Author Topic: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage  (Read 39093 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #1 on: 05/16/2015 07:36 am »
Working the paper trail – SLS team processing thousands of CDR documents
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/sls-team-working-thousands-pages-cdr-documentation/
Nice review of the state of things! Regarding the "huge piles of documentation," of course this is accurate. But analysts would know if there might be a needle of technical trouble in that haystack. (They certainly knew for Ares I!)

It doesn't sound like there is any trouble of that sort. On the other hand nothing in that huge pile of technical information about SLS says anything about the trouble that really might exist, i.e. whether the cost of the program that will produce and fly the rocket is "sustainable."
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Lourens

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 304
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #2 on: 05/16/2015 10:51 am »
I've been running some numbers, and I'm worried about those 60000 pages of documentation. See for yourself:

60000 pages at US Letter format equals 60000 * 8.5 * 11 = 5.61 million sq. in.

The SLS core diameter is 331 in., which gives a circumference of 1040 in. Total height of SLS Block 1 is 3770 in., which gives a surface area of the core, interstage, and payload fairing of about 3.92 million sq. in.

The Shuttle SRB has a diameter of 146 in., circumference 459 in. Its height is 1790 in., giving a surface area of 0.82 million sq. in. The SLS boosters have five segments instead of four, so call it 1 million sq. in. a piece.

This gives a total surface area of 3.91 + 2 * 1 = 5.92 million sq. in., which means that NASA is still 0.31 million sq. in. or 3316 pages of documentation short of being able to build the SLS.

Does anyone know how many pages the CDR final report is planned to have? *ducks*

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #3 on: 05/16/2015 05:03 pm »
But you're forgetting, despite the odds, SLS has moved on to become MORE THAN a PAPER ROCKET.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #4 on: 05/16/2015 06:13 pm »
The documents mostly set requirements for features of the vehicle that have already been designed. I can understand creating unnecessary paperwork, but why do it after the decisions have been made?

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #5 on: 05/16/2015 06:26 pm »
The documents mostly set requirements for features of the vehicle that have already been designed. I can understand creating unnecessary paperwork, but why do it after the decisions have been made?

It's a design review of all the documentation. Yes, decisions have been made, but do the various decisions work with each other? Now's the time to find out whether or not widget A will actually connect to widget B. You don't want to discovery that during assembly.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #6 on: 05/16/2015 10:38 pm »
The documents mostly set requirements for features of the vehicle that have already been designed. I can understand creating unnecessary paperwork, but why do it after the decisions have been made?

No, you have it backwards. Requirements are set during SRR. Design is matured through PDR and CDR. The "unnecessary" paperwork verifies the maturity of the design.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2015 10:39 pm by newpylong »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #7 on: 05/29/2015 02:53 am »
The documents mostly set requirements for features of the vehicle that have already been designed. I can understand creating unnecessary paperwork, but why do it after the decisions have been made?
I have read as much of the documentation as I could and cannot point to anything that influences the flight hardware design, so I would have to agree. There are some very minor constraints placed on GSE. Where errors do exist it isn't likely they would make a change, except possibly in the documentation. Any estimates of the cost of all the preparing and reviewing?

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #8 on: 05/29/2015 10:48 am »
The documents mostly set requirements for features of the vehicle that have already been designed. I can understand creating unnecessary paperwork, but why do it after the decisions have been made?
I have read as much of the documentation as I could and cannot point to anything that influences the flight hardware design, so I would have to agree. There are some very minor constraints placed on GSE. Where errors do exist it isn't likely they would make a change, except possibly in the documentation. Any estimates of the cost of all the preparing and reviewing?

Do you expect to be taken seriously by saying a "Design Review" does not influence the design and is merely a paper pushing exercise? Have you ever been involved in one?

It doesn't "cost" anything extra - labor is going to be paid for regardless. Contracts (which includes Boeing time for example) are going to be paid regardless.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2015 10:50 am by newpylong »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #9 on: 05/29/2015 10:55 am »
The documents mostly set requirements for features of the vehicle that have already been designed. I can understand creating unnecessary paperwork, but why do it after the decisions have been made?
I have read as much of the documentation as I could and cannot point to anything that influences the flight hardware design, so I would have to agree. There are some very minor constraints placed on GSE. Where errors do exist it isn't likely they would make a change, except possibly in the documentation. Any estimates of the cost of all the preparing and reviewing?

Do you expect to be taken seriously by saying a "Design Review" does not influence the design and is merely a paper pushing exercise? Have you ever been involved in one?

It doesn't "cost" anything extra - labor is going to be paid for regardless. Contracts (which includes Boeing time for example) are going to be paid regardless.
He can't be taken seriously. I've been through three CDR's in my line of business and I can guarantee you that even a CDR still can, and quite often, will lead to design changes (and resulting delta CDR's).

Offline jbenton

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 702
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #10 on: 07/24/2015 08:20 pm »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4673
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #11 on: 07/24/2015 08:37 pm »
Found this just before I watched part of the announcement on New Horizons:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasas-space-launch-system-design-right-on-track-for-journey-to-mars.html
Someone hasnt sheared the flock of PAO sheep this year so its very heavy in HQ and political PAO fluff. ;)
« Last Edit: 07/24/2015 08:37 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #12 on: 08/11/2015 11:01 pm »
OA had a press release today:

Quote
Dulles, Virginia, 11 August 2015 – Orbital ATK, Inc. (NYSE: OA), a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, successfully completed its Critical Design Review (CDR) with Lockheed Martin and NASA for the Orion launch abort motor Aug. 6. The abort motor is a major part of the Orion Launch Abort System (LAS), which will help ensure the safety of astronauts who launch on missions to explore deep space aboard NASA’s new, heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS).

Powered by solid rocket fuel, the launch abort motor is designed to propel the crew capsule away from the rocket in the event of an emergency at the launch pad, or during liftoff and ascent. The abort motor can ignite within milliseconds and accelerate to approximately three times the average acceleration of a drag race car to carry the crew module a safe distance from the primary rocket and debris field.

“As a critical element of a life-saving system, the launch abort motor must be reliable, and it must ignite quickly. Solid rocket fuel is well-proven to have these characteristics,” said Kent Rominger, Vice President of Strategy and Business Development at Orbital ATK, and five-time space shuttle astronaut. “Orbital ATK’s launch abort motor greatly increases safety for future crews.”

Successful completion of CDR demonstrates the launch abort motor design meets mission performance requirements and is mature enough for full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration and testing. This work will be performed at Orbital ATK’s facilities in Magna and Promontory, Utah. Additionally, the 36-inch diameter by 175-inch long composite case that spans the length of the abort motor will be produced at Orbital ATK's facility in Clearfield, Utah.

Under a separate contract with Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK also provides the LAS attitude control motor. This motor is manufactured at the company’s Elkton, Maryland, facility.

Orion and SLS will launch on their first joint mission, Exploration Mission-1, in 2018. The next major milestones for SLS include Boeing’s Vertical Assembly Center core stage welding, continued testing of Aerojet Rocketdyne’s RS-25 engine at NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, avionics and controls testing at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and Orbital ATK’s second qualification test of a five-segment solid rocket motor (QM-2) next year.

