Quote from: jtrame on 06/22/2017 11:35 amSince we can't go back and unspend money already spent then the cost of NASA going forward is where we should make the changes. It only matters going forward. If no changes are made, then more of the same. Congress should separate out the funds going to the contractors and the funds going to NASA. Cut the latter.Thats right, lets get that nasty nasty government out of the way of those poor noble companies and just make it a money-hose directly to them since they will always make the right choices!Sometimes this forum's reaction to any SLS news is incredibly predictable.
Since we can't go back and unspend money already spent then the cost of NASA going forward is where we should make the changes. It only matters going forward. If no changes are made, then more of the same. Congress should separate out the funds going to the contractors and the funds going to NASA. Cut the latter.
It says optimal conditions with daylight launch and landing for this particular mission is a few months of the summer. It also says they don't have to launch in daylight. That's a preferred time of year to launch, not a requirement.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 10:37 amQuote from: Proponent on 06/22/2017 08:22 amQuote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 07:09 amTo use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.I don't disagree, but it's ironic that this is exactly the plan with respect to flying ICPS on SLS.Yeah, a very expensive set of iCPS specific hardware and testing is implemented for a stage that will likely fly just once on SLS (if ever). It was originally supposed to be 2 flights before EM-2 was promoted to EUS.But heck, we have US Congress to thank for this mess. They were the ones ordering a launcher that could grow from 70 mT to LEO to 130 mT to LEO.But with regards to iCPS flying on Delta IV Heavy: it would be worse than just making the one-use-only mods. After the mission is flown the one-use-mods would have to be reversed, given that iCPS is not the baseline upper stage of Delta IV Heavy. So, flying iCPS on a Delta IV Heavy would incurr the cost of changing the ground systems TWICE. IMO it is for this reason that any further missions of Orion on Delta IV Heavy will use the standard DCSS.You don't seriously believe Congress 'invented' the 70-130t progression, do you?It most likely was handed to Senator Shelby's staff by a contractor lobbyist.
Quote from: Proponent on 06/22/2017 08:22 amQuote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 07:09 amTo use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.I don't disagree, but it's ironic that this is exactly the plan with respect to flying ICPS on SLS.Yeah, a very expensive set of iCPS specific hardware and testing is implemented for a stage that will likely fly just once on SLS (if ever). It was originally supposed to be 2 flights before EM-2 was promoted to EUS.But heck, we have US Congress to thank for this mess. They were the ones ordering a launcher that could grow from 70 mT to LEO to 130 mT to LEO.But with regards to iCPS flying on Delta IV Heavy: it would be worse than just making the one-use-only mods. After the mission is flown the one-use-mods would have to be reversed, given that iCPS is not the baseline upper stage of Delta IV Heavy. So, flying iCPS on a Delta IV Heavy would incurr the cost of changing the ground systems TWICE. IMO it is for this reason that any further missions of Orion on Delta IV Heavy will use the standard DCSS.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 07:09 amTo use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.I don't disagree, but it's ironic that this is exactly the plan with respect to flying ICPS on SLS.
To use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.
What I don't understand is why NASA had to spend a fortune building new tooling using bleeding edge technology to make the tanks. What was wrong with the tooling used to build the Shuttle tanks? Might have needed some modifications, but not replacement with experimental equipment.
Quote from: RonM on 06/22/2017 03:29 pmWhat I don't understand is why NASA had to spend a fortune building new tooling using bleeding edge technology to make the tanks. What was wrong with the tooling used to build the Shuttle tanks? Might have needed some modifications, but not replacement with experimental equipment.Maybe the same reason SpaceX invented and paid for new tooling to make tanks?NASA development funds helped Elon develop better welding tech for Tesla vehicle manufacture by way of SpaceX. That plus NASA employee inventor Jeff Ding and his supporting NASA coworkers, based on issued patents. Over two decades, so a 25+ career at NASA.Obviously wasted government spending because who needs better and cheaper welding than gas or electric melt fusion welding. Vacuum tubes were just fine. The Soviets won the space race when they stuck to tubes. Transistors were just not needed, because you just make the rocket motors and fuel tanks bigger.
Quote from: RonM on 06/22/2017 03:29 pmWhat I don't understand is why NASA had to spend a fortune building new tooling using bleeding edge technology to make the tanks. What was wrong with the tooling used to build the Shuttle tanks? Might have needed some modifications, but not replacement with experimental equipment.Because NASA misinterpreted 70 short tons as 70 metric tons, possibly intentionally. That meant they HAD to use a bigger tank with 5-seg boosters. Bigger tank meant thicker walls than the shuttle tank, which meant new tooling.
Disadvantage is that political need of the moment (aka "will of the Congress") means they are exceedingly reckless in the use of fiat. What was desirable at one point is the boondoggle at the next point.
No, my conclusion from the data given. How do you cut the overhead and still have a lean and mean NASA still calling the shots. How do you redesign NASA going forward to save money without cutting the money to the hardware. I just didn't state it very well.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/22/2017 11:07 pmQuote from: RonM on 06/22/2017 03:29 pmWhat I don't understand is why NASA had to spend a fortune building new tooling using bleeding edge technology to make the tanks. What was wrong with the tooling used to build the Shuttle tanks? Might have needed some modifications, but not replacement with experimental equipment.Because NASA misinterpreted 70 short tons as 70 metric tons, possibly intentionally. That meant they HAD to use a bigger tank with 5-seg boosters. Bigger tank meant thicker walls than the shuttle tank, which meant new tooling.No. It was the growth path. It was clear from the onset that the core tankage would have to be suitable for the 130 (m)T version as well. And that meant thicker walls than the shuttle tank from the onset. It had nothing to do with mistaking 70 short tons for 70 metric tons.
Way back in 2011 we predicted that this was turning into a slow train wreck. But 6 years on and still watching the same train wreck continue at a glacial pace is excruciatingly painful in the extreme.
Quote from: clongton on 06/23/2017 04:49 pmWay back in 2011 we predicted that this was turning into a slow train wreck. But 6 years on and still watching the same train wreck continue at a glacial pace is excruciatingly painful in the extreme.Especially since Jupiter would be flying today.
Quote from: RonM on 06/23/2017 06:00 pmQuote from: clongton on 06/23/2017 04:49 pmWay back in 2011 we predicted that this was turning into a slow train wreck. But 6 years on and still watching the same train wreck continue at a glacial pace is excruciatingly painful in the extreme.Especially since Jupiter would be flying today.Would it, though? With the same cooks in the kitchen, how can you be sure of a different outcome?