Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/20/2026 4:48:53 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
NASA has announced a major milestone in its Artemis program. On April 20, 2026, the agency will roll out the largest section of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, the crucial launch vehicle for the Artemis III mission, which is set to carry astronauts on a historic lunar journey. This pivotal moment marks a significant leap in NASA's goal to establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon, with the mission slated for 2027.
...The rollout of the rocket’s core stage, set for April 20, 2026, from NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, marks the beginning of an exciting phase in the Artemis program. The core stage, including the liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks, intertank, and forward skirt, will then be transported to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where teams will continue to prepare it for its critical role in the Artemis III mission.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailygalaxy.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The SLS core of the Artemis II was rolled on to a barge in New Orleans on Monday, ready to be shipped to Kennedy Space Center. But it’s not all smooth sailing in the industry—Blue Origin is under the spotlight after the FAA called for a formal investigation into New Glenn's apparent upper-stage failure on Sunday. Ken Kremer, Managing Editor on Space UpClose, joined FOX 35's Garrett Wymer live via Zoom to break down the latest.NASA rolls out Artemis II SLS core, Blue Origin investigation | 14:17
FOX 35 Orlando | 458K subscribers | 408 views | April 20, 2026
BUMP
Saturn V had 80% more capacity to lunar orbit.
SLS 15% more initial lift thrust, meaning it gets started much faster.
The comparison is like a 1970 Cadillac Eldorado vs a 2026 Ford Mustang GT.
Yup. Several times since 1972 there’s been talk about restarting F1 production, because there’s nothing quite like those. Never failed in flight. The largest engine using RP-1; the only thing that even attempted something in a nearby league was Beal Aerospace’s big engine, but Beal was a bit too early, politically speaking. The plan was to launch from Sombrero Island. I don’t think they entertained the idea of booster landings.
As Carroll Shelby said, there’s no substitute for cubic inches.
http://www.astronautix.com/b/bealba-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace#Subsequent_history
It was a direct, first person Von Braun design.
His great achievement.
Whoops, this test vid is of Beal’s hydrogen peroxide/kerosen engine, 810,000 lbs thrust:
https://www.youtube.com/@bealaerospace4157/videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr6rm4Ce9m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilew-6zbSTo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MTBCT1Ma-Q
A retired engineer (pen pal, never met him) worked on high powered liquid fueled amateur (yeah, right) rockets, and his ratio was 8 to 1, hydrogen peroxide to kerosene.
Definitely. He started it in response to the DoD’s call for a million+ pound thrust engine (I believe that was to deliver Teller’s h-bomb design via ICBM), and knew that it would be used for the moonshot. When a smaller design (different team) detonated, the DoD backed out, but NACA (forerunner of NASA) picked it up. Components were being tested by the mid-50s, and the cavitation problems were solved before 1960. It was ready and waiting when JFK threw down the gauntlet.
I visited the Rocketdyne facility in West Palm Beach on a network integration job when they were purchased by Aerojet.
Some of Von Brauns original models and drawings were available to view.
Astounding genius, given the era.
A super hot engine, cooled by it’s own fuel.
Lotsa torque.
Regenerative cooling is a necessity for reusability. The other approach is to use the ablative method inside the engine bell. The former is more efficient use of fuel, and with expendable boosters (that’s what everyone did) the mass budget for the payload was better.
Of course, the Saturn V was, as you noted, unmatched. Add to that NASA’s launch latitude, and Von Braun’s development of 100% cryo in the upper stages, we were not going to be denied. Apollo 11 spent less than 24 hours on the surface, and less than 3 hours exploring on foot. It looked like a good idea to return while everything was going well, and bring them back alive. None of the crew ever flew in space again.
On YouTube there’s a series of long documentaries about each of the Apollo missions. A few nighst ago I watched the one about Hadley Rille (15) because that was the one that was most fascinating at the time (first one to use the lunar go-cart too). They also had vid available live and it must have been summer, because I remember watching it instead of playing outside.
Ah, it was this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPGsPlB1MDw
his channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@JacksonTyler/videos
When will Crapper 2.0 make its debut?
Not sure, but the developers are probably flush with cash.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