The SLS and Orion programs are supported by a network of hundreds of suppliers representing 49 states. Orbital ATK has 29 key SLS booster suppliers across 16 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #13 on: 08/15/2015 09:50 pm »
Stephen Clark ‏@StephenClark1  · Aug 13 
NASA’s Todd May: Briefing NASA HQ today on successful outcome of SLS critical design review. Rocket design now complete.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline Darren_Hensley

  • System Software Engineer, MCTP, NGC, Ft Leavenworth Ks
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Captian(ret) USS Pabilli, Timefleet, UFP-TIC
  • Alamogordo NM
    • H-10-K Enterprises
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #14 on: 08/16/2015 03:20 am »
IF CDR is complete, when and where can we get the OML? The thing is well under construction, it should be available by now.
BSNCM Devry, MAITM Webster, MSSS & MSAP SFA
H-10-K Enterprises Gateway Station

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21709
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 8562
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #15 on: 10/22/2015 03:18 pm »
October 22, 2015
RELEASE 15-210

NASA Completes Critical Design Review for Space Launch System


For the first time in almost 40 years, a NASA human-rated rocket has completed all steps needed to clear a critical design review (CDR). The agency’s Space Launch System (SLS) is the first vehicle designed to meet the challenges of the journey to Mars and the first exploration class rocket since the Saturn V.

SLS will be the most powerful rocket ever built and, with the agency’s Orion spacecraft, will launch America into a new era of exploration to destinations beyond Earth’s orbit. The CDR provided a final look at the design and development of the integrated launch vehicle before full-scale fabrication begins.

“We’ve nailed down the design of SLS, we’ve successfully completed the first round of testing of the rocket’s engines and boosters, and all the major components for the first flight are now in production,” said Bill Hill, deputy associate administrator of NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Division. “There have been challenges, and there will be more ahead, but this review gives us confidence that we are on the right track for the first flight of SLS and using it to extend permanent human presence into deep space.”

The CDR examined the first of three configurations planned for the rocket, referred to as SLS Block 1. The Block I configuration will have a minimum 70-metric-ton (77-ton) lift capability and be powered by twin boosters and four RS-25 engines. The next planned upgrade of SLS, Block 1B, would use a more powerful exploration upper stage for more ambitious missions with a 105-metric-ton (115-ton) lift capacity. Block 2 will add a pair of advanced solid or liquid propellant boosters to provide a 130-metric-ton (143-ton) lift capacity. In each configuration, SLS will continue to use the same core stage and four RS-25 engines.

The SLS Program completed the review in July, in conjunction with a separate review by the Standing Review Board, which is composed of seasoned experts from NASA and industry who are independent of the program. Throughout the course of 11 weeks, 13 teams – made up of senior engineers and aerospace experts across the agency and industry – reviewed more than 1,000 SLS documents and more than 150 GB of data as part of the comprehensive assessment process at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, where SLS is managed for the agency.

The Standing Review Board reviewed and assessed the program’s readiness and confirmed the technical effort is on track to complete system development and meet performance requirements on budget and on schedule.

The program briefed the results of the review in October to the Agency Program Management Council, led by NASA Associate Administrator Robert Lightfoot, as the final step in the CDR process.

This review is the last of four reviews that examine concepts and designs. The next step for the program is design certification, which will take place in 2017 after manufacturing, integration and testing is complete. The design certification will compare the actual final product to the rocket’s design. The final review, the flight readiness review, will take place just prior to the 2018 flight readiness date.

“This is a major step in the design and readiness of SLS,” said John Honeycutt, SLS program manager. “Our team has worked extremely hard, and we are moving forward with building this rocket. We are qualifying hardware, building structural test articles, and making real progress.”

Critical design reviews for the individual SLS elements of the core stage, boosters and engines were completed successfully as part of this milestone. Also as part of the CDR, the program concluded the core stage of the rocket and Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter will remain orange, the natural color of the insulation that will cover those elements, instead of painted white. The core stage, towering more than 200 feet tall and with a diameter of 27.6 feet, will carry cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel for the rocket’s four RS-25 engines.

The integrated spacecraft and payloads are nearing completion on their CDR. Flight hardware currently is in production for every element. NASA is preparing for a second qualification test for the SLS boosters, and structural test articles for the core and upper stages of the rocket are either completed or currently in production. NASA also recently completed the first developmental test series on the RS-25 engines.

Future program reviews will focus on SLS integration and flight readiness. For more information on SLS, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/sls

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #16 on: 10/22/2015 03:30 pm »
Have to re-texture the SRBs again!   :D

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #17 on: 10/22/2015 03:33 pm »
So, why orange? Are they using the same insulating foam as on STS for the entire vehicle, or has someone just come to enjoy the color?

The SRB ribbons only need a "Coke" logo. Or should I imagine a delta-shape where an Orbiter would sit astride all that?
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #18 on: 10/22/2015 03:42 pm »
So, why orange? Are they using the same insulating foam as on STS for the entire vehicle, or has someone just come to enjoy the color?

The SRB ribbons only need a "Coke" logo. Or should I imagine a delta-shape where an Orbiter would sit astride all that?

Was always orange. It's the color of the insulating foam - just like a Shuttle ET (which is kinda is). Painting it would be like early Shuttle, but that's a lot of weight.

The idea of the white SLS was to look a bit like Saturn V and less like Ares V. A PR exercise, basically. Had that directly from SLS managers.

They've given up on that and now we can Praise the Lords of Kobol for accuracy prevailing. Not entirely sure the Stage Adaptor will be all orange, however. Will ask. The swooshes seem a bit crazy too.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #19 on: 10/22/2015 04:07 pm »

Was always orange. It's the color of the insulating foam - just like a Shuttle ET (which is kinda is). Painting it would be like early Shuttle, but that's a lot of weight.

The idea of the white SLS was to look a bit like Saturn V and less like Ares V. A PR exercise, basically. Had that directly from SLS managers.

They've given up on that and now we can Praise the Lords of Kobol for accuracy prevailing. Not entirely sure the Stage Adaptor will be all orange, however. Will ask. The swooshes seem a bit crazy too.

Note is says this right in the presser:
"Also as part of the CDR, the program concluded the core stage of the rocket and Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter will remain orange, ..."

I'm curious about this statement (also near the end of the presser)
"The integrated spacecraft and payloads are nearing completion on their CDR."

What payloads?  Orion and SM?  Orion and ??  ?
Bring on Europa Clipper (or Enceladus) Clipper for EM1!

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #20 on: 10/22/2015 04:10 pm »

Was always orange. It's the color of the insulating foam - just like a Shuttle ET (which is kinda is). Painting it would be like early Shuttle, but that's a lot of weight.

The idea of the white SLS was to look a bit like Saturn V and less like Ares V. A PR exercise, basically. Had that directly from SLS managers.

They've given up on that and now we can Praise the Lords of Kobol for accuracy prevailing. Not entirely sure the Stage Adaptor will be all orange, however. Will ask. The swooshes seem a bit crazy too.

Note is says this right in the presser:
"Also as part of the CDR, the program concluded the core stage of the rocket and Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter will remain orange, ..."



Didn't think the adaptor was foam covered and painted in the first place! I thought it was foam-less! I guess the designs showed it as a structure, not a finished article.

