Why NASA OIG reports are essential and SLS Cargo is still a thing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ค. 2024
- While we're still digesting the NASA OIG report released on May 1, NASA's Orion program and prime contractor Lockheed Martin are getting the spacecraft for Artemis II ready for vacuum testing at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida as a part of overall assembly and test.
There were a few unusual things in the report, including a little back and forth, which raise a few big picture questions. There was also what was absent from the report and some useful footnotes worth pointing out.
North of where Orion production is at KSC, the structure of the launch platform for Mobile Launcher-2 was moved onto the pedestals at the Launch Complex 39 East Park Site. That milestone, which was completed on May 9, enables assembly of the umbilical tower structure to begin.
There was also an industry conference in Washington, DC this past week that provided a forecast about the Artemis III schedule and another SLS study.
Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.
00:00 Intro
01:21 Artemis II Orion status
04:00 Don't shoot the OIG, but...
08:37 If OIG does engineering reviews, why only random ones?
09:59 Mobile Launcher-2 platform/base "jack and set"
12:06 An Artemis III HLS schedule note
13:11 Boeing proposes SLS Cargo as an idea for Mars Sample Return
17:09 Footnotes about OIG footnotes
18:49 Thanks for watching!
![[TH]FFWS SEA Spring 2024 Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TK2mu-8yBFU/mqdefault.jpg)
A fully comprehensive report - we are indeed fortunate that Philip delivers consistently high quality insights to this massive endeavour! .
Another thorough report Philip! Thank you as always for your hard work.
I remember during the Artemis I mission they said on the broadcasts and pressers that they were doing a skip-entry return to specifically push the Orion heat shield to it's limits, far beyond what would be seen in crewed missions. How much of this extra damage is because of that, or is this damage far beyond what was expected even from that skip-entry?
Stephen Clark's story has comments by Victor Glover that add to the nuance, they are on page 3 of that:
arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/nasa-confirms-independent-review-of-orion-heat-shield-issue/3/
I don't recall it being a point of emphasis that the EM-1/Artemis I profile was a stressing case in the years leading up to launch. It may have been during the mission, or during the mission preview right before the first launch attempt, but details were thin. It's worth trying to get some clarification from NASA now.
This is what NASA was emphasizing in 2021:
www.nasa.gov/missions/orion-spacecraft-to-test-new-entry-technique-on-artemis-i-mission/
Just an amazing well-done presentation. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻👌🏻😁
Thanks, appreciate it.
Thanks
Interesting update thanks Philip.
Cute co-host too.
Thanks for watching...Teddy says hi to everyone.
I think that the 4th ICPS should've been built.
well done
Subscribed, thank you for the update!
Thanks for the sub!
Doggo!
As for the Mars Sample return, I've wondered why they just don't send an Opportunity type lander/rover early (the tech was developed decades ago) on as a fetch rover and then the lander with the return rocket can be that much lighter and not have to have super precision.
Likely complicated/prevented by the budget situation. The Science directorate budget got cut deeper than Exploration (Artemis), and both of them already had a full plate of projects to work on and fund.
I feel there are way too many issues for NASA to maintain the schedule. What if heatshield requires a total redesign ? You wont have a lunar landing by 2030 at that rate.
There are issues at this point in development, but the responsibilities are spread out and the work is being done in parallel. NASA is responsible for Orion development and issues (and also EGS and SLS). SpaceX is responsible for development of Starship & the HLS variant. Axiom is responsible for the lunar surface spacesuits.
Definitely still development challenges across all the programs; no one is "done" yet.
I don’t think the astronauts on A-II will agree to fly on Orion if they aren’t satisfied with the safety of the heat shield. So, if the likes of Victor G. agree to proceed then they will have agreed with the Orion engineers. Looking forward to (what I’m sure will be) that big news conference in early July where they either say Yes or No.
@@stevengoyette3165 I'd have to disagree. They're astronauts, and despite the increased emphasis on safety and science nowadays as compared to early spaceflight, that's still gonna attract people with similar attitudes towards risk as test pilots. It will take spacecraft with a lot more wrong with it than a couple missing ablative chunks that didn't doom the capsule last time to make those lot say "no thanks, I don't wanna fly around the Moon on that."
It is unlikely there will be a redesign for Artemis 2, based on what we've heard so far.
They've got plenty of time until Artemis 3 so what will happen to that heat shield is probably more uncertain.
@brokensoap1717 It's hard to say how much time they have for Artemis 3; the last schedule update forecasted that the Artemis 3 Orion would be ready to handover to EGS at the end of FY 2025 (end of September 2025), which would mean the completed heatshield would need to be ready to mate in probably a year from now, maybe a little less than a year.
NASA already has a lot of factors to weigh for the mission after Artemis 2, but they may also choose to hold on Orion assembly and test for "Artemis 3" prior to heatshield-to-CM mate until after Artemis 2 returns and they have another entry data set.
Hopefully we will get a chance to ask the ESDMD folks about this after the heatshield investigation is complete and they decide how to move forward for Artemis 2.
ooo dog
Video has Doggo
nasa is just not the priority right now, at its height in the 60s nasa took up about 4% of federal budgets in order to beat the soviets in space, in today's terms, take 2023, the total federal budget was 6.1 trillions, so 4% would equate to 244 billions, I think nasa got 10% of that amount last year, something around 20 billions. As for where the priority lies, well, does anyone know what the government has spent 200 billions on recently? (hint: same enemy, different battlefield, lol)
NASA's budget as a percentage of Federal spending has been semi-consistent for about 50 years now since the 70s with only 1960s being the outlier. With the 1960s only being an outlier due to that being the height of the space race.
If NASA was to recieve more money their would need to be an escalation in terms of Space Race as a whole. For instance China putting a person on the moon or putting a rover on Mercury or an orbiter around Neptune. Even then it would need to be marketed as a mandatory thing to challenge the Chinese in these domain. We might see a resurgence in spending in 10-20 years from now if that were to happen.
Artemis will get to do the initial moon mission since SpaceX signed up for it and Congress will insist on it, but after that it's Starship all the way to Mars. We know why NASA has to pretend otherwise, but smart observers should not.
lol , no chance .
Starship to Mars all by itself (and then back) requires an enormous amount of remotely assembled infrastructure in the form of a very large propellant production facility.
No chance that happens during the first Mars sorties.
That kind of infrastructure likely won't be on Mars for decades after the first missions.