Troubled SLS programme suffers another big setback

maybe the Bluescreen used in the 60's is broken, and now that they have to do the entire Launch and recovery in the 2020's
its harder.

quite amazed by the delays and back and forth antics, seriously is it that hard?
 
Randux said:
Can't launch a modern rocket to the moon and you expect me to believe they somehow did it in the 60s? GTFOH!
Click to expand...



giphy.gif
 
MrGray said:
Not really. Makes perfect sense to me when you consider they didn't have CAD or CNC. Skilled artisans would handcraft the engines from the blueprint using tooling and techniques that nobody alive still has experience with.

These days you don't have to do any of that as the design and fit are all tested in CAD, etc, in advance. The components are precision cut, and there are advanced welding techniques etc. Don't forget, designed on a blueprint, they were only 2D line drawings, with only manual calculations and geometry to work out if everything fit together.
Click to expand...
This was certainly the case. Due to the nature of the projects at the time there were a lot of artisans skilled in what was essentially prototype manufacture. Overall drawings were provided and they would get on with filling in the manufacturing details while making the structures. In some aircraft companies, to speed up this type of work the designers would sometimes produce prototype drawings on long rolls rather than on individual sheets. They would start on one end and and carry on pulling the roll across the drawing board until the part was completed. NASA seemed to be a little more formal in their drawings however, at least the ones that they showed to anyone.

There are still some prototyping style artisans around, but they are usually older and there are not as many of them.
 
MrGray said:
Well, our ability to design very complicated things in 2D on paper, did, yes.
Click to expand...
Which is actually quite perplexing.
Don't know much about our education system these days, but in Technical Drawings getting a 3D view of a 2D shape was part of the curriculum years ago.
Does no one use T-squares for drawings anymore?
 
garyc said:
This was certainly the case. Due to the nature of the projects at the time there were a lot of artisans skilled in what was essentially prototype manufacture. Overall drawings were provided and they would get on with filling in the manufacturing details while making the structures. In some aircraft companies, to speed up this type of work the designers would sometimes produce prototype drawings on long rolls rather than on individual sheets. They would start on one end and and carry on pulling the roll across the drawing board until the part was completed. NASA seemed to be a little more formal in their drawings however, at least the ones that they showed to anyone.

There are still some prototyping style artisans around, but they are usually older and there are not as many of them.
Click to expand...
This statement is at odds with at least one statement in that video: "trial and error testing".
One would think these "rocket scientists" would know how to document this so that it could be reproduced or even improved in later designs?
 
SubtleBeast said:
This statement is at odds with at least one statement in that video: "trial and error testing".
One would think these "rocket scientists" would know how to document this so that it could be reproduced or even improved in later designs?
Click to expand...
The trial and error testing on the F-1 engines was largely associated with the degree of combustion instability that is associated with such large engines. This must be addressed or else the whole thing explodes. They went through a bunch of iterations to fix this. More modern designs get away from this by using a larger number of smaller engines.
 
garyc said:
The trial and error testing on the F-1 engines was largely associated with the degree of combustion instability that is associated with such large engines. This must be addressed or else the whole thing explodes. They went through a bunch of iterations to fix this. More modern designs get away from this by using a larger number of smaller engines.
Click to expand...
So did they make design changes?
If yes...did they document it.
If no...why not?
Or am I looking at it too simplistically?
 
SubtleBeast said:
So did they make design changes?
If yes...did they document it.
If no...why not?
Or am I looking at it too simplistically?
Click to expand...
You need to think much bigger.

Its not just the rockets that needed to be re-built, but the entire value chain needed to be built from scratch.

Design the machine that builds the component that is used to build the rocket.
 
WollieVerstege said:
You need to think much bigger.

Its not just the rockets that needed to be re-built, but the entire value chain needed to be built from scratch.

Design the machine that builds the component that is used to build the rocket.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just a bit small-minded, but 2+2 still adds up to 5 the way they explain it in that video.

Think it might be time for them to go private sector for some expertise.
Maybe knock on Rolls-Royce and Boeing's doors?
 
Nasa says it was a faulty sensor, not a harware issue:
www.bbc.com

Artemis: Nasa will try to launch Moon rocket on Saturday

After Monday's postponement, the US space agency thinks it has a strategy to launch at the weekend.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
After reviewing data, engineers believe they now understand why the issue occurred.

They think it is likely related to an inaccurate sensor reading and that they can develop a strategy to deal with the problem on launch day.

This involves starting the process of chilling the engines earlier in the countdown.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X