Going to look very orange on the SLS 1B! ;D One massive carrot!
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #21 on: 10/22/2015 05:13 pm »
A few of the official PR renders have been updated with the proper look it seems!

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #22 on: 10/22/2015 05:17 pm »
The swooshes remind me of the Atari logo. Atari Stripes?

Offline Bubbinski

Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #23 on: 10/22/2015 05:19 pm »
Why the swoosh colorations on the SRB's?  Tracking purposes?  I'm not too crazy about how they look, and I would think the paint would add some extra weight.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #24 on: 10/22/2015 05:19 pm »
Something strangely familiar about this but I can't seem to put my finger on it? ;-)

looks beautiful, can't wait to see her fly GO NASA! GO SLS!!

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #25 on: 10/22/2015 05:37 pm »
There's one bit of interest in the announcement other than confirmation of the orange color. Bill Hill is quoted as saying, “We are on the right track for the first flight of SLS and using it to extend permanent human presence into deep space.”

Not a lot of mention of an asteroid in there, but permanent presence in deep space gets top billing!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #26 on: 10/22/2015 05:40 pm »
That's a carrot.


Getting into the halloween spirit, I suppose. I like Nathan's paint job better ;)
« Last Edit: 10/22/2015 05:43 pm by NovaSilisko »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #27 on: 10/22/2015 05:48 pm »
That's a carrot.


Getting into the halloween spirit, I suppose. I like Nathan's paint job better ;)
You have something against carrots? ;)

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #28 on: 10/22/2015 05:50 pm »
Well, as long as the version with a fairing doesn't have the fairing painted orange too  :P

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #29 on: 10/22/2015 05:53 pm »
NASA to Mars: The less stick more carrot approach

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #30 on: 10/22/2015 05:55 pm »


I have to wonder if they had all this sitting around for months just waiting for some inter-agency argument to end?

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #31 on: 10/22/2015 06:07 pm »
Why the swoosh colorations on the SRB's? 

To make the vehicle look pretty; there's no law against that. EM-1 and maybe EM-2 probably have such a positive margin on their mass budget that they can afford to splurge off a few dozen kilos here and there on aesthetics.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #32 on: 10/22/2015 06:11 pm »
Didn't think the adaptor was foam covered and painted in the first place! I thought it was foam-less! I guess the designs showed it as a structure, not a finished article.
I coulda swore I heard that the engine section would get TPS, too, and that's still depicted with an outer layer of white paint.  My WAG would be that there's a little emphasis on the "art" in these artist renderings.
« Last Edit: 10/22/2015 06:11 pm by psloss »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #33 on: 10/22/2015 06:11 pm »
Don't the SRB cases need to be painted anyway for corrosion protection? If so then the cost of the multi-color swoosh paint job is in labor maybe, but not mass....
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #34 on: 10/22/2015 06:11 pm »
How well are they going to be able to match the color on the LV stage adapter to the core?

Didn't the shuttle tanks have a lot of color variation?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #35 on: 10/22/2015 06:16 pm »
So, why orange? Are they using the same insulating foam as on STS for the entire vehicle, or has someone just come to enjoy the color?

The SRB ribbons only need a "Coke" logo. Or should I imagine a delta-shape where an Orbiter would sit astride all that?

Was always orange. It's the color of the insulating foam - just like a Shuttle ET (which is kinda is). Painting it would be like early Shuttle, but that's a lot of weight.

The idea of the white SLS was to look a bit like Saturn V and less like Ares V. A PR exercise, basically. Had that directly from SLS managers.

They've given up on that and now we can Praise the Lords of Kobol for accuracy prevailing. Not entirely sure the Stage Adaptor will be all orange, however. Will ask. The swooshes seem a bit crazy too.
The Swoosh looks like the Ares logo to me! ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #36 on: 10/22/2015 07:54 pm »


I have to wonder if they had all this sitting around for months just waiting for some inter-agency argument to end?

They probably did. I understand the desire to harken back to the Saturn V. It was a very successful rocket as well as being very recognizable. SLS would have looked just as great that way. I am glad though that NASA is finally rendering it the way it will actually look like.

I can't wait to see this baby fly!

Something strangely familiar about this but I can't seem to put my finger on it? ;-)

looks beautiful, can't wait to see her fly GO NASA! GO SLS!!

Indeed.  ;) Maybe when the current President has finished his term NASA might just name it Ares again. I think that would be a good call.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #37 on: 10/22/2015 08:28 pm »
They've really opened up the orange flood gates.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #38 on: 10/22/2015 08:36 pm »

Orange interstages? That's a bit silly.

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #39 on: 10/22/2015 08:40 pm »
Still not a fan of Carrot's bespoke orange interstage, but the swooshes on the SRBs are growing on me.
« Last Edit: 10/22/2015 08:40 pm by NovaSilisko »

Offline rsnellenberger

  • Amateur wood butcher
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Harbor Springs, Michigan
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #40 on: 10/22/2015 08:54 pm »
Still not a fan of Carrot's bespoke orange interstage, but the swooshes on the SRBs are growing on me.
Perhaps they are actually micro-grooved swoosh-fins that help keep the SRB's lower struts in compression by guiding the boundary layer outward...  ::)  :P

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #41 on: 10/22/2015 09:32 pm »
Still not a fan of Carrot's bespoke orange interstage, but the swooshes on the SRBs are growing on me.

Maybe they're taking some inspiration from Drax Industries' Moonraker shuttle?  ;)

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #42 on: 10/22/2015 09:39 pm »
Still not a fan of Carrot's bespoke orange interstage, but the swooshes on the SRBs are growing on me.

Maybe they're taking some inspiration from Drax Industries' Moonraker shuttle?  ;)

And it's ironic Drax Industries is what some folk call the Marshall Space Flight Center! ;D

(Sorry Marshall guys)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11190
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8822
  • Likes Given: 7825
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #43 on: 10/22/2015 10:18 pm »
They've really opened up the orange flood gates.


maybe Orange is the New White !!  ;)
« Last Edit: 10/22/2015 10:18 pm by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #44 on: 10/22/2015 11:14 pm »
I like the orange, and I really like the swooshes!  The shuttle should have had them.  It might have worked better.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline WulfTheSaxon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 184
    • #geekpolitics on DALnet
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 1034
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #45 on: 10/22/2015 11:29 pm »
The idea of giving SRBs a fancy paintjob reminds me of the concept art for the Liberty LV.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #46 on: 10/22/2015 11:31 pm »
There was never anything wrong with Liberty's paint job.  It was the rest of it that came up short.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #47 on: 10/22/2015 11:53 pm »
Urghhh,  Real boosters are white or silver.  :)

Offline Bubbinski

Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #48 on: 10/23/2015 12:32 am »
Despite my misgivings about the swooshes, the rest of SLS looks great. But more important than looks, congratulations to SLS for making it through CDR!  As for the permanent habitation of deep space mentioned, I suspect that SLS's true legacy and contribution will be launching and maintaining the cislunar hab, that hab in my mind is really even more important to the future of space exploration than the roadmap to a Mars mission.  It may not be getting too much press right now but it is exciting to me and I'm eager to see more details on it.  (Is the cislunar hab one of the payloads approaching design review?).
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline MarcAlain

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #49 on: 10/23/2015 01:39 am »
The idea of giving SRBs a fancy paintjob reminds me of the concept art for the Liberty LV.

