Working the paper trail – SLS team processing thousands of CDR documentshttp://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/sls-team-working-thousands-pages-cdr-documentation/
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?
Quote from: vulture4 on 05/16/2015 06:13 pmThe 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?
Quote from: vulture4 on 05/29/2015 02:53 amQuote from: vulture4 on 05/16/2015 06:13 pmThe 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.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 10/22/2015 03:42 pmWas 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, ..."
That's a carrot.Getting into the halloween spirit, I suppose. I like Nathan's paint job better
Why the swoosh colorations on the SRB's?
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.
Quote from: MattMason on 10/22/2015 03:33 pmSo, 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.
I have to wonder if they had all this sitting around for months just waiting for some inter-agency argument to end?
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!!
Still not a fan of Carrot's bespoke orange interstage, but the swooshes on the SRBs are growing on me.
Quote from: NovaSilisko on 10/22/2015 08:40 pmStill 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?
They've really opened up the orange flood gates.
The idea of giving SRBs a fancy paintjob reminds me of the concept art for the Liberty LV.
Too bad there is no and probably never will be a payload that needs anyone of the 3 SLS variants :-(
Quote from: okan170 on 10/22/2015 05:55 pmI 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?
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.
Quote from: kkattula on 10/24/2015 03:16 amMy 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.
My favorite rocket colors are all in the S band.
Really? There are a ton of potential payloads that require something with SLS's lift capacity. Orion, habitation modules, lunar landers, Mars hardware, ect.
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.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 10/23/2015 11:16 pmReally? 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.
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.
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?"
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?
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 10/25/2015 04:41 amJim 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
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 10/25/2015 04:41 amJim 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 districtsAnd 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.
Quote from: mike robel on 10/25/2015 01:50 amWhat'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 ?
If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.
Quote from: llanitedave on 10/25/2015 02:18 pmIf 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.
Quote from: Jim on 10/25/2015 03:31 pmQuote from: llanitedave on 10/25/2015 02:18 pmIf 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).
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 10/25/2015 04:41 amJust 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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
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
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).
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 from: ncb1397 on 10/25/2015 04:01 pmThink 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
Quote from: JohnF on 10/25/2015 12:35 pmQuote from: mike robel on 10/25/2015 01:50 amWhat'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
and, can someone tell me why the insulating foam for the ET was not inside, anyway. I've always wondered,