to land on a small pad makes it easier than having to build a long runway on Mars. 

[M'Kyuun]

Good points from both of you guys that I hadn't considered: that this was intended, ultimately, to be a vehicle used in lunar and Mars' atmospheres, which don't support aerodynamics well, if at all. I was thinking of purely Earth missions. To that end, I think a secondary landing system would be useful for an Erath demonstrator, but, evolving its ability to land vertically and intact for reusability on other worlds is an imperative. The sight of these SpaceX launch vehicles landing vertically is still unbelievably amazing, one that was pure sci-fi until SpaceX accomplished it with Falcon 9. I'm in awe of what they've accomplished and look forward to seeing them continue to trailblaze.

 

[Thom]

2 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

Good points from both of you guys that I hadn't considered: that this was intended, ultimately, to be a vehicle used in lunar and Mars' atmospheres, which don't support aerodynamics well, if at all. I was thinking of purely Earth missions. To that end, I think a secondary landing system would be useful for an Erath demonstrator, but, evolving its ability to land vertically and intact for reusability on other worlds is an imperative. The sight of these SpaceX launch vehicles landing vertically is still unbelievably amazing, one that was pure sci-fi until SpaceX accomplished it with Falcon 9. I'm in awe of what they've accomplished and look forward to seeing them continue to trailblaze.

 

Same here! It's so cool seeing them come down like the 60's sci fi rockets. And though I would love to see an actual working spaceplane, one that starts and ends at a normal runway, I'd rather they stay focused on VTOL.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Thom

[505thAirborne]

15 hours ago, slide said:

They just need to figure out how to not let the fuel tanks lose pressure in the tanks to the point where it [apparently] didn't flow properly.

"engine rich exhaust"

 

Considering how far they've come in this short time that's a trivial hurdle.

They have some incredibly intelligent people working for SPACEX, they'll get it on the next one. 

My mom grew up during the days of the Mercury & GEMINI projects, despite the explosion her jaw dropped when she saw how this SN8 was operating. 

[M'Kyuun]

I hope that desire for a new spaceplane to replace the retired STS comes about within the next decade, as there's certainly a need for such a vehicle. The Shuttle was and is irreplaceable for its ability to haul large cargo into space, and to retrieve and repair satellites in orbit. Falcon Heavy can take largo cargo up, but we still haven't a feasible way of retrieval and repair in situ in orbit. Time for a spaceplane 2.0. 

[slide]

17 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

Time for a spaceplane 2.0. 

Damned right!

 

[Dynaman]

The Shuttle was a terrible design that never lived up to what it was designed to do.  There is a need for a "space truck" and general utility space vehicle but it is not going to look anything like a plane any time soon.

[kalvasflam]

One thing about the starship, I think it’s had several public failures.  But then again, the same was try from the Falcons, how many times did they fail to nail the barge landing?  Now it’s so routine, people don’t even care... even though nobody else is quite doing the same yet.

to put it simply, what Musk has done with SpaceX in less than two decades is nothing short of incredible.  He is the kick in the ass that ULA needed to get moving on their effort, hope the demo mission for ULA goes well.

[M'Kyuun]

On 12/12/2020 at 6:41 PM, Dynaman said:

The Shuttle was a terrible design that never lived up to what it was designed to do.  There is a need for a "space truck" and general utility space vehicle but it is not going to look anything like a plane any time soon.

I'm curious to know what you think was terrible about it. Seriously, without malice or sarcasm. Are you involved in the aerospace industry, or have a hand in some of its design? I'm especially interested if you have a personal context, although a well argued point is always welcome regardless. For my part, while I think it was a remarkable vehicle with unmatched capabilities, having worked on a Rockwell product, the B-1 Lancer, I can attest that their engineering so far as maintenance friendliness is concerned, leaves much to be desired, and the folks tasked with keeping the shuttle fleet flying have my deepest sympathies. A major sore spot was the vulnerability of the ceramic heat shield, which ultimately spelled the doom of Columbia, and nearly so for one of the other shuttles. For our next design, I hope the scientists and engineers involved create a more robust, durable, and less labor intensive process, as that is one system that certainly needs to evolve.