In case there are people here who have never seen the Liberty concept, I've posted a graphic from ATK and a photo I took at the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

« Last Edit: 10/23/2015 01:48 am by MarcAlain »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #50 on: 10/23/2015 03:25 am »
In regards to all the recent orange comments and SLS carrot jokes, just think...when it launches it will be dubbed "the flaming carrot."
;)

I think it looks alright. If they want to pretty it up, either on flight one they give it a white coating or else they work with an orange color scheme.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline ISP

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #51 on: 10/23/2015 05:42 am »
At least you can't call SLS a 'white elephant' anymore.  :P

 Now it's just the Space Carrot System.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #52 on: 10/23/2015 06:35 am »
Here's a frame from the video showing what presumably are the housings for the umbilicals to the base of the vehicle.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21709
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 8562
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #53 on: 10/23/2015 10:08 am »
http://www.orbitalatk.com/News-Room/release.asp?prid=91

NASA’s Space Launch System is a ‘GO’ 

NASA Prime Contractor Industry Team Reaches Significant Exploration Mission-1 Milestone with Critical Design Review Completion

Washington, D.C., Oct. 22, 2015 – NASA’s Space Launch System program has completed its Critical Design Review, and major subsystems such as Orion’s launch abort system and the SLS RS-25 engines have recently completed successful testing. These accomplishments bring America one step closer to deep space – preserving the nation’s leadership in human space exploration.

“The successes and milestones we are seeing are incredibly important steps in the development of NASA’s heavy-lift, deep space exploration vehicle,” said Charlie Precourt, vice president and general manager for Orbital ATK’s Propulsion Systems Division, and four-time space shuttle astronaut. “This rocket is the foundation of a very promising future for human spaceflight, and will take humans farther than we’ve ever gone before.”

This is the first time since the 1970s that NASA has completed CDR on a major new launch vehicle. Experts from NASA and industry validated that the SLS, as designed, meets all system requirements and is within cost and schedule constraints. It’s a ‘go’ for production, assembly, integration and testing of the vehicle as a whole.

Four major industry players are building the SLS and Orion spacecraft for NASA’s crewed exploration missions that will travel beyond the moon and into deep space. Boeing (NYSE: BA) is designing, developing, producing and testing the rocket’s core and upper stage, as well as the avionics. Orbital ATK (NYSE:OA) provides the solid rocket boosters that supply more than 75% of the required thrust during the first two minutes of flight, and Aerojet Rocketdyne (NYSE:AJRD) provides the reliable, flight-proven RS-25 and RL-10 engines for the core and upper stage that carry SLS and Orion into orbit and on to deep space on the first flight of SLS. Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is designing and building the Orion spacecraft, which will fly on top of SLS and into deep space.

Recent SLS milestones include the successful qualification ground test of the SLS booster, completion of the first RS-25 engine test-firing series, and flight hardware production of the major elements that make up the rocket’s core stage. Boeing is producing core stage flight hardware at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility and building out additional test and integration facilities. Additionally, Boeing and NASA are completing avionics systems at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center that will control launch and guidance systems for the rocket.

Aerojet Rocketdyne began a series of RS-25 hot-fire tests earlier this year at NASA’s Stennis Space Center to ensure the re-purposed Space Shuttle Main Engines are compatible with the full range of conditions expected on SLS.

“We are increasing the cadence of the RS-25 tests to verify each engine’s performance prior to their first flight in 2018,” said Julie Van Kleeck, Aerojet Rocketdyne, vice president, Advanced Space & Launch. “The milestone progress we are making today is setting the stage for many unforeseen discoveries in the future.”

Lockheed Martin engineers have begun welding the Orion Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) spacecraft at Michoud Assembly Facility. Based on lessons learned from the spacecraft’s test flight last December, engineers are reducing the weight of the vehicle and making manufacturing design improvements.

The completion of these milestones is incredibly important to EM-1 launch readiness in 2018.

EM-1 will be the first time the SLS is integrated with the Orion spacecraft and flies into space. The mission will send Orion into lunar distant retrograde orbit—a wide orbit around the moon that is farther from Earth than any human-rated spacecraft has ever traveled. The uncrewed mission will last more than 20 days and will prove the design and safety of Orion and SLS for human exploration missions to follow. To learn more about EM-1, visit www.exploredeepspace.com.

Aerojet Rocketdyne: http://www.rocket.com/rs-25-engine
Boeing: http://www.boeing.com/space/space-launch-system/
Lockheed Martin: www.lockheedmartin.com/orion
Orbital ATK: http://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/propulsion-systems/

To explore the network of companies in 49 states supporting deep space missions, visit the SLS and Orion supplier map at:  http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ESDSuppliersMap/
« Last Edit: 10/23/2015 10:10 am by jacqmans »
Jacques :-)

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #54 on: 10/23/2015 07:17 pm »
Too bad there is no and probably never will be a payload that needs anyone of the 3 SLS variants :-(
Danny Deger

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #55 on: 10/23/2015 11:16 pm »
Too bad there is no and probably never will be a payload that needs anyone of the 3 SLS variants :-(

Really? There are a ton of potential payloads that require something with SLS's lift capacity. Orion, habitation modules, lunar landers, Mars hardware, ect. Even SpaceX believes that a SHLV is needed. I see no reason to doubt both NASA's and SpaceX's appraisal of the situation.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #56 on: 10/24/2015 02:45 am »


I have to wonder if they had all this sitting around for months just waiting for some inter-agency argument to end?

Two questions re. accuracy in the animation:
1. Do the solids' and the RS-25s' exhaust both go out the same flame trench now?
2. Does this LV need to do the roll that shuttle did shortly after clearing the tower?

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #57 on: 10/24/2015 02:57 am »


I have to wonder if they had all this sitting around for months just waiting for some inter-agency argument to end?

Two questions re. accuracy in the animation:
1. Do the solids' and the RS-25s' exhaust both go out the same flame trench now?
2. Does this LV need to do the roll that shuttle did shortly after clearing the tower?

Actually I think the exhaust is changed from the earlier animation which showed it split.  Latest NSF material we've seen is that it'll be only one flame trench, so they must've let Media Fusion Inc know that so it could be updated.

Don't know about #2!

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #58 on: 10/24/2015 03:16 am »
My take on the orange stage adaptor: they're trying to make the Block 1 look as similar to the Block 1B as possible, while highlighting which parts of the stack are SLS and which are payload.

Offline JohnF

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #59 on: 10/24/2015 04:59 am »
Looks like a frickin carrot, it looked great with the Saturn V paint job, like a seriously powerful rocket, now they go with the carrot look, Bugs Bunny will like it, ugh.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #60 on: 10/24/2015 12:31 pm »
My take on the orange stage adaptor: they're trying to make the Block 1 look as similar to the Block 1B as possible, while highlighting which parts of the stack are SLS and which are payload.
I think it may also be more pragmatic. A foam covered adapter still helps insulate the core.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #61 on: 10/24/2015 03:21 pm »
The color of the rocket does not matter*.

