A NASA rendering.The ML shown above does not match the present design for the converted ML.
Hope NASA is not thinking of modifying the current ML or possibly even build a new ML. :o Doesn't make much financial sense with the current launch rate of record.A NASA rendering.The ML shown above does not match the present design for the converted ML.
Hope NASA is not thinking of modifying the current ML or possibly even build a new ML. :o Doesn't make much financial sense with the current launch rate of record.A NASA rendering.The ML shown above does not match the present design for the converted ML.
Hope NASA is not thinking of modifying the current ML or possibly even build a new ML. :o Doesn't make much financial sense with the current launch rate of record.
Well, if they're going to use the ML for SLS, it has to be modified from STS configuration. I'm assuming you're trying to push an anti-SLS point, here, saying the ML shouldn't be modified because you don't think the SLS should ever fly. But since it is being built and will fly, your point is moot. They have to have at least two SLS-configured mobile launchers, one for backup in case the other gets stuck on a glitched C-T, as happened early in the Apollo flow.
Hope NASA is not thinking of modifying the current ML or possibly even build a new ML. :o Doesn't make much financial sense with the current launch rate of record.
Well, if they're going to use the ML for SLS, it has to be modified from STS configuration. I'm assuming you're trying to push an anti-SLS point, here, saying the ML shouldn't be modified because you don't think the SLS should ever fly. But since it is being built and will fly, your point is moot. They have to have at least two SLS-configured mobile launchers, one for backup in case the other gets stuck on a glitched C-T, as happened early in the Apollo flow.
There is only one ML and it was built for Ares I and is being converted for SLS. The three shuttle MLP's are not being used for anything.
I'm taking it that there was an ML that was being constructed for Ares 1 that was mostly finished when the Ares program was canceled? And this is what is being modified to support SLS?
WASHINGTON — NASA is developing a pair of solar-sailing, science-collecting cubesats that will hitch a ride on the Space Launch System’s inaugural July 2018 launch.
The two spacecraft, currently envisioned as six-unit cubesats with deployable solar sails, will travel beyond low Earth orbit to conduct scientific observations of an asteroid and the moon.
NASA’s Near Earth Asteroid Scout, or NEA Scout, cubesat will conduct a 2020 flyby of asteroid 1991 VG to determine its size, movement and chemical composition.
The aptly named Lunar Flashlight cubesat will sail into a polar orbit around the moon by early 2019 then use its solar sail as a mirror, reflecting sunlight onto the cold, dark regions of the lunar poles. Once the polar regions are illuminated, onboard sensors will help determine the composition and distribution of frozen water and other volatiles hidden in the moon’s shadows.
That will be the EM-1 launch, right? July 2018 is the current date for that?
Also, what's the current plan for the advanced boosters? I've read several different things and I'm not clear on which is right.
QuoteAlso, what's the current plan for the advanced boosters? I've read several different things and I'm not clear on which is right.
Right now NASA is proceeding with SLS Block I for EM-1 (Core stage plus current boosters plus ICPS upper stage) and going immediately to Block IB (Core stage plus current boosters plus EUS upper stage). Advanced boosters will come after Block IB (so late 2020s). There are a couple of way NASA could go with this. They could go with Block II (Core stage plus advanced boosters plus another upper stage) or Block IIB (Core stage plus advanced boosters plus EUS upper stage).
That will be the EM-1 launch, right? July 2018 is the current date for that?
Correct on both counts.
Probably more like early-mid 2020s. Last I heard they've only got enough SRB parts leftover from the shuttle to make about 10 boosters (so 5 SLS flights). 1 pair would be used for EM 1, and the next flight would be in 2021 or maybe 2020 if we're lucky, at about 1 launch a year, so that puts 2025 as the latest they could do a launch before switching to advanced boosters, unless they restart production (not exactly cheap). They've got the equipment to fuel and stack them, but thats it
Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead?
Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead?
No, the whole point of the SLS design is to use derivatives of shuttle propulsion elements (SSME and SRB's). SLS will fly only one to two times a year. Not enough to justfiy a new engine development program.
These questions are the same as those on Orion. SLS and Orion are not designed to push the state of the art or to reduce operational costs.
SLS is not going to be doing anything very revolutionary. There are some optimizations already being incorporated. An example would be the first new batch of RS-25 engines will have a new engine controller and less person hour intensive manufacturing. I'd expect like the Shuttle and even Saturn V that SLS will be upgraded over its lifetime. There is still likely to be some sort of advanced booster competition in the future where new technologies may be used. Also the EUS is likely to use RL-10 engines at first but may use another engine. It may also use composite tanks. Those things though are not finalized as the priority is getting the first two launched done.Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead?
No, the whole point of the SLS design is to use derivatives of shuttle propulsion elements (SSME and SRB's). SLS will fly only one to two times a year. Not enough to justfiy a new engine development program.
These questions are the same as those on Orion. SLS and Orion are not designed to push the state of the art or to reduce operational costs.
Interesting, I also read that during the use of the SLS it will be improved, is this true? Why not reduce operational costs? I understand with what you have said Jim, that they are re-using technologies but will that not reduce the costs as well?
Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue
During the 70’s when the Shuttle was being designed there was concern that one of the SRBs could prematurely ignite causing a disaster. It could be similar thinking and precaution at play here... Agreed, at least they have a pad abort ability now...Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue
Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disasterous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
Following STS-41-D's pad abort free hydrogen that leaked from the engine cause a fire. Had the normal evacuation procedure been followed the crew would have encountered the fire. While Orion has a LES and Discovery didn't there are still situations where it would be preferable to get the crew out of the capsule rather than activate the LES.Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue
Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disastrous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
They did change the procedures after the 41D RSLS abort to include the immediate activation of the Base Heat Shield (BHS) water deluge system (this is the water system that showers the engines after a RSLS abort). For 41D and earlier, the procedure was a manual activation and it was only in short bursts. After 41D they made it automatic as well as continues which kept the engines and the aft watered down for a good 15 minutes or so.Following STS-41-D's pad abort free hydrogen that leaked from the engine cause a fire. Had the normal evacuation procedure been followed the crew would have encountered the fire. While Orion has a LES and Discovery didn't there are still situations where it would be preferable to get the crew out of the capsule rather than activate the LES.Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue
Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disastrous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
If I'm not mistaken they also added butcher paper in various places so that the cameras on and around the pad could see if there were a fire.They did change the procedures after the 41D RSLS abort to include the immediate activation of the Base Heat Shield (BHS) water deluge system (this is the water system that showers the engines after a RSLS abort). For 41D and earlier, the procedure was a manual activation and it was only in short bursts. After 41D they made it automatic as well as continues which kept the engines and the aft watered down for a good 15 minutes or so.Following STS-41-D's pad abort free hydrogen that leaked from the engine cause a fire. Had the normal evacuation procedure been followed the crew would have encountered the fire. While Orion has a LES and Discovery didn't there are still situations where it would be preferable to get the crew out of the capsule rather than activate the LES.Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue
Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disastrous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
That was only on the aft vertical struts of the ET. They also installed alot more IR cameras. Before 41D they only had a few.If I'm not mistaken they also added butcher paper in various places so that the cameras on and around the pad could see if there were a fire.They did change the procedures after the 41D RSLS abort to include the immediate activation of the Base Heat Shield (BHS) water deluge system (this is the water system that showers the engines after a RSLS abort). For 41D and earlier, the procedure was a manual activation and it was only in short bursts. After 41D they made it automatic as well as continues which kept the engines and the aft watered down for a good 15 minutes or so.Following STS-41-D's pad abort free hydrogen that leaked from the engine cause a fire. Had the normal evacuation procedure been followed the crew would have encountered the fire. While Orion has a LES and Discovery didn't there are still situations where it would be preferable to get the crew out of the capsule rather than activate the LES.Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue
Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disastrous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead?
No, the whole point of the SLS design is to use derivatives of shuttle propulsion elements (SSME and SRB's). SLS will fly only one to two times a year. Not enough to justfiy a new engine development program.
These questions are the same as those on Orion. SLS and Orion are not designed to push the state of the art or to reduce operational costs.
If SLS were being built without want for use of STS hardware, would it stage sequentially like Saturn V did?
If SLS were being built without want for use of STS hardware, would it stage sequentially like Saturn V did? Or is there benefit to horizontal staging where even in absence of STS hardware it would look like Delta IV with boosters on the side of a big core?
Couple of links; first, this appears to be a recent SLS blog:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/
Second, the NASA Advisory Council link was fixed and this PowerPoint deck (presented at the end of July at the JPL meeting) has some good information on development/status and recent schedule forecasts:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2-Hill-Exploration-Systems-Development-Status-ESD-Status-NAC_Hill-July-28_Final.pdf
When completed, SLS, NASA's new rocket, will be one of the biggest, most powerful rockets ever built.
When completed, SLS, NASA's new rocket, will be one of the biggest, most powerful rockets ever built.
Having been around when the Saturn-V was flying I am constantly irritated when I see statements like this. Everybody is always insisting that we compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges, EXCEPT when it comes to showcasing the SLS - as if there is nothing else out there that compares favorably. Here's where us "old-timers" step in to set the record straight and keep the SLS proponents honest.
The configuration of SLS above includes two (2) solid side boosters, and then they compare it to the Saturn-V without side boosters. Well for everyone's information there were side booster versions of the Saturn-V being developed that used a pair of 120 inch diameter solids strapped to the side of the core. This vehicle would deliver in excess of 180 tonnes to LEO. If one wants to compare the SLS to Saturn, then compare it to this side-boosted variant. If one does not want to compare to this Saturn variant then delete the SLS solids and compare core to core. Keep it apples to apples. Either way SLS will always come out less than the Saturn.
For those who would say that the solid-boosted Saturn never actually existed I would say that neither does an actual SLS. But I would say that both vehicles were at a similar stage of development. That makes them completely comparable.
I'm not bashing the SLS by any means. What I am bashing is misleading statements about the SLS.
For those who would say that the solid-boosted Saturn never actually existed I would say that neither does an actual SLS. But I would say that both vehicles were at a similar stage of development. That makes them completely comparable.
Emphasis mine.When completed, SLS, NASA's new rocket, will be one of the biggest, most powerful rockets ever built.
Having been around when the Saturn-V was flying I am constantly irritated when I see statements like this.
<snip>
I'm not bashing the SLS by any means. What I am bashing is misleading statements about the SLS.
KSC shopping for Liquid Hydrogen solution ahead of SLS debut
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/ksc-shopping-lh2-ahead-sls-launch/
What is the cost for one additional flight of SLS?
So if SLS does become available then could it launch DIVH class payloads?
Would this save any money by being able to retire DIVH sooner before Vulcan/ACES could replace it?
What is the cost for one additional flight of SLS?
Somewhere between $500 Million and $1 Billion. I believe Delta IVH is in the $300 Million range.
So if SLS does become available then could it launch DIVH class payloads?
Oh it could definitely handle DIVH class payloads. It wouldn't be even close to the best use for SLS in my opinion but it could physically do it.
Closer to $400M for D-IVH
SLS can't do polar orbits
IMHO SLS should be dedicated to launching NASA payloads.
That avoids competition with the commercial sector...
...and frees up launches for deep space exploration (human and robotic).
What is the cost for one additional flight of SLS?Somewhere between $500 Million and $1 Billion.
Quote...and frees up launches for deep space exploration (human and robotic).What's to free up? NASA already has the capability to build two SLS per year, and the cost to build two SLS-sized payloads per year would require a HUGE increase in NASA's development and operational budget. Assuming NASA doesn't get a budget bump, and assuming the ISS stays operational through 2024, NASA won't be able to afford even one launch per year.
I suspect that the quoted launch price for DIVH is not the incremental cost to the U.S. Government of procuring the vehicle. I imagine it includes a bunch of fixed costs. So that would be an apples-to-oranges comparison; the cost to the USG to procure an additional SLS flight given a running program with enough headroom to allow the launch might only be a few hundred million, but if I'm right the marginal cost of the Delta IV Heavy would be lower than that.
So this comparison is only really useful if you're in a situation where your budget would take the full hit of the DIVH price but only the marginal cost of an SLS (it might be possible to get the SMD into such a situation, but the DoD probably isn't).
No, $1B is too high. Assuming the program exists and can handle the extra flight, an SLS launch by itself cannot reasonably be expected to add more than about $500M to the program's cost, probably below $400M, could be below $300M.
You're talking about the operations cost of existing technology, and not the part that depends strongly on flight rate either. Moreover, basically all of the changes that have the potential to significantly affect cost are cost-saving measures. The marginal cost of launching a Shuttle-derived LV is not going to balloon like the development cost of a cutting-edge space telescope.
The increase required would not be "HUGE", <snip>
No, $1B is too high. Assuming the program exists and can handle the extra flight, an SLS launch by itself cannot reasonably be expected to add more than about $500M to the program's cost, probably below $400M, could be below $300M.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that most SLS cost estimates are ridiculously overestimated. I was trying to give Rocketman a range of realistically imaginable costs.
The fact is that annual developmental costs of both SLS and Orion have been $1-2 Billion lower than the cost to run the space shuttle every year. That is a drastic improvement and for much more capability.
I've run the numbers several times. The whole SLS/Orion program (including things like hab modules and landers) is going to have lower costs than the shuttle program.
NASA was able to run shuttle concurrently with the construction and maintenance of ISS. Increases to the budget don't have to be extreme.
The cost of a launch system depends on who is doing the accounting. People in favor of a particular system tend to look at operational and marginal costs. Those opposed tend to throw in the cost of the development and what ever else. Thus it should be no surprise that the costs of a Shuttle mission has been quoted as from a few million to a billion dollars. SLS is no different.
The cost of flying one more Shuttle mission was quoted by Mike Griffin as about $300 million. That assumes that the operational costs for the year have been paid and there is extra production capacity.
SLS will be able to do 3 max a year with the current infrastructure.
The cost of the Delta IV Heavy is likely to be lower than people quote. EFT-1 cost $370 million not including the capsule but including the custom hardware such as the LES and boilerplate service module. That was a Delta IV procured commercially by the Orion program. While the pricing information is proprietary I'd bet that the cost is closer to $300 million than $400 million.
Well that is kinda my point. You are not in favor of SLS so you chose the method which gives the highest per flight cost. The original poster asked a very specific question of what the marginal cost was. That is a useful thing to ask. Once again we can used the Shuttle program as an example. There was debate about adding that final resupply mission. Going by your accounting method STS-135 cost $1.5 billion dollars. The extra money which needed to be added to the budget was nowhere near that. Marginal cost is a necessary thing to look at when planning out a manifest.The cost of a launch system depends on who is doing the accounting. People in favor of a particular system tend to look at operational and marginal costs. Those opposed tend to throw in the cost of the development and what ever else. Thus it should be no surprise that the costs of a Shuttle mission has been quoted as from a few million to a billion dollars. SLS is no different.
I look at the total cost, while also breaking out the development and operational portions. It's the only way to get a full up apples-to-apples cost, since "marginal cost" estimates are usually simplified too far and ignore large classes of costs like overhead.
Those articles do not give the marginal cost, only total cost. The facts you are providing do not answer the question. Griffin, like him or hate him, was the administrator of NASA and is an authoritative source. He was asked what the marginal cost was. His answer is in line with the program budgetary figure from that time. If the the cost to fly an extra Shuttle mission was $1.5 billion how did they budget ~$3 billion in 2009 and fly 5 missions?QuoteThe cost of flying one more Shuttle mission was quoted by Mike Griffin as about $300 million. That assumes that the operational costs for the year have been paid and there is extra production capacity.
Mike Griffin said a lot of things that were flat out wrong, and why make assumptions when facts exist?
There are a number of articles that look at total cost of the Shuttle program, and dividing the number of flights flown yields the average total cost - which was about $1.5B. Some articles on the subject here:
As Shuttle Program Ends, Final Price Tag Is Elusive (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303544604576433830373220742) - WSJ
5 Horrifying Facts You Didn't Know About the Space Shuttle (http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/04/18/5-horrifying-facts-you-didnt-know-about-the-space-shuttle/) - Forbes
NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion (http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html) — Was it Worth It? - Space.com
It's worth noting that NASA agrees with these numbers now.
The current infrastructure can support up to 3 launches a year and produce two rockets a year. That figure comes straight from the SLS program.QuoteSLS will be able to do 3 max a year with the current infrastructure.
There is an NSF thread where this is discussed. Bottom line is that as currently set up NASA can build slightly less than two per year, but with some additional money that can be increased to two per year. Lots more money would be needed to increase that rate beyond two.
Did ULA give LM and the Orion program a $100 million discount on the price of a Delta IV heavy? Its an expensive rocket but its not $400 million, at least to launch a NASA payload like Orion.QuoteThe cost of the Delta IV Heavy is likely to be lower than people quote. EFT-1 cost $370 million not including the capsule but including the custom hardware such as the LES and boilerplate service module. That was a Delta IV procured commercially by the Orion program. While the pricing information is proprietary I'd bet that the cost is closer to $300 million than $400 million.
A number of years ago I was told (i.e. corrected) by Dr. Paul Spudis that a Delta IV Heavy cost $400M to NASA. He and I didn't see eye to eye on commercial launch costs in general (he is an SLS fan), but I believed him on that.
Regardless though, thinking that the SLS will cost approximately the same as a Delta IV Heavy (i.e. $300-400M range) doesn't seem to make sense. Delta IV Heavy is far more simple to manufacture, and it looks to be half the mass of the SLS.Still not talking about marginal costs here. Also using 4 year old data on a hypothetical program rather than data from a program which is bending metal now. This also highlights the problem with your favored accounting method. It only works on finished programs which are no longer flying, or if one can predict the future number of flights. Here it is an arbitrary 18 flights. BTW the Direct guys made a pretty good argument that sidemount would have cost more. That chart was talked a lot about back when it was first posted.
If you want to look at what SLS costs were estimated to be, here is one article to look at. Maybe it's very early in it's estimates, but that would provide a starting point for making corrections:
The HLV Cost Information NASA Decided Not To Give To Congress (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/01/the-hlv-cost-in.html) - NASA Watch
Some things cost what they cost, and they are worth what they cost to the users. The Shuttle was that way, since Congress pretty much didn't care what the cost of each flight was - no one in Congress tracked it. And if we had unlimited funding the cost of the SLS wouldn't really matter much either, but when budgets are constrained it does become an important factor, especially when the cost of the SLS is not just the rocket, but the payloads and missions that are built specifically for it. You have to look at the opportunity cost.There is a fallacy in your argument. By talking about alternatives to SLS and opportunity cost you are begging the question of if those other options would enjoy the same funding and political support. Based on recent history that is certainly not a given. But that all is space policy and this isn't the place for that.
The SLS can deliver these modules for free as they can go with the Orion on a crew flight to lunar space.
QuoteDid ULA give LM and the Orion program a $100 million discount on the price of a Delta IV heavy? Its an expensive rocket but its not $400 million, at least to launch a NASA payload like Orion.QuoteThe cost of the Delta IV Heavy is likely to be lower than people quote. EFT-1 cost $370 million not including the capsule but including the custom hardware such as the LES and boilerplate service module. That was a Delta IV procured commercially by the Orion program. While the pricing information is proprietary I'd bet that the cost is closer to $300 million than $400 million.
A number of years ago I was told (i.e. corrected) by Dr. Paul Spudis that a Delta IV Heavy cost $400M to NASA. He and I didn't see eye to eye on commercial launch costs in general (he is an SLS fan), but I believed him on that.
Well that is kinda my point. You are not in favor of SLS so you chose the method which gives the highest per flight cost. The original poster asked a very specific question of what the marginal cost was. That is a useful thing to ask.
Once again we can used the Shuttle program as an example. There was debate about adding that final resupply mission. Going by your accounting method STS-135 cost $1.5 billion dollars. The extra money which needed to be added to the budget was nowhere near that. Marginal cost is a necessary thing to look at when planning out a manifest.
Solar Probe Plus is $389 million.
How many flights will there be? I don't have a crystal ball.Well that is kinda my point. You are not in favor of SLS so you chose the method which gives the highest per flight cost. The original poster asked a very specific question of what the marginal cost was. That is a useful thing to ask.
Here is the challenge. When figuring out costs based on total spending, it's easy to see what the per unit cost is. Total cost divided by the number of flights. Simple math that everyone can understand.
Figuring out marginal cost though is not easy. I've done a lot of digging to figure out marginal costs for the Shuttle program, and though I'm pretty good at it (I've done this for work purposes too), I was never able to use public records to figure it out.Its pretty easy. The marginal cost is what was needed to be added to the budgets beyond the yearly sustaining costs. The Shuttle didn't fly the same number of times every year. Thus they had to budget for each mission they flew. To bring this to SLS the question is if we fly one rocket this year how much more money will it take to fly another. That was the original question.
Why? Because once the Shuttle became a sustaining program the pieces and parts that make up a Shuttle, and the contracts that were issued for work to be performed, never lined up. And even when they did, like when USA was formed to consolidate all Shuttle processing work, later amendments are either hard to find or hard to allocate to a specific Shuttle flight. So the best that can be said is that whatever marginal costs are calculated using publicly available documentation, they will under-represent the actual marginal cost - potentially by quite a bit. That can't happen when you're using total cost.
Now both total cost and marginal cost (where accurate) are useful for different reasons. Total cost doesn't make a lot of sense when you haven't flown anything, but it does show what the opportunity costs are that you're giving up. Marginal cost doesn't mean a lot if you don't remember how much it took to get to unit #1.Opportunity costs are a great way of arguing against any ongoing program because you can attack it without having to to suggest anything better. You also don't have to really make any evaluation on what are the other realistic opportunities. The FY2011 option was not a valid opportunity for example because it had no political support. SLS while perhaps not being the best technical solution may be the best option for which an opportunity exists.
For instance, theoretically you could spend $1Trillion over 50 years to build a system that lifts 250mT but only costs $10M/launch. However what was the opportunity cost for that? How much could you have lifted with current commercial launch vehicles with that $1Trillion? There are always tradeoffs...
Use any other STS flight that was the second of the year. Each one had to be budgeted. The question of what it takes to fly one more flight under this next year's budget is a question they had to answer almost every year when the program was flying. It is odd to think think that for 30 years the STS program had no clue what each mission would cost.QuoteOnce again we can used the Shuttle program as an example. There was debate about adding that final resupply mission. Going by your accounting method STS-135 cost $1.5 billion dollars. The extra money which needed to be added to the budget was nowhere near that. Marginal cost is a necessary thing to look at when planning out a manifest.Like all hardware programs, there were pieces and parts laying around that were mismatched purchases, so sure, the last flight could have been added without writing a check for $1.5B. But that's because the Shuttle program had over-bought, and there were pre-negoitated contracts that could be extended. And using end-of-life costing for a program just starting out doesn't make sense.
Now take a look at the SLS program. There are no firm designs yet, since there are no customers and there are multiple configurations. So there is no possible way to accurately figure out "marginal cost" when you don't know what you are building and you are just starting to build your first unit. Boeing certainly doesn't know what their costs will be for units #1, 2 and 3, and neither does NASA.
When I say no firm designs, I mean from a manufacturing standpoint. My specialty is in being the person that receives a customer order and sets up the entire manufacturing schedule for delivering the customer what they ordered. I've done this for government one-off products, and high volume commercial electronics, so I have a lot of experience. And as of today there are no customer order-able configurations for the SLS - and there wouldn't be, since the SLS is likely to be customized for every launch for quite a while. But what that means is figuring out "marginal cost" from outside the SLS Program Office is impossible, and even for them it will take a lot of work.
Its pretty easy. The marginal cost is what was needed to be added to the budgets beyond the yearly sustaining costs. The Shuttle didn't fly the same number of times every year. Thus they had to budget for each mission they flew.
To bring this to SLS the question is if we fly one rocket this year how much more money will it take to fly another. That was the original question.
Solar Probe Plus is $389 million.
And even with a Delta 4-Heavy launch the mission will need seven flybys of Venus!?! Has anyone explored what SLS with an EUS could do to improve that? It's just a hypothetical... but an interesting one nonetheless.
Even with multi-year contracts NASA still has to request a budget one year at a time.
The number of manifested flights drove the yearly funding request of STS line item.
It boils down to this, either NASA can answer the question of how much more money needs to be in the yearly budget request to launch a rocket or it cannot. It has been launching a rockets and requesting budgets for a while now. NASA is perfectly capable of figuring out the difference in cost between flying one SLS or two.
You seriously think the incremental cost of the SLS is only a few hundred million dollars?
I agree with you wholeheartedly that most SLS cost estimates are ridiculously overestimated (I think $500 Million is a little too low though). I was trying to give Rocketman a range of realistically imaginable costs.
And in the absence of real cost numbers (which NASA is very behind on providing) comparisons to existing systems are one way to help estimate costs.
why make assumptions when facts exist?
So assuming that the SLS will be the same cost as the Delta IV Heavy, or even possibly less, doesn't look right.
And considering that the current human rated vehicle NASA is building (i.e. Orion MPCV) is costing $8B or more, and taking 18 years until it becomes operational, I'd guess your estimates are probably a little low.
Now if NASA uses existing ISS modules, then great, not much development needed. But no real need for the SLS either, since lower cost commercial launchers can deliver them too.
I look at the total cost, while also breaking out the development and operational portions. It's the only way to get a full up apples-to-apples cost, since "marginal cost" estimates are usually simplified too far
and ignore large classes of costs like overhead.
Figuring out marginal cost though is not easy. I've done a lot of digging to figure out marginal costs for the Shuttle program, and though I'm pretty good at it (I've done this for work purposes too), I was never able to use public records to figure it out.
Marginal cost doesn't mean a lot if you don't remember how much it took to get to unit #1.
Like all hardware programs, there were pieces and parts laying around that were mismatched purchases, so sure, the last flight could have been added without writing a check for $1.5B. But that's because the Shuttle program had over-bought, and there were pre-negoitated contracts that could be extended. And using end-of-life costing for a program just starting out doesn't make sense.
there is no possible way to accurately figure out "marginal cost"
There is no way SLS marginal costs are less than a Delta IV Heavy. SLS has more engines, more structure, more people involved, More contracts, etc. It will be closer to 1 billion than 500 million.
Is a hydrogen second stage even necessarily a bad thing when you're using solids as your main thrust/first stage?
What would the performance benefits be if they used similar thrust RP1 engines on the main liquid/second stage?
You also can't just "turn off" the production line, because then you have to re-hire all your workers and retrain their rusty skills (and/or hire a lot of new people and train them from scratch, since most people don't just sit around waiting for the call for 3+ years) before you can do anything.
This also seems like a good way to never work the bugs out of your production line; the launch rate is supposed to be no less than 1 per year for a reason.
The efficiency of a high production rate is simply that you get a lot of work out of your existing facilities and personnel. Lowering the rate doesn't increase the marginal cost of a unit very much; what it does is increase that unit's share of the fixed costs.
QuoteThere is no way SLS marginal costs are less than a Delta IV Heavy. SLS has more engines, more structure, more people involved, More contracts, etc. It will be closer to 1 billion than 500 million.
Apples to oranges. Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost, with all fixed costs including supplier fixed costs shoved off onto the DoD...
I suppose it's possible in principle that the marginal cost could be strongly affected by optimizing production for very low flight rates, if the changes were radical enough.
But SLS is being set up for two units per year at steady state; you can only take such a scenario so far before it becomes more expensive than just using the Shuttle infrastructure as it stood, and $1B marginal cost per launch is past that point. I don't see this as a serious possibility, not at the scale you people are talking about.
(Also, IIRC SRBs were $25M per segment pair, not per booster. Again, that's purchase price, not marginal cost.)
Apples to oranges. Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost,
(Also, IIRC SRBs were $25M per segment pair, not per booster. Again, that's purchase price, not marginal cost.)
That was the cost of the SRM's and not the SRB's.
So If SLS were flying dozens of times per year the incremental cost of one additional flight might not vary much, and thus there might be a useful value to call the "marginal cost." But I would expect the incremental cost of a second flight in a given year to be different than the incremental cost of a third flight in that same year.]
Can anyone defend talk of a single "marginal cost" value given the actual anticipated flight rate?
Apples to oranges. Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost, with all fixed costs including supplier fixed costs shoved off onto the DoD...
Well, not dozens. They'd likely have to double or triple their manufacturing capacities. Michoud can turn out a max of 4 per year, right?
Well, not dozens. They'd likely have to double or triple their manufacturing capacities. Michoud can turn out a max of 4 per year, right?
NASA has currently set up the production rate to support building slightly less than two per year, and with some additional funding they can get up to two per year.
Is a hydrogen second stage even necessarily a bad thing when you're using solids as your main thrust/first stage?
What would the performance benefits be if they used similar thrust RP1 engines on the main liquid/second stage?
RP-1 is the best choice there is for a first stage due to its ISP-DENSITY.
RP-1 would have been far better for either an SLS first stage or for its boosters, and Hydrogen is the best choice for an upper stage.
We can determine fairly closely the marginal cost of a Delta-IV Heavy DOD launch from the 2014 block-buy since this block buy was pure marginal cost. The Engineering, launch operations, and Infrastructure had already been paid for. You had 36 cores purchased for $4.3 Billion, which equals about $120 Million a core so we can infer about $360 Million for the incremental cost of a Delta-IV Heavy.
Apples to oranges. Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost,
No, one for one. An additional Delta IV Heavy price would be almost pure marginal cost. Anyways, if it isn't, it still makes the case that it is way cheaper than SLS.
Stay on topic guys. It gets really boring really fast when people start comparing SLS to Delta IV.
We can determine fairly closely the marginal cost of a Delta-IV Heavy DOD launch from the 2014 block-buy since this block buy was pure marginal cost. The Engineering, launch operations, and Infrastructure had already been paid for. You had 36 cores purchased for $4.3 Billion, which equals about $120 Million a core so we can infer about $360 Million for the incremental cost of a Delta-IV Heavy.
To my knowledge the AF buys launches, not cores.
NASA has currently set up the production rate to support building slightly less than two per year, and with some additional funding they can get up to two per year.
At the full production rate capability of 2 every year the per launch cost would be from $.9B to $1B or $3.6B to $4B every 2 years <$2B more for three more flights in the same period or additional budget required of $600M per flight!!!!
NASA has currently set up the production rate to support building slightly less than two per year, and with some additional funding they can get up to two per year.
I think that's the interesting "marginal cost" to look at. Assume the anticipated rate is "three every two years." What is the incremental cost to reach "four every two years?" I think this is similar to what oldAtlas_Eguy attempts to estimate, with the result of $600M.
what the effects are of increasing or decreasing production rates.
Can anyone defend talk of a single "marginal cost" value given the actual anticipated flight rate?
This particular contract was able to leverage being a continuation of previous contracts, so the workforce was already in place and stable, the supply chain was mature, and costs were well known.
The SLS SRM's, which are 5-segment, and new designs, can only be more expensive, not less than, what the Shuttle program was paying.
QuoteThe efficiency of a high production rate is simply that you get a lot of work out of your existing facilities and personnel. Lowering the rate doesn't increase the marginal cost of a unit very much; what it does is increase that unit's share of the fixed costs.Lowering the production rate can affect costs very much, and what we don't know is where the cost inflection point is for SLS production. It may not be until it reaches something like 4-6 per year (~ Shuttle rate). NASA is quite proud of how efficient the tooling is for the SLS, which is good for touch labor costs, but overhead and other sustaining costs are going to be significant at low production rates, both for Boeing and every other major contractor for SLS.
QuoteBut SLS is being set up for two units per year at steady state; you can only take such a scenario so far before it becomes more expensive than just using the Shuttle infrastructure as it stood, and $1B marginal cost per launch is past that point. I don't see this as a serious possibility, not at the scale you people are talking about.The Shuttle shouldn't enter into this, since it was not a comparable transportation system, despite sharing some design elements.
The key though is that no upsized transportation system should be built until the existing transportation has been maxed out, and the new system is going to provide increased capacity for a known customer demand.
You guys aren't getting this. You can't calculate marginal cost from expenditure breakouts.
It isn't just the primary contractor that has fixed costs and variable costs. Every subcontractor and part supplier does too. And if you're a substantial fraction of someone else's business, your purchase rate will strongly affect their economies of scale, changing the price of the item(s).
Please note that with the EELV program, it isn't that non-DoD customers are charged incremental cost, however that's calculated. They're charged normally, and the DoD is reimbursed for the fixed cost thus defrayed. And apparently (http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/FINAL_SPACE_LAUNCH_BRIEFING.PDF) the amount of the reimbursement has been controversial in the past; the DoD was still complaining even after it tripled...
QuoteCan anyone defend talk of a single "marginal cost" value given the actual anticipated flight rate?
Sorta, yeah. See the previously-linked chart (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622582#msg622582) from DIRECT for J-246. Goes all the way from one flight per year to 16.
But marginal cost itself is not strongly dependent on flight rate.
This particular contract was able to leverage being a continuation of previous contracts, so the workforce was already in place and stable, the supply chain was mature, and costs were well known.
The SLS SRM's, which are 5-segment, and new designs, can only be more expensive, not less than, what the Shuttle program was paying.
So now you're trying to lump DDT&E into the marginal cost?
The SLS boosters have been reworked for affordability. If I recall correctly they slashed the required man-hours per segment by nearly 40%.
QuoteThe key though is that no upsized transportation system should be built until the existing transportation has been maxed out, and the new system is going to provide increased capacity for a known customer demand.
NASA is not a commercial launch provider, that has to respond to customer demands.
I can appreciate the detailed work the DIRECT folks did, but their assumptions were based on the continued use of the Shuttle supply chain. The Shuttle supply chain ended, so the SLS can't leverage that, even for the SRM's. Plus the SLS is a completely different design, which greatly affects projected costs.
There is a unique cost associated with every single part, and it is affected by your consumption rate (i.e. flight rate) and how much (and how often) you are buying for each part. Those are major cost drivers for suppliers, as well as Boeing who is doing fabrication and final assembly.
the marginal cost off the J-246 plot from 2009 is almost identical to the marginal cost I backed out of the ESD Integration SLS estimates from 2011
If you actually plot the total program cost vs. flight rate for a large launcher program with a reasonably well-defined launch schedule, the slope changes fairly slowly. That slope is the marginal cost I'm talking about.
All that consumption rate dependency is due largely (not entirely, but in the main) to fixed cost; you buy less of something, or buy more sporadically, and the supplier's overhead becomes a bigger portion of the total, so the price per unit goes up. This is a particularly strong effect if you're the sole customer for an item, since you have to eat the supplier's entire fixed cost regardless of how many you buy. But it doesn't matter whose fixed cost it is; it's still fixed cost.
If you actually plot the total program cost vs. flight rate for a large launcher program with a reasonably well-defined launch schedule, the slope changes fairly slowly. That slope is the marginal cost I'm talking about.
SLS is not a "completely different design". It's an inline Shuttle-derived launch vehicle that's actually quite similar to Jupiter, but a little bigger, with modernizations and cost reductions.
You can't pretend Delta IV is a closer analogue than Jupiter.
I just got through saying exactly that, except that I'm not trying to redefine "marginal cost" to mean "purchase price".
If you actually plot the total program cost vs. flight rate for a large launcher program with a reasonably well-defined launch schedule, the slope changes fairly slowly. That slope is the marginal cost I'm talking about.
Based on what you are showing in your graphs, the Jupiter-246 showed a marginal cost of ~320 Million and you expect the SLS to be in the same range? Since the SLS is also Shuttle derived hardware.
We'll have to wait until Congress allows NASA to buy SLS production material before we find out what the real prices are.
Based on what you are showing in your graphs, the Jupiter-246 showed a marginal cost of ~320 Million and you expect the SLS to be in the same range? Since the SLS is also Shuttle derived hardware.
Basically, yeah.
The leaked ESD Integration document (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/images/stories/SLS_budget_Integration_2011-08.pdf) from 2011 seems to back me up. Cases #4a and #4b have a few years at the end where development is over and the launch rate is steady (and plainly continues well into the future); aside from the "In Space Elements Wedge", the only difference is that #4a has an extra "70-ton" SLS launch every year. The cost difference, summing SLS and ground systems, is $414M in 2023, $426M in 2024, and $437M in 2025.
The inflation rate in NASA New Start 2010 (use in FY11) is 2.6% from 2012 to the end of the table, except for 2013 and 2017 in which it is 2.7%. This matches nicely with the rate of inflation apparent in the ESD Integration data. Using NASA New Start 2010 (use in FY11) to deflate to 2011 and NASA New Start 2014 (use in FY15) to inflate it back to 2015 results in a difference of about $330M.
$330M is pretty darn close to $320M considering the differences between the two vehicle designs, and the fact that one is measured off a graph and inflated by six years, while the other is deflated by fourteen years and reinflated by four...
Considering how close the deflated fixed costs are to the DIRECT estimate, as well as the fact that the estimates are explicitly said to be based on STS and CxP, I suspect there wasn't much modernization or cost reduction in the numbers. If this is true, the actual vehicle should end up less expensive overall on an ongoing basis, though not necessarily on a marginal basis.
Well, with design differences and tech changes and the optimization of production for a low flight rate, there's probably a good deal of wiggle room in that number.
Personally, I think a full-up Block 1B should have a marginal cost to go from one flight per year to two of somewhere between $300M and $400M. Higher and lower are both possible. But I would be very surprised if it got up near $1B; that seems downright unreasonable...
Well what will happen is if the fixed costs are $2 Billion for 1-flight and 2-flights are $2.4 Billion then it will be reported that each launch costs $1.2 Billion. Just like the B-2 Bomber is quoted as costing $2 Billion per plane when at the end of the Production run, the incremental cost of adding another air-frame to the production run was ~$500 Million.
ULA has stated that after they retire the Delta-IV medium, keeping the production line open for just the Delta-IV Heavy would result in a "significant" increase in price. Which based on the models you present, a SLS Block-1B would be very price competitive against a Delta-IV heavy.
To bad NASA cannot due a multi-year procurement block-buy of the SLS-Block 1B. I would suspect that this would save even more money per LV. However that would also mean that actual missions are also funded for the SLS. Instead Congress likes to keep a tight rein on the purse strings, year to year.
What payload increase would the proposed liquid boosters give over solids? Is the increase worth the cost increase?
[
That would seem to depend on what "significant" means, and on how much the SLS program can reduce overhead/infrastructure costs with tech enhancements and right-sizing; even now we don't know what effect the affordability effort has had. The unimproved Shuttle-based SLS fixed cost is pretty high, and at two flights per year it would dominate the launch cost.
I can kinda see the HEOMD being convinced to sell launches to the SMD for marginal cost, but doing the same for the DoD seems a bit of a stretch. Maybe - back in the day Shuttle launches were sold to all comers for marginal cost, which was about 1/10 of total recurring cost...
Also keep in mind that unlike Jupiter, SLS is being set up for a manufacturing rate of two per year (launch can do up to three per year by accumulating hardware first). Going beyond that will require additional infrastructure investments. I mean, I really hope the outlook improves enough that it gets done, but if not it might be a hurdle...
...
(BTW from that quote it sounds like there are indeed fixed costs in EELV prices.)
On the other hand, SLS can't launch less often than once per year or more often (as matters stand) than twice per year on average, and if the thing survives long enough to get to that point I don't expect the manifest to be quite as ethereal as it is now. I don't see any reason why they couldn't run it more or less like they ran Shuttle once it gets going.
With just keeping the Delta-IV Heavy in production, ULA has said that there would be considerable cost for each launch. Usually it seems the USAF has only about 1-payload a year that requires the Delta-IV Heavy. If ULA needs to maintain the Production Line and two launch facilities for one launch a year we could see fairly substantial fixed costs for just one launch. I could imagine the pricing for a single launch a year going at $1 Billion for all that support structure. As you have shown, the projected cost of a single SLS each year is about $2 Billion. At that pricing using the SLS, since you have a smaller incremental cost would seem to be the best thing. Even if you just accept that you might be launching a 20-ton Satellite on a vehicle capable of 70+ tons of performance. For Polar Orbits I wonder if the SLS could perform a "dog-leg" maneuver from the Cape and just take the performance hit?
With just keeping the Delta-IV Heavy in production, ULA has said that there would be considerable cost for each launch. Usually it seems the USAF has only about 1-payload a year that requires the Delta-IV Heavy. If ULA needs to maintain the Production Line and two launch facilities for one launch a year we could see fairly substantial fixed costs for just one launch. I could imagine the pricing for a single launch a year going at $1 Billion for all that support structure. As you have shown, the projected cost of a single SLS each year is about $2 Billion. At that pricing using the SLS, since you have a smaller incremental cost would seem to be the best thing. Even if you just accept that you might be launching a 20-ton Satellite on a vehicle capable of 70+ tons of performance. For Polar Orbits I wonder if the SLS could perform a "dog-leg" maneuver from the Cape and just take the performance hit?
Not going to happen for many reasons. ULA is already consolidating products. Vulcan should be cheaper as well as FH. No payload that size could come online fast enough. NASA is forbidden from competing with the private sector. Polar orbits are usually done out of Vandenberg for reasons of safety.
The only missions SLS can have are manned missions that are impossible to do with commercial crew or cargo or government missions unable to use commercial launchers and one would have to wonder what extra costs and delays doing this would add.
1. NASA is not forbidden from competing with the private sector. Where are you getting that idea from?
2. However high inclination orbits have been done out of the Cape by using a "dog-leg" trajectory. y
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/)
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/)
Yes they are building an payload adapter in case they want to carry something other than Orion, but that something is very debatable as just about nothing has been funded. The short of the Commercial Space Act is that if any private launch provider can do the mission then NASA must use it.
That would seem to depend on what "significant" means, and on how much the SLS program can reduce overhead/infrastructure costs with tech enhancements and right-sizing
...even now we don't know what effect the affordability effort has had.
...yes, I do expect a significant reduction in fixed cost. Advanced infrastructure capable of a small fraction of the Shuttle production rate should cost a heck of a lot less than the legacy infrastructure would have...
Would NASA have use Vulcan even though the payload may require distributed launch which would add a higher risk factor compared to SLS.
I see you have the Dark Knights with 5 RS25E core. What would that size core do with the F1's or AJ1E6's or even 6 like the RSRMV version?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/)
Yes they are building an payload adapter in case they want to carry something other than Orion, but that something is very debatable as just about nothing has been funded. The short of the Commercial Space Act is that if any private launch provider can do the mission then NASA must use it. This is an reversal of pre-Challenger NASA policy and the problems attempting to use the shuttle as the sole launch vechile. This is what makes Orbital, Space X, and ULA possible and what got NASA out of the business of launching communication sats and many probes.
The Air force handed responsibility to launch over to it's contractors and private space was born. Those contractors eventually merged into ULA. This is part of the reason why ULA has both Delta(Boeing) and Atlas(LM). The payload would have to be too large(or something) for either Vulcan or FH to carry in order for SLS to be viable.
Lifting an 20 ton payload could be done by either, it just might not be able to be lifted into as high an orbit but if it falls into the range they can lift it can be done. The military which has much more political pull than NASA has not pushed for higher payload capacities than currently offered and likely would choose FH or Vulcan if they ever needed an bigger payload.
Polar Orbits from Florida present safety issues and would never be done as an matter of course. (i.e. For some reason the payload couldn't go out of Vandenberg).
I understand about the Commercial Space Act. What you are leaving out is the cost-effective part. If the choice is procuring Delta-IV Heavy's at launch price's of over $1 Billion or procuring a SLS at a incremental price of less than $ 500 Million then the SLS could be chosen.
I understand about the Commercial Space Act. What you are leaving out is the cost-effective part. If the choice is procuring Delta-IV Heavy's at launch price's of over $1 Billion or procuring a SLS at a incremental price of less than $ 500 Million then the SLS could be chosen.
DIV isn't going to be over 1 billion and SLS incremental is going to be more than $500 million.
TITLE II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.
(b) Exceptions.--The Federal Government shall not be required to acquire space transportation services under subsection (a) if, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator or, in the case of a national security issue, the Secretary of the Air Force, determines that--
(1) a payload requires the unique capabilities of the Space Shuttle;
(2) cost effective space transportation services that meet specific mission requirements would not be reasonably available from United States commercial providers when required;
(3) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers poses an unacceptable risk of loss of a unique scientific opportunity;
(4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
(5) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with international agreements for international collaborative efforts relating to science and technology;
(6) it is more cost effective to transport a payload in conjunction with a test or demonstration of a space transportation vehicle owned by the Federal Government; or
(7) a payload can make use of the available cargo space on a Space Shuttle mission as a secondary payload, and such payload is consistent with the requirements of research, development, demonstration, scientific, commercial, and educational programs authorized by the Administrator. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Administrator from planning or negotiating agreements with foreign entities for the launch of Federal Government payloads for international collaborative efforts relating to science and technology.
(c) Delayed Effect.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to space transportation services and space transportation vehicles acquired or owned by the Federal Government before the date of the enactment of this Act, or with respect to which a contract for such acquisition or ownership has been entered into before such date.
(d) Historical Purposes.--This section shall not be construed to prohibit the Federal Government from acquiring, owning, or maintaining space transportation vehicles solely for historical display purposes.
The latter is an assumption Jim. There will be no such thing as an incremental price for SLS if it never flies.I understand about the Commercial Space Act. What you are leaving out is the cost-effective part. If the choice is procuring Delta-IV Heavy's at launch price's of over $1 Billion or procuring a SLS at a incremental price of less than $ 500 Million then the SLS could be chosen.
DIV isn't going to be over 1 billion and SLS incremental is going to be more than $500 million.
This act wouldn't prohibit the launching of a DOD payload on the SLS.
This act wouldn't prohibit the launching of a DOD payload on the SLS.
True, but the DOD would prohibit it. They will never get in bed with NASA on a NASA launch vehicle.
Very true, the DOD would be less than thrilled. However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress. Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV.
Very true, the DOD would be less than thrilled. However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress. Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV.
Nonsense. Congress isn't going to do that since they wouldn't know why it would be needed in the first place. DOD would drag their feet anyway. DIVH doesn't have a backup now anyways, so why would it need a backup to a back up. DIVH is not shutting down until Vulcan can handle the missions.
We are getting sidetracked.
Very true, the DOD would be less than thrilled. However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress. Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV.
Nonsense. Congress isn't going to do that since they wouldn't know why it would be needed in the first place. DOD would drag their feet anyway. DIVH doesn't have a backup now anyways, so why would it need a backup to a back up. DIVH is not shutting down until Vulcan can handle the missions.
ULA has already stated that they will phase out all DIV launches by 2018 except for DIVH. On average the DIVH has only averaged about one launch a year. This would mean that all the year over year costs for the DIVH production line and launch facility costs will have be amortized by ULA for this single yearly, DIVH launch. This will have a large impact on the DIVH launch cost's, which are already about $400 Million. This is why I think launch costs for the DIVH could soar approaching $1Billion. Of course this would mean the DIVH would in no way be competitive with the FH (Once the FH gets EELV certification). If ULA cannot get launch contracts for the DIVH they are going to shutdown the production line, regardless of the status of the Vulcan.
In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
It took >$150M to certify the F9. To certify the SLS for DOD payloads,
In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest.
Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS. Those exceptions are for specific purposes.
4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest.
Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS. Those exceptions are for specific purposes.
This assumes the Vulcan Development proceeds without any problems/delays. ULA doesn't even have the commitment from Boeing and LM for full funding for development of the Vulcan. They are going quarter by quarter right now for funding.
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit.Quote4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit.
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit.As Jim alluded to, the law states that the determination would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force:Quote4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
TITLE II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES(My emphasis.)
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.
(b) Exceptions.--The Federal Government shall not be required to acquire space transportation services under subsection (a) if, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator or, in the case of a national security issue, the Secretary of the Air Force, determines that--
.
.
.
(4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest.
Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS. Those exceptions are for specific purposes.
This assumes the Vulcan Development proceeds without any problems/delays. ULA doesn't even have the commitment from Boeing and LM for full funding for development of the Vulcan. They are going quarter by quarter right now for funding.
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit.Quote4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
Delta Heavy won't go offline until Vulcan is online, so won't apply and Congress would be getting into to same mess it did back in the 80ies with respect to the Shuttle. Taking payloads away from the private sector is not an wise move for either the exploration of space or national security. There is no need to use SLS as back up to Vulcan or FH. The smarter, cheaper and less politically dangerous move would just be to wait until Vulcan is online.
