The first launch of the Space Launch System [SLS] 1

[WKTaylor]

FYI ONLY...

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." --Sir Isaac Newton

The first launch of the Space Launch System [SLS] live on August 29th, 2022! The launch is currently scheduled for 0833 AM USA-EST.

NASA's epic Artemis 1 moon mission launch is just 1 week away

https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-1-mission-launch-one-week

I'm getting that old 'tingle'... anticipation mixed with apprehension and awe and admiration and pride and 'wonder-how-heck'... as I did watching the Saturn 5 launches as a kid.

The Long Journey Beyond Reach: Saturn 5 Launch History

https://orbitaltoday.com/2022/05/16/the-long-journey-beyond-reach-saturn-5-launch-history/

Trivia... [before?] E.F. Bruhn wrote the first edition of the staggering Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, he partially wrote and edited the [more obscure] book Analysis and Design of Missile Structures. E.F. Bruhn, J.I. Orlando, J.F. Meyers

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

 

[WKTaylor]

SLS/Artemis 1st launch appears completely successful.
Next step is trans-lunar insertion 'burn'.
This is heady stuff!

https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-1-moon-mission-launch

more...
Translunar insertion is successful!

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/16/world/artemis-1-launch-nasa-scn/index.html

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[Sparweb]

Re: WKTaylor, 25 August
I always wondered why the base of launch vehicles [with engines, structure and guidance] wasn't separated from the tank-section...

One word: Pogo

IIRC the Atlas had the worst pogo effect ever experienced by an astronaut. Not a concern for ICBM's.
If there's flexibility in the propulsion unit's coupling to the fuel tanks (center of mass) I can see the pogo effect taking over.

Sorry, it took a while for the coin to drop on your question...

Thinking about rockets a lot these days. I wonder why...

 

[WKTaylor]

SW... The Atlas core engine stayed with the booster to orbit... the 2-booster [side] engines were in a joined fairing/nacelle structure... that was jettisoned as a package. THAT BOOSTER PACKAGE is what should have been recovered.

Ho Hum... SLS has been a staggering success start to finish... with exception of 'anticipated' damage to the Launch-tower/gantry... mind boggling heat/sonic/over-pressures.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[3DDave]

Yes - a staggering amount of money and a staggering amount of time.

Still, nicely done even with the US Congress ready to meddle at the drop of a hat and change funding, goals, favored suppliers ... That's the heavy lifting that should be recognized.

 

[rb1957]

those side booster are "just" solid fuel cannisters. Shuttle recovered them. I suspect the learning was it's too much effort/cost to recycle, after they've been in the water.

a different learning might have been ... can we recover with a helicopter, like some other outfit (NZ ?) does.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[IRstuff]

SpaceX' recovery system is one of the lessons learned from Shuttle, but having to reserve part of your fuel and carry extra weight are issues to consider. Additionally, once you actually reach orbital speed, coming back in is nontrivial

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[WKTaylor]

Rb... I am confused...

"Those side booster are "just" solid fuel cannisters...." HUHHH? For the original Atlas, these engines were liquid fuel and feed off the main tank... until shut-down, the then the 'Booster Package' separated [jettisoned]. After jettison, the core engine [designed for higher altitudes] pushed the tank [with remaining fuel/O2] to max V... sub-orbit or orbit depending on payload. This is why the Atlas was often called a 1-1/2-stage launch vehicle. Here is a brief history of this remarkable 'family' of launch vehicles...

How The Atlas Rocket Evolved Over 60 Years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeGmIeu0xvI

Or were You referring to something else?

PS: The floor(s) of the ocean(s) away from Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg AFB are littered with tons US launch vehicle debris. I wonder if 'adversaries' ever used(use) stealth submarines to recover [or simply photo] debris for 'study? Hmmmmmm.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[Sparweb]

'Adversaries' Wil? According to the previous POTUS, we're all 'friends'.

Anyone ever look into NERVA rocket engines?
Specific impulse = 841 seconds (vacuum)
The engines under the Shuttle / SLS are less than 500 seconds.

 

[btrueblood]

NERVA - nuclear thermal rocket - not a good idea for terrestrial launch, you'll get a lot of NIMBYs complaining.

 

[WKTaylor]

SpaceX Test of Starship 1st stage... 'all-engines'...

SpaceX's huge Starship booster conducts historic 31-engine burn (video)

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-33-engine-static-fire

Apparently the ground crew aborted 1-engine just before all-ignition... and 1-engine self-aborted after ignition. BUT, SpaceX [Musk] deemed that the test was 'successful'.

Lighting off/running 33-engines at one moment... and for the duration of the boost phase... is a statistical 'crap-shoot'... which is why the SLS has only 4-liquid propellent high reliability [proven] 1st stage engines... and the [2] [proven] SRBs.

The Russians tried a similar clustered-small-engine arrangement in the 1960s on their moon-shot Rocket. It experienced vibration-overloads/harmonics, engine failures, etc... that destroyed each launcher shortly after lift-off.