 - Ed Kyle

* Except for the white insulation coating on the upper stage, which is designed to minimize propellant boil off in orbit.

Offline SLC17A5

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • United States
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #62 on: 10/24/2015 04:42 pm »
My favorite rocket colors are all in the S band.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #63 on: 10/24/2015 08:34 pm »
My take on the orange stage adaptor: they're trying to make the Block 1 look as similar to the Block 1B as possible, while highlighting which parts of the stack are SLS and which are payload.
I think it may also be more pragmatic. A foam covered adapter still helps insulate the core.
Keep in mind that the upper stage LOX tank hangs under the L2 tank, inside the interstate. (Both for the interim and exploration upper stages) So insulating the interstate would help with the LOX cooling.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2015 08:35 pm by Lars-J »

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #64 on: 10/24/2015 08:38 pm »
My favorite rocket colors are all in the S band.

Come on, we ALL can agree that rockets painted in colors that at least emit ionizing radiation!

Offline Starlab90

  • NASA Retired
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 786
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #65 on: 10/24/2015 11:52 pm »


I have to wonder if they had all this sitting around for months just waiting for some inter-agency argument to end?

Two questions re. accuracy in the animation:
1. Do the solids' and the RS-25s' exhaust both go out the same flame trench now?
2. Does this LV need to do the roll that shuttle did shortly after clearing the tower?

Somebody from KSC will need to answer Question 1. It's purely a function of how they build the flame deflectors.

As for Question 2, SLS doesn't need to do the roll, but Orion has requested it. The astronauts want to be in a "heads-down" attitude when the LAS comes off.

Offline Starlab90

  • NASA Retired
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 786
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #66 on: 10/25/2015 12:04 am »
My take on the orange stage adaptor: they're trying to make the Block 1 look as similar to the Block 1B as possible, while highlighting which parts of the stack are SLS and which are payload.

No, of course not. It's purely based on thermal analysis. If we could get away with it, we would just paint it white, because it's easier and cheaper, but it would form too much ice on it if we did that.

Also, since the EUS and its interstage have not even passed PDR yet, we don't really know for sure what the outside will look like, though we generally assume the EUS, at least, will have foam. What's the point in wanting Block 1 to look like Block 1B? You can make an argument that it will be better if they look different in order to be able to identify in pictures which block is in the picture. It's not really an important consideration either way.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #67 on: 10/25/2015 01:50 am »
What's the issue with ice?  It not like the Saturn I, IB, or V ever had a problem with ice.  I thought the ice was a problem for the shuttle and would not be for SLS?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #68 on: 10/25/2015 01:59 am »

Really? There are a ton of potential payloads that require something with SLS's lift capacity. Orion, habitation modules, lunar landers, Mars hardware, ect.

Yes, really.  "Potential" does not mean they will exist.  There is no commitment by the US govt to fund such payloads and likely will never be.  The last 25 years is proof.  NCOS , SEI, VSE, etc all puttered out from lack of support.  Why should the future be any different?  There is no driving need for a gov't space program that needs such payloads.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #69 on: 10/25/2015 01:59 am »
It's purely based on thermal analysis. If we could get away with it, we would just paint it white, because it's easier and cheaper, but it would form too much ice on it if we did that.

Thanks this is a great answer. To follow up though: the downside of foam is that conceivably ice could form underneath, and then large chunks of foam would come off at inopportune times during ascent, possibly putting downstream parts of the vehicle at risk. Wasn't there at least one ET foam strike on the aft segment of an SRB, for example?

Does the thermal analysis really show the ice risk is meaningful enough to add these other kinds of risks associated with foam?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #70 on: 10/25/2015 04:41 am »

Really? There are a ton of potential payloads that require something with SLS's lift capacity. Orion, habitation modules, lunar landers, Mars hardware, ect.

Yes, really.  "Potential" does not mean they will exist.  There is no commitment by the US govt to fund such payloads and likely will never be.  The last 25 years is proof.  NCOS , SEI, VSE, etc all puttered out from lack of support.  Why should the future be any different?  There is no driving need for a gov't space program that needs such payloads.

Jim in 1992: "There is no commitment by the US govt. to fully fund a space station and there likely never will be. The last 17 years is proof. SEI has puttered out and Space Station Freedom is dying from lack of support. There is no driving need for a government space station. Why should the future be any different?"

Just because previous efforts failed doesn't necessarily mean this one will. The current effort is far different from SEI, which was a smorgasbord of insanely expensive projects.

The VSE hasn't failed yet per se. What happened after 2010 was essentially a retooling of CxP (except without the full support of POTUS). Commercial was given LEO responsibilities with both cargo and crew while NASA focuses on BEO (which I think was correct), which lowered costs while retaining political support. Something similar happened in 1993 when Freedom morphed into ISS.

Also lets not forget that the last 25 years we have had an established shuttle program that was not tooled for BEO. Now that the shuttle is gone NASA is building a BEO focused program. Just like LEO payloads came for the shuttle BEO payloads will come for SLS.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2015 04:42 am by Endeavour_01 »
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #71 on: 10/25/2015 05:16 am »
Funding payloads for SLS will be challenging. It's almost a Catch-22, because the interesting missions will require the EUS which is itself going to be difficult to fund.

I believe the most likely short term solution will be to launch two Orions for each crewed mission, and I think this can be done at least twice. For the first such mission, one Orion gets launched without a crew and loiters for 6 months or so in a lunar DRO. The purpose of this is two-fold. First, it tests the capability of the spacecraft to loiter like this, which is going to be an essential capability for efficient mission architectures in the future. Second, it provides a rendezvous target for an Orion launching later, with a crew. The crew returns a week or so after their launch. The long duration test Orion returns whenever it has loitered long enough to demonstrate its rated capabilities.

The second such mission would be nearly the same, except the crew would transfer to and return in the Orion which had been loitering for months. Just to demonstrate, you know, confidence that it really is safe.

Purchasing the additional Orions for these missions will be relatively cheap, and these missions can proceed during the interval when the EUS is under development.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #72 on: 10/25/2015 10:37 am »

Just because previous efforts failed doesn't necessarily mean this one will. The current effort is far different from SEI, which was a smorgasbord of insanely expensive projects.


Yes, it does.  There is even less support in the gov't now than in the past for such programs.  The "retooled" CxP has less support than ISS.  And this is a fact, it only exists because it is a jobs programs.  It had little to no support outside of the affected districts.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #73 on: 10/25/2015 10:42 am »

Jim in 1992: "There is no commitment by the US govt. to fully fund a space station and there likely never will be. The last 17 years is proof. SEI has puttered out and Space Station Freedom is dying from lack of support. There is no driving need for a government space station. Why should the future be any different?"


ISS was something for the shuttle to do.
Also, there IS no need for a gov't space station, that is why there will be no ISS-2.
Manifest destiny is no longer a valid reason for gov't managed space programs.  Once that is realized, the rest makes sense.  There isn't enough return for the tax payers for such programs, except those in specific districts

And  in 1992, I was pro big gov't space.  I was fully for ISS.  I worked Shuttle Mir missions and early ISS logistics missions.  The issue is that there is no break through science. The same experiments are still flying. 
Also, I see the waste in big govt managed programs.    I worked New Space in the 90's before it was New Space.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2015 10:52 am by Jim »

Offline JohnF

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #74 on: 10/25/2015 12:35 pm »
What's the issue with ice?  It not like the Saturn I, IB, or V ever had a problem with ice.  I thought the ice was a problem for the shuttle and would not be for SLS?