My other thought on the matter is that scientists and engineers were still dreaming big in the 60s and 70s pertaining to space. I think these folks were inspired, and Apollo was that shot in the arm that made them feel like damned near anything was possible. To that end, there were all sorts of expectations for what a space plane, or at least a "space pickup' would, should, and could do. Reality, much like gravity, is a difficult force to overcome, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if many expectations and desires for the developing shuttle program had to be round-filed due to any number of realities that limited its performance in various ways. If you can elucidate in that regard, Dynaman, then you have the proverbial floor, sir.

Too, you may be correct concerning another spaceplane. Still, I'd love to see it- the enthusiast in me loved the shuttle, and the idea of a shuttle, and having seen it and seen the possibilities with such a vehicle at our disposal, there burns within me (I'm sure I'm not alone) a deep desire to see a successor to the venerable STS program with 21st century technologies brought to bear. There's a certain romantic quality to the Shuttle that just isn't possible with rockets and capsules, no matter how spacious and clean and 'futuristic' said capsules have become. Dragon's a thing of elegance and beauty, but there's something deeply cooler about a spaceplane that's difficult to articulate.

Edited to correct my my error concerning the heat tiles being comprised of foam. They were ceramic.

Edited December 14, 2020 by M'Kyuun

[Dynaman]

Too many to list.  The basic idea of making a spaceship look like an airplane being core among them.  Reusable is great in theory but it turned out to be anything but.  Engineering is good thing to bring up, the amount of engineering required to get the shuttle into space and back down was never worth it and never paid off.  We would have been better enhancing basic designs that already existed - the proof of that shows up in the latest spaceship designs being based off of the old capsule on top of a rocket design.

[JB0]

4 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

A major sore spot was the vulnerability of the foam heat shield, which ultimately spelled the doom of Columbia, and nearly so for one of the other shuttles.

Minor correction: the foam was thermal insulation for the fuel tank. After being reformulated to be more environmentally-friendly, it began breaking off in chunks during ascent. While the black heatshield tiles were fairly durable, they were never designed for projectile resistance.

And NASA management opted for the simplest solution,  ignoring the problem. 

 

As to the more general "failure" of the shuttle, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report actually has a good bit of detail on that, as they took an extensive look into the history of the shuttle program and NASA management to determine how a known problem was ignored for so long.

https://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html

Short version is that decisions at the presidential level led to NASA adopting a severely compromised vehicle that never met any of its goals.

[Thom]

The shuttle definitely struck a Romanticized chord of space flight for its day. What? It lands like a plane?! And the first one (glide-test only) is named Enterprise?! Cool! But yes, it was more of a rocket than a plane and sadly never lived up to the hyped reusability.

The Air Force is flying the X-37, but that is nowhere near even the size of the shuttle, or its truck-like capacity. Although through it a little bit of the shuttle's mystique still exists. One of the best hopes for an actual 'spaceplane' is probably the SABRE engine, or something else like it.

A plane with an engine that could work in atmo as well as space, taking off from a runway but with some fully reusable, detachable rockets for assist out of the gravity well, would be real cool to see!

Edited December 13, 2020 by Thom

[M'Kyuun]

30 minutes ago, Thom said:

The shuttle definitely struck a Romanticized chord of space flight for its day. What? It lands like a plane?! And the first one (glide-test only) is named Enterprise?! Cool! But yes, it was more of a rocket than a plane and sadly never lived up to the hyped reusability.

The Air Force is flying the X-37, but that is nowhere near even the size of the shuttle, or its truck-like capacity. Although through it a little bit of the shuttle's mystique still exists. One of the best hopes for an actual 'spaceplane' is probably the SABRE engine, or something else like it.

A plane with an engine that could work in atmo as well as space, taking off from a runway but with some fully reusable, detachable rockets for assist out of the gravity well, would be real cool to see!

I think that, ultimately, will prove out to be the most practical solution if indeed a true spaceplane as described is attempted.  SpaceX's accomplishments over the past few years make me think that it's on the horizon.

3 hours ago, Dynaman said:

Too many to list.  The basic idea of making a spaceship look like an airplane being core among them.  Reusable is great in theory but it turned out to be anything but.  Engineering is good thing to bring up, the amount of engineering required to get the shuttle into space and back down was never worth it and never paid off.  We would have been better enhancing basic designs that already existed - the proof of that shows up in the latest spaceship designs being based off of the old capsule on top of a rocket design.