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify. Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives. SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit.As Jim alluded to, the law states that the determination would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force:Quote4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;QuoteTITLE II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES(My emphasis.)
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.
(b) Exceptions.--The Federal Government shall not be required to acquire space transportation services under subsection (a) if, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator or, in the case of a national security issue, the Secretary of the Air Force, determines that--
.
.
.
(4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online? Without any launch contracts who is paying for that?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/sls-dod-market-secondary-payloads-potential/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/sls-dod-market-secondary-payloads-potential/)
A article was even written in 2012 on this site about SLS DOD support.
If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online? Without any launch contracts who is paying for that?
As to "tech enhancements and right-sizing", where are you hearing this? NASA would have to pay Boeing more to change their current setup, and they have already locked in their current capabilities.
You keep talking about this like there is some unseen effort to significantly reduce costs. Unless you can point it out in statements NASA or Boeing has made, it's not there.
Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate? If the factory ain't big enough, do you farm out work to other providers, rather like the von Braun team built the first Saturn I stages and then farmed out the work to Chrysler? Do you expand the factory?
Is the issue lack of sufficient tooling?
If so, what is the extra cost of developing a second and/or third tooling set?
Heck, aren't they making spares of most of the most important tooling, anyway? If so, how much additional does it cost to make another set or two?
Postulate: There is a defined (and funded) need to build 3 to 4 SLS rockets a year for a period of 20 to 30 years. (This is the postulate, not an argument -- trying to knock down the postulate short-circuits the purpose of the question.)
Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate?
Jim,Postulate: There is a defined (and funded) need to build 3 to 4 SLS rockets a year for a period of 20 to 30 years. (This is the postulate, not an argument -- trying to knock down the postulate short-circuits the purpose of the question.)
Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate?
Doesn't do any good if it could. The national infrastructure for spacecraft has to be beefed up if SLS is to fly more than Orion or 15ft diameter payloads.
Hence my claim that we don't yet know what effect the new approach will have on ops costs.
You haven't been paying attention. They've been going on about "affordability" and "sustainability" since the program started, and the actual work being done seems to be at least somewhat consistent with the rhetoric.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/
http://spacenews.com/nasa-centers-see-commonality-key-sls-affordability/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120003874.pdf
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=25799
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/10/28/atk-build-sls-boosters-cheaper-peformance/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/31/3-d-printing-makes-its-mark-in-nasas-new-engine/
http://aviationweek.com/space/aerojet-rocketdyne-cranking-expendable-ssme
http://spacenews.com/36012tooling-processes-coming-together-for-affordable-space-launch-system/
Do you have a breakout for the $3B 2018-2027?Hence my claim that we don't yet know what effect the new approach will have on ops costs.
You haven't been paying attention. They've been going on about "affordability" and "sustainability" since the program started, and the actual work being done seems to be at least somewhat consistent with the rhetoric.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/
http://spacenews.com/nasa-centers-see-commonality-key-sls-affordability/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120003874.pdf
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=25799
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/10/28/atk-build-sls-boosters-cheaper-peformance/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/31/3-d-printing-makes-its-mark-in-nasas-new-engine/
http://aviationweek.com/space/aerojet-rocketdyne-cranking-expendable-ssme
http://spacenews.com/36012tooling-processes-coming-together-for-affordable-space-launch-system/
The new estimate is that it takes over 3B/yr to fly SLS/Orion from 2018 to 2027 for SLS/Orion yearly solo shots.
It then takes over $8B/year per the NASA budget (http://i2.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NASA-2015_Budget21.jpg) to fly the SLS 2028 to 2046 mission set (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38507.msg1429504#msg1429504) as it includes ISS Splashdown and abandons commercial crew. (Space Ops 3.83B, Exploration 4.35B, Crew 0.8B, R&D 0.42B).
With only a flight per year in the early 2020s, it also adds $1B/yr Delta Heavy flights. If you start with the wrong architecture and LV/components, so much for afforadability and sustainability.
If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online? Without any launch contracts who is paying for that?
If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online? Without any launch contracts who is paying for that?
Actually it doesn't need any contracts to keep the production line open and the launch facilities in place. The DoD pays ULA $1B (that's "billion" with a B) cash each year to do just that - no launches required and no strings attached.
As to "tech enhancements and right-sizing", where are you hearing this? NASA would have to pay Boeing more to change their current setup, and they have already locked in their current capabilities.
I'm talking about what they've already locked in. You yourself mentioned how they've been bragging about how efficient their new tooling is and how much touch labour it will save, and in the very post I'm quoting you mention the fact that they've designed the infrastructure for low-rate production. (Furthermore, ATK and Rocketdyne have been working to reduce costs as well.)
As an aside, I should acknowledge that the fact that they seem to be understaffed for production of two cores per year probably adds somewhat to the marginal cost of going to that rate. But if you look at the staffing numbers associated with production and how they compare with those for Shuttle, it's hard to see how that by itself could increase it by a whole lot. How much are these people paid?
Give up on trying to figure out "marginal cost". There are no facts to use to calculate it.
Give up on trying to figure out "marginal cost". There are no facts to use to calculate it.
93143 has provided sources. They give us a rough idea about the marginal cost. We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.
If you disagree, then please point out what the costs were supposed to be before they implemented the supposed cost savings.
QuoteBut if you look at the staffing numbers associated with production and how they compare with those for ShuttleAnd stop trying to equate the manufacturing cost of the SLS to the Shuttle External Tank.
We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.
The whole point about SLS unit costs are that the production line is being setup to be at its lowest per unit cost at 1 per year. A higher or lower rate will increase the per unit cost. There is also a maximum rate due to the design of the tooling of 2 per year. To do higher rates a new set of tooling would be needed designed to support 5 or more (10) vehicle production rate per year. This is an overhead cost plus the unit margin costs such that until you get to a production rate of >3 the per unit cost will be more than the current 1 per year. As you move to the closer to 10 per year you may eventually get to the often quoted unit cost amount of $300M.
The conclusion is that for production rates from .5 to 3 per year the unit costs ripple up and down but generally stay almost the same or greater than the current setup for 1 per year amount.
Okay, first you should probably define what you mean by "unit cost".
Give up on trying to figure out "marginal cost". There are no facts to use to calculate it.
93143 has provided sources. They give us a rough idea about the marginal cost. We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.
If you disagree, then please point out what the costs were supposed to be before they implemented the supposed cost savings.
This isn't the first time anyone has designed a launch vehicle like this. NLS-1 made it through PDR, and a lot of information is available publicly.
Even the ESD Integration estimates were based directly on Shuttle and Ares; it straight-up says so in the document, and the fact that the estimated fixed cost is very similar to that of the J-246 would seem to back this up.
The increase or decrease in the total cost of a production run for making one additional unit of an item. It is computed in situations where the break-even point has been reached: the fixed costs have already been absorbed by the already produced items and only the direct (variable) costs have to be accounted for.
Expenditure incurred in producing one unit of a good or service, computed usually as average cost.
NASA used to claim low marginal costs for the Shuttle, but now know at the end of the program that each flight cost $1.2B without development factored in.
When you talk about "marginal cost", that is for production SLS units. And so far not even a development or pre-production SLS has been built, much less flown.
The last contract I could find on the cost of the ET showed that it cost $173M/ea back in 2010 when procured in quantities of at least 17 units. So if the SLS 1st stage cost 3.2X the Shuttle ET that would be $554M/ea - no engines or other accessories.
To exactly which document do you refer? If to "ESD Integration; Budget Availability Scenarios" dated 19 August 2011 (attached to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg811814#msg811814)), where does the statement appear?
The specifics of the problem are this:
1) For going from 1 to 2 the fixed costs are the same and the incremental cost per unit is the same so the marginal cost is equal to the incremental cost.
2) For going from 2 to 3 the fixed costs increase by 50-80% but the incremental costs are the same. So the marginal cost for going from 2 to 3 is the 50-80% increase in fixed cost plus an incremental cost.
3) Going from 3 to 4 is the same marginal cost value as that for going from 1 to 2.
As regards costs, is it possible that for example to increase the production rate Michoud would need more of these temporary storage fixtures? They wouldn't be expensive, perhaps, but they aren't zero cost either....
...We were discussing marginal costs associated with changes in flight rate...
That's an interesting question. What, exactly, is the bottleneck that prevents the current setup from exceeding two cores per year? It seems odd that no individual tool would be capable of any more than that; it's an awfully slow production rate even for such large components...
I think the maximum production stated by NASA is by using the current or existing workforce. I think more can be made per year IF they ramp up production by adding extra shifts, and or weekend shifts. They were able to producte what, 4-6 Saturn V cores per year. Why not produce the same SLS cores. Surely they can produce more solid cores than two per year or even 4 per year. How long did it take them to produce 1,000 Minutemen's in the 1960's? 4-5 years?
That's an interesting question. What, exactly, is the bottleneck that prevents the current setup from exceeding two cores per year? It seems odd that no individual tool would be capable of any more than that; it's an awfully slow production rate even for such large components...
Not really. The plant was designed from the get go with a certain amount of production in mind. Tooling, processes and procedures don’t scale the same efficiency at every production rate.
1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6.
2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms.
Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6.
So, can ATK manufacture 12 solid boosters a year to match?
I guess if they are going to Mars using SLS, they are probably going to have to use other launchers to launch components, fuel, SEP tugs, habitats, or something to LEO or to L2 and assemble to go to Mars.
More SLS launches would equal less in space assembly.
NASA simply desgined the factory for SLS and for an flight rate of 1-2 an year and it likely was an attractive thing to do(complies with the law--which states nothing about production rate). President not actively engaged(not his baby) and does nothing to further his goal(commercialization of human spaceflight). Saves money(designing for smaller scales of production is cheaper than larger scales). All parties are fine with it.
It isn't one tool, it is the whole thing.
The evolvable Mars campaign has a maximum of 3 SLS launches during certain years. Do we really need to up the SLS production rate beyond 2 a year? Assuming NASA only uses SLS they could store extra cores made during the decade of once a year flights and then use them for the years that require 3 flights. Block 2B uses the same core and upper stage as Block 1B.
Alternatively you could tag team SLS with Vulcan and Falcon to launch some elements of the mission. That should get rid of the need to launch more than 2 SLS's a year.
Sure, or even go all commercial. Letting commercial launchers into the mix opens Pandora's box for NASA, since it will highlight the disadvantages of a government-run HLV transportation system - chief of which would be cost and redundancy. Quite the conundrum...
...We were discussing marginal costs associated with changes in flight rate...
What was the original supposition that lead to this discussion about "marginal cost"? I think it's been a while, and I've forgotten.
Is "marginal cost" something that will play into the discussion about the future of the SLS? In other words, is a future NASA Administrator going to be called in front of Congress and asked what the "marginal cost" is of the SLS, and that their answer will determine whether an additional SLS is authorized?
Or are we talking about something that only accountants get excited about?
Do we really need to up the SLS production rate beyond 2 a year?
QuoteMore SLS launches would equal less in space assembly.There are trade-offs that negate that potential advantage.
Going all commercial wouldn't work IMHO. You would run into capacity and volume issues that I have pointed out previously.
A number of payloads as well as manned Orion launches wouldn't work on a Falcon Heavy or a Vulcan.
The best bet is to use commercial to supplement SLS.
Do we really need to up the SLS production rate beyond 2 a year?
Do we really need a space program at all?
Now, we probably don't need SLS making milk runs to the ISS. But I see no reason why a couple of heavy lunar landers per year (perhaps developed from existing upper stage technology, so as to save money vs. Altair) should be out of scope, except that Obama's "vision" seems to have sucked all the hope out of everybody. Add depots (with tankers), and you've freed up a couple of launches, but you still have to go past two per year if you want to do literally anything else on top of your six-month moon base rotation. Like, say, launch scientific probes to the outer planets, or large space telescopes, or BA-330s to cislunar space, or BA-2100s to LEO, or the notional giant black payloads that have been hinted about, or, y'know... go to Mars. Especially every two years...
I'd rather see a focus on landing on the Moon, practicing base building there, and developing a L2 station than trying to do a bare bones trip to Mars.
Clarification please.1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6.
2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms.
Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
Clarification please.1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6.
2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms.
Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
Are you saying there is one pad, or more than 1 pad for SLS?
So if they had two MLP's and used two bays to set up a couple of SLS's, they could what launch 1 a week?
So, it seems to me the bottleneck for launching more than two a year is production at McCloud facility.
Now is seems they should have designed a clean sheet with reusable boosters and core, or at least a return pod with the engines.
So if they had two MLP's and used two bays to set up a couple of SLS's, they could what launch 1 a week?
No, booster stacking takes longer than that. Add in upper stage and payload and VAB time is much more than Shuttle.
1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6.
2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms.
1. Not true. Space/volume does not determine capability. The tooling does. Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users
2. See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted. Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.
There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.
There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.
Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.
So now that we know that NASA will never build another ML or have more than one launch pad. How long will it take NASA to launch all of the SLS needed for one complete current Mars DRM mission, given one ML, one pad, and one VAB high bay. Have they gotten the number of launches below 10 yet?
Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!
Thanks.
Mars 2039:
Build up for the first human Mars mission would commence in 2033 with the launch of an SLS mission to deliver the TEI stage to Cis-lunar space.
This would be followed in 2034 by the launch of the first two Mars Surface Landers on two separate SLS missions.
The year 2035 would then see two more SLS missions, with the launches of the third and fourth Mars Surface Landers.
This would be followed in 2036 with the launch of the fifth and final Mars Surface Lander.
With the launch of the fifth lander, all pre-deployment payloads for the first human Mars mission will have been launched.
The year 2036 would then see the launch of the EOI stage before the 2037 launches of the MOI and TMI stages on two separate SLS launches.
In 2038, a crewed mission of Orion and SLS would bring a check out crew on a restock mission to the Mars Transit Habitat — which would have returned to Cis-lunar space in late 2035 from the human Phobos mission.
If those checkouts and restocks are successful, the first crew for Mars would then launch in 2039 to the Mars Transit Habitat before departing Cis-lunar space for Mars.
Assuming a nominal mission, a single SLS flight would be needed in 2042 to launch an Orion capsule to retrieve the first Mars crew and their cargo following their return to Cis-lunar space.
For the first human mission to Mars, SLS’s launch campaign will see it deliver 630.7t of mass to Cis-lunar space.
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.
There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.
Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.
Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.
There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.
Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.
Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!
No we're not. We're sending pork to particular states and districts that used to build STS parts. No money at all is allocated to do anything on Mars. And likely never will be.
one thing no one mentions is the $4 Billion ISS budget. [...] Once that program is done, the entire NASA HSF budget of $9 Billion would be enough to support a Phobos/Mars program with international support imo.
two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS. [...] I predict SLS will be cancelled by the mid 2020's
two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS. [...] I predict SLS will be cancelled by the mid 2020's
Yes, that might happen. By then we'll know so much more about SpaceX and Bigelow and what they can accomplish! Perhaps they will be able to work with ESA and JAXA on an international LEO station. It might be fun to discuss that on another thread.
The question that's relevant here is whether NASA could leverage its ISS experience with ESA and JAXA in a fairly straight-forward way to create an International Skylab, launched on SLS. I think they could!
Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.
1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6.
2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms.
1. Not true. Space/volume does not determine capability. The tooling does. Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users
2. See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted. Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?
~Jon
Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?
1. Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year. So, the facility can at least do 6.
2. The VAB can process at least 4 at a time. It has 4 bays. They would have to build at least 4 platforms.
1. Not true. Space/volume does not determine capability. The tooling does. Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users
2. See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted. Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?
~Jon
Somewhere on L2 there was nice overview of the VAB facility and the maximum number of SRB segments allowed in there. I thought it was 10 segments total.
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.
SLS could be used for a cis-lunar station. Perhaps a gateway station at EML-2.
ESA, JAXA, and Russia could work with China on the Chinese space station. Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.
As to possible commercial stations, NASA did a study (referenced in this NSF article (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/)) that said a notional Bigelow BA-2100 could fly on a Falcon Heavy.
As I understand it, there is/was some doubt as to whether the mass will end up low enough.
\Which then brings us back to the Mars mission proposals mentioned in the recent article, as Khadgars kindly pointed out. One proposal has two SLS launches of equipment to Mars in 2034, 2035, and 2036. (Five landers and the EOI stage.)
I'm no orbital expert, but I thought that Mars missions were normally spaced out every two years due to the relationship between Earth's and Mars' orbits. Is it possible to launch large payloads to Mars in the "off" years?
When FH comes on line, two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS.
I keep hearing that. But one thing no one mentions is the $4 Billion ISS budget.
Once that program is done, the entire NASA HSF budget of $9 Billion would be enough to support a Phobos/Mars program with international support imo.
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station. SLS could be used for a cis-lunar station. Perhaps a gateway station at EML-2.
ESA, JAXA, and Russia could work with China on the Chinese space station. Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.
I agree that powerful people (including I think NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden) say that, and it reflects the view of the President of the United States. But in 2020 I do not believe Charlie Bolden will be NASA Administrator, and I am 100% certain President Obama will no longer occupy the Oval Office!
Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?
~Jon
Somewhere on L2 there was nice overview of the VAB facility and the maximum number of SRB segments allowed in there. I thought it was 10 segments total.
Ok, so I'm not misremembering things. So that would prevent having more than two SLS's in the building at any given time. One of the joys of big SRBs...
~Jon
EDIT: After double-checking a bit, it seems my memory was correct; from what we know, BA-2100 is not close to being light enough for the 53-tonne Falcon Heavy to lift it. Some sort of upgrade would be required.
It is speculated that by 2024 SpaceX would have its BFR flying but maybe not the MCT so they could use that vehicle with an interim expendable US to launch SLS sized cargo (15m diameter and 100mt+ weight payloads).EDIT: After double-checking a bit, it seems my memory was correct; from what we know, BA-2100 is not close to being light enough for the 53-tonne Falcon Heavy to lift it. Some sort of upgrade would be required.
Well talk with Bigelow about that, but if the moniker "BA-2100" is what bothers you, change the name to BA-2000, or BA-1782. Remember it doesn't have a firm requirement - it's notional.
You are correct that the window opens every two years. There can be up to a few months where a launch can make use of it. However we are likely to see any Mars bound depart from LDRO or L2. Over the previous two years the hardware would have been positioned there and assembled. The last launch necessary would likely be the crew. A couple weeks margin could be included in making the Mars window by having the crew launch before the craft needed to leave for Mars. SEP could open the window up a bit more too. Srubs will happen but the planners will account for that and draw the schedules up so that things are not so rushed before the window closes.Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?
Ha! You should have seen my post before I self-censored it. LOL.
So, now the consensus is that there will only be one ML, thus the minimum time between SLS launches will be however long it takes to stack one up in the VAB. Does anyone have an idea about how long that may be?
Which then brings us back to the Mars mission proposals mentioned in the recent article, as Khadgars kindly pointed out. One proposal has two SLS launches of equipment to Mars in 2034, 2035, and 2036. (Five landers and the EOI stage.)
I'm no orbital expert, but I thought that Mars missions were normally spaced out every two years due to the relationship between Earth's and Mars' orbits. Is it possible to launch large payloads to Mars in the "off" years?
And, going back to the minimum time between SLS launches, how large is the launch window for Mars missions in the "on" years? Is it possible that a delay in the stacking of the second SLS in a sequence would cause it to miss the launch window?
Thanks.
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.
I agree that powerful people [...] say that
It reflects the view of many at NASA
It is speculated that by 2024 SpaceX would have its BFR flying but maybe not the MCT so they could use that vehicle with an interim expendable US to launch SLS sized cargo (15m diameter and 100mt+ weight payloads).
EDIT: After double-checking a bit, it seems my memory was correct; from what we know, BA-2100 is not close to being light enough for the 53-tonne Falcon Heavy to lift it. Some sort of upgrade would be required.
Well talk with Bigelow about that, but if the moniker "BA-2100" is what bothers you, change the name to BA-2000, or BA-1782. Remember it doesn't have a firm requirement - it's notional.
To exactly which document do you refer? If to "ESD Integration; Budget Availability Scenarios" dated 19 August 2011 (attached to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg811814#msg811814)), where does the statement appear?
Right below every sand chart, it says the following:
FY11: 21st CGS = CxP GO; MPCV = CxP Orion + EVA + MO; SLS =Ares I FS (Booster / Avionics), Ares I J-2X (US Engine), SSP SSME (Core Engine), SSP ET (Core Stage), Ares I PM / VI / S&MA / FITO (Prog Integ)
I may have overstated the clarity of the statement somewhat; how would you interpret this?
For example, while SLS's core stage superficially looks just like a Space Shuttle ET, it is in fact quite different, if for no other reason than the very different loads it bears.
Booz Allen Hamilton produced a contemporaneous critique (summary attached, for those who may not have seen it earlier) which described the cost savings NASA assumed for Orion/SLS as poorly justified.
Regardless of whether the criticism was correct, it does show that the ESD budget scenarios assumed future cost savings and were not based solely on Shuttle/Ares costs.
If they are going to build a station, I agree it should be at L1 or L2. I also wish they would build a rotating station at least with moon gravity. I would really like them to build one based on Mars gravity, to test long term effects of Martian gravity on humans.
The L point station should also be modular enough to have replacements periodically for continuous operations. It should also be able to expand into a fuel depot for Mars transits, and a warehouse type depot for Mars cargo departures.
All this can be future planned 100 ton launches from the SLS, to minimize in space assembly. Smaller components could be launched using existing launchers, FH, and Vulcan. Until SpaceX gets the BFR going.
No justification has yet been presented for "the ESD Integration estimates were based directly on Shuttle and Ares."
Thanks to BAH, we know that NASA built to-be-realized cost efficiencies into at least some of its scenarios.
There is a theoretical possibility that NASA applied those efficiencies only to Case 1 and not to other cases, but that's rather unlikely and would be positively disingenuous.
You infer that inflation has been built into ESD's estimates. How do you do that? With budgets generally flat-lining, except for an explicit in-space-elements "wedge" in later years, it looks to me like everything is priced in FY 2012 dollars.
"RY" might mean "real": I suppose to people who spend their workdays with terms like "FY", "CY" and "TY, " a construction like "RY" might seem reasonable.
I'm not aware of any design for a rotating station that requires 100 ton modular components (i.e. SLS), or even 50 ton components (i.e. FH).
And using Earth analogies, we build the largest buildings in the world using the same sized semi-trailer trucks that we use for much building small houses, so I think $/kg will be the more important metric for determining which type of transportation is used, not size.
I'm not aware of any design for a rotating station that requires 100 ton modular components (i.e. SLS), or even 50 ton components (i.e. FH).
Those are LEO masses. For an L-point station you'd be looking at much smaller units, unless you postulate additional propulsion technologies (depots, large electric tugs).
QuoteAnd using Earth analogies, we build the largest buildings in the world using the same sized semi-trailer trucks that we use for much building small houses, so I think $/kg will be the more important metric for determining which type of transportation is used, not size.
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.362
The point is true but only for the case where the number of total modules flown on the larger booster is less than a factor of 3 than the number of unique module designs. This holds for using a comparison of FHR and SLS where <40mt vs 100mt and a price difference factor for launch of 5.3. The cost of design of a module does not vary due to its size unless you get to very small building elements vs complete large modules. But manufacturing costs do vary based on module size. So for an ISS like station using SLS would be about 50% cheaper than using FHR to put all the same capability up in larger modules than using smaller modules with a smaller booster.I'm not aware of any design for a rotating station that requires 100 ton modular components (i.e. SLS), or even 50 ton components (i.e. FH).
Those are LEO masses. For an L-point station you'd be looking at much smaller units, unless you postulate additional propulsion technologies (depots, large electric tugs).
If we're moving construction mass beyond LEO, then using SEP tugs or some other form of more efficient transportation would be used - we don't have to be constrained by the limitations of an upper stage.QuoteQuoteAnd using Earth analogies, we build the largest buildings in the world using the same sized semi-trailer trucks that we use for much building small houses, so I think $/kg will be the more important metric for determining which type of transportation is used, not size.
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.362
I'm not paying money for some 12 year old random study to try and figure out whether you have a point or not.
@oldAtlas_Eguy you do realize that a SLS that can put 100mt in LEO is a Block 2 variant. We only have the Block-1 and maybe the Block-1B available for the foreseeable future. I am guessing the SLS can get roughly 50 or 60 mt up to LEO with a non-Block-2 variant.
It could be manned continuously to monitor the fuels, and make maybe have robotic arms for helping SEP tugs refuel, or various vehicles to dock and refuel for out flights.
The basic point I was trying to make was about the validity of the economic model. To say using one LV over another would be generally less total cost cannot be made, it is a specific case by case situation.@oldAtlas_Eguy you do realize that a SLS that can put 100mt in LEO is a Block 2 variant. We only have the Block-1 and maybe the Block-1B available for the foreseeable future. I am guessing the SLS can get roughly 50 or 60 mt up to LEO with a non-Block-2 variant.
No, Block-2 is 130mt. Block-1 is basically the development version. Block-1B is the future workhorse variant, and it will put more than 100mt into LEO.
Mark S.
The basic point I was trying to make was about the validity of the economic model. To say using one LV over another would be generally less total cost cannot be made, it is a specific case by case situation.
I just created my own simplistic eco model of the problem and relationships and checked what the results were. It showed that while the $/kg difference between the two launchers is important it is not the controlling factor but the factor of total modules to unique module designs. Its another form of economies of scale. If the quantities are high enough the high costs of design for each unique design can be overcome by the high number of identical modules reducing the total cost of the system. Launch costs are actually only a portion of the total costs at most 50% or even a lot less at almost 10%. Like I said because of the multiple variables at play singling out any one variable as the definitive decider is an error. Because launch costs are an additional cost and not the most significant cost reduction of launch costs does not have as much effect as some would believe and in some cases other cost increases are greater than the cost savings using a cheaper launcher.The basic point I was trying to make was about the validity of the economic model. To say using one LV over another would be generally less total cost cannot be made, it is a specific case by case situation.
Did you read the paper or is that your opinion? You do kinda sound like you have a source for your numbers...
I was referencing the abstract, not to prove that SLS is always better but to show that $/kg is not necessarily the more important metric as Coastal Ron suggested.
I just created my own simplistic eco model of the problem and relationships and checked what the results were. It showed that while the $/kg difference between the two launchers is important it is not the controlling factor but the factor of total modules to unique module designs.
Actually the eco module applies to even a single large unit flown on SLS where it takes 3 unique units flown on FHR. But if it was 3 identical units flown on SLS and then 3 flights each of 3 unique units on FHR there may be a cost savings using FHR over that of SLS. Like I said it is a case by case economic analysis problem to determine which will be cheaper due to the added costs of designing multiple units vs a single larger unit. It is that last that is the economic problem. If the larger unit can be substituted by using say 3 identical smaller units then SLS losses hands down in total costs for the system (Launch + unit development+unit manufacturing+on orbit assembly(if needed)). This problem is basically due to the high cost of development vs the cost of manufacture once the design has been done. This ratio is usually somewhere around 5 (development/design to manufacturing). This means that quantity and cost of launch are related to total system costs. High quantity and smaller lower launch costs will equal lower total system costs but exactly where this crossover point is for any given unit is a function of the costs for the unit (design and manufacturing + the number of launches at a launch cost for a specific booster).I just created my own simplistic eco model of the problem and relationships and checked what the results were. It showed that while the $/kg difference between the two launchers is important it is not the controlling factor but the factor of total modules to unique module designs.
This assumes the construction method is based on assembling modules, and that may not be the ultimate design, or at least not a majority of the ultimate design. For instance, with a rotating space station quite a bit of the total mass will likely be taken up by supports and floors and such, not living space, and those would likely be more mass dense than living space modules would be (with no real designs, "likely" is the operative word).
However, this discussion about rotating space stations is really premature, since based on my calculations the mass of such stations, even if they are only .5G or so, would be far, far bigger than the mass of the ISS, which is 450mT. And I don't see any funded need for such a structure in the near future.
QuoteThe L point station should also be modular enough to have replacements periodically for continuous operations. It should also be able to expand into a fuel depot for Mars transits, and a warehouse type depot for Mars cargo departures.
Using Earth analogies, we don't combine hotels with gas stations, for a number of reasons, but even in space I'm not sure there would be enough synergy or need to combine them.
So since the adapter/interstage is shown as being foam covered as well as the core would the two likely be joined before foam is applied or can the foam be applied to both and then connect the two parts?
So since the adapter/interstage is shown as being foam covered as well as the core would the two likely be joined before foam is applied or can the foam be applied to both and then connect the two parts?
I don't think the adapter is foam covered. It's just painted orange to match the tanks for some reason. It has to be painted, so why not orange (other than flying carrot jokes)?
But in my opinion, it should be white. The tanks are only orange because that's the natural color of the foam insulation, and they don't want to paint it, in order to save weight. Not because orange is the cool color now. Or ever, in spite of OITNB.
Mark S.
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.
So since the adapter/interstage is shown as being foam covered as well as the core would the two likely be joined before foam is applied or can the foam be applied to both and then connect the two parts?
I don't think the adapter is foam covered. It's just painted orange to match the tanks for some reason. It has to be painted, so why not orange (other than flying carrot jokes)?
But in my opinion, it should be white. The tanks are only orange because that's the natural color of the foam insulation, and they don't want to paint it, in order to save weight. Not because orange is the cool color now. Or ever, in spite of OITNB.
Mark S.
The LVSA is covered in foam now. Not sure why, but it is, per this:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-completes-critical-design-review-for-space-launch-system (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-completes-critical-design-review-for-space-launch-system)QuoteCritical 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.
I have no idea why they would put foam on the LVSA. Does anyone else have any insight on that decision?
The post-CDR design does include more foam on the top end of the rocket after an additional decision included a call for the LVSA (Launch Vehicle to Stage Adaptor) to have foam on the outside, based on the latest thermal analysis.
Given the LVSA has the core stage LOX tank below it, the ICPS LOX tank inside, and the ICPS LH2 tank above it, it is expected this area of the rocket will become cold during the final countdown and form ice on the outside.
Presently, SLS Near-Term Look-Ahead schedules show that the VAC will be turned over from the construction contractor ESAB to Boeing at the end of this week on 31 October.
... because for every pound of paint applied, a pound of payload delivery ability would have been removed from SLS’s capability.
It is close to correct. Mass saved from the last rocket stage of any rocket will be close to the amount of extra payload mass. In the case where it has no upper stage the core is the last stage so not painting will add payload mass roughly equal to the mass of the unused paint. However SLS will also fly with the ICPS and EUS upper stages. So when flying in those configurations the mass savings in paint will increase payload but not at a near 1:1 ratio. It will still add a bit of payload mass though since the core is jettisoned late in flight. That paint needs to be hauled through a good amount of the imparted delta V.Quote... because for every pound of paint applied, a pound of payload delivery ability would have been removed from SLS’s capability.
Is that correct ?
From a NASA blog post today, for what it's worth:
Like you, I have no idea why they would put foam on the LVSA. Does anyone else have any insight on that decision?
Mark S.
Also insulated with the orange foam is the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter, the conical section that connects the core stage with the upper stage. Because this section widens so much from top to bottom, it will experience extreme aerodynamic heating during launch, and the foam will protect the metal underneath from the high temperatures.
That's interesting. I wonder what makes launch heating on the SLS adapter more problematic than it would have been on the Saturn V second-third stage adapter.
Dedicated EM-1 section coming soon, but here's another cool overview of the flow to EM-1 via Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/road-em-1-nasa-hardware-milestones-sls-debut-flight/
Under the current Integrated Mission Milestone Summary, the Forward and Center SRB segments will arrive at the Kennedy Space Center in September and October 2017.
This will be followed by the delivery of the Aft Skirts in November/December 2017 and then the Aft segments of the SRBs in late-January/early-February 2018.
Finally, the Forward segments are currently slated to arrive at the Kennedy Space Center in early March 2018.
I'd be curious to know how long it would take to build the SECOND SLS system. Meaning, there is so much time spent developing the tooling and doing the certification for this first SLS that I'm curious to see how long it would take just to build the second SLS once all this tooling and certification process has been completed.
I'd be curious to know how long it would take to build the SECOND SLS system. Meaning, there is so much time spent developing the tooling and doing the certification for this first SLS that I'm curious to see how long it would take just to build the second SLS once all this tooling and certification process has been completed.
Just to establish a best case for what Boeing can do, the outgoing SLS Program Manager at Boeing was quoted as saying (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):
"Boeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility."
My background is in manufacturing operations, and quite often I've overseen the scheduling of new products (and sometimes factories). Even with incremental upgrades of products there are usually processes that take time to dial in, and with the SLS the production rate is so low that they can't get enough experience to dial in their processes until many years from now. Of course lots of time between builds means that the staff has a lot of time to do dry-runs in between production runs, so that could help them optimize their processes without having to actually build completed parts.
But still, you need to build the actual parts in order to validate that you know how to build the product within the planned/allocated amount of time.
My guess would be about a year for SLS-2, which is probably about 120-140% above the eventual production time.
So, question - how are the staff at Michoud allocated for this? Is it a small workforce that's working full-time on SLS, or a larger workforce that's part-time on SLS, part time on other projects? IOW, is one, maybe two rockets a year enough to keep a full-time staff employed, much less keep their skills sharp?
So, question - how are the staff at Michoud allocated for this? Is it a small workforce that's working full-time on SLS, or a larger workforce that's part-time on SLS, part time on other projects? IOW, is one, maybe two rockets a year enough to keep a full-time staff employed, much less keep their skills sharp?
I don't know, but my guess is that the factory is staffed with full-time workers, and that they don't work on any other contracts. However they may not have hired all of the eventually positions they would need for full-rate production (which for now would be assumed to be 1/year).
And by virtue of how the SLS is assembled, I'm assuming people will move with the parts as they go through the different work stations, so they would need people with good general skills that can do many tasks.
Back in the days of Saturn, I would have seen the validity in that. Nowadays, however, I would think that most work on machines of this complexity is CAM-robotic and that many of the technicians monitor the computer driven robotic tools.
Human machinists lose skills over time if not practiced enough, and institutional memory is lost over time via attrition. In this day and age, however, a CAM program can be kept in storage devices and employed at any time.
You have stated that you were involved in manufacturing, but were you involved in manufacturing sophisticated modern rockets? What did you manufacture and to what degree was the product dependent on a human machinist's skills versus modern integrated computer controlled robots?
You have never mentioned the product field as being ultra-sophisticated, so I am not convinced that the manufacturing model you describe remains valid.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Exploration gets $4.03B, including $1.27B for Orion and $2B for SLS, the latter far above the administration’s request.
If it's going to be used to launch a Europa probe in 2022, they need to advance the schedule a bit. That might explain the extra funding.The fact they specifically included a "lander" in the language of a Europa mission, they may need a bit more time anyways. Maybe not. But they also explicitly put in language to fund the EUS and essentially replace ICPS for EM-2.
If it's going to be used to launch a Europa probe in 2022, they need to advance the schedule a bit. That might explain the extra funding.The fact they specifically included a "lander" in the language of a Europa mission, they may need a bit more time anyways. Maybe not. But they also explicitly put in language to fund the EUS and essentially replace ICPS for EM-2.
Okay, I'm hoping that I can get some solid information here. As far as I know, so far, the SLS missions are:EM-1 2018 Will fly main engines(ME) ME2045, ME2056, ME2058 and ME2060
EM-1 - Uncrewed trans-Lunar flyby with iCPS - 2018;
SLS-02 - Europa probe launch with EUS or iCPS, depending on the exact schedule of EM-2 - 2022-ish;
EM-2 - ? (AFAIK, the ARM is still baseline although there does seem to be something of a retreat underway) - 2022/23;
SLS-04 (?) - ? (Possible cargo precursor for EM-3) - Undefined;
EM-3 - ? (No mission defined as yet) - Undefined.
IIRC, EM-3's launch vehicle, SLS-05, represents the point where the RS-25D stockpile run out and SLS needs to switch to RS-25E if there are to be further missions in the program. What is the latest time, realistically speaking, when Aeroject/PWR need to start building the tooling for RS-25E in order to avoid serious delays?
Okay, I'm hoping that I can get some solid information here. As far as I know, so far, the SLS missions are:
EM-1 - Uncrewed trans-Lunar flyby with iCPS - 2018;
SLS-02 - Europa probe launch with EUS or iCPS, depending on the exact schedule of EM-2 - 2022-ish;
EM-2 - ? (AFAIK, the ARM is still baseline although there does seem to be something of a retreat underway) - 2022/23;
SLS-04 (?) - ? (Possible cargo precursor for EM-3) - Undefined;
EM-3 - ? (No mission defined as yet) - Undefined.
IIRC, EM-3's launch vehicle, SLS-05, represents the point where the RS-25D stockpile run out and SLS needs to switch to RS-25E if there are to be further missions in the program. What is the latest time, realistically speaking, when Aeroject/PWR need to start building the tooling for RS-25E in order to avoid serious delays?
What is the latest time, realistically speaking, when Aeroject/PWR need to start building the tooling for RS-25E in order to avoid serious delays?
Some disturbing conclusions.
Discuss
http://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-worries-about-schedule-pressure-on-exploration-programs/ (http://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-worries-about-schedule-pressure-on-exploration-programs/)
An aft skirt similar to one that will be used on a solid rocket booster (SRB) that will help launch NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket into space was transported from the Booster Fabrication Facility to the Rotation, Processing and Surge Facility (RPSF) at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
The aft skirt will remain in the RPSF and be readied for simulated stacking operations with a pathfinder, or test version, of a solid rocket booster. February 1 will mark the official start date for booster pathfinder operations after the aft skirt is inspected and undergoes limited processing.
Segments of the pathfinder SRB will arrive from Promontory, Utah, to Kennedy in mid-February and will be transported to the RPSF.
Engineers and technicians with NASA and industry partners will conduct a series of lifts, moves and stacking operations using the aft skirt and pathfinder SRB to simulate how SRB will be processed in the RPSF to prepare for an SLS/Orion mission.
The pathfinder operations will help to test recent upgrades to the RPSF facility as the center prepares for NASA’s Exploration Mission-1, deep-space missions, and the journey to Mars.
Regarding the production and flight rate of SLS, which really looks quite low. I tried to figure out why they did this approach.
My only guess so far: They've set up a production line for 1-2 SLS per year to learn how to operate SLS and its production line. After a few flights, they should know about the difficulties of SLS during production, and what might be needed to solve them. At the flight itself, I expect SLS to be pretty much flawless (unless something happens that they did not anticipate). To stress a metaphor that was used a few pages back: learn to bake such a cake before going into bakery scale production.
With the EUS (I think, that will be the only US, that they will use) and a RS-25F (the one after E, where AJ expects it to be much cheaper, since they'd have learned from their production aswell), they could ramp up the production to several unity per year (they might even go up to 10-12, but that would be very high. 5 additional SLS should be doable).
That will still leave the problem where to launch such an amount of rockets from. 39B won't be sufficient. It should be possible to convert one or two of the older launch pads to a SLS-pad, or set up entirely new pads off shore (the art of making islands with lots of concrete), connected with the crawler-ways, or even become a tenant in boca chica.
So you're saying that visionary strategic thinking has established this pace...
One day, we'll see SLS launch every month or two.
Novel.
That will still leave the problem where to launch such an amount of rockets from. 39B won't be sufficient. It should be possible to convert one or two of the older launch pads to a SLS-pad, or set up entirely new pads off shore (the art of making islands with lots of concrete), connected with the crawler-ways, or even become a tenant in boca chica.If the cadence starts to pick up NASA would likely just retake possession of 39A once the lease expires.
First problem, they cannot produce more that 1 a year as set-up. Maybe 2 a year if you increase the workforce. More than 2 a year means more equipment to build more plus more work force. And that is simply building the core. SRBs and engines also cannot support more than maybe 2 a year without greater infrastructure and workforce.
Flip a coin and say the billions to do that happens. If memory serves, they have two mobile transporters. So 39-b should be able to handle 1 flight per month. Probably requires increase workforce for stacking and pad repairs.
So the reason production is set to one a year is money. Some estimates say to produce and launch one SLS is $1.5 billion. So to launch 11 more a year would require another $16.5 billion. I do not see Congress doing that.
Nope. Only one mobile launch tower, so you can't begin to assemble the next one, till the one on the pad is gone. Saturn V's could go at about 3 month intervals (3 mobile towers). Don't know how long these would take to assemble and check out.
Regarding the production and flight rate of SLS, which really looks quite low. I tried to figure out why they did this approach.
My only guess so far: They've set up a production line for 1-2 SLS per year to learn how to operate SLS and its production line.
After a few flights, they should know about the difficulties of SLS during production, and what might be needed to solve them.
At the flight itself, I expect SLS to be pretty much flawless (unless something happens that they did not anticipate).
That will still leave the problem where to launch such an amount of rockets from. 39B won't be sufficient.
So it is just not possible to set up a second production line, designed for a higher production rate? Who would have known that this is michouds capacity limit.
Well, we probably are arguing over nothing but there were and are two crawler transporters, CT-1 and CT-2. I concede only CT-1 is being modified for SLS operations. CT-2 is being upgraded (or finished upgrading) so it could be used in the future but not ready to use now. So you are correct on that as a bottleneck.
The time for preparing the flight could mean one transporter could be used for a once a month cycle. A day to the pad. 2 days for launch. A day back. So three weeks to stack before the next launch. Weather and equipment days would also stress such a wild ass guess of operations tempo.
Now something else that could be a bottleneck, I can't remember had many bays are available in the VAB. They were trying to lease those out as well. But if they are down to one CT, then they only need one bay.
If memory serves, it was also budget that held Saturn V launches to their launch tempo.
So I would still say budget (money) is the constraining factor.
So it is just not possible to set up a second production line, designed for a higher production rate? Who would have known that this is michouds capacity limit.
I am not sure about Michouds capacity. They do have more than one project there at a time. But there may be empty space for more production equipment.
I'm not trying to say it is not possible to physically expand production facilities.
The barrier would be funding.
So, I'm not saying 'impossible'. But, to grow NASA's budget large enough to fund producing 12 SLS stacks a year, fund payloads for those stacks, and funding the launches would be more money that NASA has ever been allocated even in the peak years of Apollo.
So, I'm not saying 'impossible'. But, to grow NASA's budget large enough to fund producing 12 SLS stacks a year, fund payloads for those stacks, and funding the launches would be more money that NASA has ever been allocated even in the peak years of Apollo.
So, I'm not saying 'impossible'. But, to grow NASA's budget large enough to fund producing 12 SLS stacks a year, fund payloads for those stacks, and funding the launches would be more money that NASA has ever been allocated even in the peak years of Apollo.
Admittedly unlikely - however, we may see incremental budget allocation rises with the nature of the times. Space is interesting to the electorate again.
So you're saying that visionary strategic thinking has established this pace...
One day, we'll see SLS launch every month or two.
Novel.
At least it is better than thinking that they are a bunch of funny guys who really expect, that it is economically feasable to launch one rocket for 1.5 billion US$ (before adding any payload).
I just provided a possible alternative explanation, which would look a bit better.
I suspect both ends of that dichotomy are equally false.
The situation is much more banal, involving political influence, greed, and bureaucracy.
On the other hand, flight rate is exactly the latter -- one per year, optimistically.
1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps
Wasn't SSPF in the 2016 plus up?1 SSPF for cargo processing and prepsIt can't handle encapsulated or hazardous payloads. Without hazardous processing facility, SLS is limited to Orion.
I'm more optimistic than that. I think once past its teething pains SLS could be expected to fly once every 18 months with Orion, and once every 24 months without Orion. If I'm summing correctly, that adds up to an overall flight rate of once every 10.3 months. I would be mildly astonished if with all said and done Boeing and AJR couldn't produce the requisite hardware at that pace.
Yes, nobody knows if the next or next but one president suddenly has an inspiration of putting a man onto mars before the end of the decade (whichever that is). And then it could be quite handy to have a HLV available. Because we currently see how long it takes NASA to develop one.Right. They essentially are building SLS on the slim hope of a new space race, which I think they'd even acknowledge is a fairly slim possibility.
As far as KSC goes; we could fly an SLS every 6 months (our requirement) with what assets we now have in work:
1 VAB High Bay
The VAB Transfer Isle for SLS core preps
1 VAB Low Bay Cell for EUS preps
1 ML
1 Crawler
1 Launch Pad
1 SRB aft skirt processing facility
1 SRB segment processing facility
1 Orion assembly and check out facility
1 Orion fueling and processing facility
1 Firing Room
1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps
1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps
It can't handle encapsulated or hazardous payloads. Without hazardous processing facility, SLS is limited to Orion.
I've not been here in a while. I saw the new SLS images and wonder why they changed the core stage color from that deja vu of Saturn V to the shuttle ET foam covered current look?Save weight... ;)
I've not been here in a while. I saw the new SLS images and wonder why they changed the core stage color from that deja vu of Saturn V to the shuttle ET foam covered current look?The theory I've read most around here is that there never was a serious intention to paint the core stage white, but that it was shown that way in promotion materials to set it apart from the cancelled Ares V.
Using a simulation object with a ? as to its authentic size and placement of fittings as a fit check device of another set of equipment for an as yet created piece of hardware subject to changes (the SLS core) is not what I consider a good use of funds other than it could reduce the more obvious problems but none of the subtle ones. It is what you do if you are running behind schedule and you are trying to make up some time.
Using a simulation object with a ? as to its authentic size and placement of fittings as a fit check device of another set of equipment for an as yet created piece of hardware subject to changes (the SLS core) is not what I consider a good use of funds other than it could reduce the more obvious problems but none of the subtle ones. It is what you do if you are running behind schedule and you are trying to make up some time.
The SLS core design is basically locked in now. Why would it change?
On March 4, crew members ready a 900-pound steel beam to "top out" Test Stand 4697, which is under construction to test the Space Launch System liquid oxygen tank at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "Topping out" is a builders' rite traditionally held when the last beam is placed on top of a structure during its construction. The 85-foot-tall test stand will use hydraulic cylinders to subject the liquid oxygen tank and hardware of the massive SLS core stage to the same loads and stresses it will endure during a launch. The tests also will verify the models already in place that predict the amount of loads the core stage can withstand during launch and ascent. Prime contractor Brasfield & Gorrie of Birmingham, Alabama, and several of its subcontractors are constructing Test Stand 4697 and Test Stand 4693, which will have a twin-tower configuration and conduct similar structural tests on the SLS core stage's liquid hydrogen tank. Both stands are scheduled to be completed later this year. SLS will be the world's most powerful rocket and carry astronauts in NASA's Orion spacecraft on deep-space missions, including the journey to Mars.
Using a simulation object with a ? as to its authentic size and placement of fittings as a fit check device of another set of equipment for an as yet created piece of hardware subject to changes (the SLS core) is not what I consider a good use of funds other than it could reduce the more obvious problems but none of the subtle ones. It is what you do if you are running behind schedule and you are trying to make up some time.
The SLS core design is basically locked in now. Why would it change?
Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...
The SLS/Orion mission to visit the asteroid in orbit around the moon is looking like it is going to be delayed and possibly cancelled.
It is already being delayed to "study".
http://spacenews.com/nasa-slips-schedule-of-asteroid-redirect-mission/
The SLS/Orion mission to visit the asteroid in orbit around the moon is looking like it is going to be delayed and possibly cancelled.
It is already being delayed to "study".
http://spacenews.com/nasa-slips-schedule-of-asteroid-redirect-mission/
Precisely. If SLS went to a lower-performing hydrocarbon core first stage, a heavier, higher thrust second stage would be needed. It would mean bringing back J-2X. It would also mean development of a smaller in-space third stage.
Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...
Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. ...
Precisely. If SLS went to a lower-performing hydrocarbon core first stage, a heavier, higher thrust second stage would be needed. It would mean bringing back J-2X. It would also mean development of a smaller in-space third stage.
Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...
Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. ...
- Ed Kyle
I've been expecing at least some discussion here about the elephant in the room that the "delay" represents, but am surprised/not surprised it hasn't started yet.
Precisely. If SLS went to a lower-performing hydrocarbon core first stage, a heavier, higher thrust second stage would be needed. It would mean bringing back J-2X. It would also mean development of a smaller in-space third stage.
Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...
Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. ...
These questions were all studied to death a decade ago. Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs. The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.