Exactly Mike, wasn't that the idea of having an inline rocket ?, the Saturns flew with ice falling off no problem, why can't SLS ?
« Last Edit: 10/25/2015 12:36 pm by JohnF »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #75 on: 10/25/2015 02:03 pm »

Jim in 1992: "There is no commitment by the US govt. to fully fund a space station and there likely never will be. The last 17 years is proof. SEI has puttered out and Space Station Freedom is dying from lack of support. There is no driving need for a government space station. Why should the future be any different?"


ISS was something for the shuttle to do.
Also, there IS no need for a gov't space station, that is why there will be no ISS-2.
Manifest destiny is no longer a valid reason for gov't managed space programs.  Once that is realized, the rest makes sense.  There isn't enough return for the tax payers for such programs, except those in specific districts

The US will always have a HSF program. If the market cannot take over (which I think it cannot in 2024), the government will do it. LEO, BEO, whatever. The "negative return" of not doing it is too big. In my opinion.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #76 on: 10/25/2015 02:18 pm »

Jim in 1992: "There is no commitment by the US govt. to fully fund a space station and there likely never will be. The last 17 years is proof. SEI has puttered out and Space Station Freedom is dying from lack of support. There is no driving need for a government space station. Why should the future be any different?"


ISS was something for the shuttle to do.
Also, there IS no need for a gov't space station, that is why there will be no ISS-2.
Manifest destiny is no longer a valid reason for gov't managed space programs.  Once that is realized, the rest makes sense.  There isn't enough return for the tax payers for such programs, except those in specific districts

And  in 1992, I was pro big gov't space.  I was fully for ISS.  I worked Shuttle Mir missions and early ISS logistics missions.  The issue is that there is no break through science. The same experiments are still flying. 
Also, I see the waste in big govt managed programs.    I worked New Space in the 90's before it was New Space.


The reason the Shuttle was designed and built in the first place is because it was expected that a space station would follow Apollo.  The ISS was not to give the Shuttle something to do, the Shuttle was to build and maintain a space station from the very beginning.  This evaporated because of the drop in funding for NASA after Apollo, and more so after the Shuttle proved disappointingly expensive to operate and dangerous after Challenger.  Had the Shuttle been all it was promised to be, a space station would have been built sooner, not later.


If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #77 on: 10/25/2015 02:55 pm »
What's the issue with ice?  It not like the Saturn I, IB, or V ever had a problem with ice.  I thought the ice was a problem for the shuttle and would not be for SLS?

Exactly Mike, wasn't that the idea of having an inline rocket ?, the Saturns flew with ice falling off no problem, why can't SLS ?
The S-1, S-1B, and S-1C first stages were LOX/RP and were un-insulated like other LOX/RP stages (e.g. Atlas, Jupiter, Thor, Titan 1), but the Saturn LOX/LH2 upper stages all had insulation (exterior insulation on S-II, interior insulation on S-IV and S-IVB).  The insulation was there on primarily to reduce LH2 boiloff.  That is why the STS ET had insulation too, although ice was also a factor there.  That is why Delta 4's CBC and upper stages and the Centaur stage on Atlas 5 all have insulation. 

More than half a tonne of ice shook off of Saturn 5 when those F-1 engines started.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/25/2015 02:56 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #78 on: 10/25/2015 03:31 pm »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Offline MarcAlain

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #79 on: 10/25/2015 03:53 pm »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Europe Clipper has been given funding despite NASA not requesting it yet though, at least I remember reading that somewhere.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #80 on: 10/25/2015 03:55 pm »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.
...on SLS.

It's a HSF too expensive for unmanned payloads alone that might be flown on other LV IF funded ...

I too wonder about "soft power" projection with HSF - how far will it go? The economics aren't encouraging beyond the overly, almost overtly exorbitant SLS funds to get a starvation level HSF program, with no leverage by other launch systems and habs/mission modules/landers/etc. ARM is at once both over and under so to speak.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #81 on: 10/25/2015 04:01 pm »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #82 on: 10/25/2015 04:07 pm »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).

On science missions, you hold your breath until the LV is "bought". Remember waiting this out with New Horizons, and some of the unfortunate comments of the time against it flying...

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #83 on: 10/25/2015 05:47 pm »

Just because previous efforts failed doesn't necessarily mean this one will. The current effort is far different from SEI, which was a smorgasbord of insanely expensive projects.


Yes, it does.  There is even less support in the gov't now than in the past for such programs.  The "retooled" CxP has less support than ISS.  And this is a fact, it only exists because it is a jobs programs.  It had little to no support outside of the affected districts.

Really? SEI never even got off the ground while the current PoR is funded at $3 Billion a year.

Congresspeople see pretty much everything as a jobs program. The Rep. from Hawthorne isn't more pure than the Rep. from Huntsville. Both of them want jobs in their districts. If there were no jobs for any district for SLS/Orion or CC then they both would have been canceled long ago.

ISS was something for the shuttle to do.

Which is just proving my point. Massive payloads that required the unique capabilities of the shuttle were funded and completed. The same can happen for SLS.

Quote
Also, there IS no need for a gov't space station, that is why there will be no ISS-2.

There is no need for another government LEO space station. Commercial has shown that it is (or soon will be) mature enough to handle LEO duties. LEO commercial crew and cargo as well as a commercial LEO hab should all be established by the time ISS is de-orbited.

BEO is a different story. The capabilities and usage of a BEO space station will be different than a LEO station. Instead of focusing on microgravity science a BEO station can focus on being an exploration gateway to the moon and beyond.

Also a government BEO station will serve as an anchor for commercial usage of cis-lunar space. If ISS wasn't up there we wouldn't have commercial cargo, commercial crew, or commercial habs. Because of ISS we will soon have them all. We can follow the same successful pattern with a BEO station:

1. NASA launches station with SLS

2. NASA crews and supplies station initially with SLS/Orion

3. NASA contracts out cargo to the commercial side (Falcon Heavy and Dragon for example)

4. Finally, NASA contracts out crew to commercial side (upgraded Dragon with cislunar SM for example)

This pattern has already worked with ISS. Why can't it work for a BEO station?

Quote
Manifest destiny is no longer a valid reason for gov't managed space programs.  Once that is realized, the rest makes sense.  There isn't enough return for the tax payers for such programs, except those in specific districts

Really? There are many reasons for space exploration, not just "manifest destiny." National security, spinoff tech, inspiration, scientific understanding, eventual resource extraction ect. 

There wasn't a lot of "return" on the initial expeditions to the Americas either. I guess they should have all just gone home and never explored again.

Quote
And  in 1992, I was pro big gov't space.  I was fully for ISS.  I worked Shuttle Mir missions and early ISS logistics missions.  The issue is that there is no break through science. The same experiments are still flying.