It was reusable, but nowhere even close to the idealized level that was projected.  Too, as @Thom mentioned, it couldn't takeoff like a plane, as was the original vision. It required an enormous amount of maintenance, and as you say, was likely a financial sinkhole. But without it, we wouldn't have had the vast array of satellites, both commercial and government, in orbit, nor the ISS, which relied entirely on the Orbiter to get the modules into space and get them assembled. Nor would satellite repairs have been possible. What do we have now to repair a wayward satellite? There's certainly a need for a manned space vehicle that can haul large cargo into orbit, intercept said objects  for retrieval or repair, and to bring them back to terra firma.  An actual spaceplane with at least the capacity of the old shuttle will again be a large vehicle requiring a great deal of engineering, not to mention some powerful propulsion systems, and perhaps a new way of thinking about how to achieve the necessary propulsion in a staging capacity to reach escape velocity. I like Thom's idea for detachable rockets. Seems the most practical approach for achieving the requisite power whilst shedding weight on climb.

3 hours ago, JB0 said:

Minor correction: the foam was thermal insulation for the fuel tank. After being reformulated to be more environmentally-friendly, it began breaking off in chunks during ascent. While the black heatshield tiles were fairly durable, they were never designed for projectile resistance.

And NASA management opted for the simplest solution,  ignoring the problem. 

 

As to the more general "failure" of the shuttle, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report actually has a good bit of detail on that, as they took an extensive look into the history of the shuttle program and NASA management to determine how a known problem was ignored for so long.

https://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html

Short version is that decisions at the presidential level led to NASA adopting a severely compromised vehicle that never met any of its goals.

I stand corrected, sir. The tiles were actually ceramic, and very brittle. Despite numerous incidents of foam breaking off during launches, the management at NASA became complacent about the occurrences, as no serious damage had been done to the shuttle until STS-27, Atlantis, whose crew knew of the damage and, having no recourse to survey the extent nor attempt repairs in orbit, felt a certain apprehension that it would be their undoing upon reentry, such that Cmdr Hoot Gibson intended to leave a scathing rebuke to NASA as his final message. Upon landing, over 700 tiles were damaged, and a bit of aluminum hull had melted. A very close call whose occurrence didn't change anything, and Columbia paid the price for their negligence and complacency. One of Columbia's astronauts was Michael Anderson from my adopted hometown of Spokane, WA. What a shame that highways are named after him in memoriam instead of a living honor for his accomplishments, and that Lt. Col Anderson isn't with us still, perhaps teaching physics to the next generation of astronauts. Fortunately, Columbia seemed to shake them up, and more concern was exercised thereafter; no other shuttles were lost, and the last modules of the ISS were lofted before its retirement. I haven't checked that link, yet, @JB0, but I shall, and thanks. I own "Bringing Columbia Home: The Untold Story of a Lost Space Shuttle and her Crew" by Mike Leinbach, who was a mission director for the shuttle program, and later headed up the search efforts for both debris and the remains of her crew. Given his intimacy with both crew and craft, it's a compelling read, and he rightfully assesses NASA's role in a deservingly critical light while heaping praise upon the thousands of volunteers across several states who aided in the search efforts, some of whom lost their own lives in the process. Good read.

[Dynaman]

> But without it, we wouldn't have had the vast array of satellites, both commercial and government, in orbit, nor the ISS, which relied entirely on the Orbiter to get the modules into space

Your mistaking the rout chosen with it being the only way of doing what was needed.  We had a hammer so everything looked like a nail.  If we had a screwdriver instead everything would have been screws.  

The shuttle was a MASSIVE technological accomplishment - it was also a waste of the talent that developed it except perhaps in the realm of pure research where lessons learned (nothing better to learn than doing things the wrong way) are always important.

[505thAirborne]

I'm just gonna sneak in this 8K footage of Mars here for a bit. 

 

 

[derex3592]

That's amazing. Wish I had a 4K let alone an 8K TV to watch that on! 

[505thAirborne]

Perseverance has landed!! 