- Ed Kyle
Not only would changing engines be technically difficult at this stage, as The Amazing Catstronaut says, but using the BE-4 would be politically difficult, as it would seriously hurt one of the major inhabitants of the Shuttle ecosystem, namely Aerojet Rocketdyne.
It might be interesting to wonder, though, where things might have gone had the AR-1 been on the drawing board circa 2011, when the RAC teams were doing their studies.
...as much as I point out SLS is a complete waste of money, I /will/ still be trying to attend the first launch because it will be quite spectacular. :)
They should put a small Habitat Module out there to test radiation mitigation, life support systems and other tech. The crew could dock with it and do a "This is what going to Mars is going to feel like".
First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows. My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I. Then I thought about it. Hm. NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly. Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade". I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.
{snip}
I thought NASA awarded Aerojet Rocketdyne a contract back in November to modernize the RS-25 and restart production.First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows. My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I. Then I thought about it. Hm. NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly. Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade". I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.
{snip}
The first few engines are literally the Space Shuttle engines. These will soon run out. After that NASA will have to buy newly manufactured engines either more of the same design or a new design. A new design of engine would have to have a bigger payload, be more efficient, available sooner or cheaper.
I thought NASA awarded Aerojet Rocketdyne a contract back in November to modernize the RS-25 and restart production.First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows. My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I. Then I thought about it. Hm. NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly. Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade". I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.
{snip}
The first few engines are literally the Space Shuttle engines. These will soon run out. After that NASA will have to buy newly manufactured engines either more of the same design or a new design. A new design of engine would have to have a bigger payload, be more efficient, available sooner or cheaper.
I think you know pretty well that the SLS core stage is not a "first stage". It is a long-burning sustainer stage serving the same purpose as the Orbiter/ET combination. It provides high specific impulse above all else, much higher than only "~50 seconds" since most of its action time is in vacuum where its advantage over a hydrocarbon engine is in excess of 120 seconds ISP. It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.
Regarding your assertion that the new first stage would be lower-performance, the tank mass and fuel density difference along with the relatively low difference (~50 seconds) in sea level Isp generally makes kerolox come out slightly better for first stages, which I'm pretty sure you know very well.
The proper application of a hydrocarbon engine would be as part of an SRB replacement.Actually, the only application.
The proper application of a hydrocarbon engine would be as part of an SRB replacement.Actually, the only application.
I thought NASA awarded Aerojet Rocketdyne a contract back in November to modernize the RS-25 and restart production.First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows. My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I. Then I thought about it. Hm. NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly. Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade". I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.
{snip}
The first few engines are literally the Space Shuttle engines. These will soon run out. After that NASA will have to buy newly manufactured engines either more of the same design or a new design. A new design of engine would have to have a bigger payload, be more efficient, available sooner or cheaper.
None of these options is under the slightest consideration. Join L2 for the definitive status of SLS. The...and only needing to be 2 stages. Vs 2 boosters, 1 core, and an upper stage. And the 2nd stage of the mastadon would also be your lander/ascender, which is honestly just as important as the launch vehicle.elephantmastodon in the room is indeed a hydrocarbon fueled 15m diameter monster which will be affordable due to leaner manufacturing processes, the lack of government involvement, and most of all, reusability.
...snip...
These questions were all studied to death a decade ago. Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs. The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.
- Ed Kyle
...snip...
These questions were all studied to death a decade ago. Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs. The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.
- Ed Kyle
This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.
It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?
"Black Zones"? That had nothing to do with SLS. Michael Griffin? He was gone before SLS was defined.
...snip...
These questions were all studied to death a decade ago. Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs. The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.
- Ed Kyle
This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.
"Black Zones"? That had nothing to do with SLS. Michael Griffin? He was gone before SLS was defined.
...snip...
These questions were all studied to death a decade ago. Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs. The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.
- Ed Kyle
This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.
A series of studies, including the substantial "Requirements Analyses Cycle", were performed during 2010-2011, months after President Obama sent Griffin packing. Saturn V-like RP/LOX first stages were considered, but the development costs were an issue. ORSC and J-2X would have been required. SLS won in part because the propulsion existed, or nearly existed, minimizing development cost. NASA can hardly afford SLS as it is. It never would have been able to fund a full-up new propulsion development effort.
- Ed Kyle
...snip...
These questions were all studied to death a decade ago. Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs. The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.
- Ed Kyle
This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.
So NASA faked their own cost estimates? SLS is a good TLI launcher and it was considered cheaper in development than the alternatives. Back in 2010.
At SRB sep, STS T/W was probably 0.91-0.93 or thereabouts, so generally speaking the design was for a nearly 1:1 ratio at staging. T/W went positive within 15-20 seconds and of course remained positive for the subsequent ~355 seconds of the SSME burn. I'm not sure about SLS at the moment, but I would expect it to also be ballpark 1:1.It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?
It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?
In order to understand the "best" of the study, you must also investigate what were the assumptions made for the evaluation models. These assumptions can create their own set of biases funneling you to a specific design as best when it is not. SpaceX is obviously using a different set of assumptions in their models to determine "best" that result in the BFR/MCT configuration. Each different set of assumptions result in a different "best".
...snip...
These questions were all studied to death a decade ago. Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs. The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.
- Ed Kyle
This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.
So NASA faked their own cost estimates? SLS is a good TLI launcher and it was considered cheaper in development than the alternatives. Back in 2010.
No I don't mean to imply that, sorry if it came off that way. I wasn't thinking specifically of SLS.
Precisely. If SLS went to a lower-performing hydrocarbon core first stage, a heavier, higher thrust second stage would be needed. It would mean bringing back J-2X. It would also mean development of a smaller in-space third stage.
Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...
Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. ...
These questions were all studied to death a decade ago. Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs. The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.
- Ed Kyle
In order to understand the "best" of the study, you must also investigate what were the assumptions made for the evaluation models. These assumptions can create their own set of biases funneling you to a specific design as best when it is not. SpaceX is obviously using a different set of assumptions in their models to determine "best" that result in the BFR/MCT configuration. Each different set of assumptions result in a different "best".
I think you know pretty well that the SLS core stage is not a "first stage". It is a long-burning sustainer stage serving the same purpose as the Orbiter/ET combination. It provides high specific impulse above all else, much higher than only "~50 seconds" since most of its action time is in vacuum where its advantage over a hydrocarbon engine is in excess of 120 seconds ISP. It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.
Regarding your assertion that the new first stage would be lower-performance, the tank mass and fuel density difference along with the relatively low difference (~50 seconds) in sea level Isp generally makes kerolox come out slightly better for first stages, which I'm pretty sure you know very well.
If you replace this high-performing core stage with a hydrocarbon stage, you are going to have to make up the delta-v shortfall with a bigger, more expensive LOX/LH2 upper stage which will require higher thrust than RL10 and the like can provide. All of the studies showed that result. The proper application of a hydrocarbon engine would be as part of an SRB replacement.
- Ed Kyle
SLS won in part because the propulsion existed, or nearly existed, minimizing development cost. NASA can hardly afford SLS as it is. It never would have been able to fund a full-up new propulsion development effort.
SLS won in part because the propulsion existed, or nearly existed, minimizing development cost.
NASA can hardly afford SLS as it is.
QuoteNASA can hardly afford SLS as it is.
The cost of development is not the real issue. The cost of using an HLV every year, for decades, is the real question. And no one knows the answer to that...
This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?
What was so wrong with using the F-1B?
Thanks. The minute after I posted that I was wondering if there would be a difference because of the lighter ICPS.This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?
For Block IB, its just under 1g at SRB separation. Actual acceleration is 9.5 m/s².
What was so wrong with using the F-1B?
Congress has determined that the AR-1 shall exist, ye, verily.
That's not to rule out a future such decree on behalf of the F-1B, which I think would have given me more joy, as arbitrary declarations go. Perhaps when SpaceX and/or Blue get around to fielding a really great big rocket, Congress will hold hearings on why the USA doesn't have one yet.
For Block IB, its just under 1g at SRB separation. Actual acceleration is 9.5 m/s².
What was so wrong with using the F-1B?
Congress has determined that the AR-1 shall exist, ye, verily.
That's not to rule out a future such decree on behalf of the F-1B, which I think would have given me more joy, as arbitrary declarations go. Perhaps when SpaceX and/or Blue get around to fielding a really great big rocket, Congress will hold hearings on why the USA doesn't have one yet.
USA will have two (or three, if VulcanHeavy is built, too) -- Congress will have to decide whether to follow their own law, or change it to keep their pet project(s) relevant.
To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0
-- Robotbeat's signature line
NOTE: The USG is not the USA.
Do not forget SLS is a political beast. Congress can change their minds as to what they want. As in a 200+mt launcher for Mars not just a 100mt maybe a 130mt launcher. Such as liquid boosters, 5 engine RS-68A core, J-2X second stage and a RL-10 EDS. Plus use something else (commercial LV) to get Orion into LEO where it docks with the rest of the Mars stack. Constellation resurrected.
Steven, are you set up to easily simulate an AR-1-based SLS? I'm assuming you've long since set up a spreadsheet, since you've done several simulations at this point.
Steven, are you set up to easily simulate an AR-1-based SLS? I'm assuming you've long since set up a spreadsheet, since you've done several simulations at this point.
Its relatively easy, but each simulation takes me half a day to perform. I use my own custom coded Pascal software. Its not a spreadsheet. I have already simulated liquid boosters with three AJ1E6 dual nozzle engines. I could use that to simulate six AR-1 engines.
Steven, are you set up to easily simulate an AR-1-based SLS? I'm assuming you've long since set up a spreadsheet, since you've done several simulations at this point.
Its relatively easy, but each simulation takes me half a day to perform. I use my own custom coded Pascal software. Its not a spreadsheet. I have already simulated liquid boosters with three AJ1E6 dual nozzle engines. I could use that to simulate six AR-1 engines.
I could be mistaken, but I think he means AR-1 on the core, not AR-1 boosters.
I did mean the core, but I recognize that the boosters have a slightly better chance of seeing AR-1s than the core does. It sounds like you're saying that the code you already wrote is applicable to either one?
I just found your 2013 SLS/F1B/AJ1E6 paper and reread it. It seems like you might be able to take AJR at their word and basically plug in RD-180s, since they have said emphatically that they are doing their best to duplicate the RD-180 in every significant way. I don't think they can come in much less or much above the RD-180's thrust level, nor can the Isp vary much, which means identical chamber size and pressure, bell dimensions, etc. Somewhere I did see something to the effect that every significant physical aspect of the RD-180 has been copied.
So in other words, you might be able to use an RD-180 in simulations. Not sure whether that helps. :)
...
Though I first suggested it as fantasy, I think something much easier than this would be to replace RS-25 with J-2X, strengthen the core with strong-backs, and place it on top of BFR (S1 of MCT). What was the SLS core becomes the most powerful ever US atop the most powerful ever S1.
You get a stupendous initial boost from a reusable S1. Your SLS based US is air startable with an engine that has been fully developed and paid for. No longer needed are RS-25E, advanced boosters, or EUS. The SLS core could likely handle the remainder of ΔV to Earth orbit, TLI, LOI, and finish as a crasher stage for a robust Lunar lander.
I know it won't fit in the VAB, but it would mean NASA could simply lease S1 service from SpaceX, eliminate development of the three components listed above, begin developing other needed systems, and perhaps focus primarily on Luna while SpaceX focuses primarily on Mars.
Some have stated it would be better to build a Metholox US whose diameter matches the S1. The thing is, SpaceX is not planning that, but the BFS instead. This would be a way to leverage what is already in design by both entities. NASA is building the SLS core, but can't afford to do much else at the present time. SpaceX is in the middle of designing Raptor and MCT. Under this scheme, NASA would simple lease S1 launch service on BFR that is headed toward development. NASA could do relatively modest changes to SLS, forget advanced boosters, RS-25E, and EUS, and turn its attention to a lander. Mars is explored by SpaceX with some help from NASA and Luna is explored by NASA with some help from SpaceX.
....
No need. Adopt the the rumored SX Raptor powered reusable upper stage as a lander. Just stick a HAB or cargo module on top of the upper stage.
No need. Adopt the the rumored SX Raptor powered reusable upper stage as a lander. Just stick a HAB or cargo module on top of the upper stage.
That would require extra refueling launches. This approach also acknowledges the realpolitik of keeping pork flowing to particular states/districts and satisfying high ranking congresspersons.
No need. Adopt the the rumored SX Raptor powered reusable upper stage as a lander. Just stick a HAB or cargo module on top of the upper stage.
That would require extra refueling launches. This approach also acknowledges the realpolitik of keeping pork flowing to particular states/districts and satisfying high ranking congresspersons.
Might be a bit of misunderstanding. The SX upper stage devised lander will go on top of your fantasy stack. So the lander's prop tanks should be fully filled for Lunar descend from LLO.
I just think that modifying the core to accommodate having a booster under pushing rather than above it pulling probably would be about as extensive as switching it to kerolox or whatever, by the time it's all said and done.
...just switching to use MCT outright and buying launch services from SpaceX and cancelling SLS and Orion....will likely be what happens eventually anyway, but if it happened sooner, it could mean MCT is ready to fly sooner too.)
Might be a bit of misunderstanding. The SX upper stage devised lander will go on top of your fantasy stack. So the lander's prop tanks should be fully filled for Lunar descend from LLO.
I just think that modifying the core to accommodate having a booster under pushing rather than above it pulling probably would be about as extensive as switching it to kerolox or whatever, by the time it's all said and done.
My friend Lobo!
I remember the time when you proposed ganging three F9s with strongbacks and sticking a cluster on each side of SLS to act as the boosters. That's actually where I got the idea that I stated above of just strengthening the sides of the core with strongbacks only, no actual modifications of the walls. If clustering a trio of F9s on each side with strongbacks is possible, then it seems a strongback alone for structural reinforcement should also be possible.
I'm trying to think of the cheapest way to preserve certain congressmen's pork interests and yet still make it possible for NASA to do something with what otherwise is a boondoggle.
...just switching to use MCT outright and buying launch services from SpaceX and cancelling SLS and Orion....will likely be what happens eventually anyway, but if it happened sooner, it could mean MCT is ready to fly sooner too.)
This is what I expect will indeed happen. OTOH, those particular congresspersons have proven remarkably able to keep this pork line flowing. Though far from ideal, this preserves the pork currently in place, but perhaps could allow NASA to actually cook that pig and serve some food.
Steven, if you have any interest in running calculations on this monster, I would be greatly interested in the results.
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?
SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.
Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.
But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.
This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?
SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.
Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.
But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.
This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?
The SLS lacks payloads.
BTW, the shuttle flight rate was much higher in the 90's when it had payloads other than the ISS.
The software won't be ready until fall 2017, instead of this summer as planned, and important capabilities like automatic failure detection, are being deferred.
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?
SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.
Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.
But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.
This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?
By this trend, next generation rocket system with the same mass as shuttle will be launched once a decade.
The bill provides $19.306 billion for NASA, an increase of more than $280 million from the administration’s request for fiscal year 2017 released in February. However, NASA’s exploration account, which includes SLS and Orion, is increased by nearly $1 billion from the request.
That increase includes about $840 million for the SLS, to $2.15 billion, and $180 million for Orion, to $1.3 billion. Exploration ground systems to support SLS and Orion also see a $55 million increase, although research and development activities are cut by more than $80 million.
The increase in exploration funding means that most other major NASA accounts suffered cuts from the administration’s request in the bill. Science, aeronautics, space technology and space operations were cut by a combined $660 million from the request. The aeronautics account suffered the largest cut on a percentage basis, seeing its request for $790 million cut by nearly 25 percent.
Within the $5.4 billion provided to science, $200 million less than the request, planetary science suffered the largest cut, of more than $160 million. The bill and report did not specify a funding level for a mission to Europa, although it did state it “remains supportive” of such a mission. The bulk of the support for a Europa mission, and the enhanced funding it has received in recent years, has come from the House.
Maybe Congress intends to fund the development of payloads as part of a piecemeal, step by step approach once they've finished building the launch vehicle? They do seem to be in an awfully big hurry to build this rocket and make sure it's absolutely ready and on schedule, even though it has basically nothing to do. It's vexing. :o
Maybe Congress intends to fund the development of payloads as part of a piecemeal, step by step approach once they've finished building the launch vehicle? They do seem to be in an awfully big hurry to build this rocket and make sure it's absolutely ready and on schedule, even though it has basically nothing to do. It's vexing. :o
My thinking entirely. Has it escaped their notice that a launcher has to actually have something to launch in the first place.
They are building Block 1 right now. (Block 0 was an undeveloped concept.) It will lift about 2.5 times more mass to escape velocity than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and probably 6 times more than an all-recoverable Falcon Heavy.Who knows if it will be built, but the video is awesome."If"? It already is being built.
- Ed Kyle
A bill is not paid until the cheque has cleared.
Block 0 SLS is in a race with Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Heavy. Definitely an "If" until Block 1A with its very heavy payload flies.
The six year old in me wonders if I can lick the giant beaters...
Block 1.....will lift about 2.5 times more mass to escape velocity than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and probably 6 times more than an all-recoverable Falcon Heavy.
NASA is working to a constrained budget on SLS and Orion, so whatever that is determines the "price". The schedule is published. Orion is the time constraint, not SLS. MCT is a concept. SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.Block 1.....will lift about 2.5 times more mass to escape velocity than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and probably 6 times more than an all-recoverable Falcon Heavy.
And the actually pertinent questions are:
On what timeline?
At what price per kg?
Why are you so conveniently leaving out MCT?
I was an SLS believer at one time too............But then I'm far more of a realist than I am a believer.
Who knows if it will be built, but the video is awesome."If"? It already is being built.
- Ed Kyle
SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.
SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.
The question has never really been "Can we build an HLV?", and so far Congress has been willing to appropriate the funds to develop such a system and get it ready for flying payloads that require it's unique capabilities.
The question has always been whether a government-owned HLV is needed or required at this point in history. And so far the answer to that is not a resounding "Yes", but just a dribble of interest and money from Congress as a whole.
Unfortunately a dribble of support won't support the need to launch the SLS at the minimum safe flight cadence of no-less-than every 12 months, so there is a point coming very soon where having a government-owned transportation system but not having enough demand for it's unique capabilities must be reconciled...
Is it really 12 months? why not 13 months or 11 months? Seems like a nice round number that happens to coincidentally coincide with the earth's orbit around the sun.
I would like to point out that Apollo Soyuz test project was launched on a Saturn 1B 16 months after the previous Saturn 1B...and didn't explode.
The gap between Apollo 7 and Skylab 2 was even greater, 4 years 7 months and 14 days. Similarly the Delta II has some pretty big gaps in its recent launch history. The gap between Delta flight 357 and 367 is 2 years 8 months and 4 days. There is an almost 2 year gap between the last Delta II flight and the next one.SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.
The question has never really been "Can we build an HLV?", and so far Congress has been willing to appropriate the funds to develop such a system and get it ready for flying payloads that require it's unique capabilities.
The question has always been whether a government-owned HLV is needed or required at this point in history. And so far the answer to that is not a resounding "Yes", but just a dribble of interest and money from Congress as a whole.
Unfortunately a dribble of support won't support the need to launch the SLS at the minimum safe flight cadence of no-less-than every 12 months, so there is a point coming very soon where having a government-owned transportation system but not having enough demand for it's unique capabilities must be reconciled...
Is it really 12 months? why not 13 months or 11 months? Seems like a nice round number that happens to coincidentally coincide with the earth's orbit around the sun. If we are going to use calendars as arbitrary technical limitations, why not the Mars year - 687 days? I would like to point out that Apollo Soyuz test project was launched on a Saturn 1B 16 months after the previous Saturn 1B...and didn't explode.
Where do you get SLS getting 2.5 times the LEO payload vs FH?
Right now, EM-1 is giving me uncomfortable Ares-I-X flashbacks.
Where do you get SLS getting 2.5 times the LEO payload vs FH?
Mr. Kyle was referring to escape velocity payload, not payload to LEO.
The Raptor upper stage engine is supposed to be developed in the next 18-24 months
The gap between Apollo 7 and Skylab 2 was even greater, 4 years 7 months and 14 days. Similarly the Delta II has some pretty big gaps in its recent launch history. The gap between Delta flight 357 and 367 is 2 years 8 months and 4 days. There is an almost 2 year gap between the last Delta II flight and the next one.
Accordingly I don't think the issue of launch cadence as it relates to reliability should be a factor the decision to continue or cancel the program.
There are many pros and cons to the SLS program that are way more important than this hypothetical concern.
And Spacenut clearly mentioned:The Raptor upper stage engine is supposed to be developed in the next 18-24 months
I surely imagine the Raptor US will fly on a FH long before EUS flies on an SLS Block IB. With FH now based on Falcon 9 v1.1FT, if cross feed were employed on a fully disposable FH with Raptor US, I highly doubt Block IB would get 2.5 x the payload to GTO or escape.
I think MCT (at least the BFR booster) may fly before SLS Block IB ever does. In fact, I think a single Block I will fly. I now believe Blocks IB and IIB will never see the sky.
Given how much trouble and hard work SpaceX has had to do to get Falcon Heavy off the ground I doubt BFR will be flying until at least 2025.
You're working off of incorrect presuppositions. SpaceX has been smart enough to finish their refinements of F9 before proceeding to FH. .....Putting FH on hold while refining F9, mastering RTLS and at sea landing, then proceeding with FH has been a strategically shrewd, intentional, and practical move. There has been nothing troublesome or problematic about it.
.... Ares I-X had only the first stage operational, the upper stage and LAS were dummies.
.... Ares I-X had only the first stage operational, the upper stage and LAS were dummies.
No, it was worse than that. The Ares-1X first stage was not operational either. It was a standard four-segment Shuttle SRB with a dummy fifth segment bolted on top to make it look like a 5-segment RSRMV. The fifth segment was weighted down with ballast to simulate the mass of a real fifth segment. Which of course made the booster so heavy that the steel motor casing bent when it parachuted into the ocean.
Cheers!
Minor nit: what also contributed to the bent casing was the fact that two of the three main parachutes failed before splash-down. The first one failed outright (ripped apart) upon deployment. The second one deployed more-or-less normal but partially ripped apart a few seconds later. The end result was that the Ares I-X booster impacted the water with a higher velocity than anticipated..... Ares I-X had only the first stage operational, the upper stage and LAS were dummies.
No, it was worse than that. The Ares-1X first stage was not operational either. It was a standard four-segment Shuttle SRB with a dummy fifth segment bolted on top to make it look like a 5-segment RSRMV. The fifth segment was weighted down with ballast to simulate the mass of a real fifth segment. Which of course made the booster so heavy that the steel motor casing bent when it parachuted into the ocean.
Cheers!
Someone figured several years ago, that if they stayed with the 4 seg solids and 5 SSME's and a good upper stage, they could have flown 4-5 times a year for $1 billion.
Now one time for $1 billion. To me it is sad.
maybe Im confused on the whole payload funding thing, but what SLS payloads has NASA proposed that Congress has not funded?For info on SLS payloads (manifest plans) or lack thereof see this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0)
I think BFR would be easier than Falcon Heavy, or heavy of any rocket.
maybe Im confused on the whole payload funding thing, but what SLS payloads has NASA proposed that Congress has not funded?For info on SLS payloads (manifest plans) or lack thereof see this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0)
Currently there is Orion and DSH (DSH only recently in FY2016 started receiving any funding). With Europa investigating SLS suitability. It is both a problem of NASA putting forth more candidates and congress funding them. NASA doesn't want to put a new program in front of congress if they know it has almost no chance of getting funded. They wait for funding chance to increase before trying to get it funded. Look at what has happened to ARM.
It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS. That is about as firm of a payload as you can get. I don't even think that Orion and DSH are required legally to be launched on SLS and so those are comparatively less firm.
Then you might want to explain that to the mission designers who still baseline an EELV...maybe Im confused on the whole payload funding thing, but what SLS payloads has NASA proposed that Congress has not funded?For info on SLS payloads (manifest plans) or lack thereof see this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0)
Currently there is Orion and DSH (DSH only recently in FY2016 started receiving any funding). With Europa investigating SLS suitability. It is both a problem of NASA putting forth more candidates and congress funding them. NASA doesn't want to put a new program in front of congress if they know it has almost no chance of getting funded. They wait for funding chance to increase before trying to get it funded. Look at what has happened to ARM.
It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS. ...
It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS.
It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS.
Can you cite the bill that requires that, please? I know there were a lot of people hyping it, but I just don't remember any legislation to that effect. If I missed that, I would like to read what it says. Thanks.
For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.
Future units will be ordered from ESA within the bounds of yet another barter agreement. That barter agreement has been in-work for some time now, but the uncertainty over anything beyond EM-2 is making it hard to reach a hard agreement.For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.
ESA was contributing the Service Module as part of their contribution to the ISS. I'm not sure if that includes guaranteed crew participation on a future mission, but my guess would be it does not.
Also ESA is only designing the Service Module, building a complete unit for flight, and providing NASA the parts for a second unit. It will be up to NASA to finish the assembly of the second unit, and to build future units.
The 6 month margin in the schedule got eaten up by the problems they discovered in the new Vertical Weld Center at MAF. It took a number of months to rectify the VWC problems. So, it isn't a generic SLS flaw or anything that made a number of months disappear, it was a manufacturing hardware fault.The key here is that such events happen quite often in a complex long duration engineering project, hence my reference to my experience with the Shuttle VAFB pad build work. It does not take much to create a major slip from an unexpected event even on a non-critical path item. As I mentioned earlier what is on the critical path changes weekly if not daily. That 2 month schedule margin is for handling such events. Lets hope they do not have any other events as severe as the welding machine.
If I am correct, NASA was not to long ago (less than a year) saying that they had a 6 month schedule margin. But now they are saying they have a 2 month schedule margin. That would imply that historically critical path schedule has changed dramatically in the last year.I wouldn't read it being that's how much margin they have, but rather that's how much margin they are confident enough to exploit at this point.
Ugh. Why did you make me read that?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/senator-cuts-nasas-tech-budge/
For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.
ESA was contributing the Service Module as part of their contribution to the ISS. I'm not sure if that includes guaranteed crew participation on a future mission, but my guess would be it does not.
Also ESA is only designing the Service Module, building a complete unit for flight, and providing NASA the parts for a second unit. It will be up to NASA to finish the assembly of the second unit, and to build future units.
For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.
ESA was contributing the Service Module as part of their contribution to the ISS. I'm not sure if that includes guaranteed crew participation on a future mission, but my guess would be it does not.
Also ESA is only designing the Service Module, building a complete unit for flight, and providing NASA the parts for a second unit. It will be up to NASA to finish the assembly of the second unit, and to build future units.
So, essentially what seems to be happening is that part of the ISS budget is being diverted to Orion, right?
Sounds like a huge waste of money. NASA should've just built it themselves in the first place. Of course, we knew that from the beginning.
It's just a move designed to maintain political support for Orion.
If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure. Also; 'trickle' funding has resulted in a virtual three-step development: Block 1, Block 1B and Block II. I feel that if they were going to be throwing away all this massive hardware each time (we call that expendable, eh?) then they should be shooting for the best and most powerful version from the word GO. Lifting 130, 140 or even 150 tons to LEO per launch would go a long way to justifying such a large expendable. I also believe Mars is, sadly, an unfunded Powerpoint fantasy at this point :(
Mars Vs Moon is a political decision and not one based on capabilities yet. We are on a Journey To Mars because that is what administration is saying. That could switch tomorrow to the Moon and NASA would be in a good position to accomplish that goal with the current roster of programs and capabilities. At this point along The Journey To Mars we haven't arrived at the point where the road to Mars splits from the road to the Moon. SLS, Orion, DSH, SEP are just as useful for a lunar program as a Mars program (if not more so). The down select to a destination can still be done a few years form now without too much trouble. Its only when things like surface habitats, and landers need to be developed that one place or another has to be chosen. In this context SLS's ambiguity of destination and mission is a feature not a defect.If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure. Also; 'trickle' funding has resulted in a virtual three-step development: Block 1, Block 1B and Block II. I feel that if they were going to be throwing away all this massive hardware each time (we call that expendable, eh?) then they should be shooting for the best and most powerful version from the word GO. Lifting 130, 140 or even 150 tons to LEO per launch would go a long way to justifying such a large expendable. I also believe Mars is, sadly, an unfunded Powerpoint fantasy at this point :(
Agreed, SLS is perfectly scaled for a lunar program and would be an enabler for a manned return to the moon. It's too expensive to go to Mars with expendables but you can go to the moon with expendables. Why not? It would justify SLS having a flight rate of value, without requiring so many launches that it should be bank breaking beyond what SLS already is. SLS at least makes an Apollo-like program repeatable, certainly enables large payloads to cislunar and perhaps even a minor lunar surface outpost.
However, it's not going to be used for any of those things yet, which is eyewatering. I can see a shift to lunar for SLS happening eventually, but it's not going to happen in this tumultuous year.
Mars Vs Moon is a political decision and not one based on capabilities yet. We are on a Journey To Mars because that is what administration is saying. That could switch tomorrow to the Moon and NASA would be in a good position to accomplish that goal with the current roster of programs and capabilities. At this point along The Journey To Mars we haven't arrived at the point where the road to Mars splits from the road to the Moon. SLS, Orion, DSH, SEP are just as useful for a lunar program as a Mars program (if not more so). The down select to a destination can still be done a few years form now without too much trouble. Its only when things like surface habitats, and landers need to be developed that one place or another has to be chosen. In this context SLS's ambiguity of destination and mission is a feature not a defect.If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure. Also; 'trickle' funding has resulted in a virtual three-step development: Block 1, Block 1B and Block II. I feel that if they were going to be throwing away all this massive hardware each time (we call that expendable, eh?) then they should be shooting for the best and most powerful version from the word GO. Lifting 130, 140 or even 150 tons to LEO per launch would go a long way to justifying such a large expendable. I also believe Mars is, sadly, an unfunded Powerpoint fantasy at this point :(
Agreed, SLS is perfectly scaled for a lunar program and would be an enabler for a manned return to the moon. It's too expensive to go to Mars with expendables but you can go to the moon with expendables. Why not? It would justify SLS having a flight rate of value, without requiring so many launches that it should be bank breaking beyond what SLS already is. SLS at least makes an Apollo-like program repeatable, certainly enables large payloads to cislunar and perhaps even a minor lunar surface outpost.
However, it's not going to be used for any of those things yet, which is eyewatering. I can see a shift to lunar for SLS happening eventually, but it's not going to happen in this tumultuous year.
If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure.Indeed, but remember when a lunar mission requiring multiple SLS launches was considered to be bad news (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/dual-sls-required-nasas-lunar-landing-option/)? (because each launch is so cost inefficient, and the turnaround takes six months - was that a technical or budgetary limitation?) And they claimed that there wasn't enough funding for a lander.
It is beyond ridiculous that lunar missions during Apollo could be launched with one launch, but a similar capable launch vehicle now requires two launches. Unbelievable.
Yes, I know that this is an architecture for landing 4 astronauts at the poles. But still...
Concur! That was exactly the same reaction I had when I saw that when I first read the presentation, and why it's the headline.
If SpaceX doesn't die or massively change its ideological bent, they will be going to Mars at some point. Good for them - SLS can go to the moon, L1, L2, near earth asteroids, you name it. SpaceX's mars plans are comparatively razor sharp. NASA's mars goals are redirectable, and that's pivotal. I'm fairly certain that NASA top brass are conscious of this hence the emphasis on habitats and enabling technologies. If SLS and Orion get off the ground, they should be used in the sphere that they're suited for.
The 4x crew architecture shown in that article would be spectacular and useful - but of course, expensive. The most powerful Block II SLS version envisaged could do a more basic lunar mission in one launch - similar to the Apollo J-series missions but better. Say, a crew of two to the surface for a whole week instead of three days as in Apollo, with a lander halfway in size between the Apollo LM and Constellation's 'Altair'.Realistically plan on 1x1B launch plus additional commercial LVs eg FH, A6 and Vulcan, per lunar mission. Crew go on SLS while commercial LVs deliver lander/landers and fuel to staging post. In case of large crew rovers, they maybe landed separate to crew, using commercial LVs.
If they could keep the missions to 1x SLS Block II launch per time, then costs would be kept down, but capabilities could rise over time, with or without extra SLS launches. One week Sortie missions could use a crew of three to start with with two going to the surface and one staying in lunar orbit, as in Apollo. But once Habitation modules had been established on the surface, the crew could grow to 4x Astronauts with the lander taking them all down at once and the Orion orbiting alone as originally envisaged. And as mentioned by someone else, Outpost cargo supply could be done commercially. Heh, I could even see a version of Dragon soft-landing a couple tons of cargo next to an Outpost. Though for a basic Outpost discussion/design, we could start another thread ;)
Realistically plan on 1x1B launch plus additional commercial LVs eg FH, A6 and Vulcan, per lunar mission. Crew go on SLS while commercial LVs deliver lander/landers and fuel to staging post. In case of large crew rovers, they maybe landed separate to crew, using commercial LVs. SLS would only launch once commercial LVs have completed their work.
I have given up on SLS-Orion. They are never going to accomplish anything.
I have given up on SLS-Orion. They are never going to accomplish anything.
Whenever I see the short sighted arguments back and forth for SLS to be cancelled or for SLS to do all the work I am reminded of what it took to get to this point. It has been 44 years since the last moon landing. In my own time on this planet I can remember the late '90s and early 2000s when NASA couldn't even discuss going beyond LEO in the foreseeable future. I remember the calls from some after Columbia for manned spaceflight to be abandoned altogether. We have come a long way since then. The fact that we will soon have a wealth of capability with SLS/FH for BEO missions is a blessing.
Instead of endless arguments over which is the more "perfect" system can we please use what we have to actually do something instead of just talking about it? No system is perfectly sustainable or perfectly made. Be grateful for what we have and don't try to destroy a BEO capability that is years in the making just because it doesn't match up with what you think should happen.
Rant over. Continue with your regularly scheduled discussion. ;D
3. What it took to get to this point....this point is actually loss of ground.
4. In MY time on this planet, I remember seeing six manned lunar landings in a matter of months.
YOUR time on this planet....well....I'm sad we regressed during that time.5. Use what we have to do something? What we have isn't capable of doing anything. We had MORE capable architecture when I was a teenager almost 5 decades ago.
6. Be grateful for what we have??? Um...NO. Throwing good money after bad is foolish. It's time to let go of that albatross. (The thing is so expensive that there is no money for payloads...not for Mars, which is what they say the thing is for. Orion isn't Mars capable. There isn't even money for a lunar lander.) SpaceX' architecture is going to be more cost effective by between one and two orders of magnitude. It's time to get on the right ship.
Instead of endless arguments over which is the more "perfect" system can we please use what we have to actually do something instead of just talking about it? No system is perfectly sustainable or perfectly made. Be grateful for what we have and don't try to destroy a BEO capability that is years in the making just because it doesn't match up with what you think should happen.
Good grief so much wretched hand wringing !
Flight metal is being bent, the SLS/Orion stack will fly BEO unmanned in late 2018 ( assuming a successful launch! ) and BFR will not even be past PDR and may never make it beyond Powerpoint .
SLS is a heavy lift tool, it is up to future administrations to decide if and how it will be used. But if it is used it can plug into many exploration architectures - both alone or in concert with commercial - as the first element of moving big stuff upstairs.
Be thankful that serious talk of BEO is happening now, it has been a long time coming for us true believers and might still die on the vine ...
The SLS does have missions, after first 2-3 shake down flights. They will do extended missions in cislunar space with EAM, this has been given initial funding.
I want to move forward; this is only moving backwards.While this thread continues to go in circles.
Flight metal is being bent, the SLS/Orion stack will fly BEO unmanned in late 2018 ( assuming a successful launch! ) and BFR will not even be past PDR and may never make it beyond Powerpoint .
SLS is a heavy lift tool, it is up to future administrations to decide if and how it will be used.
But if it is used it can plug into many exploration architectures - both alone or in concert with commercial - as the first element of moving big stuff upstairs.
Be thankful that serious talk of BEO is happening now, it has been a long time coming for us true believers and might still die on the vine ...
Agreed, SLS is perfectly scaled for a lunar program and would be an enabler for a manned return to the moon. It's too expensive to go to Mars with expendables but you can go to the moon with expendables. Why not? It would justify SLS having a flight rate of value, without requiring so many launches that it should be bank breaking beyond what SLS already is. SLS at least makes an Apollo-like program repeatable, certainly enables large payloads to cislunar and perhaps even a minor lunar surface outpost.I'm quoting this post again because I've had a little more time to think about the Moon vs Mars debate in the context of SLS. I don't think the operational and launch costs of SLS are really what drives the choice of destination, at least not any more than any other expendable or even reusable launcher. The Moon is just so much cheaper that NASA can go back to the Moon with a reasonable budget in a reasonable amount of time with or without SLS consuming funds. Additionally even if the launch vehicles were free NASA would still not be in much better shape to go to Mars.
However, it's not going to be used for any of those things yet, which is eyewatering. I can see a shift to lunar for SLS happening eventually, but it's not going to happen in this tumultuous year.
The Moon is just so much cheaper that NASA can go back to the Moon with a reasonable budget in a reasonable amount of time with or without SLS consuming funds. Additionally even if the launch vehicles were free NASA would still not be in much better shape to go to Mars.
The Moon is easy enough, just need a lander.
A while back Bolden told Congress that would cost $8 billion. When he said that many said he was being overly pessimistic but lets just go with that for now.
I think an application of the lessons learned from the commercial crew program could bring that down significantly. So to put someone on the surface of the Moon by 2025 roughly a billions dollars at most is needed on average per year. It isn't too difficult to play with NASA's budget come up with the funds with or without SLS, especially if Congress kicks in a bit more money.
NASA is not planning on anyone setting foot on Mars until some time after 2030.
SpaceX says that in the same time frame they will be going to Mars. If so then SLS will be obsolete in that regard, but so will everything else NASA is doing.
If that is an argument for canceling SLS...
I believe SLS is overkill for even the moon. With fuel depots, and SEP tugs, and moon infrastructure can be built using existing EELV's and F9 and Falcon Heavies. This at a lower cost per/kg of material sent to L1 or to the moon. The money spent on one SLS launch could be spent building and supplying the moon infrastructure, using commercial bidders. A new metholox upper for Falcon Heavy, and ACES for the upcoming Vulcan. Together both launch providers could supply this infrastructure.You write this comparison as if the "fuel depots, ... SEP tugs, .... moon infrastructure", and "metholox upper stage for Falcon Heavy" cost nothing. Those items will cost billions of dollars themselves. I think you may also be positing a Vulcan Heavy, which is not being developed.
Maybe SLS could launch a larger Mars Lander that could be refueled in LEO by fuel depots. Even then using the Vulcan and FH NASA could build a NautilusX type Mars transporter with landers. All the money supporting and launching SLS could build both moon centric and Mars centric infrastructure. Over $1 billion per launch for 105 tons to LEO. A Vulcan with ACES plus a FH with metholox upper (engine being developed) could launch over 105 tons for less than half the price.
It's not. The SLS is a U.S. Government-only transportation system, so the only reason to build it is if the U.S. Government has a sustained need for it's unique capabilities. So far that has not proven to be a correct assumption, thus the questions for why we are building it. "Build it and they will come" is not a justification, it's a wish...
The billions spent on SLS could have been spent on this infrastructure instead using existing or with a little upgrading existing upgraded rockets. Yes, there would be a lot of in space assembly, but that keeps everyone busy instead of one launch a year.SLS is costing about $10 billion in development up to its first launch. That's a bargain! NASA is spending $6.8 billion to develop commercial crew during the same time frame, just to get to ISS. The ISS program itself costs NASA something like $3.9 billion per year, nearly twice as much as SLS is getting each year. Should we end ISS too and give the money to SpaceX?
Shuttle was a U.S. Government transportation system and it launched payloads provided by other countries.
Why was Shuttle not U.S. Government only while SLS that is being operated the same way will be?
To be frank, the U.S. government doesn't have a need for much of anything NASA does. It is discretionary spending. Why is NASA building a Mars 2020 rover?
We Americans have a history of supporting "science", and that is what our current space program is focused on, both for the ISS and for our robotic missions.
However sending humans to Mars, or back to the Moon, is more than "science", it's a prelude to colonization, and that is not yet supported politically. There needs to be a national conversation about our goals for sending humans to space, but so far no one has decided to start that conversation.
And it could turn out that politically no one wants to support government-funded colonization of space.
But "science" is still likely to be supported. Unfortunately that is not enough demand to support the need for a dedicated government-owned HLV.
Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon and manned US spacecraft docking to the ISS.
Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon and manned US spacecraft docking to the ISS.
... and people wonder why I'm cynical.
We've been hearing these claims for years now. Still waiting.
The billions spent on SLS could have been spent on this infrastructure instead using existing or with a little upgrading existing upgraded rockets. Yes, there would be a lot of in space assembly, but that keeps everyone busy instead of one launch a year.SLS is costing about $10 billion in development up to its first launch. That's a bargain! NASA is spending $6.8 billion to develop commercial crew during the same time frame, just to get to ISS. The ISS program itself costs NASA something like $3.9 billion per year, nearly twice as much as SLS is getting each year.
Should we end ISS too and give the money to SpaceX?
We've all known that existing launch vehicles could get humans to the Moon. Griffin said as much, and I even advocated such an idea ( http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html ), but SLS isn't going to the Moon. NASA's Mars DRM 5.0 called for nine Ares 5 launches for a single mission to the Red Planet. The rocket that will get humans to Mars has to be big. SpaceX itself is not planning to use Falcon Heavy for humans to Mars.
SLS is costing about $10 billion in development up to its first launch. That's a bargain! NASA is spending $6.8 billion to develop commercial crew during the same time frame, just to get to ISS.
How much per launch would the SLS cost if they launched say 4 per year?Its a simple question but I think everyone has their own answer depending on their opinion of SLS. Some like to throw in the development cost too. According to them SLS costs billions per launch. Others like to quote only the marginal cost, leaving out the yearly program support cost. From their viewpoint SLS cost about $300 million per launch.
We build ships and planes to last 50 years or more. Why not in space components and transportation systems.
How much per launch would the SLS cost if they launched say 4 per year?Its a simple question but I think everyone has their own answer depending on their opinion of SLS. Some like to throw in the development cost too. According to them SLS costs billions per launch. Others like to quote only the marginal cost, leaving out the yearly program support cost. From their viewpoint SLS cost about $300 million per launch.
My favored way to look at it is the entire yearly budget divided by the number of flights. The rocket is in development right now so its hard to say what the fixed or marginal costs will be. It is probably going to keep getting roughly the same budget each year so $2 billion might not be a bad guess. If they can launch 4 a year then a ball park figure is probably in the neighborhood of $500 million per launch give or take a lot. The program requirements are up to 3 launches a year. It has been debated if they can do more than that without too much difficulty.
In general since the fixed costs can be spread out over more launches the price per launch will keep decreasing as the number of launches increases. With a high fixed support cost two launches a year represents a substantial increase over just one launch a year in the price per kg.
I despise this argument to defund SLS. The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars. It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available.
This is no small task. Thinking small won't get it done. It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government.
Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon
Manned landings appear to be possible in the new president's second term.
What design of launch vehicle and reentry capsule are used to get astronauts to the Deep Space Habitat in lunar orbit has not yet been decided.
I despise this argument to defund SLS. The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars.
US government is not going to fund manned mars missions.
I despise this argument to defund SLS. The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars. It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available.
This is no small task. Thinking small won't get it done. It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government.
In my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration),
Don't forget that US support for the ISS only happened for solidly geopolitical reasons: the US didn't want bankrupt Russian aerospace firms selling their know-how to people like Saddam Hussein. There would need to be a similar overriding US national security motive for any government involvement in an accelerated Mars program.
Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon
Nonsense.
a. There are no NASA landers in design much less production
b. There are no commercial ones even close to launching in that time frame And if they did, they have no affect on NASA funding
Manned landings appear to be possible in the new president's second term.
The next president doesn't care about manned lunar missions.
What design of launch vehicle and reentry capsule are used to get astronauts to the Deep Space Habitat in lunar orbit has not yet been decided.
Because there is no Deep Space Habitat in lunar orbit program for astronauts to go to and there won't be one since the next president doesn't care about space
For the first SLS flight, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the University of Tokyo will jointly create and provide two CubeSats, EQUULEUS (EQUilibriUm Lunar-Earth point 6U Spacecraft) and OMOTENASHI (Outstanding MOon exploration TEchnologies demonstrated by NAno Semi-Hard Impactor). EQUULEUS will help scientists understand the radiation environment in the region of space around Earth by imaging Earth’s plasmasphere and measuring the distribution of plasma that surrounds the planet. This opportunity may provide important insight for protecting both humans and electronics from radiation damage during long space journeys. It will also demonstrate low-energy trajectory control techniques, such as multiple lunar flybys, within the Earth-Moon region.
JAXA also will use the OMOTENASHI to demonstrate the technology for low-cost and very small spacecraft to explore the lunar surface. This technology could open up new possibilities for future missions to inexpensively investigate the surface of the moon. The CubeSat will also take measurements of the radiation environment near the moon as well as on the lunar surface.
[...]
The Italian company Argotec is building the ArgoMoon CubeSat under the Italian Space Agency (ASI) internal review and approval process. ArgoMoon will demonstrate the ability to perform operations in close proximity of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), which will send Orion onto its lunar trajectory. It should also record images of the ICPS for historical documentation and to provide valuable mission data on the deployment of other Cubesats. Additionally, this CubeSat should test optical communication capabilities between the CubeSat and Earth.
Correct. And anyone here who thinks this will change with the next president really ought to step out of phantasy-land.
Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration),
The opinion also includes that the governments aren't going fund it anyways. Almost 60 years since going to the moon and still have only words and no money to go back.
Ah... 1969+60=2029Correct. And anyone here who thinks this will change with the next president really ought to step out of phantasy-land.
Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration),
The opinion also includes that the governments aren't going fund it anyways. Almost 60 years since going to the moon and still have only words and no money to go back.
I despise this argument to defund SLS. The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars. It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available.
This is no small task. Thinking small won't get it done. It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government.
In my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration), I will completely agree with you, Ed. We will need all of the resources you mention to mount any manned BLEO expeditions. All of the various commercial launchers and commercial satellite developers will have plenty of work in such efforts, if they want to bid for it.
I keep seeing this as a logical result of how such large projects must be funded in today's funding environment. You just can't afford to do an Apollo-style program where all of the various elements are funded at the same time, all of which are scheduled to be complete and available for a series of scheduled and funded missions.
You have to develop the pieces serially and not in parallel
I despise this argument to defund SLS. The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars. It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available.
This is no small task. Thinking small won't get it done. It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government.
In my opinion.
- Ed Kyle
First, SLS is implied as the 'world's most capable rocket.' FH (with either the 1.7M or 1.9Mlbf thrust booster version) will lift more payload than SLS's first 'block' as shown by your and others' calculations.This is simply incorrect. SLS Block 1 will boost 24.5 tonnes toward the Moon. (It could, if needed, lift more than 90 tonnes to low earth orbit (70 tonnes is an artifact of the old SLS Block 0 design), but SLS is never going to LEO so that number is irrelevant.) Falcon Heavy, even in full-expendable mode, would boost probably about 15 tonnes (plus or minus) toward the Moon. (Falcon Heavy is also listed at only 54.4 tonnes to LEO in full-expendable mode.)
It would take three fully-expendable Falcon Heavies to match the payload of one SLS Block 1B trans-Mars. It would take four Falcon Heavies to match one SLS Block 2. I expect that Falcon Heavy and/or others like it will be needed to support deep-space missions, but the missions will be built around the unparalleled deep space throw-weight offered by SLS.
An affordable launcher that can lift smaller payloads is more useful than a big one that is too expensive to operate. In times of tight money, you can scale back to fewer loads, but at least you are making some progress.I disagree with your assertion that SLS is "too expensive to operate". It is being designed to operate on less than the Shuttle budget, involving far fewer workers. Shuttle flew for three decades.
An affordable launcher that can lift smaller payloads is more useful than a big one that is too expensive to operate. In times of tight money, you can scale back to fewer loads, but at least you are making some progress.I disagree with your assertion that SLS is "too expensive to operate". It is being designed to operate on less than the Shuttle budget, involving far fewer workers. Shuttle flew for three decades.
- Ed Kyle
SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.
For the moment NASA can claim FH does not have a large enough fairing and that the overall GTO performance is lower.SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.
Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.
By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.
As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"
Sigh, and SLS is not competing for missions with FH, Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser!!!
SLS was designed, based on NASA requirements...
...to support likely Mars mission architectures at relatively low flight rates.
...in fact SpaceX is just another aerospace contractor that can meet NASA needs.
Congress seems to have some firm ideas what SLS is going to do...
...lets us see if the money flows and the next POTUS agrees.
First, SLS is implied as the 'world's most capable rocket.' FH (with either the 1.7M or 1.9Mlbf thrust booster version) will lift more payload than SLS's first 'block' as shown by your and others' calculations.This is simply incorrect. SLS Block 1 will boost 24.5 tonnes toward the Moon. (It could, if needed, lift more than 90 tonnes to low earth orbit (70 tonnes is an artifact of the old SLS Block 0 design), but SLS is never going to LEO so that number is irrelevant.) Falcon Heavy, even in full-expendable mode, would boost probably about 15 tonnes (plus or minus) toward the Moon. (Falcon Heavy is also listed at only 54.4 tonnes to LEO in full-expendable mode.)
It would take three fully-expendable Falcon Heavies to match the payload of one SLS Block 1B trans-Mars. It would take four Falcon Heavies to match one SLS Block 2. I expect that Falcon Heavy and/or others like it will be needed to support deep-space missions, but the missions will be built around the unparalleled deep space throw-weight offered by SLS.
- Ed Kyle
54.4 tonnes to LEO is simply not consistent with three 1.7-1.9Mlbf stages -- that's 2/3rds to 3/4ths of Saturn V liftoff thrust -- even a single core (skinny) F9 outperforms Saturn V in PMF (and delivers double the PMF of SLS). FH outperforms F9 by a significant margin. Then cross feed and Raptor powered second stage can be added just as Block 2 will eventually get a better second stage and new boosters.54.4 tonnes is what the manufacturer says Falcon Heavy can do. If would lift half that, give or take, if the booster and first stages were recovered. Your Saturn 5 liftoff thrust comparison doesn't add up because Saturn 5 used high energy liquid hydrogen fueled upper stages. Falcon Heavy uses lower energy hydrocarbon engines on all of its stages. It has to carry a heavier upper stage, relatively speaking, to make up the difference. More liftoff thrust, relatively speaking, is needed to lift the extra mass.
For the moment NASA can claim FH does not have a large enough fairing...SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.
Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.
By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.
As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"
SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.
Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.
By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.
As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"
The key number is Falcon Heavy's 13.6 tonnes trans-Mars (full-expendable). That's impressive, and can be exploited any number of ways, but it isn't 40 tonnes or 46 tonnes (SLS Block 1B Cargo or SLS Block 2).
When and if BFR starts flying, SLS is dead.Minor nit:
54.4 tonnes is what the manufacturer says Falcon Heavy can do. If would lift half that, give or take, if the booster and first stages were recovered. Your Saturn 5 liftoff thrust comparison doesn't add up because Saturn 5 used high energy liquid hydrogen fueled upper stages. Falcon Heavy uses lower energy hydrocarbon engines on all of its stages. It has to carry a heavier upper stage, relatively speaking, to make up the difference. More liftoff thrust, relatively speaking, is needed to lift the extra mass.
The key number is Falcon Heavy's 13.6 tonnes trans-Mars (full-expendable). That's impressive, and can be exploited any number of ways, but it isn't 40 tonnes or 46 tonnes (SLS Block 1B Cargo or SLS Block 2).
For the moment NASA can claim FH does not have a large enough fairing...SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.
Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.
By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.
As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"
...large enough *for what*? Can NASA point us to a funded payload which can't fit into FH's fairing?
How about projected payloads needed for a Mars mission. That's a more realistic comparison.
Something as large as a lander would need 8.4 m or 10 m fairings.
It will take a combination of SLS and commercial rockets to assemble a Mars mission in a reasonable amount of time.
Or, if SpaceX is successful in their Mars endeavors, NASA can just buy a ride to Mars with them. Regardless, a NASA HLV of any type won't be needed for quite a while to support trips to Mars.
FH does not compete with SLS - It throws much more upstairs !!!! And I think you will be waiting quite awhile for your "difficult" questions to be asked at the appropriate level for influence to happen!!The law says that the missions should be designed to accommodate commercial vehicles. So even if SLS does throw slightly more to orbit, that does NOT mean FH doesn't compete with SLS.
The following shows what a typical NASA program to develop hardware for a Mars mission would look like.
Authorization/Appropriations Oct-17
Contract for Authorization Study start Mar-18
Architecture selected Mar-19
Contract for Design and Development start Sep-19
PDR Sep-21
CDR Sep-24
Hardware build complete Sep-29
Launch Earliest Mars Synod Feb-31
This is how slow NASA really is. The biggest problem is in program startup. It would take 3 years from now just to get a contractor on contract to start the design work.
SLS would not be used for any payloads like this until the 2030's just like NASA has been stating all along.
The discussion was about Mars payloads. SLS does have some in the work payloads besides Orion and that is DSH which hopefully would be mid 2020's.The following shows what a typical NASA program to develop hardware for a Mars mission would look like.
Authorization/Appropriations Oct-17
Contract for Authorization Study start Mar-18
Architecture selected Mar-19
Contract for Design and Development start Sep-19
PDR Sep-21
CDR Sep-24
Hardware build complete Sep-29
Launch Earliest Mars Synod Feb-31
This is how slow NASA really is. The biggest problem is in program startup. It would take 3 years from now just to get a contractor on contract to start the design work.
SLS would not be used for any payloads like this until the 2030's just like NASA has been stating all along.
NASA can't do Apollo like programs where all the design and production is done in parallel. From 2018 to 2028 SLS/Orion will be in Cislunar space as its always been planned. Saying SLS has nothing to do for the next 10 years is inaccurate. Especially if ARM is turned into a cislunar outpost SLS/Orion will have more than enough to do.
that is DSH which hopefully would be mid 2020's.
As I have added above they are finishing up funded architecture studies. My notes as you have pointed out are optimistic. There is more funding in the 2017 budget for DSH, hopefuly a development start. But even a 1 year delay is not a bad thing in that SLS hardware availability for launching a DSH may not exist until 2025 anyway. The other item is funding in 2017 for ARRM is 0. As far the Europa missions they are having funding problems of their own and may be delayed as well.that is DSH which hopefully would be mid 2020's.
DSH is just a study, it is not an approved project. The only payloads that are real for SLS at this moment are Orion based and are EM-1 and ARRM. Europa is the next closest.
The goal post on which SLS will die has continually been moved and talked about ad nauseum.
NASA has already stated they can create the DSH and get humans to Mars under the current budget via Lockheed's Mars Base Camp or something similar to it. Its the lander that doesn't fit into existing or foreseeable budget.
SLS does and will have payloads.
Getting to Mars is going to take SLS and commercial launchers and the whole industry pulling in the same direction.
With $9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.
With $9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.
If they're buying a ride from SpaceX, then yea. If you expect it to be via SLS/Orion, I wouldn't bet anything of value on that horse.
$9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.9B a year and the first manned landing happens when? 2034? And how many billions will they spend from now till 2024?
Points well taken.
When I refer to current budget, I'm referencing the entire HSF budget which is around $9 billion per year.
With $9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.
With hardware that isn't even on the drawing board yet.
Those are great ambitions, but I have no faith in them. For that kind of money SpaceX could land 10 times the payload annually, starting in 3 years.
And why shouldn't SLS general discussion include comparison to it's competitors?Because we have other forums to discuss its competitors and Congress. Moderators have been pretty clear on this point in the past.
Once 5 Seg, Core and EUS are out of development, testing and into production...and once 39B, MLT, CT and VAB are completed along with GSDO software, updated LCC...assuming 1 (maybe 2) flights a year, what could we expect the minimum cost per flight to be? In total, will it be 300, 600, 800 Million? What could we realistically expect a line item of one flight, either Cargo or Orion to cost over time? (not including Orion or cargo, fairing.)
Could we get this system to, say...250 Million per launch?
Once 5 Seg, Core and EUS are out of development, testing and into production...and once 39B, MLT, CT and VAB are completed along with GSDO software, updated LCC...assuming 1 (maybe 2) flights a year, what could we expect the minimum cost per flight to be? In total, will it be 300, 600, 800 Million? What could we realistically expect a line item of one flight, either Cargo or Orion to cost over time? (not including Orion or cargo, fairing.)
Could we get this system to, say...250 Million per launch?
To my knowledge, the closest we've seen to actual cost estimates are the numbers in the ESD budget scenarios from 2011 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26709.msg804592#msg804592). They seem to suggest a cost of about $3 billion for one Block 2* SLS launch annually, including ground systems and estimated inflation to FY 2025. Launching one Block 1 and one Block 2 appeared to cost about $3.6 billion. SLS's costs do not seem set to go down when it moves from development to operation. NASA as bandied about a number of $500 million per launch: it would seem that could only be the marginal cost of an additional annual launch, not the total annual cost per launch.
* Bear in mind that the blocks were not then defined precisely as we know them now.
Could we get this system to, say...250 Million per launch?
IMO, the greatest potential for this beast is throw weight of BEO science and colonization infrastructure, not people.
Giving up a large and still expanding LEO presence for the occasional BEO mission is not a good trade in my opinion.
NASA has repeatedly said it wants LEO research capability beyond 2024.Giving up a large and still expanding LEO presence for the occasional BEO mission is not a good trade in my opinion.
NASA won't be giving anything up, as there is no international support past 2024 to keep ISS going making your point moot.
NASA has repeatedly said it wants LEO research capability beyond 2024.Giving up a large and still expanding LEO presence for the occasional BEO mission is not a good trade in my opinion.
NASA won't be giving anything up, as there is no international support past 2024 to keep ISS going making your point moot.
Thanks AnalogMan. For anyone: will they be able to use this adapter between the EUS and 5 meter payloads (ostensibly Orion+SM) when that variant flies?
We got to see one of the center segments for EM-1 already made at the NASA Social today. Don't know if it's for left or right hand booster. Again this is SLS flight hardware, the 1st segment that came through the final assembly building.Nice -- was this picture via Orbital ATK? They told us no pictures on our tour, but we could request photo subjects that would then get a safety check for things like ITAR. The only other detail I heard when we went through Final Assembly was that it was a forward-center segment.
We got to see one of the center segments for EM-1 already made at the NASA Social today. Don't know if it's for left or right hand booster. Again this is SLS flight hardware, the 1st segment that came through the final assembly building.Nice -- was this picture via Orbital ATK? They told us no pictures on our tour, but we could request photo subjects that would then get a safety check for things like ITAR. The only other detail I heard when we went through Final Assembly was that it was a forward-center segment.
We were allowed to take pics in the final assembly building. We all got excited when we heard that and took some pics. We weren't allowed to take pics anywhere else on our tour. That pic was mine, I only wish I'd thought to bring my Coolpix in instead of my iPad camera which I used.
Orbital ATK posted images that they captured during the media tour on Flickr; there are a couple of images of the EM-1 segment in the album:We got to see one of the center segments for EM-1 already made at the NASA Social today. Don't know if it's for left or right hand booster. Again this is SLS flight hardware, the 1st segment that came through the final assembly building.Nice -- was this picture via Orbital ATK? They told us no pictures on our tour, but we could request photo subjects that would then get a safety check for things like ITAR. The only other detail I heard when we went through Final Assembly was that it was a forward-center segment.
In brief, he takes a highly negative view of the SLS/Orion program because of its high costs, legacy architecture, long R&D timeline, low launch cadence, and mission objectives. Listening to the interview was well worth my time. He praises the work being done by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Bigelow Aerospace.
So I have been wondering for awhile now about the RS-25 testing.
I mean what are they testing? Shouldn't the RS-25 be very well understood with all that test and flight history from shuttle?
As best as I can surmise from the #Journeytomars PR press releases there is an upgraded controller and it will use 109% thrust and not 104.5% thrust as under shuttle.
Is that it?
The July 29 test and four future scheduled firings in the current series are focused on the new engine controller and higher operating parameters. While RS-25 engines are among the most tested – and proven – in the world, they have been modernized for SLS. The developmental tests are designed to show they will meet the new parameters of the rocket. During the firings, the test team will put the engine through a variety of adaptations, starting it at different temperatures and pressures, for instance. The team also will watch closely to ensure the new engine controller functions as needed. In addition to the existing RS-25 engines, NASA has contracted with Aerojet Rocketdyne to build additional engines for use on SLS missions. All flight testing for SLS take place at Stennis, as will the actual core stage testing for the first integrated mission of SLS and NASA’s Orion spacecraft, Exploration Mission-1. The next scheduled RS-25 developmental test at Stennis is set for Aug. 18.
In brief, he takes a highly negative view of the SLS/Orion program because of its high costs, legacy architecture, long R&D timeline, low launch cadence, and mission objectives. Listening to the interview was well worth my time. He praises the work being done by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Bigelow Aerospace.
He makes his arguments in the first 5 minutes, the rest is not particularly interesting. IMO he puts to much emphasis on "commercial is so much more awesome" instead of the fact that SLS/Orion has nowhere to fly to.
I was recently thinking about how to make SLS into an effective LEO launcher, since SEP will eat away the benefit of SLS's high BEO capacity. The problem is that in such a case even less SLS launches will be needed (EMC can already be done with 2 SLS per year without using SEP for LEO to LDRO).
If Orbital/ATK gets its all-solid rocket maybe the monster can be slayed?
Sorry if OT.
Cost/flt ($M) | LEO | GEO | Lunar | Mars | |||||
Vehicle | Payload (mt) | Cost/mt ($M) | Payload (mt) | Cost/mt ($M) | Payload (mt) | Cost/mt ($M) | Payload (mt) | Cost/mt ($M) | |
Atlas V | $224 | 18.8 | $11.9 | 8.9 | $25.2 | 8.9 | $25.2 | 6 | $37.3 |
F9 | $62 | 22.8 | $2.7 | 8.3 | $7.5 | 8.3 | $7.5 | 4.02 | $15.4 |
DIVH | $450 | 28.37 | $15.9 | 13.81 | $32.6 | 13.81 | $32.6 | 10 | $45 |
FH | $130 | 54.4 | $2.4 | 22.2 | $5.9 | 19.8 | $6.6 | 13.6 | $9.6 |
SLS 1B | $1000 | 105 | $9.5 | 42.5 | $23.5 | 38 | $26.3 | 30 | $33.3 |
SLS 2B | $800 | 130 | $6.2 | 62 | $12.9 | 46 | $17.4 | 42.5 | $18.8 |
Vulcan | $180 | 33 | $5.5 | 15.6 | $11.5 | 15.6 | $11.5 | 10.5 | $17.1 |
Vulcan Distributed Launch | $340 | $ | 33 | $10.3 | 33 | $10.3 | 33 | $10.3 |
...That is wishful thinking. Expect the SLS 2B to be more expensive than the SLS 1B, IMO. Also to get to the SLS 2B you need to restart RS-25 production and developed some flavor of advance booster. The advance booster is iffy considering the past with the STS's booster history.
I used a lower per flt cost for SLS 2B in the hope that the cost per flt would go down with more use.
You are correct in that historically NASA costs have increased as the LV capability was expanded. But there is always hope that they would also do cost reduction work at the same time as creating a new version....That is wishful thinking. Expect the SLS 2B to be more expensive than the SLS 1B, IMO. Also to get to the SLS 2B you need to restart RS-25 production and developed some flavor of advance booster. The advance booster is iffy considering the past with the STS's booster history.
I used a lower per flt cost for SLS 2B in the hope that the cost per flt would go down with more use.
And your table shows how noncompetitive the SLS is for assembling vehicle stacks in LEO in price. Of course the SLS will have a bigger payload fairing.
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
:)
Live test on a commercial launcher with an adapter. After all the Atlas V got that 7.2 meter fairing option.
:)
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/68572158.jpg)
Oh, I know Plum Brook well. I've been inside it before. But even testing the 5m commercial fairings is cramped, let alone a much taller and wider 10m fairing. I'd argue there isn't enough room for a 10m by 30m fairing to be fully tested inside the space, since it needs room to actually separate, with all the mechanisms involved.how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
At the Space Power Facility in Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The largest vacuum chamber there is 30 meters in diameter and 37 meters tall.
Fiso podcast on SLS.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Sanders-Fuller-DaLee_8-3-16/
Costs aside there is lot to be said for being able to deliver 45t and 10m dia payloads direct to Mars , plus greatly reduce travel time for outer solar system robotic missions.
@Scotty disagree with you on the Clarification on SLS Block 1B Capabilities thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39526.msg1488720#msg1488720) on the 111T+ guess. Presuming you meant metric tons.
I guess its once again time for my quarterly reminder that should SLS fly, or fly more than a couple-four times, the ultimate variation we'll see is 1B. Having said that, I fully support SLS, and I bet the refined 1B will throw N. of 111T.
I'd say slay the Orion, keep the SLS, and use commercial flights. I could see the SLS easily flying an empty Mars or Lunar lander into LEO and whatever equipment, and then a smaller commercial launcher deliver the humans separately. That would be the best compromise to me.
With SLS you're looking at >$2bn per year for 2 launches. Starting at the end of the next decade. Until it flies at that rate it is going to cost another ~$20bn. All that while FH comes "for free" and SEP costs a fraction and is needed anyway.
With SLS you're looking at >$2bn per year for 2 launches. Starting at the end of the next decade. Until it flies at that rate it is going to cost another ~$20bn. All that while FH comes "for free" and SEP costs a fraction and is needed anyway.
As opposed (adjusting to match projected timeframe dollars for SLS) to flying eight FH's for $2bn per year? Or four Delta IV's? Or three Vulcans?
And how in the world do you figure that FH comes "for free"?! FH right now is being guesstimated at a cost per launch between $120 million and $250 million, depending on who you listen to. Delta IV is already around a half billion per launch, Atlas V at around a quarter to a third of a billion, and I don't know anyone who is willing to bet that Vulcan will cost less than either of the other two ULA offerings available at present.
This is, pardon me for saying so, one of the stupidest examples of going way overboard on "SLS will cost so much, it's completely absurd!" By trying to state that FH is "for free," you completely invalidate any argument you may have.
Face it -- there ain't no big launchers that aren't relatively expensive right now. The difference between SpaceX and other providers is simply a matter of degree, at the moment.
Oh, I know Plum Brook well. I've been inside it before. But even testing the 5m commercial fairings is cramped, let alone a much taller and wider 10m fairing. I'd argue there isn't enough room for a 10m by 30m fairing to be fully tested inside the space, since it needs room to actually separate, with all the mechanisms involved.how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
At the Space Power Facility in Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The largest vacuum chamber there is 30 meters in diameter and 37 meters tall.
Heck, the doors are only 15m square. I don't see it realistically and fully being tested at Plum Brook, and I've never seen this realistically addressed.
10m fairings are a nightmare and likely to cost a fortune. How do you even transport them? Build them? Test them?
8.4m fairing even is a stretch (though isn't as absurd as 10m). My bet is SLS will fly only with Orion or the 5m fairing before being cancelled.
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.
Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.
Nineteen-fifty-five. Two years before anyone, anywhere had even demonstrated the capability of orbiting anything. At all.
In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time.
And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development. So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.
Like a manned space program?
So why does Congress want NASA to create a U.S. Government capability? If there is a real need, it should be easy to quantify.
Like a manned space program?
So why does Congress want NASA to create a U.S. Government capability? If there is a real need, it should be easy to quantify.
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.Before we knew what AF/country actually needed, which took a decade to resolve. We call this "risk reduction".
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.
Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.
Again, unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go. And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276. All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.
While the only crewed mission to fly on SLS currently funded is EM-2, at a similar point in Apollo (which was a crash program in which all elements were being designed and built all at once) there was no funding specific to any crewed Saturn V launches, much less for actual lunar landing missions. They weren't going to happen in the next fiscal year, and as such none of the funding was specific to any such missions.
In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time. And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development. So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.
When y'all toss around the complaint "no funded missions," please recall Congress only funds things one fiscal year at a time (when they bother to do so at all and we don't just get stuck with a mess of CR's). Apollo didn't have funded crewed lunar landing missions until fiscal 1969. NASA had a longer-than-one-year plan for Apollo, and Congress appropriated for the new fiscal year based on what NASA told them were their needs to accomplish that plan. That doesn't differ from what's happening right now, as NASA refines their DRA for Mars and presents funding requests based on accomplishing it without many "balloon" years needed to do so (i.e., with mostly flat budgets). Congress has given them funding for the pieces they think they need to develop in the next fiscal year.
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.
Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.
Nineteen-fifty-five. Two years before anyone, anywhere had even demonstrated the capability of orbiting anything. At all.
If there was a funded mission that required an F-1 engine in 1955, I'd love to see the funding appropriation for it.
And, to be honest, I don't believe it would have been possible to seek funding for Apollo if there was not an F-1 class engine already under development. If the U.S. had been forced to try and design Apollo without the F-1 having been under development for five years already, I don't think anyone would have bitten the bullet and committed to it. One of the reasons Apollo was considered within the realm of possibility in 1961 was the fact that the F-1 engine was scheduled to become available by 1965 or so.
Again, unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go. And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276. All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.
While the only crewed mission to fly on SLS currently funded is EM-2, at a similar point in Apollo (which was a crash program in which all elements were being designed and built all at once) there was no funding specific to any crewed Saturn V launches, much less for actual lunar landing missions. They weren't going to happen in the next fiscal year, and as such none of the funding was specific to any such missions.
In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time. And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development. So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.
When y'all toss around the complaint "no funded missions," please recall Congress only funds things one fiscal year at a time (when they bother to do so at all and we don't just get stuck with a mess of CR's). Apollo didn't have funded crewed lunar landing missions until fiscal 1969. NASA had a longer-than-one-year plan for Apollo, and Congress appropriated for the new fiscal year based on what NASA told them were their needs to accomplish that plan. That doesn't differ from what's happening right now, as NASA refines their DRA for Mars and presents funding requests based on accomplishing it without many "balloon" years needed to do so (i.e., with mostly flat budgets). Congress has given them funding for the pieces they think they need to develop in the next fiscal year.
Now, you can complain that the DRA doesn't realistically define needs for new start funding on various vehicles and preliminary missions. But that's a far different discussion than just continuing to insist SLS must die because there are no funded missions.
Rant mode off... ;)
The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year.
I'm a huge SpaceX band-wagoner, I love their product and what they bring to the table. But if opponents think SpaceX has suddenly solved how to get to Mars at 1/10 the cost simply because they are willing to accept more risk, they're kidding themselves.
Would a payload like "Skylab II" (the same diameter as SLS) need a jettisoned fairing at all? Why not design it with an aerodynamic forward end?
Completely agree. The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year. First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides. Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I. Then it was funding and political will.
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
"You don't understand the power of the dark ... wait ... cost plus prime force ..." ;)
And that one won't come cheap. Also, the Skylab one didn't "fair" so well...
Would a payload like "Skylab II" (the same diameter as SLS) need a jettisoned fairing at all? Why not design it with an aerodynamic forward end?
That's what they did with Skylab but it didn't work out; damage was caused during launch and ascent to the sides of the module (insulation torn off along with a solar array). I don't know if it was caused by the slipstream but it does lead to the logical conclusion that you are wiser to protect side-mounted equipment from the airflow.
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.
... unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go. And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276. All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.
Quote... unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go. And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276. All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.
To amplify Space Ghost 1962's reply (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=43786) on this point, have a look at NASA's plans for the Saturn V as of October 1962 (see p. 4 of the 1st attachment or, for fuller explanation a few months later, pp. 11 & 12 of the 2nd attachment). Then compare that with a typical projection of SLS launches, e.g., the second attachment. There's a world of difference between them. When NASA ordered 15 Saturn V's in 1962, it had a plan for each one of them. With SLS, the plan, even several years and $10+ billion in, is to launch every year or two with most payloads and missions TBD. It really does seem to be a rocket looking for missions. Even if missions are found, it hardly seems an efficient way of doing things, especially since all missions so far have been placed on SLS by legislative fiat.
Additionally, the Mars Exploration Program directed JPL to form an Orbiter Study Team to
assess various technical options for a 2022 Orbiter and to work with NEX-SAG regarding
potential mission capabilities (item f above). Launch vehicles were directed to be in the
Falcon 9/Atlas V class.
NASA has been studying the development of even more powerful SEP systems, with a
view to their application for missions like ARRM. In this Exploration SEP option class
the spacecraft could carry a payload of mass 200-600 kg, powered by more than 5 kW.
At the higher end of capabilities in this class, the payload mass can be used to provide
enough fuel to bring the SEP-powered spacecraft out of low Mars orbit and to return
it to Earth vicinity. In that return option, the remote sensing payload would be
restricted to ~150 kg and the Mars mission phase (including relay) would be
terminated after ~5 years.
Ultra-high-resolution optical imaging (~5 cm/pixel) has great promise for science,
resources, and reconnaissance objectives. This is the resolution that bridges the gap
between the state of knowledge from orbital images, and knowledge from rover and
landed platforms. The challenges are for the size and mass of the optics and the
demands on the spacecraft for exceptional pointing and stability.
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability. You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a US launch vehicle that was developed with such an ill-defined need as SLS. Vanguard and Juno I, for example, were developed expressly for launching particular earth satellites. The Jupiter-, Thor-, Atlas- and Titan-based vehicles that succeeded them were developed in the knowledge that many payloads needed vehicles of such sizes. The Saturns IB and V had very specific Apollo payloads and missions. Just about every launch vehicle since -- Shuttle, Atlas variants, Delta IV, Falcon 9 -- has been aimed at an existing stream of payloads. Antares is different, but it nonetheless had a very clearly defined mission, namely ISS logistics.
The one exception was the Saturn I, which was initially just a big first stage, with upper stages and payloads TBD. But even then, nobody doubted that a larger launch capability was needed, and the Saturn I soon had the Army's Advent communications satellite and Dyna-Soar as payloads. Today, on the other hand, there is no obvious need for an SLS-sized launch vehicle. Even if you regard the US government as being serious about sending humans to Mars, the need, much less desirability, of SLS has not been established. Nothing like the Apollo mode debate has occurred.
The fact that politicians have written SLS's specs into law and have legally mandated its use for BEO HSF and for Europa only feed the impression that they're really more interested in the rocket than in missions for it.
SLS is specifically excluded for science missions by NASA management. That is the main reason there was none announced until congress stepped in. It is aggravating to read the NeMO study group state in one of their reports how they were directed to consider EELV class vehicles only and then go on to rule out possible mission goals due to mass or size constraints.
Payloads drive launch vehicle requirements. Any upgrades or new vehicles in the last 50 years have been driven by the needs of a payload. There was no build it and they will come.
Completely agree. The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year. First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides. Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I. Then it was funding and political will.
I, for one, have been consistently saying for years simply that its high cost means that it will likely never deliver much in the way of actual exploration. Using it for significant exploration would appear to require large budget increases that are unlikely.
Completely agree. The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year. First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides. Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I. Then it was funding and political will.
I, for one, have been consistently saying for years simply that its high cost means that it will likely never deliver much in the way of actual exploration. Using it for significant exploration would appear to require large budget increases that are unlikely.
Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished during a max two-term (eight-year) period? Can you name any President in the past 60 years who has proposed anything he knew could not be accomplished during his own Presidency?
Payloads drive launch vehicle requirements. Any upgrades or new vehicles in the last 50 years have been driven by the needs of a payload. There was no build it and they will come.
Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished during a max two-term (eight-year) period? Can you name any President in the past 60 years who has proposed anything he knew could not be accomplished during his own Presidency?
Apollo - proposed in Kennedy's first term in office, and his goal was two years outside of his possible last term in office.
Shuttle - formally commenced in 1972, the year Nixon was running for his 2nd term in office. No way anyone would have expected the Shuttle to start operational flights in just 4 years.
The ISS - when Reagan proposed Space Station Freedom during his 1984 State of the Union Address, he could have only expected preliminary work to have been done on it before he left office.
Constellation program - Bush proposed the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in 2004, just before his re-election. The goal was to return to the Moon 12 years after he left office.
So yes, many Presidents have proposed efforts in space that would not have reached space until after their time in office had ended.
Shuttle -- it was either that or cancel all American manned space flight entirely, and Nixon wasn't ready to harm the American image worldwide by doing that, I don't think. He never really associated himself with that program, it was not something his Administration asked for, it's something NASA asked for that his Administration went along with.
Constellation -- yep, the only one that was looking at first flights 10 to 12 years after inception. And offered up in a spirit of "Hey, I'm tryin' for it, but if y'all don't go along after I'm gone, no skin off my legacy..." And was mostly conceived to keep the pork flowing, not necessarily because GW had a serious vision of human deep-space exploration. And suffered exactly what everyone said it would, just as soon as GW was out of office -- the exception that proves the rule.
And it isn't that hard to consider the payload. With Saturn V it was a lunar stack, with Shuttle it was a space station.
Apollo -- the original text of Kennedy's address to Congress on May 25, 1961 called for this nation "to achieve the goal, by 1967, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
Shuttle -- it was either that or cancel all American manned space flight entirely, and Nixon wasn't ready to harm the American image worldwide by doing that, I don't think. He never really associated himself with that program, it was not something his Administration asked for, it's something NASA asked for that his Administration went along with.
ISS -- at that time, Freedom was deep into planning stages at various levels of NASA, and could well have flown its first segments prior to 1988. I'm positive the planning was to achieve the first segments before Reagan left office. He did say "within the decade," and his term officially ended in January of 1989 -- so, yeah, that was his goal, certainly.
Constellation -- yep, the only one that was looking at first flights 10 to 12 years after inception. And offered up in a spirit of "Hey, I'm tryin' for it, but if y'all don't go along after I'm gone, no skin off my legacy..."
And suffered exactly what everyone said it would, just as soon as GW was out of office -- the exception that proves the rule.
I remember it a bit differently. Economics of reuse meant that STS must fly often. Flying often meant all payloads had to be on the Orbiter. All payloads included the largest payloads. The requirements for those large payloads set the requirements for the Orbiter and the entire STS.
So, just in terms of the conditions extant when these development programs began, there wasn't a commercial HLV (or, at least, anything approaching the perceived HLV need in the DRA) available. You couldn't in 2001 -- or even 2009 -- say "Hey, let's dump this SLS and just plan on using a Falcon Heavy for this DRA," because not only was FH not an option, it wasn't even a notional launch vehicle at those times.
Apollo -- the original text of Kennedy's address to Congress on May 25, 1961 called for this nation "to achieve the goal, by 1967, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
What Kennedy told Congress on May 25, 1961:
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space."
You're arguing against the facts here.Quote
You missed my meaning. The original draft of the speech, not the speech as given, set a specific goal of achieving the lunar landing by 1967. The speech was revised, nearly at the last minute, to read "before this decade is out" instead.
Trust me, I heard that speech live. I recall it personally. I know exactly what Kennedy said. He also did not say he was personally setting the U.S. on a course to the Moon -- he said he was asking Congress and the American people to choose to do this, and warned right up front it would be the most expensive demonstration of American space superiority that we could possibly embark upon during this period.
And look at the NASA timeline for achieving the lunar landing -- up until late '65, it called for the lunar landing to occur in 1967, and for Block I Apollo flights to begin in mid-1966, before the end of Gemini's flight program. After that, it called for the landing to occur in 1968. Right up until the Fire, the planning was for the first lunar landing to occur in spring or summer 1968. Before the end of what would have been Kennedy's second term.
My point stands... :)
{snip}
You keep moving the goal posts. Your original claim was:
"Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished..."
Station completion could never have completed in 4 years. Something launched during that time maybe, but not "accomplished".
{snip}
What there was in 2009-10 was a widespread inaccurate belief that NASA nearly had an HLV: "all" it had to do was re-arrange the Shuttle stack*. [...] Maybe Shuttle-C would have been the right way to go [...]
* I just tracked this down to a statement by Mike Griffin on 2 May 2005 (see the 12th page of the attached PDF): "As NASA Administrator, I already own a Heavy Lifter (in) the Space Shuttle stack. I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because .... any other solution for getting 100 tons into orbit is going to be more expensive than efficiently utilizing what we already own."
... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.
... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.
Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion? Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.
We both can point to studies that show our respective views on HLV or not debate. I'm not really interested in rehashing that debate. The sentence that you cherry picked was referring to an SDHLV being the majority consensus of the space flight engineering and planning community at that time, not necessarily the best option.... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.
Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion? Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.
However, with rumors that NASA may make some important announcements about their future Mars plans in the near future (perhaps spurred by the SpaceX announcement of their architecture, planned for just more than a month from now), we might actually begin to hear about a proposed sequence of budget requests that will result in flying some form of their Mars DRA. It might even be good timing, to get it discussed in the Presidential campaign and possibly get a campaign commitment from one or more of the candidates to support the plan. Couldn't hurt to at least try, right?
However, with rumors that NASA may make some important announcements about their future Mars plans in the near future (perhaps spurred by the SpaceX announcement of their architecture, planned for just more than a month from now), we might actually begin to hear about a proposed sequence of budget requests that will result in flying some form of their Mars DRA. It might even be good timing, to get it discussed in the Presidential campaign and possibly get a campaign commitment from one or more of the candidates to support the plan. Couldn't hurt to at least try, right?
Since NASA works for the NASA Administrator, and the NASA Administrator works for the current President of the United States (who also controls all budget requests that go to Congress), that means you're expecting President Obama to announce a Mars proposal that he wants another President and another Congress to fund?
That sure seems like bad timing to me...
However, with rumors that NASA may make some important announcements about their future Mars plans in the near future (perhaps spurred by the SpaceX announcement of their architecture, planned for just more than a month from now), we might actually begin to hear about a proposed sequence of budget requests that will result in flying some form of their Mars DRA. It might even be good timing, to get it discussed in the Presidential campaign and possibly get a campaign commitment from one or more of the candidates to support the plan. Couldn't hurt to at least try, right?
Since NASA works for the NASA Administrator, and the NASA Administrator works for the current President of the United States (who also controls all budget requests that go to Congress), that means you're expecting President Obama to announce a Mars proposal that he wants another President and another Congress to fund?
That sure seems like bad timing to me...
Yeah, that would amount to Bolden trying to set Administration space policy, rather than responding to policy set by the Administration, and what's more trying to politick the two main campaigns. The former would be an infraction of the chain of command, the latter something more extreme and intolerable.
On the other hand, the President has not seen to gainsay all the NASA rhetoric about the Journey to Mars, when all Obama has ever committed to publicly has been the ARM mission, and Presidents do have these legacy issues when coming to the ends of their terms... ;)
I was just taken with the timing of rumored announcements of new information about NASA's Mars plans, is all, I guess. Thanks for bringing me back to Earth (literally), Ron!
Early in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. (Applause.) And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. (Applause.) So we'll start -- we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. (Applause.) By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.http://www.nasa.gov/about/obama_ksc_pod.html
Just to refresh everybody's memories, this is what Obama said in his Kennedy speech.QuoteEarly in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. (Applause.) And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. (Applause.) So we'll start -- we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. (Applause.) By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.http://www.nasa.gov/about/obama_ksc_pod.html
Bolden setting a roadmap to accomplish Obama's directive of human visits to mars and an asteroid is not going outside of the chain of command.
Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.
Sure, why not? Congress still wants jobs in those districts, NASA will just have to use the same workforce to build something different, like habs or asteroid grabbing robots or whathaveyou. SLS isn't the only thing that can provide that pork.
Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.
Since it requires constant reinforcement...
That's not how appropriations work. If SLS ends NASA does not keep the money.
... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.
Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion? Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.
My understanding is that the Augustine Commission basically said there are some missions that could benefit a lot from a super-heavy LV, but that you should only do so if you have a really definite need for one. In other words, their recommendation (which we are currently almost exactly anti-observing) was that you should only build one if and when you need it, and only if it seems more economical to launch big pieces in fewer launches than launching a lot of pieces in a lot more launches. Please correct me if I'm wrong about their conclusions, but that was what I took away from reading the report....
The Committee commissioned a detailed analysis of the reliability of missions that would require multiple launches of critical and less critical payloads. It found that achieving reasonable probability of mission success requires either 90+ days of on-orbit life for the EDS, or a depot, and that at most three critical launches should be employed. Since it is very constraining to balance mission components to always partition equally between launches, this strongly favors a minimum heavy-lift capacity of roughly 50 mt that allows the flexibility to lift two “dry” exploration elements on a single launch.
While there are technical differences between the two families [of launch vehicles: NASA-heritage and EELV], the Committee intended the principal difference to be programmatic. The EELV-heritage super heavy would represent a new way of doing business for NASA, which would have the benefit of potentially lowering development and operational costs. The Committee used the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to investigate the possibility of an essentially commercial acquisition of the required heavy-launch capability by a small NASA organization similar to a system program office in the Department of Defense. It would eliminate somewhat the historic carrying cost of many Apollo- and Shuttle-era facilities and systems. This creates the possibility of substantially reduced operating costs, which may ultimately allow NASA to escape its conundrum of not having sufficient resources to both operate existing systems and build a new one.
However, this efficiency of operations would require significant near-term realignment of NASA. Substantial reductions in workforce, facilities closures, and mothballing would be required. When the Committee asked NASA to assess the cost of this process, the estimates ranged from $3 billion to $11 billion over five years. Because of these realignment costs, the EELV-heritage super heavy does not become available significantly sooner than the Ares V or Shuttle-derived families of launchers. The transition to this way of doing business would come at the cost of cutting deeply into a the internal NASA capability to develop and operate launchers, both in terms of skills and facilities.
In summary, the Committee considers the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to be a way to significantly reduce the operating cost of the heavy lifter to NASA in the long run. It would be a less-capable vehicle, but probably sufficiently capable for the mission. Reaping the long-term cost benefits would require substantial disruption in NASA, and force the agency to adopt a new way of doing business. The choice between NASA and EELV heritage is driven by potential lower development and operations cost (favoring the EELV-heritage systems) vs. continuity of NASA’s system design, development and mission assurance knowledge and experience, which would provide higher probability of successful and predictable developments (favoring NASA systems). EELV-heritage launch systems, due to their lower payload performance, would require significantly greater launch and mission complexity to achieve the same total mass in orbit. The EELV option would also entail substantial reductions in the NASA workforce and closure of facilities necessary to obtain the expected cost reductions.
We both can point to studies that show our respective views on HLV or not debate. I'm not really interested in rehashing that debate. The sentence that you cherry picked was referring to an SDHLV being the majority consensus of the space flight engineering and planning community at that time, not necessarily the best option.... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.
Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion? Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.
Sure, why not? Congress still wants jobs in those districts, NASA will just have to use the same workforce to build something different, like habs or asteroid grabbing robots or whathaveyou. SLS isn't the only thing that can provide that pork.
Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.
Since it requires constant reinforcement...
That's not how appropriations work. If SLS ends NASA does not keep the money.
I think this is new, but if not remove:Is posted in the updates thread.
NASA's Marshall Center - Done in 60 seconds: See a Massive Rocket Fuel Tank Built in A Minute
<snip>
Not a fan of the music though - too "edgy"
I found this one that has also not been posted:Older one. Also posted in the updates thread.
<snip>
I was looking at doing a SLS animation one day, when I came across this video on YouTube:
youtube.com/watch?v=bK1foInKm00
Now, at first, I was inclined to think it was a fan-created animation, but several angles and elements are identical to the EM-1 video that NASA posted. To the level that I can't see it being done by anyone but the actual animation house that does the official NASA animations who has those scene setups already (one of them at least)...
I suppose if nothing else, its a preview of what we might see.
I was looking at doing a SLS animation one day, when I came across this video on YouTube:
youtube.com/watch?v=bK1foInKm00
Now, at first, I was inclined to think it was a fan-created animation, but several angles and elements are identical to the EM-1 video that NASA posted. To the level that I can't see it being done by anyone but the actual animation house that does the official NASA animations who has those scene setups already (one of them at least)...
I suppose if nothing else, its a preview of what we might see.
One minor nit pick. The EUS should do a burn after core separation to get into LEO. The solar arrays then deploy, followed by TLI.
It makes me wonder which version of SLS will be utilized; there's only one flight of the Block 1 version scheduled, for EM-1. However, technically 2 Delta-derived upper stages were bought by NASA. Most Europa presentations mentioning the SLS refer to Block 1 launchers. I presume the Block 1B is the 'real' plan, but again I wonder if either version is possible.
Sure, why not? Congress still wants jobs in those districts, NASA will just have to use the same workforce to build something different, like habs or asteroid grabbing robots or whathaveyou. SLS isn't the only thing that can provide that pork.
Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.
Since it requires constant reinforcement...
That's not how appropriations work. If SLS ends NASA does not keep the money.
It is in principle true that when one of its programs ends, NASA simply looses the money. In practice, though, NASA's inflation-adjusted budget has been approximately constant for decades, even as big programs have come and gone (e.g., Constellation, ISS, the Shuttle, X-33, Hubble, JWST). Though there is always a risk that next time will be different, in practice the forces that Robotbeat identifies seem to keep the cash flowing.
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).
“My top number for Orion, SLS, and the ground systems that support it is $2 billion or less,” Hill told Ars. “I mean that’s my real ultimate goal. We were running at about three-plus, 3.6 billion [dollars] during the latter days of space shuttle. Of course, there again, we were flying six or seven missions. I think we’re actually going to have to get to less than that.”
During the space shuttle days, about 1,200 people worked at 40 stations to assemble the shuttle's external tank, which was a relatively simple design when compared to to the SLS core stage. Today, about 400 people with Boeing, the prime SLS contractor, work at a handful of stations to assemble the core stage. It represents a sign— a small but tangible one—that NASA might yet wrangle its big rocket and spacecraft costs into submission.
...Doesn't work like that because a lot of the absolute savings they're getting is by DRASTICALLY reducing the maximum production rate to just 2 per year (versus just about an order of magnitude higher for Shuttle).
In the end this is actually a good cost reduction accomplishment since lower build rate should have a higher manpower use per unit. So if the SLS core was manufactured at same rate as ETs, the manpower per SLS core should be less than an ET.
Build rate!
Shuttle tank build rate was 6 per year. SLS build rate is 2 maybe. That is a factor of 3 difference and the main reason you see the 1200 personnel for Shuttle vs the 400 for SLS. Meaning the cost of the SLS core will be no more expensive "maybe" than the Shuttle ET.
In the end this is actually a good cost reduction accomplishment since lower build rate should have a higher manpower use per unit. So if the SLS core was manufactured at same rate as ETs, the manpower per SLS core should be less than an ET.
SLS build rate is like half per year, not 1 per year.
If you're going by max rate, you'll have to compare with Shuttle's projected max (15, 20 per year? 40?). Shuttle achieved 9 missions one year and has a whole bunch of years where they achieved 7 or 8.
SLS build rate is like half per year, not 1 per year.
If you're going by max rate, you'll have to compare with Shuttle's projected max (15, 20 per year? 40?). Shuttle achieved 9 missions one year and has a whole bunch of years where they achieved 7 or 8.
Just look at the VAC flow and you will see that it is more than half an SLS per year.
July 2016 - SLS hydrogen tank qualification article complete
June 2016 - SLS O2 tank confidence article
June 2016 - LVSA structural test article
April 2016 - Engine section flight article
Feb 2016 - SLS hydrogen tank confidence article
That hardware represents everything that goes into the Core stage except the forward skirt and inter-tank...in half a year.
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).
It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).
It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
Was a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994? If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).
It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
Was a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994? If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.
Space Exploration Initiative. A return to the moon and a manned mission to mars was abandoned under Clinton who labeled it too expensive. Without a BEO program, NASA was descoped and hence required less funding to complete a more limited mission.
There is also simply the lack of motivation to start another large decade long program when the last one was a failure. Orion and SLS being successful, within the confines of the goals of the program, is good for NASA's topline budget while failure will have at least some detrimental affects.
This is all besides the point though. Someone was making the case that NASA's budget never significantly goes up and down and hence the topline budget can never be damaged by anything. This is clearly not the case, but there is a post Apollo floor of about 15 billion(2014 dollars) that it never has gone below. We, today, at a budget of 19.3 billion aren't near that floor and so a significant drop is feasible.
That is not America becoming weaker, that is the successful shift of capabilities from the government to the private sector. And shouldn't that always be the goal for non-defense capabilities?
That is not America becoming weaker, that is the successful shift of capabilities from the government to the private sector. And shouldn't that always be the goal for non-defense capabilities?
Well... not always this bit. Its often extremely disastrous for everyone (but the stakeholders) to privatize everything. Perhaps its emblematic of my generation, but I prefer having baseline government accountability instead the impenetrable black box of private corporations for most things.
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).
It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
Was a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994? If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.
Space Exploration Initiative. A return to the moon and a manned mission to mars was abandoned under Clinton who labeled it too expensive. Without a BEO program, NASA was descoped and hence required less funding to complete a more limited mission.
Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study (http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/virtues-of-the-90-day-study/), but Congress never funded it. Thus, there was nothing to cancel. More later when I have more time.
NASA has a lot of overhead. Things like wind tunnels, engine testing facilities, zero-gravity simulation pools, etc. Which are needed if the U.S. Government is building it's own capabilities in space.
But we have certainly reached a moment in history where the private sector is more capable than NASA for pushing mass to & through space. And without a defined need for capabilities that don't exist in the private sector, the business case for NASA to continue to have lots of legacy development capabilities will just get weaker.
The reason commercial space companies, especially new ones can build lower cost vehicles (landers, LV, capsules etc) is because they have full access to NASA facilities and knowledge. Without NASA help a lot of these companies would never get off the ground.
Various parts of government haven't absorbed the changes in processes/acquisition. Time lagged by change too fast.The reason commercial space companies, especially new ones can build lower cost vehicles (landers, LV, capsules etc) is because they have full access to NASA facilities and knowledge. Without NASA help a lot of these companies would never get off the ground.
The same could be said about just about everything the government funds - we all stand on the shoulders of those that came before us.
But the money that paid for all that came from taxpayers, both private citizens and companies, so sharing that knowledge is part of the repayment.To a degree. NASA doesn't share proprietary information but, like AF, is "informed" by it. Both AF/NASA maintain "subject matter expertise" from all of them.
And at least for NASA, it's mandated by law that they share what they have learned.Perspective not always practice.
And that still doesn't alter the situation we have where the private sector is now more capable than NASA with regards to moving mass to space. NASA is just contracting for services - paying Boeing to build the SLS, paying someone else to manage the launch ops, etc. Other than money, NASA is not really bringing much to the table that the private sector wouldn't be able to do on their own - if asked.Which is why NASA needs "practice". Our idi0t policymakers are beginning to twig to that.
Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study (http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/virtues-of-the-90-day-study/), but Congress never funded it. Thus, there was nothing to cancel. More later when I have more time.
NASA got significant increases in funding every year for a few years after the 1989 speech. At one point, NASA was 1.0% of the federal budget. If those budget levels were sustained, adjusted for inflation, conceivably 2 or 3 parts of the 3 part SEI could have been completed and not just the space station.
Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study (http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/virtues-of-the-90-day-study/), but Congress never funded it. Thus, there was nothing to cancel. More later when I have more time.
NASA got significant increases in funding every year for a few years after the 1989 speech. At one point, NASA was 1.0% of the federal budget. If those budget levels were sustained, adjusted for inflation, conceivably 2 or 3 parts of the 3 part SEI could have been completed and not just the space station.
But Congress did not appropriate any funds for SEI.
Jon posted this today
Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)
When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)
NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.
SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.
Jon posted this today
Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)
When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)
NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.
SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.
Minor nit. The phrasing you used always irks me. My understanding is that the top of NASA (Bolden and Garver at the time) did not want SLS; it was Congress that insisted. Though, on reflection, you may have been thinking of the Constellation program.Jon posted this today
Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, ... if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV...
Jon posted this today
Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)
When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)
NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.
SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted. I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on. They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.
I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted. I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on. They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.
I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.
To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.
Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)
~Jon
To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.
Jon posted this today
Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)
When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)
NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.
SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted. I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on. They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.
I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.
To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.
Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)
~Jon
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.
I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.
They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.
I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.
Jon posted this today
Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)
When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)
NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.
SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted. I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on. They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.
I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.
To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.
Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)
~Jon
Admit it, Jon -- you saw the back-of-a-napkin drawing "To the Moon on Saturn C-1 or Bust!" from 1962 that broke an Apollo CSM/LM stack into eight separate C-1 launches, with another four for TLI impulse, at an impressionable age, and never got over it, right...? ;)
Jon posted this today
Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)
When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)
NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.
SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted. I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on. They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.
I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.
To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.
Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)
~Jon
I disagree, with a mars campaign and the high delta-v requirements for re-use of a transfer vehicle, every pound of habitation system has a high IMLEO penalty. Looking at historical mass to volume ratios for space stations, modular stations have a ~ 2 to 1 disadvantage.
Single launch space stations
Skylab - 214 kg/m^3
Salyut 7 - 211 kg/m^3
Genesis II - 118 kg/m^3
Modular space stations
Mir - 370 kg/m^3
ISS - 460 kg/m^3
An SLS at 2 billion per launch and 105,000 kg at LEO costs $19047 per kilogram to orbit. A Delta-IV heavy at 400 million per launch costs $13900 per kilogram to orbit. Modularity for habitation would roughly double the IMLEO mass of a mars campaign(it trickles down to propulsion for the same delta-v) and so you would end up paying roughly the same in launch costs either way. Falcon heavy didn't exist in 2010 and has unknown reliability but probably <93% that Falcon 9 has. SLS likewise has unknown reliability but NASA has a roughly 1-2% failure rate historically on Shuttle/Saturn. My 2 billion per launch is based on 2 billion per year from 2011-2020 at $2 billion/year for 1 launch, $2 billion/year in 2021-2025 for 1 launch per year and $2.5 billion/year in 2026-2036 for 2 launches per year. This gives 28 launches in this time frame for a total cost of $57.5 billion(2016 dollars not counting inflation) or $2 billion/launch.
When talking $/kg to orbit in regards to SLS better use TLI than LEO. SLS price should look even better then than commercial LV.Jon posted this today
Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)
When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)
NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.
SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted. I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on. They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.
I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.
To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.
Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)
~Jon
I disagree, with a mars campaign and the high delta-v requirements for re-use of a transfer vehicle, every pound of habitation system has a high IMLEO penalty. Looking at historical mass to volume ratios for space stations, modular stations have a ~ 2 to 1 disadvantage.
Single launch space stations
Skylab - 214 kg/m^3
Salyut 7 - 211 kg/m^3
Genesis II - 118 kg/m^3
Modular space stations
Mir - 370 kg/m^3
ISS - 460 kg/m^3
An SLS at 2 billion per launch and 105,000 kg at LEO costs $19047 per kilogram to orbit. A Delta-IV heavy at 400 million per launch costs $13900 per kilogram to orbit. Modularity for habitation would roughly double the IMLEO mass of a mars campaign(it trickles down to propulsion for the same delta-v) and so you would end up paying roughly the same in launch costs either way. Falcon heavy didn't exist in 2010 and has unknown reliability but probably <93% that Falcon 9 has. SLS likewise has unknown reliability but NASA has a roughly 1-2% failure rate historically on Shuttle/Saturn. My 2 billion per launch is based on 2 billion per year from 2011-2020 at $2 billion/year for 1 launch, $2 billion/year in 2021-2025 for 1 launch per year and $2.5 billion/year in 2026-2036 for 2 launches per year. This gives 28 launches in this time frame for a total cost of $57.5 billion(2016 dollars not counting inflation) or $2 billion/launch.
The list of HLVs that could do it (none have flown to date and are in various states of design/development)
When talking $/kg to orbit in regards to SLS better use TLI than LEO. SLS price should look even better then than commercial LV.
The issue with getting crew to DSH at lunar DRO is not TLI required by LV but also DV required by crew vehicle from TLI- DSH-TLI. Around 1600m/s I think, this adds significant mass to service module.
ULA ACES could in theory deliver Orion direct to DSH, the Orion would still need to provide the return DV.
The alternative is a orbital transfer OTV vehicle, eg ACES with habitat that does LEO- DSH- LEO round trip. DSH would still need an Orion for emergency returns to earth as boil off would preclude having OTV attached to DSH during crew stay.
There is no real substitute for HLV if you want to deliver crew direct to DSH in one launch.
And I recall that SLS's 5-segment SRBs stage higher and faster than the Shuttle's 4-segment ones, making recovery more difficult.
Re. the faster part, wouldn't drag decelerate them to about the same terminal velocity before the drogues deployed?
AFAIK the block 1 vehicle is supposed to do 70 metric tons but is in fact doing 80+ metric tons. Also, the block 1B vehicle will do 105+ metric tons easily. It's the block 2 vehicle that is coming up short.
I think it also important to note that the up-mass penalty for a notional working parachute system would further compromise what is already a vehicle seeking every efficiency to even get close to 100+ tonnes, much less 130...
AFAIK the block 1 vehicle is supposed to do 70 metric tons but is in fact doing 80+ metric tons. Also, the block 1B vehicle will do 105+ metric tons easily. It's the block 2 vehicle that is coming up short.
I think it also important to note that the up-mass penalty for a notional working parachute system would further compromise what is already a vehicle seeking every efficiency to even get close to 100+ tonnes, much less 130...
It's my understanding that for the Shuttle, reusing SRBs cost about as much money as it saved. At SLS's lower flight rates, reuse would surely cost more."Recovery-is-for-safety" is a myth IMO. Liquid fueled (booster) stages for manned vehicles (such as Atlas, Titan and Saturn) were not recovered to enhance safety, despite the fact the liquid fueled stages can be just as dangerous as their solid counterparts. Liquid stage recovery only happened on STS, but only because the system was part of the orbiter. But it won't happen for CCP Atlas V and will not happen for SLS Core Stage, etc.
Recovery would allow SRBs to be examined for signs of damage. I'd have thought that could be important for safety. After all, ATK's (or Thiokol's, as they were at the time) were in a position to warn about launching STS-51L because they'd correlated O-ring blow-by on SRBs with launch temperature.
You know the economics of this one. At the current or even proposed flight rates, refurbishing the boosters will cost more than building from scratch.AFAIK the block 1 vehicle is supposed to do 70 metric tons but is in fact doing 80+ metric tons. Also, the block 1B vehicle will do 105+ metric tons easily. It's the block 2 vehicle that is coming up short.
I think it also important to note that the up-mass penalty for a notional working parachute system would further compromise what is already a vehicle seeking every efficiency to even get close to 100+ tonnes, much less 130...
Correct, which is why I wonder why they are not recovering the Block 1 and 1B SRBs. Especially in the light that it is highly unlikely that the Block 2 ever flies because of funding issues. Even if it did they could just discard the SRBs from a Block 2 launch. Seems to me like a financial gift to ATK which will get to keep making the SRBs from scratch instead of refurbishing them like we did for the STS. Pork barrel funding.
I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery. Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand. Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes. SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs. Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine. The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.
EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"
I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery. Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand. Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes. SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs. Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine. The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.Not quite. Temperature-driven erosion of O-rings had in fact been spotted in land-based development and qualification firings as well. The phenomenon was not properly understood but considered to be benign. As a result of this assessment, no furter effort was undertaken to understand this particular behaviour of the seals between SRB segments. The only thing Thiokol learned from the recovered boosters was that the behaviour from the development and qualification firings manifested itself, more severely, in actual flights.
EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"
I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery. Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand. Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes. SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs. Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine. The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.Not quite. Temperature-driven erosion of O-rings had in fact been spotted in land-based development and qualification firings as well. The phenomenon was not properly understood but considered to be benign. As a result of this assessment, no furter effort was undertaken to understand this particular behaviour of the seals between SRB segments. The only thing Thiokol learned from the recovered boosters was that the behaviour from the development and qualification firings manifested itself, more severely, in actual flights.
EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"
When something is not properly understood, particularly in a safety critical item such as an SRB, it should be investigated further. However, that did not happen. As a result, NASA started flying a vehicle in 1981 that had known unknowns about the safe performance of the SRB's.I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery. Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand. Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes. SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs. Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine. The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.Not quite. Temperature-driven erosion of O-rings had in fact been spotted in land-based development and qualification firings as well. The phenomenon was not properly understood but considered to be benign. As a result of this assessment, no furter effort was undertaken to understand this particular behaviour of the seals between SRB segments. The only thing Thiokol learned from the recovered boosters was that the behaviour from the development and qualification firings manifested itself, more severely, in actual flights.
EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"
But that only thing learned from recovered SRBs was absolutely crucial, and led engineers to recommend against launching Challenger on 27 January 1986. The significance of the recovered SRBs is seen, for example, in a January 1985 telegram (https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p247b.htm) recommending a review of erosion specifically as a result of erosion observed on STS-51C.
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry. Is that the plan ? Thanks.
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry. Is that the plan ? Thanks.
Actually I thought that was for EM-2, the crewed flight, so that life-support could be checked out before venturing to the Moon. I was under the impression the EM-1 flight would essentially go straight to the Moon, do a couple orbits, and then head back. EM-1 didn't have the burden of life-support checkups so it was going to fly out in more straightforward fashion to test propulsion and navigation chiefly.
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry. Is that the plan ? Thanks.
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry. Is that the plan ? Thanks.
No. EM-1 is direct to TLI, then orbit in DRO for a while before coming back. EM-2 may use a different profile, where it spends a day in an elliptical Earth orbit, then boosts to TLI (taking 3 days to reach the moon), and, depending on how the mission goes up til then, will either take a 3 day free return to earth, or enter lunar orbit for a few days
Would Boeing? become faster and cheaper at designing rockets based on the hydrogen-oxygen 8.4 meter fuel tanks after the development of the SLS block 1B? For instance, would it be able to design a 6 rs-25 rocket faster? Or a smaller rocket with 3 rs-25, or an upper stage with 2 j-2x engines? Presumably these rockets can also be manufactured in Machoud similar to the SLS.
Would Boeing? become faster and cheaper at designing rockets based on the hydrogen-oxygen 8.4 meter fuel tanks after the development of the SLS block 1B? For instance, would it be able to design a 6 rs-25 rocket faster? Or a smaller rocket with 3 rs-25, or an upper stage with 2 j-2x engines? Presumably these rockets can also be manufactured in Machoud similar to the SLS.
In my opinion, the SLS core as currently designed will be the last to fly the RS-25, ever. Blue Origin's first BE-4 just rolled off the line. That's the first reusable high-thrust engine built in the US since RS-25, and signals the end of the road for the RS-25.
End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket. RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.
End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket. RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.
By who? SLS is likely the last large rocket designed and managed by NASA
I was clarifying the statement by envy887, that end of the road for RS-25 just means it won't be used another another rocket, but will still be in-service on SLS for quite some time.
I seem to get the idea that reality is catching up to the SLS program.
I was clarifying the statement by envy887, that end of the road for RS-25 just means it won't be used another another rocket, but will still be in-service on SLS for quite some time.
SLS won't be in service long.
So Jim, you are shutting down Orion? Does ESA know?
End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket. RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.
SLS isn't going to last 5 years. Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
So Jim, you are shutting down Orion? Does ESA know?
End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket. RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.
SLS isn't going to last 5 years. Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
- Ed Kyle
That's not what this page says.So Jim, you are shutting down Orion? Does ESA know?
End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket. RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.
SLS isn't going to last 5 years. Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
- Ed Kyle
Orion can only go to the Moon.
At that price point, why bother?
That's not what this page says.So Jim, you are shutting down Orion? Does ESA know?
End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket. RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.
SLS isn't going to last 5 years. Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
- Ed Kyle
Orion can only go to the Moon.
At that price point, why bother?
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orion-58.html
Even EM-1 is not going to the Moon. It is going "thousands of miles beyond the Moon".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/23128839505/
- Ed Kyle
That's not what this page says.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orion-58.html
Even EM-1 is not going to the Moon. It is going "thousands of miles beyond the Moon".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/23128839505/
- Ed Kyle
Ed was talking about EM-1. That mission is going to the vicinity of the Moon, not Mars.Your joke antenna is not calibrated....
Even EM-1 is not going to the Moon. It is going "thousands of miles beyond the Moon".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/23128839505/
- Ed Kyle
You are being sarcastic, right?
Mars is 56,000,000km (35,000,000 miles at its closest), while the Moon is 385,000km (239,000 miles)
I'm calibrated. Thousands of miles is a road trip in my Subaru...
We are paying for millions of 'miles'.
And what is this about payloads disappearing? I thought there were no payloads. I know that ARRM is on shaky ground, but that always has been the case. And the Europa Clipper was just all talk as far as I could tell. ATLAST (or similar) would be a good payload candidate, if anyone ever wanted to get a better look at all those exoplanets. But I'm not aware of any serious space telescopes in the works after JWST.
And what is this about payloads disappearing? I thought there were no payloads. I know that ARRM is on shaky ground, but that always has been the case. And the Europa Clipper was just all talk as far as I could tell. ATLAST (or similar) would be a good payload candidate, if anyone ever wanted to get a better look at all those exoplanets. But I'm not aware of any serious space telescopes in the works after JWST
And what is this about payloads disappearing? I thought there were no payloads. I know that ARRM is on shaky ground, but that always has been the case. And the Europa Clipper was just all talk as far as I could tell. ATLAST (or similar) would be a good payload candidate, if anyone ever wanted to get a better look at all those exoplanets. But I'm not aware of any serious space telescopes in the works after JWST.
I said powerpoint payload are disappearing.
Europa Clipper and ATLAST are looking at non SLS vehicles.
Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
The SLS/Orion will be used put modular DSH in place, should take it to EM4-EM5. Late 2020s to launch a large single habitat/vehicle that will be tested in Cislunar before being used for Mars. Plans are in motion for initial DSH missions EM2-3 , decisions need to be made in 2017. Funding? See DSH thread. Commercial vehicles will be used where available, a crew vehicle could allow for more than 1 mission a year to DSH.
I was clarifying the statement by envy887, that end of the road for RS-25 just means it won't be used another another rocket, but will still be in-service on SLS for quite some time.
SLS won't be in service long.
For the first time, NASA is starting to discuss SLS missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
Gerst is talking about building up this “deep space gateway” outpost using elements flown on EM-2 and later flights.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725084102512640 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725084102512640)
He adds that Japan would like to add a module to this outpost as well, but want to keep overall concept “minimalistic.”https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725254932287492 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725254932287492)
Phase 2 adds a “Deep Space Transport” to the Deep Space Gateway.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725641252868096 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725641252868096)
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 10m10 minutes agohttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846735578259447808 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846735578259447808)
Q: what do you mean when you say this gateway is not ISS?
Free: not permanently crewed, not a large system or vehicle.
Plans for future missions for Phases 2 and 3, through EM-11 in “2030+”:
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 4m4 minutes ago
Jim Free: still planning a human Mars orbital mission in 2033, which may require a Venus flyby.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 4m4 minutes ago
Free says 2033 plans would not be like “Inspiration Mars”; would go into orbit around Mars, not a flyby as IM proposed.
QuoteGerst is talking about building up this “deep space gateway” outpost using elements flown on EM-2 and later flights.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725084102512640 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725084102512640)QuoteHe adds that Japan would like to add a module to this outpost as well, but want to keep overall concept “minimalistic.”https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725254932287492 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725254932287492)QuotePhase 2 adds a “Deep Space Transport” to the Deep Space Gateway.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725641252868096 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725641252868096)
Edit to add:QuoteJeff Foust @jeff_foust 10m10 minutes agohttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846735578259447808 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846735578259447808)
Q: what do you mean when you say this gateway is not ISS?
Free: not permanently crewed, not a large system or vehicle.
From NAC HEO meeting:Mr. Gerstenmaier made a few references to a Europa Clipper launch on SLS, but this was during the early part of his remarks that were accompanied by tubas...QuoteFor the first time, NASA is starting to discuss SLS missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304)
Finally, some details about how NASA actually plans to get to Mars http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/for-the-first-time-nasa-has-begun-detailing-its-deep-space-exploration-plans/ by @SciGuySpace
From NAC HEO meeting:Mr. Gerstenmaier made a few references to a Europa Clipper launch on SLS, but this was during the early part of his remarks that were accompanied by tubas...QuoteFor the first time, NASA is starting to discuss SLS missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304)
I believe I copied notes about trying to make one of multiple 'Jupiter direct' windows starting in 2022, which is probably optimistic for a first Block 1B launch. (Univ. Stage Adapter-based fairing also more likely than an 8.4 m fairing for early 20s, too...)
During the semi-audible portion of Mr. Gerstenmaier's presentation, I believe I copied that the initial element in this concept would be derived from the ARRM propulsion bus...A couple more references from another thread here, pointing to Anatoly Zak's work reporting on the cislunar gateway concept:
From NAC HEO meeting:Mr. Gerstenmaier made a few references to a Europa Clipper launch on SLS, but this was during the early part of his remarks that were accompanied by tubas...QuoteFor the first time, NASA is starting to discuss SLS missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304)
I believe I copied notes about trying to make one of multiple 'Jupiter direct' windows starting in 2022, which is probably optimistic for a first Block 1B launch. (Univ. Stage Adapter-based fairing also more likely than an 8.4 m fairing for early 20s, too...)
Added a slightly larger capture here.
Added a slightly larger capture here.
Added a slightly larger capture here.
Is there a reason why the solar electric propulsion module would want to be placed in a lunar trajectory by SLS rather than it's own propulsion from a less energetic orbit? Seems like a tremendous waste capacity of what is a very expensive chemical rocket to me...
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?The idea is to get it out of Earth's gravity well. Left within, it might have to spend months or years crawling out.
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?The idea is to get it out of Earth's gravity well. Left within, it might have to spend months or years crawling out.
- Ed Kyle
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?The idea is to get it out of Earth's gravity well. Left within, it might have to spend months or years crawling out.
- Ed Kyle
Looking at the timelines involved I don't see how that is a problem.
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?The idea is to get it out of Earth's gravity well. Left within, it might have to spend months or years crawling out.
- Ed Kyle
Looking at the timelines involved I don't see how that is a problem.
Maybe shielding the electronics and systems for the slow passage through the Earth's radiation belts would be the issue there?
(Univ. Stage Adapter-based fairing also more likely than an 8.4 m fairing for early 20s, too...)I was wrong -- Mr. Gerstenmaier says today that an 8.4m fairing would be used for Europa Clipper.
Slides of the NAC meeting are now available:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/mar_29_2017_hill_nac_final_3-28-2017.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
Mr. Gerstenmaier says today that an 8.4m fairing would be used for Europa Clipper.
Has not been formally decided. Both options still open. Gerst just indicated that a choice has been made with regards to payload fairing size in case Europa Clipper flies on SLS.Mr. Gerstenmaier says today that an 8.4m fairing would be used for Europa Clipper.
Does that mean that it has now formally been decided to launch EC on SLS? I had thought that for the next year or two, JPL was going to keep both options open (per Space Show interview with JPL systems engineer Chrisma Derewa (http://thespaceshow.com/show/22-aug-2016/broadcast-2763-chrishma-derewa) last August).
Maybe shielding the electronics and systems for the slow passage through the Earth's radiation belts would be the issue there?
Solar panels, cameras and navigation electronics do not like the Van Allen Belts. Even if they do not break they are aged by the radiation.
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed. IMHO Best to treat the SEP module as a place holder. Should a payload that needs the SLS appear then the SEP can be launched using a smaller launch vehicle. A tanker containing the station keeping fuel could be launched a few years later.
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed. IMHO Best to treat the SEP module as a place holder. Should a payload that needs the SLS appear then the SEP can be launched using a smaller launch vehicle. A tanker containing the station keeping fuel could be launched a few years later.
QuoteHowever this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed. IMHO Best to treat the SEP module as a place holder. Should a payload that needs the SLS appear then the SEP can be launched using a smaller launch vehicle. A tanker containing the station keeping fuel could be launched a few years later.
But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS.
Some very positive steps coming out of NASA in regards to SLS lately, I really enjoyed reading these presentations, not to mention SpaceX spectacular success re-flying a used booster. The U.S space industry is really coming together no matter what "side" you're on. For me, I'm on everyone's side.
A monolithic Skylab II is a great idea, except that it places all your eggs in one basket with insufficient launch cadence to retire launch risk.
Flying a Mir-like core plus Bigelow modules is far less risky in terms of an overall project. SLS really adds to risk rather than reducing it.
Senior official: NASA will delay first flight of new SLS rocket until 2019
The space agency is now likely to miss Congress' original deadline by three years.
[...]
"We agree with the GAO that maintaining a November 2018 launch readiness date is not in the best interest of the program, and we are in the process of establishing a new target in 2019," wrote William Gerstenmaier, chief of NASA's human spaceflight program.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa-will-delay-first-flight-of-new-sls-rocket-until-2019/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa-will-delay-first-flight-of-new-sls-rocket-until-2019/)
I will be stunned if this launches before 2020...or even later. I think its going to be one thing after another with this rocket. I just don't have any confidence it can be pulled off anymore as the program exists now.
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)
Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.
I will be stunned if this launches before 2020...or even later. I think its going to be one thing after another with this rocket. I just don't have any confidence it can be pulled off anymore as the program exists now.
FUD.
Gingrich: the old order is rebuilding the Saturn V that costs more and does less @nasa_sls #ulcats #nasa
Gingrich: I would live to see a hearing where the entrenched powers explain why they want to spend 3x as much on launches #ulcats
Gingrich: was adamant that the low cost launch providers would compete with @NASA_SLS and that SLS would lose that competition #ulcats
I have had enough with news like this to be honest. With SLS having all of these delays, the commercial industry is clearly going to overtake it.I am still waiting for that first Falcon Heavy demonstration mission, planned for 2013, but I'm not calling for the Falcon Heavy program to be canceled because of the delay.
I have had enough with news like this to be honest. With SLS having all of these delays, the commercial industry is clearly going to overtake it.I am still waiting for that first Falcon Heavy demonstration mission, planned for 2013, but I'm not calling for the program to be canceled because of the delay.
I'm not opposed to Ginrich's call for competition for SLS class launch services. That would give ITS and New Armstrong a chance to stand up for comparison. Neither of them would be ready for 2019, obviously, but might as well consider them for later and compete them against either Block 1B or Block 2.
- Ed Kyle
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)
Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.
Repeat of Constellation.
Congress will never stop rewarding the proven under-performers who fund them.
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)
Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.
Repeat of Constellation.
Congress will never stop rewarding the proven under-performers who fund them.
Who? Boeing? You realize that 1 Boeing 787 export represents about as much income as 4 Falcon 9 exports. Just that one model, they built 1 a week average for the last decade.
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)
Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.
Repeat of Constellation.
Congress will never stop rewarding the proven under-performers who fund them.
Who? Boeing? You realize that 1 Boeing 787 export represents about as much income as 4 Falcon 9 exports. Just that one model, they built 1 a week average for the last decade.
Boeing the aircraft builder has competition; Boeing the rocket builder for NASA doesn't.
Glad you noticed the difference I've been talking about all these years.
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.
FH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch and put ICPS+Orion in LEO.Falcon Heavy lifts substantially less than Block 1 SLS trans-lunar. You are supposing the addition of an ICPS upper stage to Falcon Heavy, which would never happen and might not even be possible mass-wise given the need to carry an additional 8-ish tonnes for LAS plus a lot of new interstage and fairing mass, etc..
3-stage New Glenn launched expendable should be very close to the needed performance to put Orion through TLI. FH will almost certainly and NG could possibly be ready for 2019 launches.New Glenn is less capable than Falcon Heavy, so, also, no.
Even Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO. That won't be ready in 2019, but with some incentive for ULA to actually move it along it could easily fly before Block 1B."Distributed refueling" is what SLS was designed to minimize. That's why I don't see such an approach being a serious contender versus the other biggies.
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.Neither is SLS.
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.Neither is SLS.
- Ed Kyle
I have had enough with news like this to be honest. With SLS having all of these delays, the commercial industry is clearly going to overtake it.I am still waiting for that first Falcon Heavy demonstration mission, planned for 2013, but I'm not calling for the Falcon Heavy program to be canceled because of the delay.
I'm not opposed to Ginrich's call for competition for SLS class launch services. That would give ITS and New Armstrong a chance to stand up for hard scrutiny. Neither of them would be ready for 2019, obviously, but might as well consider them for later and compete them against either Block 1B or Block 2 (before that increment of development money is allocated). That would be one of the more interesting contract competitions in Space Age history. I'm not sure which would win.
- Ed Kyle
FH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch and put ICPS+Orion in LEO.Falcon Heavy lifts substantially less than Block 1 SLS trans-lunar. You are supposing the addition of an ICPS upper stage to Falcon Heavy, which would never happen and might not even be possible mass-wise given the need to carry an additional 8-ish tonnes for LAS plus a lot of new interstage and fairing mass, etc..Quote3-stage New Glenn launched expendable should be very close to the needed performance to put Orion through TLI. FH will almost certainly and NG could possibly be ready for 2019 launches.New Glenn is less capable than Falcon Heavy, so, also, no.QuoteEven Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO. That won't be ready in 2019, but with some incentive for ULA to actually move it along it could easily fly before Block 1B."Distributed refueling" is what SLS was designed to minimize. That's why I don't see such an approach being a serious contender versus the other biggies.
The ultimate SLS missions are beyond the capabilities of SLS Block 1. The long term need is for the Block 2 capabilities. That's where clean-sheet approaches like the giant designs contemplated by SpaceX and Blue Origin should be competed against whatever the SLS contractors can stand up, IMO.
- Ed Kyle
"Distributed refueling" is what SLS was designed to minimize.
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.Neither is SLS.
- Ed Kyle
Exploration $4.324B
$2.15B SLS
$1.35B Orion
$.429B GSE
$.395B Exploration R&D
Maybe some of the $395M R&D won't be spent on the SLS/Orion system, but it is the only human exploration system that NASA is running. Even if the figure was only $4B ($3.929B if it matters), that's $4B ($3.929B) more than the taxpayers are paying for FH. This year...
In FY 2015, AES began a new set of activities to leverage past achievements from development workhttps://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_estimates.pdf
performed from FY 2012 – FY 2014. These activities included integrated life support, progress toward advanced space suit subsystem technology, autonomous systems and operations, modular power systems,
radiation sensors, avionics and software, and instruments for the Mars 2020 mission. The crossDirectorate
robotic mission element of the ARM completed the Agency’s KDP-A and Acquisition
Strategy Meeting milestones of formulation.
AES studied options to augment Orion’s habitation and EVA capabilities for extended deep space
missions. These efforts included a solicitation called the NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement
(NextSTEP BAA). This series of public private partnerships fund industry concept studies, limited
capability development, and participation in formulation of habitation options. As part of this BAA, AES
also funded studies and technology development work in life support, propulsion, and CubeSats for Orion
EM-1. This BAA demonstrated a unique acquisition strategy where all the selected partners are providing
up to 50 percent of the development cost.
AES completed development of three payloads to understand microgravity effects on large-scale fire
propagation in space (Saffire, I, II and III). These payloads will be integrated with the Cygnus cargo
transport vehicle. Large-scale fire demonstration on the Earth return segment of Cygnus flights will allow
us to understand the fate of a spacecraft fire at relevant length and time scales. NASA will use the
knowledge obtained from these experiments in detailed analysis and optimization for future fire
protection systems.
AES continued developing secondary CubeSat payloads in 2015 to fly on SLS in 2018. Initial mission
concept selections include Lunar Flashlight to look for lunar volatiles such as ice, BioSentinel to further
study the effects of the deep space radiation environment, and Near Earth Asteroid Scout to visit
candidate asteroids for future human exploration.
AES began to integrate advanced autonomy software, sensors, and feedback controls with advanced life
support hardware to demonstrate improved overall efficiency and increased autonomy. For example, a
controller was developed for the Cascade Distiller System (CDS), which performs a variety of water
purification tasks. The controller executes a plan to operate the CDS hardware, monitor its performance,
and take different control options if unexpected events occur. Increased autonomy and reliability are
essential for missions beyond low Earth orbit in the context of both crew time and limited
communications back to Earth.
AES completed the Instrument Accommodation Reviews for Mars 2020 mission payloads to demonstrate
oxygen production from the atmosphere and measure surface weather conditions. AES conducted humanin-the-loop testing of a short-duration space suit for in-space cis-lunar missions, such as ARM. The
testing also informs development concepts for instruments and EVA tools for demonstration on ARM to
find potentially valuable asteroid resources such as metals and water. AES also began new efforts related
to in-space manufacturing by printing new specialized tools with the 3D printer, which was recently
delivered to the ISS.
AES conducted a field test of a Resource Prospector prototype rover and integrated a sampling and
analysis payload. As part of integrated life support activity, AES accelerated work on three planned ISS
flight demonstrations: high pressure/high purity oxygen generation system, cascade distillation system for
wastewater processing, and miniature monitoring instrument for atmospheric contaminants.
ARM completed the Robotic Mission Concept Review in the spring of 2015 and the Acquisition Strategy
Meeting in August, gaining authorization to proceed to Phase A. In addition, STMD and ISS/ISRS are
leading efforts for long-lead ARM component acquisitions.
"Distributed refueling" is what SLS was designed to minimize.
Maybe, but since NASA has never shown the trade between SLS and "distributed refuelling," it's fair to suspect that SLS may actually be designed to maximize employment. If there is a legitimate engineering case to be made for SLS, someone should make it. Or rather someone should have made it $15 billion ago.
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.
In 2011 commercial launch vehicles were available that could have supported large missions with "distributed refuelling" (on-orbit refuelling or propellant depots); this alternative to SLS never seems to have been officially considered.
And even if refuelling were ruled out for reasons good or bad, why was the possibility of using commercially-managed heavy-lift rockets never considered? Both ULA and SpaceX were saying in 2011 that they could build them.
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.
If neither of the commercial rockets succeed and we already cancelled SLS, then by the mid 2020s we'll have nothing.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_estimates.pdf
Orion is mentioned, but only in the context of early work on a Deep Space Habitat/Gateway.
FUD.Beneath you Steven P.
Are you endorsing SLS/Orion development performance?
You're waiting for the wrong generation of vehicles... ITS isn't remotely SLS-class, it's up to 15x larger in payload to TMI (over 450 vs ~30 tonnes). It completely dwarfs Block 2, and I can only assume New Armstrong would also.
FH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch....
...and put ICPS+Orion in LEO.
Even Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO.
You're waiting for the wrong generation of vehicles... ITS isn't remotely SLS-class, it's up to 15x larger in payload to TMI (over 450 vs ~30 tonnes). It completely dwarfs Block 2, and I can only assume New Armstrong would also.You're comparing ITS with five additional tanking flights with SLS with zero tanking flights. With two tanking flights, SLS Block II could send 130 t to Mars.
QuoteFH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch....
No it doesn't. FH can only send 26.7 t to GTO. Total Orion mass (including SM adaptor but not LAS and fairings) is 26.2 t. I don't know what FH TLI mass is, but its going to be a lot less than 26.7 t, perhaps 20 t.Quote...and put ICPS+Orion in LEO.
ICPS mass is 32.5 t with 5.2 t for the adapters. Total is 63.9 t while FH can put 63.8 t into LEO. There's also the heavier LAS and fairings of 9.0 t, compared to the normal fairing mass of 3.9 t so that would reduce the payload mass even more. So this would not work as well.
QuoteEven Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO.
SLS with tanking flights would outperform Vulcan ACES with tanking flights.
It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.Neither is SLS.
- Ed Kyle
Exploration $4.324B
$2.15B SLS
$1.35B Orion
$.429B GSE
$.395B Exploration R&D
Maybe some of the $395M R&D won't be spent on the SLS/Orion system, but it is the only human exploration system that NASA is running. Even if the figure was only $4B ($3.929B if it matters), that's $4B ($3.929B) more than the taxpayers are paying for FH. This year...
It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.Neither is SLS.
- Ed Kyle
Exploration $4.324B
$2.15B SLS
$1.35B Orion
$.429B GSE
$.395B Exploration R&D
Maybe some of the $395M R&D won't be spent on the SLS/Orion system, but it is the only human exploration system that NASA is running. Even if the figure was only $4B ($3.929B if it matters), that's $4B ($3.929B) more than the taxpayers are paying for FH. This year...
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D. How much do you think he is spending to develop Falcon Heavy? Now, add the $3.15 billion he has received from NASA (so far) for commercial crew, then add the cost to develop the Falcon Heavy/ICPS that you suggested - really a whole new rocket that would need a heavily revised launch infrastructure, etc.. This stuff is not free.
- Ed Kyle
So the question is (assuming proper understanding of your point) shouldn't the comparison be between ITS and Block 2?That was my original thought, but now I'm inclined to suggest that any proposal should be weighed. And why not? Let the commercial (and NASA contractor) market come up with their very best ideas and stand them up against SLS Block 2. Rocket doesn't matter in this competition - reliable on-time delivery and cost matter. My guess is that the proposers would find themselves driven toward the the big-launcher option. My other guess is that the SLS contractors would suddenly find a way to cut that vehicle's costs to compete. The key would be, as always, the cost of propulsion. The cost of those new-build RS-25s looms big.
The problem is not so much the proposed competition, but the upmass requirement. I'm not convinced that there is any rational reason for wanting to have the upmass capacity of SLS Block 2 (the infamous 130 metric ton to LEO). That number came from a random study and US Congress ran with it. But hard requirements that justify this upmass capacity for SLS Block 2 don't actually exist, given that NASA is still trying to figure out just HOW to get to Mars.So the question is (assuming proper understanding of your point) shouldn't the comparison be between ITS and Block 2?That was my original thought, but now I'm inclined to suggest that any proposal should be weighed. And why not? Let the commercial (and NASA contractor) market come up with their very best ideas and stand them up against SLS Block 2. Rocket doesn't matter in this competition - reliable on-time delivery and cost matter. My guess is that the proposers would find themselves driven toward the the big-launcher option. My other guess is that the SLS contractors would suddenly find a way to cut that vehicle's costs to compete. The key would be, as always, the cost of propulsion. The cost of those new-build RS-25s looms big.
- Ed Kyle
Falcon Heavy, Vulcan w/aces, and New Glenn, all have rapid reuse as others have noted. SpaceX could launch an unfueled vehicle/lander for Mars, and the other two launch fuel, all within hours of each other. A then fully fueled vehicle/lander for Mars could probably match one SLS launch. All three would be at a lower cost, probably half the cost of SLS. So, you may be able to launch two vehicles to Mars for the same one vehicle that SLS could launch.
Falcon Heavy, Vulcan w/aces, and New Glenn, all have rapid reuse as others have noted. SpaceX could launch an unfueled vehicle/lander for Mars, and the other two launch fuel, all within hours of each other. A then fully fueled vehicle/lander for Mars could probably match one SLS launch. All three would be at a lower cost, probably half the cost of SLS. So, you may be able to launch two vehicles to Mars for the same one vehicle that SLS could launch.
At the risk of stating the obvious, none of these vehicles have demonstrated rapid reuse or even flown, I believe Falcon Heavy, over time, will demonstrate rapid reuse, although Falcon 9 has not yet. (It is demonstrating reentry and landing, but the first flight of a reused booster took over a year, which is not as rapid as Shuttle.)
...
Funding prevents a rapid SLS launch rate. Nothing in SLS design prohibits launching more than once every two years. Given 2 high bays, 4 MLPs, 2 crawlers, and 2 pads, they could be launched at 4 per year....I'm comparing realistic planned rates for all vehicles. SLS is planned for twice per year in the mid 2020s. SpaceX, ULA, and Blue plan to have infrastructure to support roughly monthly launches of heavy vehicles in the same timeframe.
The problem is not so much the proposed competition, but the upmass requirement. I'm not convinced that there is any rational reason for wanting to have the upmass capacity of SLS Block 2 (the infamous 130 metric ton to LEO). That number came from a random study and US Congress ran with it.
But hard requirements that justify this upmass capacity for SLS Block 2 don't actually exist, given that NASA is still trying to figure out just HOW to get to Mars.
Let the commercial (and NASA contractor) market come up with their very best ideas and stand them up against SLS Block 2. Rocket doesn't matter in this competition - reliable on-time delivery and cost matter.
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.Don't need SpaceX or Blue for other options, for example ULA was talking about Atlas Phase 2 Heavy.
Atlas Phase 2 Heavy would have made for a Falcon Heavy class launcher given that the performance estimate for mass-to-LEO is roughly 63 metric ton for both launchers.To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.Don't need SpaceX or Blue for other options, for example ULA was talking about Atlas Phase 2 Heavy.
...
SLS only makes sense when one has a need for 70+ metric-ton-to-LEO performance numbers. And other than launching the odd Orion to cis-lunar space there really is no need for such performance.
It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Atlas Phase 2 Heavy would have made for a Falcon Heavy class launcher given that the performance estimate for mass-to-LEO is roughly 63 metric ton for both launchers.That's just the Atlas Phase 2 Heavy as proposed, there were further extensions with additional cores or bigger upper stages that would easily get into SLS territory. This has the additional benefit of sharing a technology and manufacturing base with an existing launcher, that has a "day job". This seems to me far more appropriate for a launcher that may not even launch once a year.
But that is still far from the 85+ metric-ton-to-LEO performance of SLS Block 1 (the 70 metric ton designation of Block 1 notwithstanding).
That's just the Atlas Phase 2 Heavy as proposed, there were further extensions with additional cores or bigger upper stages that would easily get into SLS territory. This has the additional benefit of sharing a technology and manufacturing base with an existing launcher, that has a "day job". This seems to me far more appropriate for a launcher that may not even launch once a year.
Yes he did. Ed just compared a ONE TIME investment of $1 billion (for F9 stage 1 reuse) with an ANNUAL investment of $2.15 billion (for just getting SLS to the point that it can actually perform it's first mission).It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
There is no need for SLS with 70+ tonnes to LEO to launch Orion to cislunar space. Any refuelable heavy-lift architecture could do the same.
Yes he did. Ed just compared a ONE TIME investment of $1 billion (for F9 stage 1 reuse) with an ANNUAL investment of $2.15 billion (for just getting SLS to the point that it can actually perform it's first mission).It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Apples to Oranges indeed.
But to give an idea: from FY2011 to FY2016 (included) NASA has spent at least $9.5 billion on SLS development alone (based on the actuals from NASA's annual budget request estimates). And the USA is still two years, and at least another $3 billion (probably more - based on budget predictions) away from having SLS ready for it's first launch. That would make over $12 billion to get a 85+ metric ton expendable launcher with no real missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
And that is just the launcher. Orion and GSE are not included in those figures. Just the launcher.
Obviously this corresponds to the Deep Space Transport from the Gerst presentation at NAC.
The need is 41 tons in TLI.
Not entirely. There was continued development of the 5-segment SRB's under the SLS contract beyond what was already done under the CxP contract.Yes he did. Ed just compared a ONE TIME investment of $1 billion (for F9 stage 1 reuse) with an ANNUAL investment of $2.15 billion (for just getting SLS to the point that it can actually perform it's first mission).It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Apples to Oranges indeed.
But to give an idea: from FY2011 to FY2016 (included) NASA has spent at least $9.5 billion on SLS development alone (based on the actuals from NASA's annual budget request estimates). And the USA is still two years, and at least another $3 billion (probably more - based on budget predictions) away from having SLS ready for it's first launch. That would make over $12 billion to get a 85+ metric ton expendable launcher with no real missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
And that is just the launcher. Orion and GSE are not included in those figures. Just the launcher.
That $12B doesn't include development of the SRBs and RS25 left over from Shuttle.
Only if the DST is brought up in pieces or segments and the orbital stage is launched empty with subsequent launches providing on-orbit (re)fuelling. In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.Obviously this corresponds to the Deep Space Transport from the Gerst presentation at NAC.
The need is 41 tons in TLI.
The need is for 41 tons to LEO and similar mass for an orbital stage to get it to the Moon.
This is a goal that could be quite easily achieved by 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches, and in reusable mode.
In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.
In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.
Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
With Block 5, FH should be around 45 tonnes to LEO if they land all boosters downrange, but only has a 5.2m fairing.
Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
With Block 5, FH should be around 45 tonnes to LEO if they land all boosters downrange, but only has a 5.2m fairing.
Thanks. Seems to me that a wider fairing should be easy to add if required. Or is the rocket too narrow for that?
That's just the Atlas Phase 2 Heavy as proposed, there were further extensions with additional cores or bigger upper stages that would easily get into SLS territory. This has the additional benefit of sharing a technology and manufacturing base with an existing launcher, that has a "day job". This seems to me far more appropriate for a launcher that may not even launch once a year.
And that's the advantage I see in F9/FH vs New Glenn. I'm not sure what payloads there will be in that rocket's payload range that will need frequent enough launch services.
Definitely not enough to match SLS at 8.4 meters. Perhaps to match NG/Vulcan at 7m, though that's debatable.
That's just the Atlas Phase 2 Heavy as proposed, there were further extensions with additional cores or bigger upper stages that would easily get into SLS territory. This has the additional benefit of sharing a technology and manufacturing base with an existing launcher, that has a "day job". This seems to me far more appropriate for a launcher that may not even launch once a year.
And that's the advantage I see in F9/FH vs New Glenn. I'm not sure what payloads there will be in that rocket's payload range that will need frequent enough launch services.
I don't think Bezos is looking at existing markets. As I understand it, he sees New Glenn catering to new markets, beginning with LEO tourism and extending to other forms of economic activity.
There is no existing market for FH's LEO capability, but it's cheap enough that it can compete with the much-less-capable Delta IV. I would think NG could do the same. Maybe FH's commonality with F9 would give it the advantage, but NG might still hold its own.
I don't think Bezos is looking at existing markets. As I understand it, he sees New Glenn catering to new markets, beginning with LEO tourism and extending to other forms of economic activity.
There is no existing market for FH's LEO capability, but it's cheap enough that it can compete with the much-less-capable Delta IV. I would think NG could do the same. Maybe FH's commonality with F9 would give it the advantage, but NG might still hold its own.
I'm just not sure the tourism market will become large enough to sustain repeated flight costs for NG. The advantage of FH is that the cores can fly multiple times as F9 single cores, then be called upon as FH boosters when/if needed. That is a flexibility that NG just does not have.
I had the opportunity to ask st Pad 39, to ask Space X personnel if any F9 could be used in any position. The answer was no. The core has different fixtures and cannot serve as a booster. The boosters as I recall are interchangeable. Part of the reason I think was the nose cone versus the 2nd stage mount.
Otherwise - I'd advise 'cutting their losses' (;) :'( )and using the commercially available 'Star Fleet' of launchers - the Falcon Heavy, New Glenn and Vulcan/ACES.
Theoretically the mass-to-LEO for FH in fully reusable mode is much higher than 20 metric tons. But right now neither the upper stage, nor the payload adapter are rated for anything above 20 metric tons. The 64 metric tons to LEO in fully expandable mode is right now completely theoretical and only meant as a statement at what FH can potentially do. Actually launching that heavy a payload to LEO will require a new adapter and structural upgrades to the upper stage. Those are unlikely to ever happen because the primary missions for FH are to GTO, GEO and BLEO, with much lighter payloads.In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.
Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
Theoretically the mass-to-LEO for FH in fully reusable mode is much higher than 20 metric tons. But right now neither the upper stage, nor the payload adapter are rated for anything above 20 metric tons. The 64 metric tons to LEO in fully expandable mode is right now completely theoretical and only meant as a statement at what FH can potentially do. Actually launching that heavy a payload to LEO will require a new adapter and structural upgrades to the upper stage. Those are unlikely to ever happen because the primary missions for FH are to GTO, GEO and BLEO, with much lighter payloads.In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.
Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
What I'm pointing at is that "potential" and "reality" are two different things. I'll give an example.
In the late 1990's, after ESA and Arianespace finally got Ariane 5 going reliably, they announced that an upgraded version could theoretically launch 20 metric ton to LEO. But by the time that it actually became necessary to do so (to launch ATV to the ISS) it required beefing-up of the EPS L10 upper stage and the development of a completely new payload adapter to be able to actually carry that 20 metric tons and still have the required safety margins.
Another fine example is SLS (which this thread is all about): Right now there is no payload adapter under development that can actually carry a full 70+ metric ton payload. So, that "magical" 70+ metric-ton-in-one-piece capacity of SLS block I is entirely theoretical. That's because SLS Block 1 is not meant to actually launch 70+ metric tons to LEO. In stead it will launch much lighter payloads to BLEO.
Of course not. I'm just pointing out that supposed SLS alternatives are not free, while also pointing out that SLS opponents exaggerate its costs. One billion dollars for recovery is just a small example. That just to figure out a way to recover a first stage. $10 million per Falcon 9 launch over an example 100 launches to recoup, not counting the lost payload (revenue) required for recovery.It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Of course not. I'm just pointing out that supposed SLS alternatives are not free, while also pointing out that SLS opponents exaggerate its costs. One billion dollars for recovery is just a small example. That just to figure out a way to recover a first stage. $10 million per Falcon 9 launch over an example 100 launches to recoup, not counting the lost payload (revenue) required for recovery.It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
- Ed Kyle
A continuation of this discussion about what are the real payload capabilities related to structural strength, there will not be any single payload for SLS that weighs more than 25mt (Orion). An Orion+SM and a DSH could have a combined weight of 35mt. So an EUS with at least that level must be the design goal. But an EUS strong enough to hold a 105mt payload is doubtful.Theoretically the mass-to-LEO for FH in fully reusable mode is much higher than 20 metric tons. But right now neither the upper stage, nor the payload adapter are rated for anything above 20 metric tons. The 64 metric tons to LEO in fully expandable mode is right now completely theoretical and only meant as a statement at what FH can potentially do. Actually launching that heavy a payload to LEO will require a new adapter and structural upgrades to the upper stage. Those are unlikely to ever happen because the primary missions for FH are to GTO, GEO and BLEO, with much lighter payloads.In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.
Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
What I'm pointing at is that "potential" and "reality" are two different things. I'll give an example.
In the late 1990's, after ESA and Arianespace finally got Ariane 5 going reliably, they announced that an upgraded version could theoretically launch 20 metric ton to LEO. But by the time that it actually became necessary to do so (to launch ATV to the ISS) it required beefing-up of the EPS L10 upper stage and the development of a completely new payload adapter to be able to actually carry that 20 metric tons and still have the required safety margins.
Another fine example is SLS (which this thread is all about): Right now there is no payload adapter under development that can actually carry a full 70+ metric ton payload. So, that "magical" 70+ metric-ton-in-one-piece capacity of SLS block I is entirely theoretical. That's because SLS Block 1 is not meant to actually launch 70+ metric tons to LEO. In stead it will launch much lighter payloads to BLEO.
Those adapters won't be designed for Block 1, since it will only ever fly with ICPS . But won't Block 1B have a heavy adapter once the 8.4m fairing is done?
Of course not. I'm just pointing out that supposed SLS alternatives are not free,It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
while also pointing out that SLS opponents exaggerate its costs.
One billion dollars for recovery is just a small example. That just to figure out a way torecoverreuse a first stage.
I haven't seen a suggestion the SLS alternatives are free, and to me the accounting of SLS's costs seems more defensible than what you've posted above. But even if we count it via the way you prefer, the number still won't be less than, what, 7-8 billion cumulatively?Of course not. I'm just pointing out that supposed SLS alternatives are not free, while also pointing out that SLS opponents exaggerate its costs. One billion dollars for recovery is just a small example. That just to figure out a way to recover a first stage. $10 million per Falcon 9 launch over an example 100 launches to recoup, not counting the lost payload (revenue) required for recovery.It is right there. SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Right, so reusing an operational liquid booster, which is a pioneering work nobody has done before, is "just a small example", I wonder what is a big example in your book, landing human on Mars?
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.Falcon 9 exists because of NASA. Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume. NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen. Not free.
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.Falcon 9 exists because of NASA. Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume. NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen. Not free.
- Ed Kyle
"The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG."In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.Falcon 9 exists because of NASA. Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume. NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen. Not free.
- Ed Kyle
NASA was buying services, just as it has (for many billions of dollars) from ULA -- private decisions were made to reinvest or not the revenue from those purchases. The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG. Reuse technology is not only free, but is hugely benefiting NASA by proving technology (such as supersonic retro-propulsion) that they hadn't gotten around yet is critical for their #JourneytoMars.
That's just plain not true. COTS was about developing new cargo transportation. SpaceX got nearly $400 million from NASA for development of the Dragon and the Falcon 9.
Wrong. NASA poured $396 million into SpaceX to make Dragon happen. That was their COTS investment, and SpaceX used it for Dragon only.In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.Falcon 9 exists because of NASA. Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume. NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen. Not free.