Who says the BEO station has to have the same mission as ISS? A BEO station can explore different scientific questions as well as being an exploration gateway (i.e. a docking base for a reusable lunar lander).
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #84 on: 10/25/2015 06:00 pm »
Congresspeople see pretty much everything as a jobs program. The Rep. from Hawthorne isn't more pure than the Rep. from Huntsville. Both of them want jobs in their districts. If there were no jobs for any district for SLS/Orion or CC then they both would have been canceled long ago.
Not so much that these are "jobs programs" as much as what they return for the budget. A big rocket every few years verses a few hundred that actually increases GDP is quite a difference.

Offline Steam Chaser

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #85 on: 10/25/2015 06:48 pm »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Not only that, but none of these require(d) SLS anyway.

However, within this list is a glimmer of hope for SLS backers in Congress/NASA/industry if they play their cards correctly (which I don't think they are, for the long term).  Most of these missions are (very very roughly) in the $2B or so range (at least we hope they won't cost more, for the future ones).  However, JWST turned out to be more in the $8-9B range.

If the SLS backers could make some deals to get the JWST budget wedge directed (once JWST funding starts winding down) towards multiple (let's say 3-4 per decade) science missions that still large, but closer to the $2B or so range, and managed so the missions actually get close to their budget targets, and they come up with reasons to justify flying these missions on SLS, then SLS could be in business with a decent number of non-Orion payloads.  However, I don't really expect any of that to happen.

There are also other ways involving these sorts of science/technology missions out of the payload bind that SLS finds itself in.  For example, the SLS backers could make a deal with Mikulski to have a space telescope built at GSFC that would be periodically serviced in cislunar space by astronauts delivered by SLS/Orion using tools developed by the GSFC satellite servicing group.  However, I don't see any indications anything like that is going to happen.

The ARM boulder could be used to justify multiple SLS/Orion missions ... or multiple ARM missions could deliver multiple boulders from different kinds of asteroids (and Mars moons) so multiple SLS/Orion missions to visit them could be justified.  This would work even better if the ARM hardware could be made reusable.  However, I don't see any indications anything like that is going to happen (even 1 ARM mission is in doubt).

There also doesn't seem to be any serious backing for other activities that could justify multiple SLS/Orion flights, such as a cislunar habitat or a lunar lander.

It's almost as if the SLS/Orion backers (by which I mean the ones actually driving SLS/Orion, not fans of SLS/Orion) are so confident in their political strength that they don't really want to have actual missions.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #86 on: 10/25/2015 06:53 pm »


1. Exploration doesn't need a gateway and a BEO station isn't the present objective.  You're talking about a non-existant fantasy program.

2. "If ISS wasn't up there we wouldn't have commercial cargo, commercial crew, or commercial habs. Because of ISS we will soon have them all. We can follow the same successful pattern with a BEO station:"

Those things only occurred because there was a catastrophe with the government launch program that had every intention of continuing till the 2020s servicing the station, a catastrophe that led to its cancellation and a gap between government systems during which station still had to be supplied and for which the commercial plan had positive qualities of its own in being able to be afforded with a tiny creation outlay.  It also happened because people pushed for a commercial supply means rather than a government one, while you are pushing for the mandate of creating and rationalizing a new government system, one that will introduce bad motivators to serve itself first and foremost.  The people in the future may act the very same way you are acting now: to favour the government system during a decision period.  This new system is so expensive it pushes out and minimizes the commercial activity that would occur.  Your commercial resupply of a BEO station would only occur a significant amount of time from now, and would be work in scope less than what occurs at the present LEO station as a comparative example.  There is also no guarantee that this station program lasts during the period in which you would have your commercial involvement and that NASA doesn't just move on to its next exciting thing.

There is also another way to create objectives: Bake in commercial involvement from the start in creating the objective and being involved with it.  There is ample modern commercial launch capability and ample evidence that this path can lead to earlier and expansive significant outcomes.

3.  The Shuttle was bad.  It was a bad means to achieve those ends.

Imagine telling someone in the early 1970s who wants the future space station to occur in the near term and who wants it to be a significant commercial involvement platform that hey, instead of doing that, instead of starting the objective now with commercial involvement, we will build a space shuttle, it will gobble up decades of funding doing makework activities before any significant objective activity occurs and we will push the creation of the station objective to the the decade of the year 2000, and we will push commercial involvement to the very end of the station program 40-45 years from now and when it's almost over and with only a tiny slice of program spending compared for it compared to the frontload on the government system and only if something really bad happens to the shuttle which we have every intention of being the basis for the space program and which will generate bad motivators to force that to continue to occur.  What you want is terrible and completely lopsided compared to what that person wants.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #87 on: 10/25/2015 07:13 pm »
While we're on this kick, Apollo Saturn cost about as much as the national interstate highway system.

Both still accrue credit (in different ways) to America. Likewise Shuttle and doubtless SLS to differing degrees.

But the GDP increase of the interstate highway system did considerable to the economic power of America.

Which is why China has been assiduous in also building transportation infrastructure.

Back to SLS and its design review (thread) - if the "potential" for the SLS as at CDR is to deliver as above, too much is left out at this stage for it to similarly return credit of sorts.

We are reaching a pivot point with CDR where there needs to be a definite change. Not seeing it.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #88 on: 10/25/2015 07:25 pm »
Once you have SLS, it's going to cost a lot to maintain the capability, whether you launch zero, one or two times per year. The variable cost per launch will be comparatively tiny.

So with a "cost to payload" model that reflects that reality, it should be possible to use the non-HSF excess capacity.

I like the idea of "interplanetary bus" missions: one SLS is used to send a collection of missions to a common destination, or at least trajectory. A central, robust, core handles; Nav, Comms relay, Propulsion, etc., and dispenses sub-payloads as required. E.g. Orbiters, landers, deeper space probes that need a lift and slingshot. International partners, cubes-sats, etc.

Or just  big cheap payloads like tanks of hypregolics or water at L1/L2.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #89 on: 10/25/2015 07:41 pm »
I like the idea of "interplanetary bus" missions: one SLS is used to send a collection of missions to a common destination, or at least trajectory. A central, robust, core handles; Nav, Comms relay, Propulsion, etc., and dispenses sub-payloads as required.

In practice these never happen, because bringing together all of them presents unacceptable schedule risk. So they are always cut.

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #90 on: 10/25/2015 08:08 pm »

1. Exploration doesn't need a gateway and a BEO station isn't the present objective.  You're talking about a non-existant fantasy program.

Really? I guess Lewis and Clark should have just started their expedition from Washington D.C. since "exploration doesn't need a gateway."

NASA's current plans involve spending a great deal of time in cis-lunar space with at least an EAM accompanying Orion. Given other space program's interests in exploring the lunar surface it is not hard to imagine a BEO station smaller than ISS being the next step.

Quote
Those things only occurred because there was a catastrophe with the government launch program that had every intention of continuing till the 2020s servicing the station,

That doesn't invalidate my point. Without ISS there would be no need for commercial cargo or crew.

Quote
The people in the future may act the very same way you are acting now: to favour the government system during a decision period.  This new system is so expensive it pushes out and minimizes the commercial activity that would occur.  Your commercial resupply of a BEO station would only occur a significant amount of time from now

The problem with your argument is that said commercial resupply would already exist at the time a BEO station comes online. Falcon Heavy would be available (along with Vulcan) and the existing commercial cargo crafts could be upgraded to serve BEO (a much easier task given they don't carry crew).