[M'Kyuun]

Huge congrats to NASA, especially the JPL team who oversaw her development, for once again creating a system of many parts with little margin of error and seeing it through to fruition. It's a hell of an achievement. Even if they were doing this for the fiftieth time instead of the second (for this style of rover), it would still be remarkable when one considers how many things must go right for it to succeed. Now that the hard part is over, the exciting part of the mission is only just beginning as they put Perseverance through her checks, get her warmed up, and deploy Ingenuity. Hopefully, everything arrived intact and fully functional, as there are many interesting firsts planned with these two machines that will have lasting impacts on man's knowledge and interactions with Mars. The romanticist in me hopes they find traces of life, hopes that Ingenuity will not only will prove flight is possible but become an invaluable aid to exploration and planning, hopes that MOXIE will prove successful in producing usable oxygen, hopes that the RIMFAX GPR system furthers our knowledge of what lies beneath the surface in interesting and unforeseen ways, and hopes that the increased autonomy built into this rover proves that more capable AI is the way going forward, allowing for these rovers to make instant decisions that increase their efficiency and safety in real time. I'm a proponent of AI, and despite the warnings from notable scientists, including the late great Dr. Hawking, of the dangers thereof, in situations such as this, where hostile environmental conditions can potentially impede or irreparably damage the rover, smarter is better where the machine is concerned. The comms time lag is twenty two minutes (approx eleven minutes each way), so IMHO, it makes sense to enable the machine to make limited decisions on its own without waiting for a roomful of circadian-challenged scientists to come to a decision. Compared to the laborious planning and extremely slow progress of Curiosity, Perseverance is poised to raise the bar so far as travel progress over time, and that's better for science.

The first drilling for cores is still a ways off, and the scrutiny of those cores here on Earth a decade away still, so we have a while to wait and see what they'll tell us about potential life on the rusty planet, but I'm hopeful that undeniable signs of life are there, even if only microbial. If life was there, then statistically, it must be elsewhere given the vastness of the universe. It's an exciting and sobering thought.

[JB0]

Have I complained about NASA's naming sense recently? Because I think Perseverance is a TERRIBLE name for a probe.

 

The thing about the older probes is a lot of them were named like they were DOING something. Explorer, Pioneer, Voyager, Pathfinder. They read as an active participant, an ally in our quest for knowledge, and they capture the imagination.

The modern naming scheme lacks that evocative nature. They're all just named for an abstract concept or virtue, they don't even make a halfhearted grab at the imagination. Perseverance is a fine trait to have, but it isn't a good name.

 

 

Naming aside, I'm excited about this. We learn more amazing things from every ally we send to Mars so far, and I expect great things from Percy.

[technoblue]

Eh, I agree to disagree on that opinion. Given the rover's naming heritage of Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity, I think the name Perseverance fits right in.  It also has a double meaning given the trials that NASA has faced to complete each of these Mars missions over the years. One that they continue to succeed on spectacularly as each rover works well over its own planned mission schedule. This, even as US space exploration becomes increasingly commercial.

[M'Kyuun]

I'll chime in on the naming thing as well. I'm with Technoblue; I think the names Perseverance and Ingenuity are both fitting and relevant, given the hurdles faced by scientists and engineers in all phases of development, planning, and execution of a mission of this scope and complexity. Doing anything in space is fraught with difficulties, and given the fact that any overlooked minutiae might mean the difference between success or failure, perseverance is a definite trait embodied by such an ambitious project. I certainly don't envy the scientists' and engineers' stress levels in attempting something so intellectually and emotionally audacious and challenging, not to mention time, weight, and budgetary constraints, just to name a few. And once the rover is on planet, the ground crews must alter their shifts by 40 minutes every day to conform to Martian sols. Having worked all sorts of wonky shifts in my day, it can take a toll. Anyway, I think the naming is apt.

Moreover, every rover is named by young students who submit essays to NASA suggesting a name and explaining why they feel that name is apropos. The NASA/JPL folks select one of those submissions and the rover gets a name. I think that's a fantastic way of doing business, as it gives kids, who likely already have an interest in science and space, a real investment to be a part of the program from an early age. These kids writing the essays will be the scientists looking at the core returns ten or so years down the road, so I think it's a great way to give them a level of involvement early in their lives. Plus, there are some incredibly smart kids doing these things; I feel positively dumb when I hear some of these kids, and even some of these young scientists with doctorates, speak on the subject of science or mathematics (for which I have never had any faculty, regrettably). Going forward, I think we're in good hands, and I hope the various space programs continue to involve children in the process, even if it's just offering a name.