- Ed Kyle
Back to payloads, payload adapters, and upper stages. As someone said, SLS is not capable of anything, (currently), but the 25-35 ton Orion launch. The EUS, maybe, but does anyone know?If NASA had focused on payloads for commercial LV instead of SLS they would have been limited to 20t to LEO With LVs being Atlas, D4H and Ariane 5 as that was all that existed in this class around 2009 and all very expensive LVs. Would also have needed in space refueling and depots which is good thing, but being NASA very expensive.
F9 expendable is capable of what 20-25 tons. For FH it would require a stronger upper stage, maybe that is what they are working on with a reusable or recoverable upper stage, for the proposed 40-60 ton range. Does anyone know about this also?
For that light a payload, SLS will not be needed due to launch expense alone, not counting development.
Seems like the NASA has spent a fortune developing SLS, and nothing developing payloads, adapters, and having an upper stage ready for deep space operations to take advantage of the SLS potential capabilities.
Mars, or the moon could have been done with a Nautilus-X with 20 ton modules with existing rockets, all the money used for SLS could have been used building modules and the in space infrastructure for Nautilus-X and we could have been to Mars by now.
"The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG."In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.Falcon 9 exists because of NASA. Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume. NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen. Not free.
- Ed Kyle
NASA was buying services, just as it has (for many billions of dollars) from ULA -- private decisions were made to reinvest or not the revenue from those purchases. The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG. Reuse technology is not only free, but is hugely benefiting NASA by proving technology (such as supersonic retro-propulsion) that they hadn't gotten around yet is critical for their #JourneytoMars.
That's just plain not true. COTS was about developing new cargo transportation. SpaceX got nearly $400 million from NASA for development of the Dragon and the Falcon 9.
The actual resupply services were bought later, the CRS program, SpaceX got $1.6 billion for the CRS1 contract.
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.Falcon 9 exists because of NASA. Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume. NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen. Not free.
If NASA had focused on payloads for commercial LV instead of SLS they would have been limited to 20t to LEO With LVs being Atlas, D4H and Ariane 5 as that was all that existed in this class around 2009 and all very expensive LVs.
Would also have needed in space refueling and depots which is good thing, but being NASA very expensive.
Still would needed a way to launch humans and to get them to BLEO. This might be Orion to LEO ( D4H) and orbital transfer stage e.g refuelled stretched Centuar.
No, that is not what I am saying. Someone said "FH .. is free to the government". I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.Falcon 9 exists because of NASA. Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume. NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen. Not free.
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.
No, that is not what I am saying. Someone said "FH .. is free to the government". I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.
The flat funding profile is a direct result of the SLS/Orion mission... send dollars to the chosen contractors for work in the chosen districts.And do so (almost) indefinitely...
No, that is not what I am saying. Someone said "FH .. is free to the government". I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.Falcon 9 exists because of NASA. Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume. NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen. Not free.
- Ed kyle
No, that is not what I am saying. Someone said "FH .. is free to the government". I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.Problem being, if we apply this "would not exist if not for" test to SLS, then we include the costs for CxP and the Shuttle in SLS. Because SLS would not exist if not for the Shuttle. I don't think this analysis makes sense and I don't want to use it, but if it's your analysis of choice then it applies both ways.
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.
No, that is not what I am saying. Someone said "FH .. is free to the government". I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.
There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.
Page after page of SpaceX discussion in the SLS board is where it has been taken too far.A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.
No, that is not what I am saying. Someone said "FH .. is free to the government". I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.
There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.
Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.
Shall we apply the same measure to SLS?
Next Ed will give us his rendition of how much SX owes the USG for accumulated LRE R&D funds expended since the days of Goddard ... Ed, you've taken this too far.
Agreed. If it really troubles you, request a thread trim. That's what "Report to moderator" is for (amongst other things).Page after page of SpaceX discussion in the SLS board is where it has been taken too far.There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.
Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.
Shall we apply the same measure to SLS?
Next Ed will give us his rendition of how much SX owes the USG for accumulated LRE R&D funds expended since the days of Goddard ... Ed, you've taken this too far.
SLS LOX Dome Dropped And Damaged Beyond Repair
By Keith Cowing on May 10, 2017 1:31 PM.
Keith's note: Sources report that a LOX dome for the SLS under construction was dropped and is damaged beyond repair. The accident also damaged some tooling. There are reportedly enough parts to build a new LOX dome but that is going to affect a lot of schedules. David Beaman is heading up an investigation team. More to follow.
Do we laugh or cry?
NASA Marshall confirms that an SLS LOX qualification tank dome was damaged in an incident last week at Michoud. Investigations underway.
From Jeff Foust:QuoteNASA Marshall confirms that an SLS LOX qualification tank dome was damaged in an incident last week at Michoud. Investigations underway.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/862385089065496576
Since it was a component of the qual tank, it hasn't been integrated and performed its function. Will have to be redone, same expense/delay as if it was a flight tank dome.
The hardware damaged was the aft or bottom dome of a test Liquid Oxygen Tank, Marshall Space Flight Center spokeswoman Kim Henry said Wednesday. "There was some damage to it," Henry said, but it was not welded to the rest of the tank when the accident happened.
Since it was a component of the qual tank, it hasn't been integrated and performed its function. Will have to be redone, same expense/delay as if it was a flight tank dome.
I normally wouldn't ask this, but given the timeline compression and schedule pressure issues we now know occurred with the LH2 tank welds, have they already welded the LOX dome for the flight tank?
Caption: The liquid oxygen tank is the second tank that makes up the core stage, which towers more than 200 feet tall with a diameter of 27.6 feet. The liquid oxygen tank holds 196,000 gallons of the rocket's oxidizer -- liquid oxygen -- which is cooled to minus 297 degrees Fahrenheit. Earlier in the year, engineers completed the liquid oxygen confidence article, which is identical to the test and flight version of the tank that will be welded in the coming weeks.emphasis mine
Credits: NASA/Michoud/Steven Seipel
I know there is always debate about how to class launchers, so here is NASA's definition:
Small: 0-2 t payloads
Medium: 2-20 t payloads (1.8-18.1mT)
Heavy: 20-50 t payloads (18.1-45.4mT)
Super-Heavy: > 50 t payloads (45.4mT+)
However it's not clear from the section this chart is in (TA01-7) what the destination is - i.e. is it that mass to LEO, or some other destination. So YMMV.
Henry said that the incident was classified as a “Type B” mishap. Such a mishap, according to NASA documents, covers incidents that cause between $500,000 and $2 million in damage. No one was injured, she said.
Repeated issues. Perhaps time for a management shakeup, starting on the contractor side. This entire program seems in serious need of a swift kick in the posterior, and soon.
- Ed Kyle
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.
No, that is not what I am saying. Someone said "FH .. is free to the government". I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.
There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.
Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.
I was talking about the accumulated LV revenues , not CRS and other NASA service revenues, which have and embedded launch service cost that is not directly billed.A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.
No, that is not what I am saying. Someone said "FH .. is free to the government". I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.
There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.
Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.
SpaceX contracts with NASA have a estimated nominal value of roughly $8 billion.
Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc.
Or am I over-reacting to normal technical problems in a program of this magnitude that has never been properly funded the right way?
Anyways, I ran some scenarios comparing Falcon with maximum re-use and on orbit assembly at GTO (SEP from GTO has been demonstrated while from LEO is a subject of debate) with SLS single launch architecture and the difference in cost is marginal.
I've stated in my bumbling way repeatedly on many threads, as I'm sure others have, that, just what Ed mentioned a post or two back, that the SLS program needs badly to be whipped into shape.
If General Bolden and the previous gang Really didn't want this program they should have told their bosses to veto NASA's budget... Resign in the middle of a congressional hearing...go on late night TV and say "I quit!" Now, I think Gen. Bolden is great, and I love SLS, but this and especially Orion are now just, well , it's breaking my heart.
I still want to see this country and it's [ excuse the bad pun] international and commercial partners put together a synergistic plan to really get something going big-time up there; but increasingly this whole thing is wack.
Don't , especially now, change up the plan put and some people up on EM-!, but try hard to get things back on a better track! Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc. If not - can it all and hope the new space moguls succeed.
Or am I over-reacting to normal technical problems in a program of this magnitude that has never been properly funded the right way? It's almost like a "Fake News" scenario to get SLS killed off!
Anyways, I ran some scenarios comparing Falcon with maximum re-use and on orbit assembly at GTO (SEP from GTO has been demonstrated while from LEO is a subject of debate) with SLS single launch architecture and the difference in cost is marginal.
Falcon Heavy:
(http://i.imgur.com/T69b7Gu.png)
Falcon 9 (only reused cores):
(http://i.imgur.com/QN2Bxw8.png)
Falcon 9:
(http://i.imgur.com/rkRpM6b.png)
The question now is do we try to make the best of it, or just waste all the time, money and effort that have been put into it already?
I think the main reason for the many technical problems with SLS (and Orion) is that NASA and its pet contractors just don't have people with proper engineering and management skills anymore. A booster with no payloads or meaningful destinations is just not going to attract top quality younger personnel, and the senior NASA managers are all veterans of Shuttle operations with no hardware development experience. Remember that one stated purpose for Ares I was to re-acquire these skills before proceeding to Ares V.Wrong on nearly all account. Compared to the kludge that was Ares I it has been a very trouble-free development program for SLS. The basic engineering for SLS is sound. That was not the case with Ares I.
The whole program is showing all the classic signs of imminent cancellation:
-- a constant series of technical screw-ups
-- ratio of schedule slips to calendar time approaching 1.0
-- increasingly desperate proposals for missions and payloads that make less and less sense: ARM to an "International Lunar Station" that is nowhere near the Moon to a "Space Gateway" that is only manned 46 days a year. The latest payload is a 41-ton solar-ion drive deep space ship that is supposed to make a pointless flyby of Mars. It seems to exist only as an artist's concept.
-- the swing to re-usability in commercial boosters makes the whole idea of expending SSMEs and SRBs that were reused in the Shuttle program seem like an idiotic step into the past.
Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc.
It's kinda interesting that there is a constellation of aerospace companies all hitching their mars plan wagons to the SLS pony. Boeing, OATK, Aerojet. Which means, in the very best, they are betting on an extremely low cadence, and in the worst, on an empty promise.
And they all know this - which, to me, means none are actually planning on developing any hardware until SLS is a proven entity. And so, SLS is stuck with no meaningful real payload for the foreseeable future, which in turn is a nail in its own coffin. Bit of a Catch-22.
Contractors do the actual work and, thus, will likely be responsible for the mishap(s). Look back at Apollo program history (Harrison Storms) for examples. NASA managers also may get shifted around as part of these shakeups (e.g. Joseph Shea).Repeated issues. Perhaps time for a management shakeup, starting on the contractor side. This entire program seems in serious need of a swift kick in the posterior, and soon.
- Ed Kyle
Curious that you chose the contractor side... thought NASA was ringleader in this show.
But yes, swift kick is long overdue.
It's kinda interesting that there is a constellation of aerospace companies all hitching their mars plan wagons to the SLS pony. Boeing, OATK, Aerojet. Which means, in the very best, they are betting on an extremely low cadence, and in the worst, on an empty promise.
And they all know this - which, to me, means none are actually planning on developing any hardware until SLS is a proven entity. And so, SLS is stuck with no meaningful real payload for the foreseeable future, which in turn is a nail in its own coffin. Bit of a Catch-22.
I mean aren't all those players contractors for SLS? You don't move past (or ignore) a lucrative contract.
Edit: It seems to me that part of the problem is that all of the players have a piece of SLS. If they didn't, they would be competing with each other to come up with better technology and plans. No competition = no movement, unless you are ideologically driven and a private company like SpaceX and Blue Origin.
I think the main reason for the many technical problems with SLS (and Orion) is that NASA and its pet contractors just don't have people with proper engineering and management skills anymore. A booster with no payloads or meaningful destinations is just not going to attract top quality younger personnel, and the senior NASA managers are all veterans of Shuttle operations with no hardware development experience. Remember that one stated purpose for Ares I was to re-acquire these skills before proceeding to Ares V.
The whole program is showing all the classic signs of imminent cancellation:
-- a constant series of technical screw-ups
-- ratio of schedule slips to calendar time approaching 1.0
-- increasingly desperate proposals for missions and payloads that make less and less sense: ARM to an "International Lunar Station" that is nowhere near the Moon to a "Space Gateway" that is only manned 46 days a year. The latest payload is a 41-ton solar-ion drive deep space ship that is supposed to make a pointless flyby of Mars. It seems to exist only as an artist's concept.
-- the swing to re-usability in commercial boosters makes the whole idea of expending SSMEs and SRBs that were reused in the Shuttle program seem like an idiotic step into the past.
This model while technically accurate, is highly likely to be 100% wrong in how the capability of F9 or FH would be utilized to launch a 48ton module in segments. For both FH & F9 the path would be to select the most economical reuse ( or no reuse) options to get 48 tons to GTO. FH utilized in side cores RTLS & DPL on the center core would likely be able to get 48 tons to GTO in 3 launches. Expending the center core might enable only 2 launches.
Refigure your model with FH & F9 optimized for the most economical path of getting 48 tons to GTO and you will see the saving are much better than "marginal".
Well, its not like other companies have dropped or damaged space qualified hardware before. Case in point, SpaceX damaging all the nozzles on a Falcon 9 first stage. Accidents happen. I'm sure Michoud will learn from the mistake so that it doesn't happen in future.
When these commercial LVs can deliver a 8m diameter 45t DST to TLI in one piece, then you have case. The foreseeable commercial option for this is NG with 8.4m fairing and distributed launch.
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.
In any case it's frustrating that such an important project could be so awesome and yet so troubled at the same time.
By troubled I mean the lack of an "end-game"; a clear rationale for what you are going to do with it. Putting the cart before the horse...
...Congress/Admin. have to get a comprehensive, expansive, inclusive, Master Plan together. No-one can see the forest for the trees. A robust Moon Base, IMHO, is the most obvious way to start bringing all these things together; there would be plenty for everyone to contribute.
When these commercial LVs can deliver a 8m diameter 45t DST to TLI in one piece, then you have case. The foreseeable commercial option for this is NG with 8.4m fairing and distributed launch.I wanted to add in New Glenn but it has too many unknowns, like price, 3 stage capacity.
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.
That's unfair.Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.
It only becomes "not an option" if you declare it to be "not an option".
And here I thought ISS (while very imperfect) certainly demonstrated that in-space assembly IS an option.
You might not like the DST concept, but he's consistent with the DST concept.
DST attempts to avoid "mass creep" by being non assembled in space, non modular. The point of the mass creep isn't payload on orbit, but MOI/EOI propulsion yield - e.g. can only get a SEP system to do this if the mass is low enough.
If you used the same approach for the ISS to get the same total volume, it would have reduced the mass by more than half.
When these commercial LVs can deliver a 8m diameter 45t DST to TLI in one piece, then you have case. The foreseeable commercial option for this is NG with 8.4m fairing and distributed launch.
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.
That's unfair.Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.
It only becomes "not an option" if you declare it to be "not an option".
And here I thought ISS (while very imperfect) certainly demonstrated that in-space assembly IS an option.
You might not like the DST concept, but he's consistent with the DST concept.
DST attempts to avoid "mass creep" by being non assembled in space, non modular. The point of the mass creep isn't payload on orbit, but MOI/EOI propulsion yield - e.g. can only get a SEP system to do this if the mass is low enough.
I'm not asking for the DST to be sliced and diced into 10 or 20 components. Just split into two. (or three at most) Yes there will obviously be some mass creep, but sometimes you make trade-offs with other benefits. Such as commercially available launch options.
If you used the same approach for the ISS to get the same total volume, it would have reduced the mass by more than half.
Sure. But would you have preferred us to wait to launch ISS until we had a launcher that could launch 200+ mt in one launch? Would that have been cheaper to develop? Yes it's not an exact analogy obviously, but still...
Having DSH bypass LEO reduces it's exposure to space debris damage. Spiralling out under SEP will expose it to Van Allen belt result solar array degradation. Best to get it to BLEO as quick as possible either directly or with a day or two in LEO to refuel US if using distributed launchIrrelevant.
I'm not asking for the DST to be sliced and diced into 10 or 20 components. Just split into two. (or three at most) Yes there will obviously be some mass creep, but sometimes you make trade-offs with other benefits. Such as commercially available launch options.
I'm not asking for the DST to be sliced and diced into 10 or 20 components. Just split into two. (or three at most) Yes there will obviously be some mass creep, but sometimes you make trade-offs with other benefits. Such as commercially available launch options.
If you are willing to use a very generous definition of 'part' the DST can be split up into several obvious parts.
* The solar panels are gigantic and must mass several tonnes. They could go up separately.
* The radiators will be big as well.
* 2-3 years of propellant must have a big mass. The DST could be fuelled in space.
* 2-3 years of human consumables can be added in orbit - including food, water, clothing and air. Boxing them to fit through a NASA Docking Port is not hard.
The DST may need a single engine, single solar panel, single radiator and small quantity of propellant to perform station keeping whilst the rest of the parts arrive. Assuming the Deep Space Habitat (DSH) does not perform this function.
It is connecting the wires and the pipes that requires the expensive spacewalks, so we want as many of them attached on the ground before launch.
Yes I agree that the # of spacewalks should be minimal.
As for how I would split it up: There is a small habitat included in the DST - That can certainly be launched separately.
Most of the propellant for the DST can be launched separately as well. Presumably the DST is already being architect-ed for propellant transfer to extend its lifetime, I assume...!?
Because it is mighty suspicious that the *optimal* size for a DST just so *happens* to mass exactly what SLS will be capable of delivering to the desired staging orbit. Isn't that just such an incredible coincidence? ;D
Russia used the same R7 designed rocket for the first satellite, the first manned flight, to Soyuz. Incremental upgrades along this path. SpaceX has incrementally upgraded the F9 also over time, but they had satellites being launched in the meantime and developed landing.
Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc.
Where in the world would the budget for that come from?
SLS's design spec calls for a production capability of two per year maximum. The spec requires a capability of three launches per year, but only on a surge basis (see p. 9 of the attachment). The only cost estimates we've seen (attachment to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26709.msg804592#msg804592)) suggest that launching two SLS's per year (one of them being the smaller, 70-tonne version) would cost $4 billion just for the rockets and ground systems, never mind payloads.
It seems to me that it indicates both flights are Block II including the crewed flights.
It seems to me that it indicates both flights are Block II including the crewed flights.
I see where you're coming from, but I think the legend on that chart (see image, below) indicates pretty clearly that the June flight in each fiscal year is on a 70-tonne SLS, represented by an unshaded triangle. I think what the chart is indicating is that the payload for that 70-tonne launch is a Block II Orion.
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
“We’re considering additional ground testing of the heat shield prior to EM-1 as well as the possibility of advancing the ascent abort test for the Orion launch abort system based on findings from the study,” said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. “Conducting these tests in advance of EM-1 would provide additional data that will advance our systems knowledge faster and possibly improve the robustness of the overall plan for sending humans into deep space.”
NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
From the SLS announcement 3 days ago:Quote“We’re considering additional ground testing of the heat shield prior to EM-1 as well as the possibility of advancing the ascent abort test for the Orion launch abort system based on findings from the study,” said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. “Conducting these tests in advance of EM-1 would provide additional data that will advance our systems knowledge faster and possibly improve the robustness of the overall plan for sending humans into deep space.”
Falcon Heavy certainly crossed my mind, but it probably can't get much formal consideration until there is a successful flight. It would also require a custom payload adapter that would have to be built and studied to death and I don't think any consideration has been given to horizontally integrating Orion+SM.What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
Possibly longer if they want a human-rated DIVH...
Not sure what their intentions are here.
A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'. :)
NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'. :)Falcon Heavy certainly crossed my mind, but it probably can't get much formal consideration until there is a successful flight.
It would also require a custom payload adapter that would have to be built and studied to death and I don't think any consideration has been given to horizontally integrating Orion+SM.
NASA Watch:Expected this.QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?Much longer, more like 2+ years, unless ... expedited.
Possibly longer if they want a human-rated DIVH...DIVH will never be HR. Time/cost/deprecated.
Not sure what their intentions are here.
A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'. :)More like " Just dreamin' ".
When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?Might be easier to ask what will go right.
When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?Might be easier to ask what will go right.
-ducks
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
Possibly longer if they want a human-rated DIVH...
Not sure what their intentions are here.
QuoteNASA Watch @NASAWatch 26s26 seconds ago
Sources report #NASA looking at using the EM-2 SLS launch vehicle for EM-1 mission due to hydrogen tank issues on EM-1 vehicle @NASA_SLS
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864146709399646208 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864146709399646208)
So am I understanding things correctly here?
- The LOX tank dome for the structural test article was damaged beyond repair (but a new dome can be constructed using parts on hand)
- The Hydrogen tank for the first flight vehicle is damaged, forcing them to use the tank earmarked for flight #2? (Is the tank a loss or can it be repaired)
When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?
My apologies. There's plenty of non-update posts in this thread. Seems to be more of an updates/discussion thread. There also doesn't appear to be an SLS party thread.When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?Might be easier to ask what will go right.
-ducks
No need for this in an update thread.
Exactly. From what I hear from sources this interest in another Delta IV Heavy mission with Orion is for an EFT-1 style test flight, yet with a whole lot more test purposes:NASA Watch:QuoteSources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Expected this.
Too much is riding on EM-1. So why not remove dependencies, like field/test Orion separately.
- The re-designed heatshield (tiled in stead of monolithic). NASA is concerned about the performance of a tiled heathshield design. Want to subject this design to only partial heat-loading first (like was done on EFT-1) before subjecting to full heating load from lunar direct re-enty.
- Unmanned test of ECLSS and other crew systems prior to crew (to ease concerns that were voiced multiple times by ASAP and the Astronaut Office)
- Test of the Service Module, particularly the ESM part of it. Test of the main propulsion engine and RCS. To this purpose the mission will fly with only a partial propellant load in the ESM.Again like Apollo 7. Where with partial systems you could still safely deorbit.
Mission profile: Delta IV Heavy will lift Orion into LEO. Multiple orbit test of ECLSS and other crew systems. Multiple orbit test of RCS and Service Module systems. Finally, SM main propulsion system will be used for EFT-1 style change of orbit and re-entry.
Basically, accomplish a substantial portion of EM-1 test objectives before actually flying EM-1. Thus, EM-1 can be delayed while still making progress in getting Orion ready for manned flight.Agreed that's why it had to happen. Too much is on the board.
Higher speed entry (lunar direct re-entry) indeed punted to EM-1. Under the scenario I was informed about EM- 1 will still go into lunar DRO.- The re-designed heatshield (tiled in stead of monolithic). NASA is concerned about the performance of a tiled heathshield design. Want to subject this design to only partial heat-loading first (like was done on EFT-1) before subjecting to full heating load from lunar direct re-enty.
Have heard conflicting need expressed. One was for a repeat as you describe, the other was a desire for higher entry speed than before. Second case punt to EM-1 perhaps?
According to source: The proposed second Delta IV Heavy mission for Orion is indeed intended to (also) circumvent the EUS loiter time issue of EM-2. Test the Orion ECLSS for several hours (multiple orbits) on an unmanned mission, safely in LEO.- Unmanned test of ECLSS and other crew systems prior to crew (to ease concerns that were voiced multiple times by ASAP and the Astronaut Office)
Again, multiple different things heard. One was for an unmanned test like EM-1 as originally intended. The other was to loiter considerably to prove (ASAP) that the system with astros would be crew proven before TLI to be able to survive long enough for return (like was done with a separate mission with Apollo 7). Which doesn't work well given EUS stage lifetime.
There will be crew systems evaluations on this mission, despite the fact that "the crew" in case consists of dummies. Seats, crew member restraints, crew suits and ECLSS connections to suits are all intended to be tested.Mission profile: Delta IV Heavy will lift Orion into LEO. Multiple orbit test of ECLSS and other crew systems. Multiple orbit test of RCS and Service Module systems. Finally, SM main propulsion system will be used for EFT-1 style change of orbit and re-entry.
Which gets you most of ASAP, but doesn't get you crew interfaces, habitability, and crew systems evaluations that Apollo 7 did get (they were a pretty spooked crew that thought they were flying a death trap due to the Apollo 1 fire).
Could the Delta 4 Heavy flight be a second unmanned test of the Orion?
Say testing the Orion's human parts like the ECLSS in space.
Two Block 1Bs could cost either more than a Block 2 and a Block 1 or less. They would presumably be factoring in the cost of maintaining launch and production capability for 2 different boosters and 2 different upper stages. IMO 2 Block 1Bs would be cheaper than a Block 2 and a Block 1 (especially with liquid boosters). If you were shooting for 3 per year, standardizing around the Block 1B would be sufficient. 315 mT IMLEO/123 mT TLI per year is plenty for pretty much any mission.
*IF* they want to do an EFT-2 mission on Delta IV, the only way it makes sense IMO is to cancel EM-1 and go directly to EM-2 with the EUS.
ESA have agreed to build one SM with an option on a second, IIRC.Contract for building a second ESM was formalised in February 2017. So, that second one is no longer an option but actually being built. It is part of the barter for continued participation of ESA in the ISS to 2024.
This model while technically accurate, is highly likely to be 100% wrong in how the capability of F9 or FH would be utilized to launch a 48ton module in segments. For both FH & F9 the path would be to select the most economical reuse ( or no reuse) options to get 48 tons to GTO. FH utilized in side cores RTLS & DPL on the center core would likely be able to get 48 tons to GTO in 3 launches. Expending the center core might enable only 2 launches.
Refigure your model with FH & F9 optimized for the most economical path of getting 48 tons to GTO and you will see the saving are much better than "marginal".
I recreated the spread sheet, adding in those figures, and also estimates on USED Falcon Heavy discounts and fully expendable pricing. Some notes:
-The $20M adder for government payloads is an adder to the reused discount rather than removing 30% from this number
-The 8mT number for FH is assumed to be all 3 cores to RTLS, this is a unknown but some members sims validate this data
-The estimated payload to GTO for Booster RTLS + core ASDS for Falcon Heavy was sourced from TheKutku in this thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42667.60
-The reuse savings on Falcon Heavy are just 30% of the base price, rather than an estimate based on a per core basis derived from F9 as this appeared to be too low.
-Figures for FH costs of expendable and booster RTLS/core ASDS are estimates only
-The used expendable price of FH is probably artificially low, the assumption here is that the FH is used for commercial flights and then purchased for expendable use on heavy payloads by NASA. Take this with a large grain of salt or remove it from the discussion entirely
-Finally Vulcan is added in, first for launches where the price is derived from ULA's stated goal of $90M base price with ACES being same cost as Centaur, and then $6M per SRB as verified by RocketBuilder data
-Distributed lift is a little weird, a Vulcan ACES 56x should be able to put 35mT to LEO, BUT distributed lift of two ACES would be able to put 40mT to GTO... so I padded this figure with a $60M flight of a used F9 split over the 2 flight costs of Vulcan in place of the reuse discount would be to make up the shortfall. This could be split in many different ways but for the sake of brevity, I did it this way.
-Vulcan loss rate is an unknown, again for brevity assume same as SpaceX for insurance costs. Of course if a single lift can put the payload to LEO and then a tug takes it out that cost will be further complicated.
With all that factored in the costs savings end up anywhere from 20-30%
...Which yields the following:...
ESA have agreed to build one SM with an option on a second, IIRC.Contract for building a second ESM was formalised in February 2017. So, that second one is no longer an option but actually being built. It is part of the barter for continued participation of ESA in the ISS to 2024.
Falcon Heavy can launch about as much mass to LEO as SLS Block I (64 tons). Why would FH require modular assembly but not the SLS? The SLS block II with imaginary new solid boosters isn't scheduled to launch until 2029, and we all know that won't happen. SLS is a Falcon Heavy class launcher. It is not a heavier lift....Which yields the following:...
Since you are only comparing launch costs, you should ignore common payload costs. Just calculate the increase in payload costs for modularity and aging and charge that to the distributed launcher costs.
Using your figures, the savings with FH is (2833.33 - 2236.82) / 1333.33 = 44.7% of the launch costs with SLS, even after the higher costs of the modular payloads are included in the accounting.
Falcon Heavy can launch about as much mass to LEO as SLS Block I (64 tons).
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did?
... Could the SLS launch a fully loaded Shuttle orbiter, mass wise?The orbiter had a lot of mass devoted to carrying the main engines to orbit and back. Remove that mass from the Orbiter (it was relocated to the SLS core) and SLS could launch it.
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did? SLS Block I will take 70 tons to LEO, it is often said. The Shuttle orbiter weighed 68 tons empty. SLS has a fourth main engine, a fifth segment in its solid booster and an upper stage with about 25 tons of fuel. Why isn't SLS much more powerful than the Shuttle was? Is the main stage much heavier than the Shuttle's external tank?
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did? SLS Block I will take 70 tons to LEO, it is often said. The Shuttle orbiter weighed 68 tons empty. SLS has a fourth main engine, a fifth segment in its solid booster and an upper stage with about 25 tons of fuel. Why isn't SLS much more powerful than the Shuttle was? Is the main stage much heavier than the Shuttle's external tank?
If you count the entire Orbiter as "mass to LEO" for Shuttle, then for SLS you should count the entire second stage dry mass as "mass to LEO", plus the payload per se. This way, SLS would send more to LEO than Shuttle, as expected.
This is a recurring problem. I've gotten used to more advance search functions, like Stack Exchange that has tags and headline searches. Here one has to fiddle quite a bit in order to get relevant results. Which is a bit hard when one is asking about something one doesn't know much about. But I'll improve on searching. I've found some interesting threads on it now. (It's hard to come up with anything new here).Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did?
The forum is full of multiple hundreds of posts re. this. Suggest you dig into the archives and do some reading.
Is the fully fueled upper stage (ICPS) considered "payload"? Isn't that an unconventional definition?
While SLS is planned to launch Orion to Lunar orbit, I think that all SLS based crewed Mars missions I've heard of actually do suggest launches to LEO in order to assemble multiple SLS payloads, and the separately launched crew, into a Mars capable spacecraft. Is SLS unsuitable by design to do that?This is a recurring problem. I've gotten used to more advance search functions, like Stack Exchange that has tags and headline searches. Here one has to fiddle quite a bit in order to get relevant results. Which is a bit hard when one is asking about something one doesn't know much about. But I'll improve on searching. I've found some interesting threads on it now. (It's hard to come up with anything new here).Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did?
The forum is full of multiple hundreds of posts re. this. Suggest you dig into the archives and do some reading.
Is the fully fueled upper stage (ICPS) considered "payload"? Isn't that an unconventional definition?
While SLS is planned to launch Orion to Lunar orbit, I think that all SLS based crewed Mars missions I've heard of actually do suggest launches to LEO in order to assemble multiple SLS payloads, and the separately launched crew, into a Mars capable spacecraft. Is SLS unsuitable by design to do that?This is a recurring problem. I've gotten used to more advance search functions, like Stack Exchange that has tags and headline searches. Here one has to fiddle quite a bit in order to get relevant results. Which is a bit hard when one is asking about something one doesn't know much about. But I'll improve on searching. I've found some interesting threads on it now. (It's hard to come up with anything new here).Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did?
The forum is full of multiple hundreds of posts re. this. Suggest you dig into the archives and do some reading.
Try Google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aforum.nasaspaceflight.com+SLS+payload+shuttle
Payload definitions depend on which vehicle you're looking at. For SLS Block 1, the payload is everything above the core stage. Since all of this is actually delivered into orbit (including the core stage), counting the ICPS as payload is sensible.
Since when does the SLS core stage go into orbit???
Since when does the SLS core stage go into orbit???
In NSF's EM-1 article, it was noted that after core burnout, the orbit is 975 x 22 nautical miles, in order to ensure the core is disposed of safely, and then a 45+ minute coast to apogee which would be the first time the upper stage lights to just lift the perigee out of the atmosphere. The way I understand it is that its similar to the Shuttle in that the ET could theoretically have been carried all the way to orbit, but was placed in a disposal trajectory. In this case, the extra performance seems to be being used to help the subsequent TLI burn via the Oberth effect.
Since when does the SLS core stage go into orbit???
In NSF's EM-1 article, it was noted that after core burnout, the orbit is 975 x 22 nautical miles, in order to ensure the core is disposed of safely, and then a 45+ minute coast to apogee which would be the first time the upper stage lights to just lift the perigee out of the atmosphere. The way I understand it is that its similar to the Shuttle in that the ET could theoretically have been carried all the way to orbit, but was placed in a disposal trajectory. In this case, the extra performance seems to be being used to help the subsequent TLI burn via the Oberth effect.
Ok, for all missions the core stage is almost left in orbit (like STS), but I guess I never realized that the apogee would be that high for that mission.
In the case of SLS Block 1, the "second stage" is the core stage, which is 85 tonnes at burnout.
In the case of SLS Block 1, the "second stage" is the core stage, which is 85 tonnes at burnout.
If the payload performs the circularization burn does this mean that the SLS block 1 alpha is a 85 tonne payload SSTO? A significant cost saving for launching medium heavy payloads.
In the case of SLS Block 1, the "second stage" is the core stage, which is 85 tonnes at burnout.
If the payload performs the circularization burn does this mean that the SLS block 1 alpha is a 85 tonne payload SSTO? A significant cost saving for launching medium heavy payloads.
The two exceptions to your statement is payload mass and orbit achievable from that of Shuttle.
SSTO == Single Stage To Orbit.
What you are talking is neither single stage nor to orbit.
After Core Stage separation, both the spent stage and the mated Orion-ICPS stack will be in an elliptical Earth orbit with an apogee of about 975 nautical miles and a perigee of about 22 nautical miles.https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/mission-trajectory-sarafin-outlines-ride-uphill-em-1/
At the first apogee, around forty-five to fifty minutes after liftoff, the ICPS will make its first burn to bring the perigee of the orbit up to 100 nautical miles.
The cost saving on the first stage only SLS is not having to buy an ICPS. I have a feeling that they will be very expensive.
There will be only one ICPS. And it's probably adding $2 billion to the program between man rating and infrastructure costs. But I'm not sure that flying without it is much cheaper... Besides, what weighs 80 tonnes and needs to go to LEO in one launch?
There will be only one ICPS. And it's probably adding $2 billion to the program between man rating and infrastructure costs. But I'm not sure that flying without it is much cheaper... Besides, what weighs 80 tonnes and needs to go to LEO in one launch?
The crewed EM-1 proposal seems to be off the table for the moment. Does the ICPS need to be man-rated if it's only going to be used on an uncrewed EM-1?
...the 130-t variant has five RS-25's, an upper stage with three J-2X's and possibly a Delta IV upper stage.
My point was that the ICPS is not a substantial fraction of the ongoing cost of SLS, and that eliminating it doesn't make operations any cheaper. But regardless of whether it's man rated or very expensive, flying ICPS once is pointless. NASA should proceed immediately to EUS and accept the delay.There will be only one ICPS. And it's probably adding $2 billion to the program between man rating and infrastructure costs. But I'm not sure that flying without it is much cheaper... Besides, what weighs 80 tonnes and needs to go to LEO in one launch?
The crewed EM-1 proposal seems to be off the table for the moment. Does the ICPS need to be man-rated if it's only going to be used on an uncrewed EM-1?
It does if its going to be used in an argument against the whole program! (nothing is off the table in that case ::) ) But thats really what this thread is now, people posting how much they hate everything and how it needs to be cancelled etc. Repeat for 5+ years and probably through the missions too.
When did Congress direct the ICPS? Congress mandated a system that can launch 64,000 kg to LEO without an upper stage. SLS without ICPS is that system. If NASA is actually trying to meet the congressional mandate, they should test launch an SLS core to LEO with a dummy payload under a fairing - then they would actually be testing a heavy LEO delivery system. Don't wait for Orion or ICPS or for the GSE updates to support any upper stage.
AIUI the only reason for ICPS is NASA's desire to test Orion BLEO as soon as possible - that is, before EUS would be available. But they aren't even testing a real Orion. Nor are they testing a real SLS or it's ground support. And at this point, it looks like EUS could be ready (if they proceeded immediately to working it) well before Orion is ready for an actual all-up test flight.
Wasting years and billions building a one-off test vehicle that's not actually the flight configuration (EM-1), and then launching crew on the first flight of the actual flight configuration (EM-2) is just insane. Test what you fly and fly what you test.
SLS is not really a bad vehicle. It's the NASA/congress decisions that have caused the slow schedule (flying a early version [SLS-1A] just to fly slightly earlier than a full up operational version [SLS-1B]). This decision actually will delay the program's first manned flight by years (3 to 4 to be exact). If there had never been a expediency version to lower the yearly development costs and to fly one vehicle by 2017 (which is now going to be NET sometime probably late 2019), then the first two missions EM-1 and EM-2 could have occurred no more than 1 year apart. The target date could have been 2018 in the beginning because of the development of the EUS added to the rest of the development. No spending twice on the GSE mods/designing/vehicle development to be able to support one version that now will only fly once and then the upgraded version. This will cause not quite a doubling of the cost of development but it will be quite a significant higher cost that could have been avoided.
The program is a Congressional directed program leaving the program managers no room for making good decisions that save money and time. It causes frustration in the Space community as well as within NASA. As time has progressed this frustration level has only increased as more and more forced decisions results to the program costs and schedule delays become apparent.
This is why there is such discord with the pace and spending on this program.
If all the political inertia could be shaken free, and if they are determined to continue putting money into it, and if they want to get a better ROI, and if they would actually fly it frequently, a more effective way to employ this LV would be to put as many of those reusable RS-25Ds as will fit on the core with an RL-10 (or something with appropriate thrust) in the center to use as a landing engine, put RTLS reusable liquid boosters on the sides, and develop an 8.6m multiple J-2X powered LUS. Then the three lower cores could be reused and only the LUS would have to be replaced on every launch. Core prop would need to be be expended early enough to survive reentry. After a fleet of cores and boosters are built, the line only builds more of the LUS and J-2X could go into production fairly easily. Then payload capacity would increase and cost per launch decrease. A time is coming in the not so distant future when all boosters and S1 cores are landable and reusable. This one either gets needed changes, or it gets cancelled as cheaper and equally capable other LVs come online. But I'm not holding my breath.
If all the political inertia could be shaken free, and if they are determined to continue putting money into it, and if they want to get a better ROI, and if they would actually fly it frequently, a more effective way to employ this LV would be to put as many of those reusable RS-25Ds as will fit on the core with an RL-10 (or something with appropriate thrust) in the center to use as a landing engine, put RTLS reusable liquid boosters on the sides, and develop an 8.6m multiple J-2X powered LUS. Then the three lower cores could be reused and only the LUS would have to be replaced on every launch. Core prop would need to be be expended early enough to survive reentry. After a fleet of cores and boosters are built, the line only builds more of the LUS and J-2X could go into production fairly easily. Then payload capacity would increase and cost per launch decrease. A time is coming in the not so distant future when all boosters and S1 cores are landable and reusable. This one either gets needed changes, or it gets cancelled as cheaper and equally capable other LVs come online. But I'm not holding my breath.
An RL-10 would be way too small (only 25klbf thrust). But five or six RS-25 engines around a center J2X would be just the thing. The J2X is restartable and throttleable, and the thrust range is in the ballpark, depending on how heavy the landing gear and other mods would be. Land the core on a converted drilling platform somewhere far down range. Voila, reusable core stage, with proven reusable engines. Oh, and add chutes back onto the boosters, which would make them reusable and save the cost of developing new LRBs. And as you stated, EUS would be too small in that configuration, you would need a second stage with multiple J2X engines to get the payload to orbit.
Mark S.
The J-2X can perform a single step down in thrust level. This capability can be used to minimize vehicle loads or as part of a propellant utilization system since the throttle is accomplished via a mixture ratio shift.https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2013/08/06/inside-the-leo-doghouse-rs-25-vs-j-2x/
An RL-10 would be way too small (only 25klbf thrust). But five or six RS-25 engines around a center J2X would be just the thing. The J2X is restartable and throttleable, and the thrust range is in the ballpark, depending on how heavy the landing gear and other mods would be. Land the core on a converted drilling platform somewhere far down range. Voila, reusable core stage, with proven reusable engines. Oh, and add chutes back onto the boosters, which would make them reusable and save the cost of developing new LRBs. And as you stated, EUS would be too small in that configuration, you would need a second stage with multiple J2X engines to get the payload to orbit.
Mark S.
The J2X isn't really throttleable:QuoteThe J-2X can perform a single step down in thrust level. This capability can be used to minimize vehicle loads or as part of a propellant utilization system since the throttle is accomplished via a mixture ratio shift.https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2013/08/06/inside-the-leo-doghouse-rs-25-vs-j-2x/
Great article, worth a read.
SRBs aren't worth recovering, period. But 6 RS-25 on the core is enough thrust for smaller reuseable LRBs to be viable without new main propulsion.
That was indeed a good read. I still think J2X would be the closest engine currently available to fit this role, even if it needs to be re-qualified with more discrete throttling levels. And operation without the expansion nozzle, since that would not survive at sea level operation.
Also, I think it would be worth recovering the SRBs (or RSRMs or whatever the correct acronym is at the moment) because supposedly no more steel casings are available.
Also, I think it would be worth recovering the SRBs (or RSRMs or whatever the correct acronym is at the moment) because supposedly no more steel casings are available.
They are called RSRMV.
Also, I think it would be worth recovering the SRBs (or RSRMs or whatever the correct acronym is at the moment) because supposedly no more steel casings are available.
They are called RSRMV.
And there are enough for 10 flights.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf
A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'. :)More like " Just dreamin' ".
Capsule: 10.4 mT, Service Module: 15.5 mT, SM Propellant: 9.3 mT, LAS: 7.3 mT, 4 Crew + supplies: 1.0 mT.
Orion Spacecraft Total: 41.8 mT
...
Chuck has the figures for the SM off. It's mass is 15.5 mT INCLUDING propellant. (6.2 mT dry weight).Capsule: 10.4 mT, Service Module: 15.5 mT, SM Propellant: 9.3 mT, LAS: 7.3 mT, 4 Crew + supplies: 1.0 mT.
Orion Spacecraft Total: 41.8 mT
...
I don't think this is correct. Orion is intended to have 1250 to 1300 m/s of delta-v plus margins, but this mass total (34.5 t fueled after discarding LAS, and 25.2 t dry) only allows <1000 m/s with 319s specific impulse.
If the fueled mass is 25.2 t after discarding LAS and 15.9 tonnes dry then it has 1440 m/s delta-v. Much more in line with Orion's expected capabilities.
I think the mass of stage adapters and SM fairings is also missing, and has to be accounted for to fly on an EELV class rocket.
So which of the following stated values for SLS 1B is the right one to use 39.2mt to TLI or 45mt to EM-2. Your values for Orion + SM is 42.5mt. That leaves just 2.5mt for a rideshare payload to EM-2. Something is wrong about these numbers if NASA keeps saying it can launch DSG elemnts with Orion to a Lunar orbit as long as the DSG element is <10mt.Chuck has the figures for the SM off. It's mass is 15.5 mT INCLUDING propellant. (6.2 mT dry weight).Capsule: 10.4 mT, Service Module: 15.5 mT, SM Propellant: 9.3 mT, LAS: 7.3 mT, 4 Crew + supplies: 1.0 mT.
Orion Spacecraft Total: 41.8 mT
...
I don't think this is correct. Orion is intended to have 1250 to 1300 m/s of delta-v plus margins, but this mass total (34.5 t fueled after discarding LAS, and 25.2 t dry) only allows <1000 m/s with 319s specific impulse.
If the fueled mass is 25.2 t after discarding LAS and 15.9 tonnes dry then it has 1440 m/s delta-v. Much more in line with Orion's expected capabilities.
I think the mass of stage adapters and SM fairings is also missing, and has to be accounted for to fly on an EELV class rocket.
Fully fueled weight of Orion (with Crew + supplies, but without LAS) ~ 27 mT.
A sub-fueled one with just two Crew members and reduced supplies for short LEO mission weighs approx. 4mT less.
So it turns out there will be crew on SLS/Orion EM-1: Living, breathing plants. They will help study the effects of radiation.
So which of the following stated values for SLS 1B is the right one to use 39.2mt to TLI or 45mt to EM-2. Your values for Orion + SM is 42.5mt. That leaves just 2.5mt for a rideshare payload to EM-2. Something is wrong about these numbers if NASA keeps saying it can launch DSG elemnts with Orion to a Lunar orbit as long as the DSG element is <10mt.
This seems to have gone missing, so repost.
[... rocket comparison table]
Everyone's talking a lot about EM-1 and EM-2, but where does Europa Clipper fit into the schedule currently? Is it even slated for an SLS launch anymore?
Everyone's talking a lot about EM-1 and EM-2, but where does Europa Clipper fit into the schedule currently? Is it even slated for an SLS launch anymore?
As far as the latest, its still set for SLS launch by law. There seems to be some hope to fly it before EM-2, but it could also fly after it.
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed....[Quote truncated by Proponent]
But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS.
Everyone's talking a lot about EM-1 and EM-2, but where does Europa Clipper fit into the schedule currently? Is it even slated for an SLS launch anymore?
As far as the latest, its still set for SLS launch by law. There seems to be some hope to fly it before EM-2, but it could also fly after it.
It's my understanding that JPL has not yet selected the launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1661466#msg1661466). If I am out of date or otherwise wrong, I would very much appreciate a pointer to the correct information.
Another thing that would be interesting to know is the precise legal language connecting SLS with Europa Clipper. Is is something like the requirement in the 2010 Authorization Act that Shuttle-derived hardware shall be used "to the maximum extent practicable"? In other words, to what extent has Congress predetermined the conclusions that JPL's engineers will reach?
OK, so it sounds like Congress has in fact determined what JPL will conclude. There isn't even any wiggle room, like "to the extent practicable."
[joke]
Once again, America is very fortunate to have such brilliant and omniscient politicians, capable of performing in-depth technical analyses! Who needs engineers or scientists!
[/joke]
The leagal wording mixed with reality in the Orion EM-2 scheduling would then create a launch order ofOK, so it sounds like Congress has in fact determined what JPL will conclude. There isn't even any wiggle room, like "to the extent practicable."
[joke]
Once again, America is very fortunate to have such brilliant and omniscient politicians, capable of performing in-depth technical analyses! Who needs engineers or scientists!
[/joke]
Congressional representatives have to find something to use SLS for if they want to justify keeping it - and the jobs it provides in their districts - in production. The Deep Space Gateway and missions like the Europa orbiter and lander accomplish that goal. To the people doling out the money, IMHO, the engineering and science are secondary considerations (if that).
Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed....[Quote truncated by Proponent]
But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS.
It's a perfectly reasonable statement, given that:
1. The mission is being undertaken only after SLS's development has consumed over $10 billion and five years;
]2. There has been (correct me if I'm wrong) no consideration of accomplishing the same thing without SLS;
3. A DSH seems reasonable only in the current context: had it been proposed in 2011 as a 15-year-horizon objective for SLS, it would have seemed ridiculous for being so underwhelming.
Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?
I hope they are painted, at least for the EM-1 mission. I think the SRB swoops look slick.
I think less money wasted on cosmetic nonsense looks slick.Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?
I hope they are painted, at least for the EM-1 mission. I think the SRB swoops look slick.
I think less money wasted on cosmetic nonsense looks slick.Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?
I hope they are painted, at least for the EM-1 mission. I think the SRB swoops look slick.
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed....[Quote truncated by Proponent]
But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS.
It's a perfectly reasonable statement, given that:
1. The mission is being undertaken only after SLS's development has consumed over $10 billion and five years;
This would be true for any SLS mission being considered, hence Khadgar's comment.
Quote2. There has been (correct me if I'm wrong) no consideration of accomplishing the same thing without SLS;
Politically there hasn't been much consideration of other launch vehicles. That said there has been consideration by JPL and others. SLS does have distinct advantages in terms of getting the payload to Europa in much less time and is well suited for launching the heavier lander.
Quote3. A DSH seems reasonable only in the current context: had it been proposed in 2011 as a 15-year-horizon objective for SLS, it would have seemed ridiculous for being so underwhelming.
Because proposing no destination, then half heartedly proposing to go to a NEA, and then proposing ARM was so much more exciting?
I would have been thrilled if they had gone with DSG from the get go. It offers the prospect of sustainable lunar orbital and surface missions as well as learning how to be less dependent on Earth for future Mars missions.
