You are not logged in.
The expletives are only if they can not make it safe as an Apollo 1 tragedy would be Nasa's undoing after all the delay....
The first role of business is upgrading the upper stage to do the job of the EDS of which it can barely do with no payload at all let alone keep it safe for a crew.
Next would be the Service module for the Orion which is under sized for a long duration mission for safety.
Then there is the safety net of no LEM to bring it back if it does not make it.
Offline
Like button can go here
During the first "spiral" of the bidding process for the "Crew Exploration Vehicle" (CEV), Boeing proposed a capsule that looked like Apollo. Everyone else proposed a new design. NASA liked Apollo, so favoured Boeing. Lockheed-Martin abandoned their idea of sending a lifting body all the way to the Moon and back (bad idea) and proposed an Apollo-like capsule of their own. That was Orion. Advantages over Boeing's CST-100 Starliner were that Orion had (1) LCH4/LOX service module, (2) air bag for landing so it could return to Earth on Land, (3) 6 crew members when sent to ISS. All these features have been abandoned. Lockheed-Martin spent all their money on the capsule, had insufficient funds left for the service module. So they changed from LCH4/LOX to MMH/N2O4, then completely ran out of money so made a swap deal with ESA for their service module. The service module from Europe's ATV also used MMH/N2O4, but has greater dry mass and less propellant than the last service module proposed by Lockheed-Martin, which in tern had much less performance than the LCH4/LOX service module in their contract. The changed the capsule to water splash-down instead of land return. And even said the first version would only carry 5 astronauts to ISS instead of 6. Remember the Apollo rescue capsule could carry 5 crew members from Skylab, so this means Orion is much heavier, but can't carry more crew.
All advantages of Orion over CST-100 Starliner have been deleted. And total launch mass of Orion including LES is 28 metric tonnes. Total launch mass of CST-100 including same stuff is 10 metric tonnes. Total launch mass of Dragon is 8.8 metric tonnes. Yes, Orion has a service module that can (just barely) return from Lunar orbit; CST-100 and Dragon do not. But both were originally designed for CEV, so could easily get their fill-size service module back. Would that make them heavier? Yes. I could post total mass of the capsules alone.
Offline
Like button can go here
Its just a capsule!
Offline
Like button can go here
Actually no as its life support, toilet and so much more once you use it more than for just a taxi..as it has to support those in it....
Offline
Like button can go here
Elon Musk slams President Biden for Tesla State of the Union ‘snub’
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceX Engineer Says NASA Should Plan For Starship's 'Significant' Capability
Offline
Like button can go here
The rising cost of fuels.
The 2022 cost for a Falcon 9 launch was set at $67 million, and the Falcon Heavy mission was at $97 million.
Small satellites launched under the ride share program also saw increases, with prices rising to $1.1 million for payloads of 200 kilograms and additional costs of $5,500 per kilo.
Offline
Like button can go here
Maybe not a media hit piece but critical
Elon Musk Is Convinced He's the Future. We Need to Look Beyond Him
https://time.com/6203815/elon-musk-flaw … e-visions/
Tesla’s trouble
As CEO of Tesla, Musk’s plan was to use luxury vehicles to fund a more affordable electric car. The Model 3 was supposed to be that vehicle, starting at $35,000. But the current starting price is $46,990, and most buyers end up paying even more. Teslas are supposed to be the model for “green” automobility, but the emissions required for the production of each individual vehicle are on the rise, and there are persistent problems with production quality which means they’re at risk of not lasting as long as vehicles from other carmakers.
For years, Elon Musk sold us fantasies to distract from the reality of the future he’s trying to build, and to get people to accept his growing belligerence. What we really need right now is not more cars, colonization dreams, and technokings, but a collective project to improve the lives of billions of people around the world while taking on the immediate challenges we face regardless of whether it generates corporate profits. That’s something Elon Musk can never deliver.
the goal of landing men on Mars in the next 8-12 years.
Thread posted 2017
year 2025?
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-08-11 12:35:27)
Offline
Like button can go here
Nasa has chugged along like the slow dinosaur that it has become. It is still riding on each very costly mission with full expectation with slow returns.
Offline
Like button can go here