SLS's launch rate is insufficient to allow it to do all the tasks needed to keep a BEO station running plus whatever else it is required for. In essence because of the success of commercial cargo plus the launch rate of SLS commercial involvement would already be "baked in."

Quote
Imagine telling someone in the early 1970s who wants the future space station to occur in the near term and who wants it to be a significant commercial involvement platform that hey, instead of doing that, instead of starting the objective now with commercial involvement, we will build a space shuttle

You do realize that the shuttle was originally intended to be commercially operated? That didn't work out. The commercial sector that existed then was non-existent compared to what is going on today.

SLS is designed for a specific purpose (BEO hauling) and can be complemented by commercial entities.

This insistence that everything must be commercial immediately is putting the cart before the horse and risks dooming any chance of getting out of LEO anytime soon. I would like to avoid that.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #91 on: 10/25/2015 08:38 pm »

Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).

EFT-1, PNH, and Juno do not count they are not flagship missions and did not cost like the others

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #92 on: 10/25/2015 08:48 pm »

Really? There are many reasons for space exploration, not just "manifest destiny." National security, spinoff tech, inspiration, scientific understanding, eventual resource extraction ect. 

There wasn't a lot of "return" on the initial expeditions to the Americas either. I guess they should have all just gone home and never explored again.


More nonsense.
National security does not need space exploration and existing launch vehicles are sufficient.
spinoff tech is a poor excuse and doesn't work that way anymore.  Other sectors produce more spinoff.  Space exploration is looking to those for tech vs the other way around.
Spending billions for "inspiration" is a poor use of money
scientific understanding can be done without SLS size vehicles
The US gov't does not need to be involved with resource extraction, that is for the industry and the market place to do.  And anyways, there is little out there that would be useful on earth.

wrong analogy.  There were readily available resources in Americas.  But to use the analogy, the gov'ts didn't built and sail the ships.  The gov't paid others to do it.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2015 08:51 pm by Jim »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #93 on: 10/25/2015 09:19 pm »

Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).

EFT-1, PNH, and Juno do not count they are not flagship missions and did not cost like the others

This is what I was referring to...bolding is mine.


If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Size cannot be conflated with cost. It would be interesting to graph cost of a mission vs the GTO capability of the rocket used to launch the mission. There is this thinking that as mass and delta v increase, the mission cost goes up as well predictably. So, a mission needing a Atlas 551 would always cost more than a mission using an Atlas 401 or something using an SLS will always cost more than something using a Delta Heavy. Just using some anecdotes, there doesn't seem to be a good predictive fit for the data that would cause SLS missions to necessarily cost exorbitantly more if using the incremental SLS cost. Take a 1.5 billion dollar mission like SPP using a Delta IV Heavy vs a 2.5 billion dollar mission like MSL using a Atlas 541.

MSL
mission cost: 2.5 billion
LV GTO payload: 8290 KG

SPP
mission cost: 1.5 billion
LV GTO payload: 14,220 KG

New Horizons
mission cost: .9 billion
LV GTO payload: 8900 KG

JWST:
mission cost: 8.7 billion
LV GTO payload: 10,500 KG

DAWN:.5 billion
LV GTO payload: 2000 KG

I put these values into google spreedsheets and can't see how you can fit a line to extrapolate a cost for a mission with the payload capability of SLS.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jkUnPH3e2nN40izEDB0UD50zeeGlZlMJGwhSdDELLYw/pubhtml
« Last Edit: 10/25/2015 09:20 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #94 on: 10/25/2015 09:23 pm »
If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

I may think the SLS is a waste of money, but I have not doubt that the SLS, given enough time and money, can work as planned.  And if the metric for success is that it doesn't blow up on launch, then that's the wrong metric anyways.

So what are the metrics for success for the SLS?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #95 on: 10/25/2015 09:36 pm »
Now that the SLS has passed CDR, NOW can NASA release the cost estimates for building and flying the SLS?  They were supposed to be released after the KDP-C (Key Decision Point -C) milestone, but were not.

Not releasing cost information is usually because the information is thought to be outside the acceptable range of expectations - not that there are any cost expectations for the SLS, since it wasn't built to satisfy a known requirement, and the design was not selected based on alternatives that did have cost ranges estimated.

But NASA knows that once you announce a number then you get compared and measured on it.  Since there are no funded programs for the SLS to support yet, that means Congress and everyone would be able to use official cost information to do their own comparisons between the SLS and other existing and potential alternatives.  Which is good if that means NASA is encouraged to use the most cost effective architectures for future exploration, but that means the SLS may not end up being one of those.

So sure, there are political reasons for not releasing the cost information.  But hiding information is not a valid reason for not releasing the cost information.  Let's hope they release it sooner rather than later...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #96 on: 10/25/2015 09:58 pm »
What's the issue with ice?  It not like the Saturn I, IB, or V ever had a problem with ice.  I thought the ice was a problem for the shuttle and would not be for SLS?

Exactly Mike, wasn't that the idea of having an inline rocket ?, the Saturns flew with ice falling off no problem, why can't SLS ?
The S-1, S-1B, and S-1C first stages were LOX/RP and were un-insulated like other LOX/RP stages (e.g. Atlas, Jupiter, Thor, Titan 1), but the Saturn LOX/LH2 upper stages all had insulation (exterior insulation on S-II, interior insulation on S-IV and S-IVB).  The insulation was there on primarily to reduce LH2 boiloff.  That is why the STS ET had insulation too, although ice was also a factor there.  That is why Delta 4's CBC and upper stages and the Centaur stage on Atlas 5 all have insulation. 

More than half a tonne of ice shook off of Saturn 5 when those F-1 engines started.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed,

I get the boil-off issie.  That's not my question.  The OP said "No, of course not. It's purely based on thermal analysis. If we could get away with it, we would just paint it white, because it's easier and cheaper, but it would form too much ice on it if we did that."

Why is too much ice an issue?  Ice was an issue with Shuttle because pieces flew off and could damage it.  This of course makes me ask why was the shuttle insulation not inside the outer skin of the vehicle?  But that's a different issue.

Why is "too much ice" an issue?

1,  Is it a performance hit because some or all does not fall off?
2.  Did not the LOX cause ice to form on Redstone, Atlas, Saturn S-1, S-1B, and S-1C stages, among others?  Why was this ice not "too much"?  (I know ice formed, hence my original question.)
3.  Do they believe there is a possibility of falling ice damaging SRBs or other systems?
4.  Something else I don't know.  (Not being a rocket scientist, but only a booster fan boy, I am sure the knowledge gaps are great.)

and, can someone tell me why the insulating foam for the ET was not inside, anyway.  I've always wondered,

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #97 on: 10/25/2015 10:15 pm »

and, can someone tell me why the insulating foam for the ET was not inside, anyway.  I've always wondered,

Cost and less risk of ingesting.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #98 on: 10/25/2015 10:53 pm »
This has swayed. No trim, but locking it as we're all over the place and into political stuff.

Chris G has a CDR event article in work, but because we've covered SLS so much rehashing the Presser from Friday would have added very little. So we'll have a look forward style article.

We can work with the existing SLS threads.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1