During the Saturn 5 development tests [unmanned] the booster experienced high vibrations/surges/po-go, etc... that had to be 'tamed' [stabilized] before human flight. Still... every Apollo crew experienced a rough ride. I read somewhere that the Apollo 8 crew decided to be 'nonchalant' about describing their launch 'ride'... so that the next crews could 'experience in real-time' just how exciting... rough... the ride actually was. Yep.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[Maximillianrichards]

WKTaylor, Thank you for sharing this information, Wil. Indeed, testing such a complex and powerful system like the SpaceX Starship is challenging, and there is always a risk of failure. However, SpaceX's iterative design approach and their willingness to learn from each test will likely help them improve the reliability of their systems over time.

As you mentioned, vibration and harmonics can be a significant challenge for clustered engine arrangements. It will be interesting to see how SpaceX addresses this issue in future tests and designs.

Regarding your quotes, they all contain valuable insights. In science, beliefs should be based on evidence and empirical data, not personal biases or preconceptions. And while knowledge and understanding are crucial, humility and the willingness to learn and adapt are just as essential for scientific progress.

https://helenix.com/blockchain-security/

 

[WKTaylor]

Max... I am particularly curious/disturbed as to why SpaceX has NOT had a full-duration 1st stage 33-engine Test... like often done at Huntsville or other rocket engine development facilities. Proof of the pudding. This was actually done with the 1st SLS booster... even though the [4] engines and the SRBs upgraded/recycled from the Space Shuttle.

Also WHY isn't SpaceX preceding the 'orbital test shot' with at least [1] development/launch sub-orbital test of the 33-engine 'recoverable' Booster stage with a dummy/throw-away upper stage.

But hey... The FAA is still in process of evaluating the Starship 'stack' for flight worthiness... with 'scant information... and are in no rush to issue a 'license' to fly. I'll be interesting to see when it REALLY launches.



Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[thebard3]

I don't expect to ever see a stationary, full duration test-fire of the 33-engine configuration booster. The launch pad at Boca Chica is just a stand on a flat concrete pad. Test firings cause damage to the pad and the damage obviously gets worse the longer the engines are firing. During a launch, the pad's exposure to the full force of the blast will be very short and diminish quickly as the rocket departs.
I do not know why SpaceX used this approach instead of a flame trench like NASA uses, but they're sticking with it.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[WKTaylor]

Interesting current perspective on SpaceX Starship and the launch-site changes in-work...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2ykt9JStao

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[WKTaylor]

A couple of interesting observations..

#1
Russian N-1 Moon launch vehicle 1960s. I was watching a launch video... noticed [4] relatively small 'Grid-Fin' panels at the base of the first stage... 90-Deg apart... Then the Booster thrust diminished, rolled-over and tumbled and exploded. Point I was making???... the Russkie's had Grid-Fins in the 1960s!!!!... while Saturn V relied on small-fixed fins attached to [4] outer-engine fairings.

#2
Was looking at a video of the SpaceX launch vehicle 1st stage. The body tank has thousands of reddish spots in lengthwise patterns up/down the SStl tank skin [pressurized to maintain shape while standing]. Then it hit Me squarely... the tank skin has internal lengthwise [hat or T] stiffeners that are likely spot welded to the skin... and the spot welds on the skin are corroding [rusting] in the salty air of south Texas seacoast. WOW... but then... as I understand it... the first few 'launch' 1st-stages are programmed to simple fall uncontroled into the ocean... no attempt to recover the stage. I presume that first stages will be studied for aerodynamic tendencies during the fall to help design recoverable stages.

In conclusion, Soooo... I guess the corroded spot welds are 'no sweat'. NOTE: corroded spot welds in SStl parts are notorious for failure in the long-term... and show 'hurried/sloppy... or NO... SW cleaning practices'.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[Sparweb]

Many grades of stainless corrode very quickly after welding, so rust was my thought, too, when I saw so many regularly spaced brown spots on the booster. This was also evident in much earlier versions of the rocket. Remember the one that buckled under its own weight during assembly several years ago? I think it had the same rusty spots.

 

[WKTaylor]

SpaceX Starship Flight #1 lifted-off was clean/smooth.

However 1st stage multiple [5 or 6???] engine failures probably lead to loss of control [cork-screwing] and disintegration before staging could occur, ~3:57 into launch.

It appears that SpaceX MAY have allowed the fight to proceed to vehicle 'break-up' and did not initiate self-destruct sequence.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-first-space-launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PPCP0ZDdUI

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[Sparweb]

A spectacular lift-off.
Watching 33 engine cones racing upward was beautiful and really feels SCI-FI.

I did notice several things:
There was a countdown hold just a minute before launching.
Several large pieces of debris thrown up before the rocket left the pad. Possible damage to the booster?
Some engines didn't light. More failed or were shut down partway up.
The engine status display on the telemetry didn't match the video.
It reached and then exceeded its separation altitude without separation.

I'm repeating stuff said by all the you-tubers, but when the stages couldn't separate for some reason, and maybe delayed after after several attempts to separate, the whole ship developed a tumble or a precession, making the separation a moot point and the mission couldn't proceed from the attitude the rocket was in.

Looking forward to the next launch.

 

[thebard3]

What we already knew-

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/...s-is-unaffordable/?comments=1&comments-page=1

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.