I too see some value in DSG, but, really, after 15 years and $40-50 billion dollars, that's all we get? I just don't see how that proposition would have made a credible sales pitch in 2010. Even if you lop five years off the timetable and $15 billion off the cost, I still don't get it. The goal posts have been moved much closer.
if DSG were just part of an actual, costed plan to do something more significant, I could get more excited about it. But it isn't.
"I can't put a date on humans to Mars, and the reason really is the other piece is, at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent budget increase, we don't have the surface systems available for Mars," said NASA's William H. Gerstenmaier...
I too see some value in DSG, but, really, after 15 years and $40-50 billion dollars, that's all we get? I just don't see how that proposition would have made a credible sales pitch in 2010. Even if you lop five years off the timetable and $15 billion off the cost, I still don't get it. The goal posts have been moved much closer.
if DSG were just part of an actual, costed plan to do something more significant, I could get more excited about it. But it isn't.
Related:Quote"I can't put a date on humans to Mars, and the reason really is the other piece is, at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent budget increase, we don't have the surface systems available for Mars," said NASA's William H. Gerstenmaier...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/nasa-finally-admits-it-doesnt-have-the-funding-to-land-humans-on-mars/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/nasa-finally-admits-it-doesnt-have-the-funding-to-land-humans-on-mars/)
If it is ultimately about the "Journey to Mars" and DSG/SLS/Orion can't get boots on Mars within any timeframe using realistic, foreseeable budgets...
This would be true for any SLS mission being considered, hence Khadgar's comment.
It wouldn't be true for a mission to the surface of either the moon or Mars or possibly a free-range asteroid. Those things have been discussed for decades, and nobody would suggest they'd been dreamed up to give SLS something to do.
Atlas V has advantages too. But the point here is not that one vehicle is better than the other, it's the manner in which a vehicle is selected. While JPL says it's trading SLS against Atlas V for Europa Clipper, the law apparently requires SLS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1701624#msg1701624). When the decisions are made by politicians, SLS inevitably carries the stench of politics, even if it really is the better vehicle for the job, and SLS's congressional boosters have only themselves to blame for that (not that they see it as a blameworthy thing, so far as I can tell).
we’re the biggest fans of SLS, bigger than anybody. Shortens travel times for outer solar system missions.
When Sens. Nelson, Hutchison et al. sold SLS in 2010, they were vague as to its purpose but implicitly promised missions to the moon or Mars. That's the appropriate standard against which the DSG should be measured. Asteroid redirect was just another example of a mission dreamed up to give SLS something to do.
I too see some value in DSG, but, really, after 15 years and $40-50 billion dollars, that's all we get? I just don't see how that proposition would have made a credible sales pitch in 2010. Even if you lop five years off the timetable and $15 billion off the cost, I still don't get it. The goal posts have been moved much closer.
I wouldn't say that the DSG is just a "make work program" for SLS. It will restore a capability that hasn't been available for 45 years.
Well one of the reasons SLS was "sold" in 2010 was because there were no real deep space plans at all at that point.
Traditionally, it has been the President who decides on the destination, not Congress.
To say any mission except landings on the Moon and or Mars is only a "make work program" then you have to say the vast majority of the history of space exploration, including current ISS operations and commercial crew, is just a "make work program." I disagree.
I think we should be grateful to even get a DSG given the last 45 years of LEO bound flight.
I see is that EM-2 to EM-5 will launch Orion and a small module in the <10 ton range, then EM-6 is the first cargo-only flight of ~40tons! Wouldn't that module be far more capable that 4 smaller ones?
This architecture seems to be falling the ISS/Shuttle trap of doing too much orbital assembly of small components. But at least there you had the excuse that the Shuttle-C was never developed.
I don't see how you think it "restores" anything, since we have never had a reusable space station located close to our Moon. Maybe it's a logical extension to what we've been doing with the ISS, but it's something brand new for the U.S.
There is no constitutional requirement to have "real deep space plans", nor any laws created by Congress to do such that I'm aware of. Where do you see this requirement coming from?
If by "tradition" you mean that it happened once, OK. But otherwise I think you're assuming there are special rules that apply for all things "space" related.
In the case of the DSG we have proposals being made before there are clear requirements determined, so of course it looks like the DSG/DST proposal is being tailored to be a requirement that can only be satisfied by the SLS and Orion.
We're all space enthusiasts here, so of course we would all cheer the ability to move humanity out into space. But how many NASA programs have we all seen that ultimate got cancelled? How many $Billions of taxpayer money has been spent and essentially wasted?
I don't care that it's been 45 years since we last left LEO, what I care about is that once we're in space (like we are now) that we don't retreat - that we only expand our footprint in space. And I'm concerned that the lack of transparency on the SLS and Orion will, after years and years of going down this path, prove to be too expensive for Congress to want to fund for operational use.
With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.
Yes on the last item. A gov set up base is somewhere prototyping and resource exploration excursions can be cheaply accomplished which is what investors are looking for and why there is very little such investment in in-space infrastructure today. This as a goal for both the gov in general and SLS in specific is the right direction.I don't see how you think it "restores" anything, since we have never had a reusable space station located close to our Moon. Maybe it's a logical extension to what we've been doing with the ISS, but it's something brand new for the U.S.
I was referring to restoring the ability to fly BLEO and land on the moon.QuoteThere is no constitutional requirement to have "real deep space plans", nor any laws created by Congress to do such that I'm aware of. Where do you see this requirement coming from?
There is no constitutional requirement to have a standing Army either, yet we have one. That is because having a standing Army is deemed by Congress to be essential to the security of the United States. Now obviously space exploration is a lower priority but that doesn't mean it is worthless. Being the leader in exploring new frontiers has benefited nations for centuries. Congress endorsed a deep space exploration program (CxP) twice before 2010. They may have agreed to terminate that particular program, but they continued to endorse deep space flight by NASA. See NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and subsequent bills.QuoteIf by "tradition" you mean that it happened once, OK. But otherwise I think you're assuming there are special rules that apply for all things "space" related.
Kennedy decided on the moon, Nixon decided on the shuttle and LEO, Reagan (and Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) decided on Space Station, Bush II decided on the moon. NASA is an executive agency, therefore the executive has a role to play in its operation.QuoteIn the case of the DSG we have proposals being made before there are clear requirements determined, so of course it looks like the DSG/DST proposal is being tailored to be a requirement that can only be satisfied by the SLS and Orion.
Not necessarily. Gerst has said that he wants commercial rockets participating in the DSG endeavor. There is no evidence that commercial rockets will have zero involvement in the DSG effort.QuoteWe're all space enthusiasts here, so of course we would all cheer the ability to move humanity out into space. But how many NASA programs have we all seen that ultimate got cancelled? How many $Billions of taxpayer money has been spent and essentially wasted?
A lot of those programs were canceled because of insufficient funding, which isn't all NASA's fault.QuoteI don't care that it's been 45 years since we last left LEO, what I care about is that once we're in space (like we are now) that we don't retreat - that we only expand our footprint in space. And I'm concerned that the lack of transparency on the SLS and Orion will, after years and years of going down this path, prove to be too expensive for Congress to want to fund for operational use.
You may not care that its been 45 years since we left LEO, but I certainly do.
DSG will expand our footprint in space in the same way ISS has. Because of shuttle and ISS commercial cargo and commercial crew have become a reality. DSG will create the same kind of incentive for commercial development BLEO.
QuoteWith the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.
But what many people mean when they say that is, "shift the money from NASA and give it to x commercial company." That isn't a private sector effort, that is a government subsidy. Why should the government subsidize private companies to colonize space?
Personally I think that space exploration (i.e. the initial missions, bases, etc.) should be the focus of government efforts. Actual space settlement (i.e. many people living and working in space) should be the focus of the private sector. Otherwise, space settlement will never become a reality IMHO.
I think it might be better if there was a way to launch Orion on another vehicle, this would allow using the full capacity of SLS for larger modules. The old Ares-V for cargo + Ares-I for crew allowed for much better mission architectures.I see is that EM-2 to EM-5 will launch Orion and a small module in the <10 ton range, then EM-6 is the first cargo-only flight of ~40tons! Wouldn't that module be far more capable that 4 smaller ones?
Personally I would rather see these smaller modules launched on a commercial rocket while SLS launches Orion co-manifested with a logistics module like the MPLMs.
Most of the SLS missions currently listed for the next decade are for assembly of small components, until EM-6. If a dedicated cargo/habitat flight could be shifted to the left the DSG would be more capable.QuoteThis architecture seems to be falling the ISS/Shuttle trap of doing too much orbital assembly of small components.Not if they keep it minimal. This architecture has only 5 or so assembly missions. ISS had much more than that.
Even better would be to build a deep-space-capable habitat up to the the maximum LEO capacity of ~100 tons and have it spiral itself outwards to the moon using electric propulsion. It would have to cross the Van Allen radiation belts but all-electric comsats are already dealing with that.
But what many people mean when they say that is, "shift the money from NASA and give it to x commercial company." That isn't a private sector effort, that is a government subsidy. Why should the government subsidize private companies to colonize space?
Personally I think that space exploration (i.e. the initial missions, bases, etc.) should be the focus of government efforts. Actual space settlement (i.e. many people living and working in space) should be the focus of the private sector. Otherwise, space settlement will never become a reality IMHO.
Whether government should support settlement is a fine topic but that's decades away
There's nothing wrong with "shift the money from NASA and give it to x commercial company.", just make sure you use performance based milestones, only give high level requirement and sign up multiple companies to ensure competition and backup.
While SLS/Orion may be kept as a political comprise to enable the new approach, there's no question they are the wrong approach to enable anything in space, either exploration or settlement.
Pickle,I've recently looked into the DSG plans and while I generally like space stations it seems to me that "co-manifesting" early modules with Orion throws away the single biggest advantage of a heavy lift rocket: the ability to launch large pieces of hardware. ...... On the other hand co-manifesting these small modules with Orion gives the advantage of using Orion/astros to connect them to the DSG. Don't need a propulsion system for these modules if they are attached to Orion.
Endeavour,QuoteThis architecture seems to be falling the ISS/Shuttle trap of doing too much orbital assembly of small components. ...Not if they keep it minimal. This architecture has only 5 or so assembly missions. ISS had much more than that.
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:
1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
NASA can't make any commitments like that
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:
1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
NASA can't make any commitments like that
Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst (https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst)
For a commercial service based at the DSG they would need cheaper and often crew and cargo services than just using the expensive and limited mission rate of SLS/Orion. SLS may still have some payloads of 40mt BLEO but current commercial developments may overrun that as well. Remember regular missions by SLS using new RS25 engines will not start until NET 2026. Prior to that the max number of missions no matter what is limited to 4. 2 of those are the EC flights and the other 2 are EM-1 and EM-2. DSG deployment is something that will not happen until second half of 2020s. Meaning any commercial usage of the DSG would be ~3 years after it is deployed or almost 2030. A lot can happen in 13 years.Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:
1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.
But NASA already talked about using Commercial Cargo of some sort for supply in their DSG mission diagrams as a way of reducing costs, which kind of implies that 2 is not a given. 3 goes back to that in that why would that have that effect? If a commercial company wants to dock an autonomous lander at the gateway, how does that obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion? The whole point of this is to have a platform that has advantages for a variety of interests international and commercial and is doable within the flat budgets projected for the next decade.
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
NASA can't make any commitments like that
Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst (https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst)
For a commercial service based at the DSG they would need cheaper and often crew and cargo services than just using the expensive and limited mission rate of SLS/Orion. SLS may still have some payloads of 40mt BLEO but current commercial developments may overrun that as well. Remember regular missions by SLS using new RS25 engines will not start until NET 2026. Prior to that the max number of missions no matter what is limited to 4. 2 of those are the EC flights and the other 2 are EM-1 and EM-2. DSG deployment is something that will not happen until second half of 2020s. Meaning any commercial usage of the DSG would be ~3 years after it is deployed or almost 2030. A lot can happen in 13 years.
Lastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.
My $0.02
Lastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.
My $0.02
I do feel the need to address this. Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one. There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.
And a desire to expand our footprint in space automatically expands our problems there. So far, all of our problems are in LEO because that's where we are. But that has nothing to do with where we want to be. If we want to move into deeper space, then the lack of a deep space habitat is certainly a problem that needs to be solved.
If you don't have a problem there, it simply means you don't want to be there -- which is fine, but declaring the absence of a "need" is no more valid than to claim Columbus had no "need" to sail west.
If we want to enhance stability by broadening international support for productive and stable norms of behavior in space, then we need to establish and lead space initiatives in which other nations can participate.bold mine
If we want to shape the values and norms of the new frontier, then we must ourselves be on that frontier. New societies are shaped by those who are there, not by those who stay home.
Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one.
There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
NASA can't make any commitments like that
Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst (https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst)
Catchy acronym does not equal leadership.
If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.
If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.
Study money and not enough to produce hardware. And anyways, even if there was hardware, it is too late. A launch vehicle would have to been procured already.
No one has caught up with us, even though we haven't been to the moon in 50 years. And no one does else does what we have done with Robotic exploration of the solar system.
If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.
Study money and not enough to produce hardware. And anyways, even if there was hardware, it is too late. A launch vehicle would have to been procured already.
No one has caught up with us, even though we haven't been to the moon in 50 years. And no one does else does what we have done with Robotic exploration of the solar system.
Robotic exploration of the solar system rarely makes the headlines in the tabloids.
The USA is the only country to land a man on the Moon. However following the crash of the Shuttle the general public think NASA is a busted flush. It needs to return to the fray.
Congress probably expects the Orion and SLS to be involved in NASA's return to greatness.
The Japanese have caught up with the USA on lunar landers.
Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html
Goodbye swooshes.
:( I liked them.
"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."
From the update thread:Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html
Goodbye swooshes.
:( I liked them.
"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."
But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.
From the update thread:Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html
Goodbye swooshes.
:( I liked them.
"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."
But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.
That is pure hyperbole on your part, you have no idea if its useful or not yet you've already determined your conclusion.
STS flew with photometric checkerboards on the SRB's on the first several missions.From the update thread:Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html
Goodbye swooshes.
:( I liked them.
"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."
But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.
That is pure hyperbole on your part, you have no idea if its useful or not yet you've already determined your conclusion.
Whoa, hold on there. How about you provide some actual evidence to prove me wrong instead of claiming 'hyperbole'. Am I wrong that no US launch vehicle since Saturn V has used "photogrammetric checkerboards"? (I certainly could be...) Then just provide evidence.
As far as them just being design elements... Were they needed or used on SRBs for the first Shuttle flight? No. Is that hyperbole too?
As far as them just being design elements... Were they needed or used on SRBs for the first Shuttle flight? No. Is that hyperbole too?STS flew with photometric checkerboards on the SRB's on the first several missions.
From the update thread:Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html
Goodbye swooshes.
:( I liked them.
"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."
But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.
That is pure hyperbole on your part, you have no idea if its useful or not yet you've already determined your conclusion.
Whoa, hold on there. How about you provide some actual evidence to prove me wrong instead of claiming 'hyperbole'. Am I wrong that no US launch vehicle since Saturn V has used "photogrammetric checkerboards"? (I certainly could be...) Then just provide evidence.
As far as them just being design elements... Were they needed or used on SRBs for the first Shuttle flight? No. Is that hyperbole too?
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation. The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors. Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation. The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors. Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.
Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation. The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors. Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.
Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation. The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors. Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.
Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?
A good argument against reuse.
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation. The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors. Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.
Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation. The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors. Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.
Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?
The Shuttle SRBs did not have all these visual points, whereas the Saturn V had its black roll patterns. Unless the geometry of the shuttle meant they didn't need the roll patterns, I fail to see why they are needed on SLS.
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation. The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors. Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.
Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?
The Shuttle SRBs did not have all these visual points, whereas the Saturn V had its black roll patterns. Unless the geometry of the shuttle meant they didn't need the roll patterns, I fail to see why they are needed on SLS.
one possible use would be to help provide a dataset for further research, something private companies tend to not be interested in. So, are they needed? probably not. Could they provide a basis for research/investigation at some later point or for some department not directly involved with the operation of the vehicle? maybe
Regarding the heater strips that go on the SRBs. How would these look on the 5 segment SRB? I'm kind of stuck seeing how this would look. Is there a diagram?
If needed, the swoosh patterns could also be used for tracking rotation and alignment. There's no law that says the patterns have to be rectilinear.
If needed, the swoosh patterns could also be used for tracking rotation and alignment. There's no law that says the patterns have to be rectilinear.
You're not going to get good data that way. Not enough detail to pin down specific points.
Dynetics has announced the completion of the SLS core stage pathfinder vehicle.
http://www.dynetics.com/news/497
From the UPDATE thread:Dynetics has announced the completion of the SLS core stage pathfinder vehicle.
http://www.dynetics.com/news/497
If they completed it, why don't they share a photo of it, instead of this rendering? (click on the update post to see the rendering)
Will it be painted to look like the flight article?No. What you see is the finished product: Painted grey. It's sole purpose is being a dimensional- and mass simulator of the core stage. Flight-article "looks" are not required.
document says US Imperial Units so that is what we are going to just roll with the flow. Discussion thread here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.0US Imperial Units is primary measurement and Metric is listed as secondary per Space Launch System (SLS) Mission Planner's Guide - ESD 30000 Baseline. PSM most charts are hybrid.Great article, but lacking proper metric units. Don't want to alienate the rest of the world!Isn't SLS being built using Imperial units? If so, the most precise numbers will be in those units.
- Ed Kyle
Sorry about being pedantic, but the US doesn't used Imperial units. We use US Customary units. They are mostly the same, but with some important differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems
I wished we used the metric system, it's a lot simpler when you get used to it.
Oh of course the 'native' units (not wanting to get into name discussion) should be first, just think metric conversions should be mentioned too.
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Honeycutt: SLS will be the backbone for US space plans for 30 years or more. #VonBraun
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Mike Griffin: don’t expect to see changes on the scale of 2010 (when Constellation cancelled.) SLS and Orion aren’t going away. #VonBraun
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — NASA is still up to a month away from setting a new target launch date for the first flight of the Space Launch System, but agency officials said they still expected it to take place in 2019.
NASA has not set a new date for Exploration Mission (EM) 1, which will launch an uncrewed Orion spacecraft on a test flight into lunar orbit and back, since announcing in May that it would delay the flight to 2019 after deciding not to put a crew on the mission.
Probable realistic launch plan schedule for SLS:
EM-1 May 2020
SM-1 July 2023
EM-2 June 2024
EM-3 June 2025
SM-2 2026 (whenever the launch window in this year occurs) (plus this is the first flight of the RS-25Es, ASAP will want a unmanned flight of these engines first before a manned one) (this engine set will not be available to support a flight until this time anyway so it could not be done any earlier)
EM-4 2028 (it takes 2 years to deliver 4 RS-25Es on the current contract) (It will require a bigger budget and a new contract to increase the build rate to deliver 4 engines per year instead of the current contract delivery rate of 2 engines per year)
Unless the engine build rate is increased there is no more launches in the 2020's.
Assumptions:
a) That ML-1 is modified to be a cargo only SLS-1B support.
b) That an ML-2 is constructed with lessons learned to make a crew version of the ML with a budget funded at a level allowing it to be constructed in 5 years starting Oct 2018. This gets a ML available to support the June 2024 EM-2 date at better than 6 months prior to launch date plus a few months of margin.
c) That EC is ready for launch by 6 months prior to its launch date in July 2023.
d) That Europa Lander is ready for launch 6 months prior to its window in 2026.
Let's face it, there's pretty much a zero percent chance that it doesn't slip into 2020.
The most optimistic scenarios are continually projected publicly because SLS needs all the political support it can get if it's going to survive.
I'd bank on a Q3 or later launch in 2020 at this point.
June 2020 is worst case scenario.
June 2020 is worst case scenario.
Per Chris on the development thread, June 2020 is what's "realistically possible" when the known schedule risks are analyzed. It's not worst case.
Worst case in any development is always more unknown risks popping up.
If June 2020 provides little or no margin for unknown risks, it is not the worst case.
Also per this week's OIG report, SLS is also in the unfortunate position of having no budget margin to deal with unknowns.
This leaves management with only three options: remove content (for which there are limited options on a launch vehicle), increase risk (reduce testing), or slip schedule.
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems. Even SpaceX had lots of problems and slipped dates especially for their SHLV the FH about 2+ years of slip now. The original planning date for SLS was Oct 2017 BTW when the program was started. Just a 2+ year slip over a development that will be 8+ years in duration is not actually that bad compared to other similar complex large space projects.June 2020 is worst case scenario.
Per Chris on the development thread, June 2020 is what's "realistically possible" when the known schedule risks are analyzed. It's not worst case.
Worst case in any development is always more unknown risks popping up.
If June 2020 provides little or no margin for unknown risks, it is not the worst case.
Also per this week's OIG report, SLS is also in the unfortunate position of having no budget margin to deal with unknowns.
This leaves management with only three options: remove content (for which there are limited options on a launch vehicle), increase risk (reduce testing), or slip schedule.
You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB, the mobile launcher and the pad next week Chelyabinsk style. In those cases, scheduling or setting dates based on that stuff is simply a pointless exercise which is why it doesn't factor into schedule timelines. Right now, it seems to be NET December 2019. May 2020 has like 5 months of schedule margin on the NET date.
You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB,
Right now, it seems to be NET December 2019. May 2020 has like 5 months of schedule margin on the NET date.
Let's face it, there's pretty much a zero percent chance that it doesn't slip into 2020.
The most optimistic scenarios are continually projected publicly because SLS needs all the political support it can get if it's going to survive.
I'd bank on a Q3 or later launch in 2020 at this point.
Not per the latest article. June 2020 is worst case scenario.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/sls-managers-troops-slip-2020/
You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB,It's this kind of extreme optimism that gets NASA into trouble in the first place.
According to Gerst, the launch date of June (not May) 2020 is only "possible". Not likely or probable. Just possible.
December 2019 works only if NASA perfectly manages every known risk. The agency won't.
The difference between the two is not margin.
“While the review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicate a launch date of June 2020, the agency is managing to December 2019,” said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. “Since several of the key risks identified have not been actually realized, we are able to put in place mitigation strategies for those risks to protect the December 2019 date.”
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems.June 2020 is worst case scenario.
Per Chris on the development thread, June 2020 is what's "realistically possible" when the known schedule risks are analyzed. It's not worst case.
Worst case in any development is always more unknown risks popping up.
If June 2020 provides little or no margin for unknown risks, it is not the worst case.
Also per this week's OIG report, SLS is also in the unfortunate position of having no budget margin to deal with unknowns.
This leaves management with only three options: remove content (for which there are limited options on a launch vehicle), increase risk (reduce testing), or slip schedule.
You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB, the mobile launcher and the pad next week Chelyabinsk style. In those cases, scheduling or setting dates based on that stuff is simply a pointless exercise which is why it doesn't factor into schedule timelines. Right now, it seems to be NET December 2019. May 2020 has like 5 months of schedule margin on the NET date.
Not according to the article.Quote“While the review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicate a launch date of June 2020, the agency is managing to December 2019,” said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. “Since several of the key risks identified have not been actually realized, we are able to put in place mitigation strategies for those risks to protect the December 2019 date.”
If things go "perfectly" from now on, the LV would have had major problems in its development. They would just be prior to November 9th, 2017. I mean, you are basically assuming any date set ever will be delayed. In which case, you could never reach a launch date with an actual launch. Each date would have to be delayed prior to arriving on that date.
I could equally assume that the Falcon Heavy will be delayed because it has been "this year" for the last several years. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Eventually, it will launch on time though.
Not according to the article.Quote“While the review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicate a launch date of June 2020, the agency is managing to December 2019,” said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. “Since several of the key risks identified have not been actually realized, we are able to put in place mitigation strategies for those risks to protect the December 2019 date.”
Lightfoot is talking about "mitigation strategies", ways to buy down risk and buy back lost schedule.
Lightfoot does not mention schedule margin, time added to a confident date to deal with risks as they emerge.
They're not the same thing. If you're managing a development project, it's unwise to conflate the two.
...
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems. Even SpaceX had lots of problems and slipped dates especially for their SHLV the FH about 2+ years of slip now. The original planning date for SLS was Oct 2017 BTW when the program was started. Just a 2+ year slip over a development that will be 8+ years in duration is not actually that bad compared to other similar complex large space projects.
Apparently Lamar Smith (R-TX) who chairs the House Science committee, made a number of comments yesterday expressing 'disappointment' and 'frustration' at the latest schedule and warning that additional delays could build support for unspecified alternatives. I've been under the impression that this committee has been an SLS booster up to this point. Frustrated congressmen who hold the purse strings would not seem like a good sign. Is this a change in the signals that Congress is sending regarding SLS funding?
...
Smith, who announced Nov. 2 he would not run for reelection next year ...
...
Smith'`s comments represent one of the strongest rebukes to date by a leading member of Congress regarding progress on SLS and Orion. Other members of the committee expressed few, if any, reservations about the programs at the hearing despite the latest delay.
...
...
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems. Even SpaceX had lots of problems and slipped dates especially for their SHLV the FH about 2+ years of slip now. The original planning date for SLS was Oct 2017 BTW when the program was started. Just a 2+ year slip over a development that will be 8+ years in duration is not actually that bad compared to other similar complex large space projects.
Dec 2019 (8yrs total) is a 33% slip in a six-year program (assuming that you completely write off the real start of this program in 2006); Summer 2020 is a 50% slip. When SLS flies could be well beyond these dates... vastly more likely than Dec 2019; nonetheless, we'll spend the next two years talking about SLS launching in 2019. Mission accomplished Mr. Lightfoot.
As I was trying to point out and will try to clear up is that the SLS/Orion program is fairly normal for such complex LV development programs. The number one driver for the slips is not the fact that there are problems but that there is no funds reserves to deal with them. From experience the costs of the solving and handling of problems is about 20-30% of the funds needed for all the tasks if no problems were ever encountered. But this is where the fact that SLS/Orion program has gotten itself into trouble. They have moved the cost margins down to almost nothing to be able to then have sooner end date. But if problems occur that need that 20-30% of extra funds the result is a 20-30% or even more schedule growth....
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems. Even SpaceX had lots of problems and slipped dates especially for their SHLV the FH about 2+ years of slip now. The original planning date for SLS was Oct 2017 BTW when the program was started. Just a 2+ year slip over a development that will be 8+ years in duration is not actually that bad compared to other similar complex large space projects.
Dec 2019 (8yrs total) is a 33% slip in a six-year program (assuming that you completely write off the real start of this program in 2006); Summer 2020 is a 50% slip. When SLS flies could be well beyond these dates... vastly more likely than Dec 2019; nonetheless, we'll spend the next two years talking about SLS launching in 2019. Mission accomplished Mr. Lightfoot.
Careful. All constellation ended up being was trying to build a crew vehicle to replace ISS crew rotation flights. That could just as easily be lumped in with commercial crew and here we are...11 years later and still waiting.
And the lack of progress since 2006 could also be an argument for why we shouldn't do the same thing all over again that was done in 2010(reset everything for some other shiny bauble).
As I was trying to point out and will try to clear up is that the SLS/Orion program is fairly normal for such complex LV development programs.
Competition.
Put heavy lift out to bid... 400tonnes/year to pick-an-orbit, X crew members per year to destination specified...
then compare the numbers to the cash currently being spent for much, much less.
Careful. All constellation ended up being was trying to build a crew vehicle to replace ISS crew rotation flights.
That could just as easily be lumped in with commercial crew and here we are...11 years later and still waiting.
And the lack of progress since 2006 could also be an argument for why we shouldn't do the same thing all over again that was done in 2010(reset everything for some other shiny bauble).
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development. Falcon 9 is late. Crewed Dragon is Late. DreamChaser is late. The Boeing Capsule is late. New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020. Vulcan? The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.
It's still hard. Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development. Falcon 9 is late. Crewed Dragon is Late. DreamChaser is late. The Boeing Capsule is late. New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020. Vulcan? The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.
It's still hard. Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.
Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development. Falcon 9 is late. Crewed Dragon is Late. DreamChaser is late. The Boeing Capsule is late. New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020. Vulcan? The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.
It's still hard. Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.
Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.
Orders of magnitude? So, 100:1. A 3 mT supply run to LEO ordered from the the private sector costs between 130 million and 225 million. It would cost the government between 13 billion and 22.5 billion.
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development. Falcon 9 is late. Crewed Dragon is Late. DreamChaser is late. The Boeing Capsule is late. New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020. Vulcan? The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.
It's still hard. Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.
Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.
Orders of magnitude? So, 100:1. A 3 mT supply run to LEO ordered from the the private sector costs between 130 million and 225 million. It would cost the government between 13 billion and 22.5 billion.
That "orders" shoud be "order", typo on my part. You can look at NAFCOM estimates for Falcon 9 and Spacehab logistics module for examples.
Falcon 9 was developed when real estate was dirt cheap and they were competing with Starbucks for college educated labor. I don't think the accounting took into account the current value of the stock options paid. It was a unique situation.
Shuttle cost somewhere like an order of magnitude more per flight than commercial logistics flights using Falcon/Dragon or Antares/Cygnus. The capabilities weren't remotely similar however. I can break out the unpressurized volume/pressurized volume/upmass/downmass if you would like, but it is a pointless exercise.
Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.
I do think it is important for SLS/Orion to fly before end of 2019. Delays are expected with such a complex program, but anything past June 2020 and they'll get heat from all sides.SLS/Orion has always been getting heat. It is just that it continues to get hotter and could become scalding if it fails to meet the June 2020 date.
I do think it is important for SLS/Orion to fly before end of 2019. Delays are expected with such a complex program, but anything past June 2020 and they'll get heat from all sides.
I do think it is important for SLS/Orion to fly before end of 2019. Delays are expected with such a complex program, but anything past June 2020 and they'll get heat from all sides.
Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
As to the upthread sarcasm about CC, an excellent case can be made for those like ASAP/others intentionally obfuscating the path for CC, which is already 10x better safety than crew flying on Soyuz, possibly to buy time for the other program.Emphasis mine.
You're right. Can't. No argument.As to the upthread sarcasm about CC, an excellent case can be made for those like ASAP/others intentionally obfuscating the path for CC, which is already 10x better safety than crew flying on Soyuz, possibly to buy time for the other program.Emphasis mine.
Don't make suggestions like this unless you can prove it. I know ASAP seemingly works double standards but they are not there to benefit one program over another. The key to the observed difference in approach is in how the programs are run.
Hi Space-People: Sorry to butt-in but where does the figure that CC is 10x safer than Soyuz come from, especially since CC hasn't flown yet? Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
"Too big to fail" at this point.
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
"Too big to fail" at this point.
Nope.
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
"Too big to fail" at this point.
Nope.
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
"Too big to fail" at this point.
Nope.
You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane! :'( Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS :(
Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop and 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept...
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane! :'( Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS :(
Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop and 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept...
All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.
Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.
All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.
Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.
Not understanding how ditching SLS and keeping Orion would placate Shelby, who's all about the booster, not the spacecraft (which is built in somebody else's district).
He clarified in follow on tweets, yes he does mean EM-1. Obviously this is just one guy's opinion, not a fact. But if you want to see where the opinion comes from, go back to page 1 of this thread and take a look. Back in July 2015 they're expecting EM-1 to happen in July 2018, i.e. 3 years out. Now we're in December 2017 and new EM-1 date is June 2020, still 2.5 years out, you can calculate the time dilation factor here.
If this thing about 2023 is indeed valid, what would be driving this delay from 2019-20?
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
"Too big to fail" at this point.
Nope.
You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.
Just to add a little precision to these discussions. On page 460 of the FY 2018 NASA Budget Request document(linked below), they have a total showing SLS program costs including formulation and development stages. Adding the Prior to 2016 amount to the 2016 actual amount and the 2017 enacted amount yields a figure of 9.923 billion through October 1, 2017(2 months, 5 days ago). Doing the same for Exploration Ground Systems(which is attributable to both Orion and SLS ground support costs) yields a number of 2.068 billion. Total "sunk costs" For SLS are therefore <$12 billion as of 8 weeks ago.
There is some discrepancy between what NASA spent and what was allocated by Congress. For instance, in FY 2016, NASA was allocated $2 billion even for SLS but this newer budget document seems to indicate that $1.922 billion was spent(~96% of appropriations for that year, other years could be less). This partly explains the disconnect between the perceived cost of the SLS program and the actual cost of the SLS program. The budget bills are the only things that make headlines every year, not NASA accounting of the year after the fact. Other explanations for the discrepancies lie with taking the most recent figures and extrapolating figures back to ~2010 when it was in the infancy and conflating constellation costs with the SLS program.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf
Do it
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
"Too big to fail" at this point.
Nope.
You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? Atwentytwelve billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.
Edit: adjusted the sunk cost amount to reflect ncb1397's dose of reality :)
Note: SLS costs need to include Orion -- their conception, birth, continued existence, survival, and thus price tag are inexorably linked.I've wonder if it's possible to break this link. What kind of effort would it take to put Orion on either Vulcan ACES or on a New Glenn? Would refueling a second stage allow these launchers to take Orion anywhere SLS could take it? If so, that could remove another argument for not canceling SLS.
Note: SLS costs need to include Orion -- their conception, birth, continued existence, survival, and thus price tag are inexorably linked.I've wonder if it's possible to break this link. What kind of effort would it take to put Orion on either Vulcan ACES or on a New Glenn? Would refueling a second stage allow these launchers to take Orion anywhere SLS could take it? If so, that could remove another argument for not canceling SLS.
It is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing, could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)
But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.
(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)
Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition:
1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination
2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF)
3. First to do so wins in each category named.
SLS mentioned by Boeing CEO as the way that Boeing will beat SpaceX to Mars.He's just parroting what he heard when he said Dragons to Mars every two years.
http://fortune.com/2017/12/07/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-elon-musk-mars
Musk's response is classic Musk
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/938816780444745728QuoteDo it
It might be an interesting new thread to discuss how to get to Mars first if you were the CEO of Boeing and you were going to actually try to pull this off.
Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.
The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
Or develop yourself a lander that can go up in sections within the shrouds of existing launchers (oh, the irony!!!!). Dock it in orbit with a Starliner, some Cygnus/Bigelow habs and a transfer stage and off you go! If you give it a few years, you may be able to use a DSG power and propulsion module for Martian transfer.
The liquid booster idea for the SLS won't work. Remember, the same political directive that got you your mega-rocket won't allow you to shut-out some of it's powerful backers by removing the solid boosters. You are stuck with the design as-is.
However, what can’t be estimated is ATK’s foothold as the provider of boosters for NASA’s human space flight program for the past 30 years. A continuation with the familiarity of the solid motors is continually classed as the favored option by SLS sources.
...
In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.
Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.
The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
Don't think so. Boeing aircraft core business is short-haul aircraft like the 737. Same goes for Airbus with its A320. Those short hops are in fact too short to be practically serviced by BFR.Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.
The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
To be explicit - Boeing-aircraft, after passenger transport BFR starts eating their core business.
Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.
The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
To be explicit - Boeing-aircraft, after passenger transport BFR starts eating their core business.
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated. Says something about SLS perhaps?
Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted.
Do it.
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated. Says something about SLS perhaps?
Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted.
Do it.
If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?
EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated. Says something about SLS perhaps?
Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted.
Do it.
If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?
EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.
Yes.It is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing, could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)
But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.
(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)
Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition:
1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination
2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF)
3. First to do so wins in each category named.
Isn't that what Roadster in space is doing? Next month?
If you say can't use this example because SpaceX got USG $$ -- though clearly not for FH -- then how will Boeing ever qualify?Note the launch campaign callout bounds the cost to out of pocket for the launch itself, not vehicle development/other.
Problem with Boeing boss claim is the arrogance of calling SLS a Boeing rocket. They didn't fund it, they aren't covering its overruns, they didn't win it based on anything but political chumming. It's the closest thing to their rocket only because there isn't anything they've designed or developed out there that can compete.Red herring.
...
In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.
Only if SLS still exists in 2030...
There's a thread for the SpaceX/Boeing challenge now.This thread seems to be gone... ???
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44385.0
Let's take any generic (non SLS related, such as mods, schedule changes, new equipment for SLS, etc that might be needed) to that thread. Neither Boeing aircraft nor BFS nor in space assembly of aldrin cyclers or other transport are on topic.
( posted my initial post here because it was clear to me that the CEO meant SLS as the "Boeing rocket")
Thanks!
Gerst shows slide of the huge test stands etc that will be used for testing SLS components. "This is the role for govt." Make the "massive investment" in facilities and make available to everyone. SpaceX's BFR and Blue Origin's New Glenn can "leverage off of this."
First time I've heard anyone from NASA mention anything about making SLS facilities available to everyone.NASA has been shopping a lot of the facilities for a while: VAB, 39B, test stands, etc. Just about any space company, newspace included, have made use of Stennis, Plum Brook, or other test sites. Unless you mean facilities unique to SLS, which really are only the new dynamic test stands at Marshall that aren't online yet.
I believe that the heavy rocket should lift heavy payloads that cheaper launch vehicles cannot. Especially at one launch a year.
President Trump has just signed a Policy Directive ordering NASA to return humans to the Moon. Astronauts are going to need habitats to live in and rovers to drive around. These are big heavy items.
Apollo went to the Moon and back each time on a single launch. I suspect lunar payload masses will be increased by staging at one or more spacestations.
Reusable lunar landers, such as an enhanced Xeus, can be kept at a lunar spacestation in low lunar orbit (LLO). The spacestation's arm could transfer the cargo from the visiting vehicle to the lander. The connected depot can repair and refuel the lander. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a spacestation in low lunar orbit?
Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) space tugs can used to transfer cargo between a low Earth Orbit (LEO) spacestation and a LLO spacestation. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a LEO spacestation in say a 28° orbit?
SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.
- Ed Kyle
2022 is just 4 years away and the PPE development and manufacture is not yet on contract. But then again most estimates as to when EM-2 would occur show NET mid 2023 at best and that is without a previous flight of EC to prove out the EUS. So PPE is unlikely to delay the EM-2 flight. Most likely it would be slowed to free up funds to speed up other delayed items needed to get EM-2 launched.SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.
- Ed Kyle
The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.
In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.
The race is on.
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?
2022 is just 4 years away and the PPE development and manufacture is not yet on contract. But then again most estimates as to when EM-2 would occur show NET mid 2023 at best and that is without a previous flight of EC to prove out the EUS. So PPE is unlikely to delay the EM-2 flight. Most likely it would be slowed to free up funds to speed up other delayed items needed to get EM-2 launched.SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.
- Ed Kyle
The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.
In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.
The race is on.
As to B330 and Vulcan/ACES distributed launch in 2022 is an aspirational date as well. A full functional ACES on top of a just became operational Vulcan at best 2 years earlier is not a highly likely event.
So you are correct let the race begin.
It would also allow for additional SLS launches between EM-1 and EM-2, provided they use the ICPS, since the first mobile launcher would remain available. “That’s in my mind, the biggest benefit,” Hill said. “We’re not stuck on the ground until we get finished with the modifications. That’s one of the things we’re taking a look at.”http://spacenews.com/nasa-weighs-new-mobile-launcher-for-sls/
Personally I think it is a philosophy difference. The Jupiter (whose time has come and gone btw so let's not go there) was designed to return Americans to space after Shuttle in the quickest way possible, at the least expense, and still obey the Congressional mandate to be Shuttle-derived. SLS was under no such restraints and NASA wanted the biggest heavy lift they could envision and was willing to spend whatever that cost and take as much time as that may take. Beginning with the vehicle we designed that the Congress had signed off on, NASA immediately began the process of morphing, going thru several painful iterations. NASA wanted the Ares-V, finally admitted that it couldn't have it but could get close. The design effort went sideways from there. There is nothing wrong with the SLS. It's a good HLV. But it is, IMO, just too damn big; good for lofting one-of payloads here and there, once every couple of years at enormous costs, but too big and too expensive to be a truly useful launch vehicle. All that is, of course, just my opinion. YMMV.
This certainly put a dent in the narrative that SLS was forced on NASA by congress. If what you said is true, then certain elements inside NASA is just as responsible for the current mass as congress, if not more so.
I guess this is NASA HSF's biggest problem, they're eternally optimistic about the budget.
Yes, the smaller version of Direct would have used the existing 4 seg boosters from the Shuttle fleet. It would use 3 RS-25's instead of the current 4, and could grow and stretch (later) to 4 or 5 engines, with a J2X upper stage. The smaller version could have been fielded several years ago, and delivered 70 tons to orbit. 70 tons, with in space assembly could have done a lot, and be launched with current budget about 6 times a year. Also, without the long delay that we had.
Looking backwards, Bob you are correct. They could have had side-mount back in the 90's and got 50-60 tons to LEO, and still kept the shuttle fleet for human transportation. At that point they could have beefed up the shuttle making the nose an escape pod to avoid a Challenger situation. Maybe even escape during orbit re-entry also. The side-mount could have delivered modules, cargo, and satellites, while the beefed up shuttle could deliver humans.
Oh well, we got SLS whenever it gets built. However by then SpaceX and BO will be delivering things with reusable first stages at least, and BFR/BFS will be coming along. SLS will then be too big to operate efficiently.
I really can't comprehend why a side-mount STS cargo-carrier wasn't built, using almost off-the-shelf STS elements. Or why Shuttle-C wasn't pursued inj the first place. Sigh.
They could have had side-mount back in the 90's and got 50-60 tons to LEO, and still kept the shuttle fleet for human transportation.
...
I do agree there are many decisions I think NASA would admit would do differently knowing how things panned out, however having said that they have created a remarkable launch vehicle and spacecraft.
...
If this thing about 2023 is indeed valid, what would be driving this delay from 2019-20?
Job security for Shelby's Alabama-based workers. SLS is, after all, little more than a massive jobs program at this point.
Aren't the engines built in Alabama, the planning and design team is in Alabama.The RS-25 engines were built, and are being reengineered and tested, in Mississippi. The ICPS was built in Alabama at the ULA plant in Decatur. The RL10 was probably built in Florida, but I'm not certain. The SLS core stage tank parts were made in Germany and welded together in Louisiana on a machine assembled by a Swedish company. MSFC's primary involvement is in structural testing and avionics, I believe.
Alabama, by the way, now has one senator from each party.
- Ed Kyle
The work is mainly conducted at two Aerojet Rocketdyne centers. The machining, welding, assembly and test of subassemblies takes place at its Canoga Park, California Strategic Fabrication Center. Turbopump assembly takes place at the West Palm Beach, Florida facility. Testing then takes place at Stennis.
...
I do agree there are many decisions I think NASA would admit would do differently knowing how things panned out, however having said that they have created a remarkable launch vehicle and spacecraft.
...
1. 'Have created' is incorrect tense.
2. In what ways are either spacecraft (capsule) or rocket 'remarkable?'
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?
(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
(C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
(D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.
(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appro- priations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
(3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and devel- oped, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow- on Space Launch System.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.
The 5 segment boosters did not require a longer core. Direct's Jupiter could have used them. The team published several baseball cards showing those configurations. The 5 segment boosters could even have been used on the Shuttle. The original proposals to add the extra segment date from when STS was still in full swing as a way to increase payload to the ISS and if I remember right enable abort to orbit right off the pad.Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?
To directly answer your question about large core: there was a push to employ 5 seg SRBs (and 5 seg SRBs require a longer core stage than was used for STS). One can assume that it was ATK pushing for the 5 seg, but I don't know for sure the drivers and decision-makers that insisted on 5 seg.
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost? Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters? A good second stage?
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost? Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters? A good second stage?
To make the SLS economical to operate and generally useful, NASA needs to do what it did with Transhab. It sold the rights to Bigelow Aerospace who turned it into something that is economical and useful. Get the government *and* the government contractors out of the SLS business entirely and maybe, just maybe, something could be done by a well positioned commercial company to make the vehicle useful and less expensive to operate.
In such a situation, the 1st thing I would recommend is to replace the SRB's with human rated reusable LRB's, similar to the Falcon 9 1st stage. That LRB, when equipped with a 2nd stage, should be capable of putting a fully fueled and outfitted Orion spacecraft into LEO.
Do that and we'd have something generally useful that could be operated at a reasonable cost.
Is it too late to change directions?
They initially were trying to keep the existing shuttle work force, but that didn't work out. Too long from shuttle decommissioning to SLS launching. Also not enough SLS launches to justify a work force with only one launch a year.
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost? Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters? A good second stage?
To make the SLS economical to operate and generally useful, NASA needs to do what it did with Transhab. It sold the rights to Bigelow Aerospace who turned it into something that is economical and useful. Get the government *and* the government contractors out of the SLS business entirely and maybe, just maybe, something could be done by a well positioned commercial company to make the vehicle useful and less expensive to operate.
In such a situation, the 1st thing I would recommend is to replace the SRB's with human rated reusable LRB's, similar to the Falcon 9 1st stage. That LRB, when equipped with a 2nd stage, should be capable of putting a fully fueled and outfitted Orion spacecraft into LEO. Reserve the HLV for cargo only and use the boosters as reusable Orion launchers.
Do that and we'd have something generally useful that could be operated at a reasonable cost.
Wow, what a difference 10 years makes. 10 years ago, we were talking about Direct vs Constellation. Which was the cheaper alternative and the quicker alternative. Direct was of course. We ended up getting SLS. Now, 10 years later no rocket has flown, and it may be a few more years to flight at over $1 billion a pop.
I disagree some Chuck. Doing anything new, especially to SLS, will only increase costs, increase time required for the first flight, increase complexity, and decrease the probability SLS will ever launch and/or be affordable.
I disagree some Chuck. Doing anything new, especially to SLS, will only increase costs, increase time required for the first flight, increase complexity, and decrease the probability SLS will ever launch and/or be affordable.
The question I answered Mike was "what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?".
It wasn't whether of not making any changes at this point would speed things up.
I agree with what your saying but the question was how to "ultimately" make it less costly to operate.
Right now it is set up to cost the most amount possible to operate. And that's because it is being run as a government program by a government agency that has no cost accountability and being serviced by government contractors whose only interest is to stretch out the program for as long as possible in order to extract the maximum amount of funding from it as possible. The only way to improve that situation is to get the government the hell out of the program and take their greedy contractors with them. That's the only possible answer to the question.
Whether or not that is a practical thing to do at this point is a different question and if asked I would say "No, it isn't even possible at this point", but my original answer still addresses the original question.
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.
Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.
Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.
Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.
Commercial Crew replaces ISS rotation flights on Ares-1/Orion. Ares-1 was cancelled, leaving Orion without a launch vehicle for a while, except for the Delta-IV Heavy, which could put it in LEO (but wasn't human rated), but that mission for Orion was replaced by Commercial Crew. So, yes, the Orion ISS flights were cancelled for Commercial Crew about 8 years ago.
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.
Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.
Commercial Crew replaces ISS rotation flights on Ares-1/Orion. Ares-1 was cancelled, leaving Orion without a launch vehicle for a while, except for the Delta-IV Heavy, which could put it in LEO (but wasn't human rated), but that mission for Orion was replaced by Commercial Crew. So, yes, the Orion ISS flights were cancelled for Commercial Crew about 8 years ago.
From a certain limited POV, yes... But the Orion to ISS flights was just a few (or one) test flight(s). Ares-1/Orion was never supposed to be an permanent ISS crew rotation solution, after all funding the whole Constellation project depended on ISS being dropped in the pacific ocean.
So the two projects you draw a line through had a tangential connection - yes - but that is all. And without the same funding levels for both projects, any argument that it took X years to change tracks is not really that persuasive.
Orion improves on the best features of Project Apollo and the Space Shuttle Program, increasing the likelihood of success. Versatility will be Orion's trademark. It is being designed to fly to the moon, but could also be used to service the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit.http://web.archive.org/web/20061206040155/http://www.nasa.gov:80/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html
Orion will be capable of carrying crew and cargo to the space station.http://web.archive.org/web/20071010023820/http://www.nasa.gov:80/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html
The larger size will allow Orion to accommodate four crew members on missions to the moon, and six on missions to the International Space Station or Mars-bound spacecraft. Orion is scheduled to fly its first missions to the space station by 2014 and carry out its first sortie to the moon by 2020.http://web.archive.org/web/20080618083331/http://www.nasa.gov.:80/
I'm not sure what the point of that was - no one disputes that Orion could service/dock with ISS. It was always a consideration for early test flights.
While the CEV design was sized for lunar missions carrying a crew of four, the vehicle washttps://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140649main_ESAS_full.pdf
also designed to be reconfigurable to accommodate up to six crew for International Space
Station (ISS) and future Mars mission scenarios. The CEV can transfer and return crew and
cargo to the ISS and stay for 6 months in a quiescent state for emergency crew return. The
lunar CEV design has direct applications to International Space Station (ISS) missions without
significant changes in the vehicle design. The lunar and ISS configurations share the same
Service Module (SM), but the ISS mission has much lower delta-V requirements. Hence, the
SM propellant tanks can be loaded with additional propellant for ISS missions to provide
benefits in launch aborts, on-orbit phasing, and ISS reboost. Other vehicle block derivatives
can deliver pressurized and unpressurized cargo to the ISS.
Dr. Michael Griffin was named the new NASA Administrator in April 2005. With concurrence
from Congress, he immediately set out to restructure NASA’s Exploration Program
by making its priority to accelerate the development of the CEV to reduce or eliminate the
planned gap in U.S. human access to space. He established a goal for the CEV to begin operation
in 2011 and to be capable of ferrying crew and cargo to and from the ISS.
Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?
And it even said Mike Griffin wanted a goal of having it running by the time Shuttle retired:QuoteDr. Michael Griffin was named the new NASA Administrator in April 2005. With concurrence
from Congress, he immediately set out to restructure NASA’s Exploration Program
by making its priority to accelerate the development of the CEV to reduce or eliminate the
planned gap in U.S. human access to space. He established a goal for the CEV to begin operation
in 2011 and to be capable of ferrying crew and cargo to and from the ISS.
Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?
It's a common misconception that the Shuttle was required for transporting expedition crews to the ISS once it was operational. That never was true.
The Shuttle was only a secondary way of transporting crews to and from the ISS, but because the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks we have always relied on the Soyuz for getting crews to the ISS, and keeping them there.
Once the ISS was construction complete there was no more need for Shuttle flights to the ISS, so there was no real need to send the Orion to the ISS - the Soyuz was already handling normal crew rotation tasks. Flying the Orion to the ISS could have been an interesting test flight, but otherwise was not necessary.
Using Orion as a lifeboat for ISS with a crew of 7 proposal is what killed the X-38/CRV program in that function...
Actually, with two EDO pallets, Shuttle could stay up for a month. It only ever flew with one though...
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Duration_Orbiter
You could likely extend it farther with an upgrade to the Shuttle to Station Power Transfer System or a solar panel pallet to replace the EDO pallet. Shuttle was more than capable of servicing ISS solo with some minimal modifications. And then you had the Crew Return Vehicle that wouldn't even require Shuttle/Soyuz to be continually docked. Worse comes to worse, you just keep a shuttle available to launch like they did in later years of the program to rescue a crew from a damaged heat-shield.
Seems like NASA has had a lot of multi-billion dollar overruns for a lot of stuff. Contractors who depend on the government seem to overrun the most and take longer to develop stuff. Boy, if we had to fight WWII again the way our government operates now, we would loose, just on the bureaucracy alone, not just cost.
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost and Columbia was 2003 (some months, not some years) they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station which led to the CEV competition...aka Orion in 2005... CxP and SLS suffers the same lack of focus and redirection in common which results in waste of time and money...Using Orion as a lifeboat for ISS with a crew of 7 proposal is what killed the X-38/CRV program in that function...
X-38/CRV was cancelled in 2002, some years before the Columbia accident, ESAS, and Orion. Cause was a multi-billion dollar cost overrun on ISS that NASA delivered to the Bush II White House at the beginning of its term.
Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?
It's a common misconception that the Shuttle was required for transporting expedition crews to the ISS once it was operational. That never was true.
The Shuttle was only a secondary way of transporting crews to and from the ISS, but because the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks we have always relied on the Soyuz for getting crews to the ISS, and keeping them there.
Actually, with two EDO pallets, Shuttle could stay up for a month. It only ever flew with one though...
QuoteOnce the ISS was construction complete there was no more need for Shuttle flights to the ISS, so there was no real need to send the Orion to the ISS - the Soyuz was already handling normal crew rotation tasks. Flying the Orion to the ISS could have been an interesting test flight, but otherwise was not necessary.
Whether or not Soyuz was required to keep ISS operational, the fact is that it didn't cost half a billion dollars a year for Russia to provide that capability when the U.S. had its own crew transport.
So, how tenable our situation is vs. how tenable the situation was with Shuttle depends on what you think about tax dollars being used in that way.
Presumably, they should benefit Americans, not Russians.
And the bill from Russia will easily be in the $4-5 billion range.
And so, like I said before, if it really was about the money, other issues would be just as controversial if not more so than SLS.
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost
they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station
which led to the CEV competition...
NASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles. The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop. NASA then simply buys services like COTS.
That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost
CRV was over $1B at cancellation.
The capability for that cost never really made sense, especially in light of less complex and less costly alternatives, like Soyuz, a simple domestic capsule, or a lifeboat.Quotethey still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station
No, the ISS Program still had/has Soyuz.Quotewhich led to the CEV competition...
CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle, not ISS rescue or return vehicle.
A domestic ISS capability was part and parcel of CEV, but that competition and subsequently Orion were never driven by ISS rescue or transport requirements. Lunar transport requirements largely enveloped ISS needs.
NASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles. The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop. NASA then simply buys services like COTS.
That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.
We also know that this is not going to happen anytime soon. Too many folks in US Congress depend on NASA having it's own launcher to develop and operate.
Buying services doesn't "bring home the bacon" nor does it keep certain space-and-defense contractors well-padded.
But I digress.
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...
-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight
and is a result of mismanagement and desperation "not" a cogent plan...
Furthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass and no unpressurised upmass.
-CEV ... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)
-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...
The X-38 was under Goldin at 500M, CRV was the orbital test vehicle which was cancelled just as it was being readied for it's orbital debut by the "bean counter" O'keefe, penny wise and pound foolish...-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...
Exactly. X-38/CRV was another HSF project with dubious requirements and an unnecessarily complex technical approach facing a large overrun. At cancellation, X-38/CRV was costing almost $1.2B. By the time they fixed the test program, we were probably looking at $2B+.
https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdf (https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdf)Quote-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight
ISS in an _international_ program, not a US civil human space flight program. It's not an aberration to rely on a partner for certain capabilities.
And practically speaking, NASA can't afford to do everything, at least not the way NASA usually does things.Quoteand is a result of mismanagement and desperation "not" a cogent plan...
I agree. NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology. Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce. NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.QuoteFurthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass and no unpressurised upmass.
This confuses emergency crew return with ISS cargo transport needs.Quote-CEV ... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)
Which is exactly my point. CRV cancellation had nothing to do with CEV.Quote-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...
It didn't. I was the starting COTS program executive. The history goes back pre-Columbia but that's a different thread.
I agree. NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology. Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce. NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.
The X-38 was under Goldin at 500M
CRV was the orbital test vehicle which was cancelled just as it was being readied for it's orbital debut by the "bean counter" O'keefe,
penny wise and pound foolish...
Give it a rest ISS, is not MIR...
Originally:
Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.
Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.
Yes, quite right, thank you... In my minds eye was Orion on DIRECT Jupiter 241/246 or Ares V Lite...Originally:
Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.
Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.
NASA never planned to launch Orion on Ares-V, aka CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). The CxP architecture required Orion to launch on an Ares-I CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle). All CxP missions beyond LEO would have required at least two launches: one (or more) Ares-V launches for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) and cargo (e.g. Altair), and one Ares-I launch with Orion and the crew.
Also, Commercial Crew definitely replaced Orion to ISS for crew rotation. Regardless of when ISS would or would not have been splashed.
Cheers!
What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011? I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.
SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue the
development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.
(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purpose
crew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.
A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations. Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.
A suggestion would be to cross post this into Commercial Crew thread.What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011? I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.
Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article (http://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9):
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/57c987e809d2939b008b5da1-1667/nasa-russia-price-seat-launch-astronauts-business-insider.png)QuoteI also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.
Here is what the original Senate Bill S. 3729 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3729enr/pdf/BILLS-111s3729enr.pdf) stated:QuoteSEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue the
development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.
(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purpose
crew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.QuoteA Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations. Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.
I don't think the Shuttle fleet was capable of doing that safely and consistently.
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change? Is it my congressman or my senator?
<Rant mode on>
This is not a joke post. I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped. I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong. Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem. This program is eating up a ridiculous amount of NASA's budget, and to me, doesn't seem to be accomplishing much other than providing jobs. Yes, maybe that's what congress wants, but I personally don't sit easy knowing that. I've always been a fan of SLS, but I swear, if this program keeps delaying it's going to turn me into a SpaceX amazing people.
</Rant mode off>
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change? Is it my congressman or my senator?
<Rant mode on>
This is not a joke post. I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped. I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong. Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem...
</Rant mode off>
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost? Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters? A good second stage?Sorry for the delay. I just ran across this question. I try to avoid this thread these days.
In my mind, the key is ultimately going to be the cost of propulsion, especially of the RS-25 core stage engines. They will have to build new engines at some point. Cost control will be paramount. I wish this work could be opened for truely competitive bidding.
EUS and its engines will also be a key cost driver. The engines and other systems must be common with at least one other commercial stage or cost control will be impossible.
But the real cost of SLS/Orion that needs to see some control is for Orion. That barter exchange for Service Module will shift to real money (Euros) in the future (there are only so many AJ-10s, and they don't make them anymore), and does anyone see evidence of cost-control as a consideration in the design of the CM?
- Ed Kyle
Cost of liquid engines only:
4 RL-10's $80M
4 RS-25E's ($55M each) $220M
= $300M
Now add two SRBs and tanks and ......
So the incremental cost is well over $500M.
The pad costs are hopefully not more than the previously estimated $800M/year (includes everything: processing, GSE, VAB, pad - maintence, operations).
That puts the minimum absolute cost if you launched 2 a year at not less than $1B each launch. At 1 per year it is about $1.4B each launch. But in budget for the year launching two in 1 year requires a budget of $2B but launching only 1 a year requires only a budget of $1.4B.
It's the allowed budget level that is the real problem for SLS.Cost of liquid engines only:
4 RL-10's $80M
4 RS-25E's ($55M each) $220M
= $300M
Now add two SRBs and tanks and ......
So the incremental cost is well over $500M.
The pad costs are hopefully not more than the previously estimated $800M/year (includes everything: processing, GSE, VAB, pad - maintence, operations).
That puts the minimum absolute cost if you launched 2 a year at not less than $1B each launch. At 1 per year it is about $1.4B each launch. But in budget for the year launching two in 1 year requires a budget of $2B but launching only 1 a year requires only a budget of $1.4B.
That's before payload, of course. Add an Orion and a ride-share DSG module each time for typical budgets.
SLS 1B = not less than $501M (NOTE this is a very optimistic estimate)
SLS 1B = not less than $501M (NOTE this is a very optimistic estimate)
For a production run of 22 vehicles, I got a price of $511M each using NASA cost models.
So was wondering why SLS kept the clean-pad design of the Ares I ML and tower vs moving the FSS to the Pad surface like Shuttle. The clean pad made sense for Ares as you had two separate LVs, but with SLS after EM-1/only Block 1A flight the vehicle should have a fixed height for umbilicals. By removing the Tower from the ML you free up a lot of space and most importantly weight on it.
So was wondering why SLS kept the clean-pad design of the Ares I ML and tower vs moving the FSS to the Pad surface like Shuttle. The clean pad made sense for Ares as you had two separate LVs, but with SLS after EM-1/only Block 1A flight the vehicle should have a fixed height for umbilicals. By removing the Tower from the ML you free up a lot of space and most importantly weight on it.
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M
Where do you get $60M per SRB set?
The last big SRM production contract that ATK Thiokol was awarded (in 2002) was $2.4B for 70 SRM sets, or $34.3M each or $68.6M per set.
However that was for volume production of at least 5 sets per year, and the SLS is originally set up for no more than 1.5 launches per year. Plus the SLS SRM's are larger than the Shuttle SRM's.
Based on all of that I'd be surprised if a SLS SRM set cost less than $100M per set.
Right, and the assembled whole is always more than all the pieces separately.
SLS is simply expensive. Just the hardware is expensive.
There's a way around this: Make SLS reusable. Flyback boosters AND the core. I'm aware of one such recent proposal, but it went nowhere, not even a pre-phase-A study.
(To make this feasible, it may be necessary to stretch the upper stage.)
Low lunar orbit isn't a very good place for a space station, tho.Right, and the assembled whole is always more than all the pieces separately.
SLS is simply expensive. Just the hardware is expensive.
There's a way around this: Make SLS reusable. Flyback boosters AND the core. I'm aware of one such recent proposal, but it went nowhere, not even a pre-phase-A study.
(To make this feasible, it may be necessary to stretch the upper stage.)
Getting Orion to a space station in low lunar orbit may also require a stretched upper stage.
Low lunar orbit isn't a very good place for a space station, tho.
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M
Where do you get $60M per SRB set?
The last big SRM production contract that ATK Thiokol was awarded (in 2002) was $2.4B for 70 SRM sets, or $34.3M each or $68.6M per set.
However that was for volume production of at least 5 sets per year, and the SLS is originally set up for no more than 1.5 launches per year. Plus the SLS SRM's are larger than the Shuttle SRM's.
Based on all of that I'd be surprised if a SLS SRM set cost less than $100M per set.
His model is assuming costs associated with high rate of SRM production but low rate of RS-25 production. All in all, you can call it a wash.
For a production run of 22 vehicles, I got a price of $511M each using NASA cost models.Vehicle unit cost or full operational cost?
How many vehicles per year launched?
]Low lunar orbit isn't a very good place for a space station, tho.
]Low lunar orbit isn't a very good place for a space station, tho.
An LLO space station is not necessary. The station we want is on the Moon, not LLO.
Right, and the assembled whole is always more than all the pieces separately.
SLS is simply expensive. Just the hardware is expensive.
There's a way around this: Make SLS reusable. Flyback boosters AND the core. I'm aware of one such recent proposal, but it went nowhere, not even a pre-phase-A study.
(To make this feasible, it may be necessary to stretch the upper stage.)
If you want a reusable rocket, take out a blank sheet of paper and design one.Unless you're congress.
It will look nothing like SLS with reusable bits.
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M
So was wondering why SLS kept the clean-pad design of the Ares I ML and tower vs moving the FSS to the Pad surface like Shuttle. The clean pad made sense for Ares as you had two separate LVs, but with SLS after EM-1/only Block 1A flight the vehicle should have a fixed height for umbilicals. By removing the Tower from the ML you free up a lot of space and most importantly weight on it.
because it would increase pad time. integration off pad with the umbilical tower makes more sense like Atlas V and Falcon 9. The upper stages and spacecraft need to be checked out with the umbilicals. Spacecraft need to be connected to GSE once attached to the rocket.
Shuttle umbilicals were at the tail. LH2 vent was the only connection at the pad.
Ok my intent was what was the lowest possible current estimate with the realization that reality would be a larger number. Then for SLS 1B add the costs for the EUS of not less than $120. But if the SLS tank is $200M vs my $75M then the EUS tank would be another $20M for $40M vs the one in the $120M estimate of $20M. So the new number would be $140M for EUS added to the $545 of the basic SLS gives a cost for manufacture of the SLS 1B of $665M.SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M
I forgot to check your estimate on the Tank Core, and that is way off too. As a point of reference, here is what NASA had negotiated as prices for the Shuttle ET & SRM's near the end of the program:
External Tank (ET): last contract - $2.94B for 17 units = $173M/ea
Solid Rocket Motors (SRM): last contract - $2.4B for 35 refurbished flight sets = $69M/set
That totals to $241.5M for each Shuttle flight, where you are estimating $135M for each SLS flight for the same hardware elements. I think you are off by a significant amount.
As for the RS-25, though NASA is using existing engines for the first four flights, it has already awarded a $1.16B pre-production contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne that produces no flight units, but prepares AR to produce flight units. Assuming the SLS flies at least nine times (4 w/existing engines, 5/new engines), that would mean this contract alone would account for $55M of engine cost, and that doesn't count the cost of producing the new engines themselves (which would be a separate contract).
Costs do drop over time as more units are produced, but there are limits to how much they can drop.
For instance, for the SLS core the cost of the aluminum will not drop below the current market price because the amount of aluminum the SLS uses is not very significant compared to the total market need, so volume purchasing won't matter. And pretty much everything on the SLS is low-volume production, meaning except for the core units that everything else will be produced on production lines that will only run intermittently, which doesn't allow for much cost reduction - even if production is doubled.
But just updating the ET and SRM costs to reflect a number I think is more realistic, I come up with:
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($50M each) $100M
Tank Core $200M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $545M
And that would just be the piece-part costs, not the final assembled cost. YMMV
Orion atop that vehicle would be estimated at approximately a billion each ($972M per reference below, p31).2 Launches per year > $4.13B
Assume both missions include Orion (other payloads, if ever funded, won't be cheaper), so baseline is:
1 launch per year > $2.465B
2 launches per year > $3.13B
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year......you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.
But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year......you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.
And likely the core would land down-range.
It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
Orion atop that vehicle would be estimated at approximately a billion each ($972M per reference below, p31).With fully expendable Falcon Heavy now claimed to have 63 tons to LEO capability; that mission architecture could be improved.
Assume both missions include Orion (other payloads, if ever funded, won't be cheaper), so baseline is:
1 launch per year > $2.465B
2 launches per year > $3.13B
But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year......you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.
And likely the core would land down-range.
It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.
But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year......you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.
And likely the core would land down-range.
It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.
Partially reusable SLS would need liquid boosters that can land downrange, so the payload hit depends mostly on the specs of those boosters. Using New Glenn boosters as LRBs would greatly increase the payload at the same time as allowing recovery. I estimate 136 t to LEO and 53 t to TLI, both with EUS.
Without a larger upper stage than EUS I don't think there is any hope of recovering the core stage, but bigger boosters would allow a couple of RS-25s to be removed (saving ~$114M per flight) while still having much greater payload than SLS 1B.
Small problem in using 7m diameter NG as boosters. The pad can only handle a vehicle that is 21m wide. 2 7m wide NG boosters and the 8.4m core is 22.4m. It will not fit.But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year......you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.
And likely the core would land down-range.
It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.
Partially reusable SLS would need liquid boosters that can land downrange, so the payload hit depends mostly on the specs of those boosters. Using New Glenn boosters as LRBs would greatly increase the payload at the same time as allowing recovery. I estimate 136 t to LEO and 53 t to TLI, both with EUS.
Without a larger upper stage than EUS I don't think there is any hope of recovering the core stage, but bigger boosters would allow a couple of RS-25s to be removed (saving ~$114M per flight) while still having much greater payload than SLS 1B.
Small problem in using 7m diameter NG as boosters. The pad can only handle a vehicle that is 21m wide. 2 7m wide NG boosters and the 8.4m core is 22.4m. It will not fit.But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year......you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.
And likely the core would land down-range.
It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.
Partially reusable SLS would need liquid boosters that can land downrange, so the payload hit depends mostly on the specs of those boosters. Using New Glenn boosters as LRBs would greatly increase the payload at the same time as allowing recovery. I estimate 136 t to LEO and 53 t to TLI, both with EUS.
Without a larger upper stage than EUS I don't think there is any hope of recovering the core stage, but bigger boosters would allow a couple of RS-25s to be removed (saving ~$114M per flight) while still having much greater payload than SLS 1B.
As a cost saving, I don't know at what point SLS could switch to carbon tanks.
It would save a good % of that £200m structure cost.
NASA/Boeing finished successful testing of a 5.5m hydrogen tank under flight loads in 2016.
The research was specifically aimed at lowering costs and improving payloads of SLS class rockets. The production techniques should scale fairly easily to 8.4 meters.
It'll probably be another bit of great work from NASA & partners than doesn't see active service. :-\
If you are going to have a disposable rocket, tanks manufactured mostly by a robot would seem the perfect way to go.
https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/nasaboeing-composite-launch-vehicle-fuel-tank-scores-firsts
...this isn't accurate. The core has a bunch of extra performance, and this would be done concurrently with upgrading the flyback boosters.But you loose 30-40% of performance....A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year......you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.
And likely the core would land down-range.
It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
...this isn't accurate. The core has a bunch of extra performance, and this would be done concurrently with upgrading the flyback boosters.But you loose 30-40% of performance....A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year......you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.
And likely the core would land down-range.
It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
Additionally, being able to fly a good 5-10 times per year would make up for a minor loss in performance.
As a cost saving, I don't know at what point SLS could switch to carbon tanks.
Likely never, since the production line is set up for building using aluminum.QuoteIt would save a good % of that £200m structure cost.
Maybe, but maybe not. Keep in mind that the SLS was designed to use aluminum, so building an SLS out of carbon fiber (or anything other than aluminum) means that you're essentially designing a brand new rocket. That would cost many $Billions and take many years.QuoteNASA/Boeing finished successful testing of a 5.5m hydrogen tank under flight loads in 2016.
IIRC NASA did a test of building the Orion spacecraft frame out of carbon fiber, and found that there wasn't any real different in cost or weight, so they stuck with aluminum. If such a trade study were done for the SLS the same could be found (but such a study will never be done).QuoteThe research was specifically aimed at lowering costs and improving payloads of SLS class rockets. The production techniques should scale fairly easily to 8.4 meters.
Not sure we know what the Blue Origin New Glenn will be built out of, but we already know the SpaceX BFR & BFS will be built out of carbon fiber. But they are being designed from the start to use those materials.QuoteIt'll probably be another bit of great work from NASA & partners than doesn't see active service. :-\
Sometimes R&D does not result in an intended use, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a successful experiment. Sometimes understanding why something is not worth pursuing is as good as understanding that it should be pursued.QuoteIf you are going to have a disposable rocket, tanks manufactured mostly by a robot would seem the perfect way to go.
https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/nasaboeing-composite-launch-vehicle-fuel-tank-scores-firsts
Actually the current tank manufacturing process is already automated. Read more about it on the wonderful link below... ;)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/05/sls-core-stage-recovering-weld-pin-change/
Inside SLS: Outfitting The World’s Most Powerful Rocket
$100000 fastners? That's where the money's been going!
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.I think this is what AncientU was trying to get at when suggesting a clean sheet, because there's fewer steps from a clean sheet to an RLV than from SLS to an RLV. There simply isn't any way to broach any of the changes or assumptions necessary for what you describe without creating a situation where it cascades into other modifications that make sense once you grant the initial mod, and pretty soon you end up with something completely unrecognizable.
And likely the core would land down-range.
It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
I do realize NASA is going the direction of expending the RS25s, and eventually opting for expendable new-builds, and my question is, what is the rationale behind this versus a return vehicle?
SEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.
(a) UNITED STATES POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that NASA develop a Space Launch System as a follow- on to the Space Shuttle that can access cis-lunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit in order to enable the United States to participate in global efforts to access and develop this increasingly strategic region.
(b) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as prac- ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).
(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.
(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
(C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
(D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.
(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appro- priations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
(3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and devel- oped, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow- on Space Launch System.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.
I saw on YouTube where someone figured using 4 F9's on the core and got I think about 130-150 tons to LEO.
If you google "Ares Mars Direct" you get a concept from the early 90's of a heavy lifter based on the STS, foreshadowing the more recent Ares V / SLS systems, but with one main difference: the RS25's are housed on a lifting body and mounted on the side of the fuel tank similar to how the Shuttle was. This would allow the excellent RS25s to be returned for reuse, saving money.The expendable RS-25s will actually be of higher RPL than the:
I do realize NASA is going the direction of expending the RS25s, and eventually opting for expendable new-builds, and my question is, what is the rationale behind this versus a return vehicle? The RS25s are high performance and complex, it's hard to believe the cost benefit analysis suggests that expendable versions with the same performance would be that much cheaper (unless they're opting for lower-performance / less complex expendable engines)
Since the STS system was capable of lifting ~110 tons to LEO, the resulting vehicle should still be a 100t class lifter even with the engine return glider.
Another question I've always wondered is, would it be feasible for SLS to incorporate four Falcon 9 type boosters in a configuration similar to Energia (in lieu of two higher thrust SRBs)? How about four SRBs, if it's not man rated?
If you google "Ares Mars Direct" you get a concept from the early 90's of a heavy lifter based on the STS, foreshadowing the more recent Ares V / SLS systems, but with one main difference: the RS25's are housed on a lifting body and mounted on the side of the fuel tank similar to how the Shuttle was. This would allow the excellent RS25s to be returned for reuse, saving money.
There were concepts for recovering the side pod.If you google "Ares Mars Direct" you get a concept from the early 90's of a heavy lifter based on the STS, foreshadowing the more recent Ares V / SLS systems, but with one main difference: the RS25's are housed on a lifting body and mounted on the side of the fuel tank similar to how the Shuttle was. This would allow the excellent RS25s to be returned for reuse, saving money.
The engines are housed in a side mounted pod, but I don't think it was ever planned to be recovered and reused. In fact I don't think any Shuttle Derived Heavylift has plans for engine reuse, probably because their envisioned flight rate is too low.
“A notional extensibility approach for operational vehicles using this hybrid concept is shown (in the graphic – left). The advantages include reducing the number of changes to the launch pad and also providing for easier detachment of the propulsion modules when used in conjunction with the recovery module concept presented (see reference in Sidemount overview).”
Other than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....
Other than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....
By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27871.msg1788485#msg1788485)?
By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27871.msg1788485#msg1788485)?
The president's budget proposal is DOA. When US Congress is finished with it ISS will stay in orbit until (at least) 2028 and Europa Clipper will still be assigned to launch on SLS.
sort of relevant...yikes if true..not a good thing...
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592)QuoteSLS Software Problems Continuejb
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
got into a side discussion about this in another thread (my bad)I'm thinking there is a good chance that this is now going to be what pushes EM-1 into 2021 or later. Losing core people in software in my experience is devastating. On large complex projects like this it takes a while to get new people up to speed. Just wait for the next schedule delays to be announced.sort of relevant...yikes if true..not a good thing...
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592)QuoteSLS Software Problems Continuejb
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
jb
A letter was sent to NASA MSFC management last week by Ben Samouha, a 30+ year veteran in software safety whose career reaches back to the Challenger era. As has been noted previously on NASAWatch there has been a significant amount of internal controversy over safety and software being developed for SLS. Clearly these safety issues remain. People are quitting instead of trying to fight the system, or in some cases, they leave after having been forced out for speaking up about their concerns. As Samouha notes:
"These people have been for a long time (and still are) continuously ignoring or not properly addressing FSW Safety related observations and findings and unethically do not disclose issues to the upper management in order to show a virtual progress in order to keep their jobs. Anyone with years of experience and integrity to Safety can see through these imposters just like I did."
Other than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....
By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27871.msg1788485#msg1788485)?
The president's budget proposal is DOA. When US Congress is finished with it ISS will stay in orbit until (at least) 2028 and Europa Clipper will still be assigned to launch on SLS.
got into a side discussion about this in another thread (my bad)I'm thinking there is a good chance that this is now going to be what pushes EM-1 into 2021 or later. Losing core people in software in my experience is devastating. On large complex projects like this it takes a while to get new people up to speed. Just wait for the next schedule delays to be announced.sort of relevant...yikes if true..not a good thing...
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592)QuoteSLS Software Problems Continuejb
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
jb
What vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)? Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?
What vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)? Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?
Orion uses 787 type avionics.
The Orion spacecraft is no smarter than your phone* 15-year-old now
Running 12-year-old processors*, next-gen spaceship’s tech is built for reliability, not to be state-of-the-art
The computers are running IBM's PowerPC 750FX single-core processors, which were first launched in 2002.https://www.computerworld.com/article/2855604/the-orion-spacecraft-is-no-smarter-than-your-phone.html
NASA fit two of the processors into each flight computer, setting them up to run identical software and monitor each other. If the processors don't do the exact same thing, the system will stop giving commands and reset itself.
"The processors are obsolete already but they have the property of just getting upset by radiation, instead of being permanently damaged," said Lemke, noting that NASA has been using the processors for more than 10 years. "You could do it with something newer, but all the engineering that would go into making it work right would make it a lot more expensive for us to build it."
NASA launch system software upgrade now 77% over budget
As it builds the Space Launch System rocket, NASA is updating this Spaceport Command and Control System software for the Kennedy Space Center. However, a new report by the space agency's inspector general, Paul Martin, finds this decade-long software development effort has fallen behind schedule and is on track to exceed its initial budget of $117.3 million by 77 percent, with cost estimates now increased to $207.4 million. Moreover, the inspector general criticized NASA for not adopting cheaper, commercially available launch software already used by Orbital ATK and SpaceX to launch their rockets.https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/nasas-glue-ware-for-computer-launch-systems-over-budget-behind-schedule/
To develop its new launch software, NASA has essentially kluged together a bunch of different software packages, Martin noted in his report. "The root of these issues largely results from NASA’s implementation of its June 2006 decision to integrate multiple products or, in some cases, parts of products rather than developing software in-house or buying an off-the-shelf product," the report states. "Writing computer code to 'glue' together disparate products has turned out to be more complex and expensive than anticipated. As of January 2016, Agency personnel had developed 2.5 million lines of 'glue-ware,' with almost two more years of development activity planned."
Oh, the places they'll go with the Space Launch System computers NASA just displayed in Huntsville (photos) (video)
You've heard that there's more computing power in your smartphone than what NASA used in sending Apollo to the moon? Take a look at the computing power displayed at Marshall Space Flight Center Thursday and imagine where American astronauts might go with it on board.http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/01/nasa_shows_off_the_brains_of_i.html
@AncientU. I don't really get your point. The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation. The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this.
SLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?
@AncientU. I don't really get your point. The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation. The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this.
SLS software development is on the rocks and they're having a difficult time recruiting software developers.QuoteSLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
My point is that NASA is using old hardware and a kluged* up system of software, all being built in Alabama -- since 2006. They are hiring because everyone is quitting... There is no reason in the world that a sharp software developer would be professionally interested in this project.
The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?
* Inspector General's word, not mine.
@AncientU. I don't really get your point. The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation. The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this.
SLS software development is on the rocks and they're having a difficult time recruiting software developers.QuoteSLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
My point is that NASA is using old hardware and a kluged* up system of software, all being built in Alabama -- since 2006. They are hiring because everyone is quitting... There is no reason in the world that a sharp software developer would be professionally interested in this project.
The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?
* Inspector General's word, not mine.
You forget that all the SLS flight avionics are in the upper stage unlike more recent designs.
NASA is not going to find too many replacement software personnel. None standard kluged software for antiqued hardware means who ever NASA hires will have to be trained from scratch requiring more budget and time.
The fun part will be figuring out how well the software functions in a full up test.
The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?
Pardon the question, it's been a long time so I've done any coding but memory says that if the code is written properly, then the same computer (Mars rover flight computer) won't mind more lines of code. Unless, the processing speed is too slow to run the program quickly enough to do the job in the time window necessary.
Which prompts a question in my mind, are you saying the flight computer clock speed can't handle the work load?
Sorry, but my worry part of the brain is trying to understand.
They could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper. Rad harden in software like more recent designs. Might find replacement software people easier, too.
They could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper. Rad harden in software like more recent designs. Might find replacement software people easier, too.
This kills the program.
A large part of the difficulty hiring people is that the overwhelming majority of software folks do not work in the field of high-reliability, real-time, hardware-interactive computing. Computer Science programs around the country churn out web and app developers by the gross, but it's a totally different skill set.
They could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper. Rad harden in software like more recent designs. Might find replacement software people easier, too.
This kills the program.
A large part of the difficulty hiring people is that the overwhelming majority of software folks do not work in the field of high-reliability, real-time, hardware-interactive computing. Computer Science programs around the country churn out web and app developers by the gross, but it's a totally different skill set.
I believe that if your 2018 software can run on a 2002 processor, you are not anywhere near the cutting edge software-wise.
I believe that if your 2018 software can run on a 2002 processor, you are not anywhere near the cutting edge software-wise.
In aerospace, you almost never want cutting edge. You want reliability in unforgiving environments (radiation, vacuum, temperature extremes), with manageable power and thermal constraints. New isn't necessarily good, and what folks use on the ground won't necessarily cut it in space.
CNN's Great Big Story: How to build a rocket to Mars
https://www.greatbigstory.com/stories/courageous-boeing-branded?playall=1639 (https://www.greatbigstory.com/stories/courageous-boeing-branded?playall=1639)
This Great Big Story is a paid contribution by Boeing.
I believe that if your 2018 software can run on a 2002 processor, you are not anywhere near the cutting edge software-wise.
In aerospace, you almost never want cutting edge. You want reliability in unforgiving environments (radiation, vacuum, temperature extremes), with manageable power and thermal constraints. New isn't necessarily good, and what folks use on the ground won't necessarily cut it in space.
That's one paradigm, the one that bases so much faith in only using high TRL hardware. Problem is, it gets you no where fast.
Look at the SLS software mess that has cost >$200M -- they are doing exactly what you are advocating -- and probably will be approaching $300M before SLS flies the very first time. Is that what you are advocating for everyone?
Both Antares and Falcon are using off-the-shelf electronics and modern software as pointed out in the IG report upthread. Both programs are flying regularly (50-60 combined flights without serious avionics issues since SLS software development began), and their combined development effort plus hardware (which costs virtually nothing) probably cost less than a year worth of the SLS effort. The SLS 'program' has been running for 11-12 years and is in a ditch -- no where near complete.
What vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)? Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?
Orion uses 787 type avionics.QuoteThe Orion spacecraft is no smarter than your phone* 15-year-old now
Running 12-year-old processors*, next-gen spaceship’s tech is built for reliability, not to be state-of-the-artQuoteThe computers are running IBM's PowerPC 750FX single-core processors, which were first launched in 2002.https://www.computerworld.com/article/2855604/the-orion-spacecraft-is-no-smarter-than-your-phone.html
NASA fit two of the processors into each flight computer, setting them up to run identical software and monitor each other. If the processors don't do the exact same thing, the system will stop giving commands and reset itself.
"The processors are obsolete already but they have the property of just getting upset by radiation, instead of being permanently damaged," said Lemke, noting that NASA has been using the processors for more than 10 years. "You could do it with something newer, but all the engineering that would go into making it work right would make it a lot more expensive for us to build it."
The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?
Pardon the question, it's been a long time so I've done any coding but memory says that if the code is written properly, then the same computer (Mars rover flight computer) won't mind more lines of code. Unless, the processing speed is too slow to run the program quickly enough to do the job in the time window necessary.
Which prompts a question in my mind, are you saying the flight computer clock speed can't handle the work load?
Sorry, but my worry part of the brain is trying to understand.
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), meeting March 1 at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, didn’t note any new major safety-related problems involving the two commercial crew vehicles under development, Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, or NASA’s Space Launch System and Orion programs. However, members raised concerns about the fact that the simultaneous development of the vehicles could strain NASA’s ability to perform qualification and other safety reviews. That had the potential to create additional schedule pressure on those programs.
The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it? Can that software mess be reliable/bug free? Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?
Pardon the question, it's been a long time so I've done any coding but memory says that if the code is written properly, then the same computer (Mars rover flight computer) won't mind more lines of code. Unless, the processing speed is too slow to run the program quickly enough to do the job in the time window necessary.
Which prompts a question in my mind, are you saying the flight computer clock speed can't handle the work load?
Sorry, but my worry part of the brain is trying to understand.
More lines of code means more bugs, both in the code itself and the interfaces between different modules. More time needed for testing, more time debugging, more complex testing programs and simulations that may have also have bugs. More "dead" code that "doesn't do anything" but hasn't been excised (see Ariane 5 flight 1).
It's not so much just the size, but the complexity (and size is a proxy for complexity).
Conway's Law is very applicable here: "organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations." Or to put it another way: "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler."
It has apparently been decided that going to europa using SLS in 2025 or before would be nice.
In addition to the 2022 mission.
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-budget-to-soar-over-20-billion-in-final-fy2018-appropriations/
It is mandated that both the 2022 and 2025 missions fly on SLS.
What does this do to EM-3/4?
(assuming for the moment things continue this way)
Are EM3/4 far enough along to really have more than a very notional timescale?
If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.
Boeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility.
If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.
According to the outgoing Boeing SLS Program Manager in 2015 in a SpaceNews article (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):QuoteBoeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility.
So Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.
The proposed omnibus appropriations bill (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/DIV%20B%20CJS%20SOM-%20FY18-OMNI.OCR.pdf) (PDF) (also attached) sets a spending level of $20.7B for NASA in FY2018, and includes $350M for a second mobile launcher for SLS for the purpose of speeding up EM-2. I was under the impression that NASA was no longer considering asking for a second ML, so this is surprising. Apparently ASAP still has some pull in Congress, since they were the ones pushing for this.
This is great news (if it passes), but my guess is that there would still be a 3.5 year gap between EM-1 and EM-2. Reasons TBD. ;)
Cheers!
Now I'm not a big SLS supporter, but if Congress is going to keep spending money on it we might as well get some use out of it. Imagine if the Shuttle program only had one launch per year.
QuoteBoeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility.
So Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.
If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.
According to the outgoing Boeing SLS Program Manager in 2015 in a SpaceNews article (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):QuoteBoeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility.
So Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.
Annual launch rate designed for 3 a year but 1 a quarter could be made possible with further offline processing and other changes. With currently only one SLS compatible High Bay the stacking and testing rate is constrained.If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.
According to the outgoing Boeing SLS Program Manager in 2015 in a SpaceNews article (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):QuoteBoeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility.
So Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.
The upshot to that is that even at the 1 per year rate, by 2023 we could have 4 SLS core stages built and waiting for a payload to fly.
#DYK that it takes 16 Booster Separation Motors (BSM) firing simultaneously to separate the booster from NASA's Space Launch System? Each BSM provides more than 20,000 lbs of thrust over its 1-second burn.
Nonsense. It's always been in plan to fly on commercial.
Vulcan ACES 564 can send 1300 kg direct to Jupiter.Meaning a Vulcan/ACES (564DL) [distributed launch] matches the capabilities for EC that would be provided by an SLS 1B.
VA564x2 with distributed lift can do 6400 kg, where SLS block 1 can only manage 4380 kg.
True, Chuck. When designing and building the Europa Clipper; how far into the process do they have to know what launcher is going to be used? Either the most powerful version of Vulcan or the Falcon Heavy might be able to get a good sized version of the design concept of it to Jupiter with only one gravitational flyby of Earth or Venus.
It's extremely expensive to backfit a probe to a launcher it was not designed to fly on.Unless there is sufficient extra capacity.
It's extremely expensive to backfit a probe to a launcher it was not designed to fly on.Unless there is sufficient extra capacity.
For example, TESS launching in a few hours on F9, that was initially going to launch on Pegasus.
If the new launcher is more capable in all ways, it's rather easier.
(https://i.imgur.com/PTNVOW4m.jpg)
It can lead to questions of if you're sure you put the satellite on the launcher.
Except when moving from SLS to another LV, they would all be less capable.
Well this is surprising:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992)QuoteThis weekend @NASA MSFC Center Director Todd May was talking to #NASA employees about new plans for the first 4 @NASA_SLS flights to be on identical rockets with @NASA_Orion but without crew. The first launch would be in 2021. First launch with a crew would be EM-5 in 2015/2016.
I am assuming he meant to write 2025/2026. Not sure what to think about that.
From the update thread:It says these missions will carry an empty Orion on the first four. So it’s far enough along to launch but not with people?!? What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!Well this is surprising:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992)QuoteThis weekend @NASA MSFC Center Director Todd May was talking to #NASA employees about new plans for the first 4 @NASA_SLS flights to be on identical rockets with @NASA_Orion but without crew. The first launch would be in 2021. First launch with a crew would be EM-5 in 2015/2016.
I am assuming he meant to write 2025/2026. Not sure what to think about that.
Well I can tell you what I think about it: Not good news. No crew until the *FIFTH* SLS flight? Is Orion really that far behind schedule?
Is EUS going to be cancelled? Will "Block 1B" ever fly?
I agree, does not sound too encouraging about the 1B.This doesn’t sound encouraging for Block D (all of the above)! What is Vegas showing as odds for which flies first: BFR, SLS, NG, or Vulcan?
Also, I find the the 2021 date interesting, last week Lightfoot said early 2020 (well end of 2019 + maybe a few months slip), now the people actually building the rocket say 2021...
From the update thread:It says these missions will carry an empty Orion on the first four. So its far enough along to launch but not with people?!? What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!Well this is surprising:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992)QuoteThis weekend @NASA MSFC Center Director Todd May was talking to #NASA employees about new plans for the first 4 @NASA_SLS flights to be on identical rockets with @NASA_Orion but without crew. The first launch would be in 2021. First launch with a crew would be EM-5 in 2015/2016.
I am assuming he meant to write 2025/2026. Not sure what to think about that.
Well I can tell you what I think about it: Not good news. No crew until the *FIFTH* SLS flight? Is Orion really that far behind schedule?
Is EUS going to be cancelled? Will "Block 1B" ever fly?
Well I can tell you what I think about it: Not good news. No crew until the *FIFTH* SLS flight? Is Orion really that far behind schedule?
Wait a minute. But that's the whole point of the $350 Million for another MLT. To be able to continue to use ICPS with current Leaning Tower Of Ares while developing MLT-2 for the later EUS missions.
It says these missions will carry an empty Orion on the first four. So it’s far enough along to launch but not with people?!? What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times?
And not a cheap one at that!
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch.
Things are going so poorly one starts to wonder if there is intentional self-sabotage at work.
But the most likely explanation is still that this is just an incredibly mismanaged program, caused by NASA and contractor extreme hubris over their own capabilities.
Nonsense. It's always been in plan to fly on commercial.
Correct, as far as NASA was concerned. Unfortunately, US Congress mandated otherwise. Let's just hope that US Congress will not make yet another stupid decision to (again) force Europa Clipper to fly on SLS.
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch.
I was just thinking that if it were a horse, it would be shot to put it out of its misery.
True, Chuck. When designing and building the Europa Clipper; how far into the process do they have to know what launcher is going to be used? Either the most powerful version of Vulcan or the Falcon Heavy might be able to get a good sized version of the design concept of it to Jupiter with only one gravitational flyby of Earth or Venus.Read Eric Berger's latest piece: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/if-were-really-going-to-europa-nasa-needs-to-pick-a-rocket-soon/
Per our earlier tweet about @NASA_SLS changes, @NASA PAO says "Todd May says this is not what’s being discussed for the first flights of SLS. He says he never said no crew on these flights." That said @NASAWatch stands by its earlier tweet.
This has got to be the 1st step toward cancellation.
If true, the only plausible explanation I can come up with for why NASA would fly 4 consecutive unmanned SLS missions would be an inability to human-rate either the iCPS or Orion ECLSS.
Delaying EUS in favor of additional iCPS flights seemed to come with the assumption that iCPS would be human-rated, but is that a safe assumption?
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch. Things are going so poorly one starts to wonder if there is intentional self-sabotage at work.
But the most likely explanation is still that this is just an incredibly mismanaged program, caused by NASA and contractor extreme hubris over their own capabilities.
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch. Things are going so poorly one starts to wonder if there is intentional self-sabotage at work.
But the most likely explanation is still that this is just an incredibly mismanaged program, caused by NASA and contractor extreme hubris over their own capabilities.
Can we avoid comments like this please? I much rather have a dedicated BASH SLS & NASA thread than continually flooding a decent thread that has constructive criticism.
What is the problem - my tone or point? If you don't think this program is "incredibly mismanaged", then what is it? Just slightly mismanaged or well managed? As for my tone... When there is actual good news, I promise I will be more cheerful.
What is the problem - my tone or point? If you don't think this program is "incredibly mismanaged", then what is it? Just slightly mismanaged or well managed? As for my tone... When there is actual good news, I promise I will be more cheerful.
Tone. Saying things like "if it was a person it would be on suicide watch" or "if it was a horse it would be shot" like another poster said doesn't add anything substantive to the discussion and creates the impression that you are cheering for failure of the program and those working on it.
Pointing out mismanagement and being frustrated with it is one thing. Gleefully cheering for program failure is another.
This has got to be the 1st step toward cancellation.
So far this is only a rumor and it has been denied by May and PAO. If it is true though I am sadly inclined to agree. Delaying crew until 2025/26 would be a death knell for the program.
Hopefully this is an unfounded rumor and the program is still on track to launch crew on the second SLS flight.
What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!
It's extremely expensive to backfit a probe to a launcher it was not designed to fly on.
If true, the only plausible explanation I can come up with for why NASA would fly 4 consecutive unmanned SLS missions would be an inability to human-rate either the iCPS or Orion ECLSS.
Just wanted to point out that NASA is requiring 7 successful flights of the Falcon 9 Block 5 before they will allow crew to fly, so why shouldn't the brand new, never flown SLS have a different standard? None of the various pieces and parts have never flown together, and as many have pointed out systems are human-rated, not parts.
Yes - but there were a lot more unknowns about Astronautics and spacecraft design in those days.What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!
During Apollo NASA did exactly that:
- AS-201
- AS-202
- Apollo 4
- Apollo 6
Exactly. They were literally writing the book on this stuff back then and computer modeling of almost anything didn’t exist. It’s 2018. Do we still need to send four empty cans to space to demonstrate something? Commercial crew is only doing one empty flight test.Yes - but there were a lot more unknowns about Astronautics and spacecraft design in those days.What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!
During Apollo NASA did exactly that:
- AS-201
- AS-202
- Apollo 4
- Apollo 6
OIG announces an audit assessing NASA’s management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher.https://twitter.com/NASAOIG/status/986350610344808449
Wonder why?QuoteOIG announces an audit assessing NASA’s management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher.https://twitter.com/NASAOIG/status/986350610344808449
Wonder why?QuoteOIG announces an audit assessing NASA’s management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher.https://twitter.com/NASAOIG/status/986350610344808449
Because oversight of NASA is literally the job of NASA's Office of Inspector General.
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms of the SLS that should and have been made over the years.
However, I won't wish ill upon the program because I know that a very likely replacement for the program
is absolutely nothing! There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation recognize this and have given modest support to SLS/Orion.
Why not?! He said 'legitimate criticisms'. We've debated this before and we will again. You've got to expect this sort of thing in the 'SLS Discussion Thread 2'.
This has got to be the 1st step toward cancellation.
There can't be anyone, anywhere that still believes this is still a functioning program.
Why not?! He said 'legitimate criticisms'. We've debated this before and we will again. You've got to expect this sort of thing in the 'SLS Discussion Thread 2'.
...I know that a very likely replacement for the program is absolutely nothing!
There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture.
... I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...The side mount had a lot going for it. Chiefly it would have offered a pretty smooth transition from STS. The tank and SRBs would need few modifications, the launch pads and ground infrastructure would have to be changed but minimally. The workforce and tooling could have transitioned while flying out the last few STS missions minimizing the gap. The difficulty would have been developing that side mounted container.
It also doesn't help that Orion is such a huge, heavy beast of a capsule spacecraft. It should have been capped at 20 metric tons if NASA was so determined not to have it match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities (which massed more than 30 tons all up).NASA wasn't as determined to make it match/not match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities as it was to make sure it was too heavy for the Atlas-V. Mike Griffin was determined to make sure that ONLY the Ares-I would be able to lift the spacecraft to LEO and wanted no one to be able to say that an EXISTING EELV could do the job instead. Because if the Atlas could fly it, then there was no more justification for the 1.5 architecture which required the Shuttle SRB. That would have destroyed his argument to Congress during his confirmation hearing that he could implement President Bush's VSE with his own Shuttle-derived system that he had created while at the Planetary Society. It's no coincidence that it duplicated exactly what became the Constellation program.
I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...It would have been a great cargo-only vehicle but was even more dangerous that Shuttle for manned flight.
It also doesn't help that Orion is such a huge, heavy beast of a capsule spacecraft. It should have been capped at 20 metric tons if NASA was so determined not to have it match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities (which massed more than 30 tons all up).NASA wasn't as determined to make it match/not match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities as it was to make sure it was too heavy for the Atlas-V. Mike Griffin was determined to make sure that ONLY the Ares-I would be able to lift the spacecraft to LEO and wanted no one to be able to say that an EXISTING EELV could do the job instead. Because if the Atlas could fly it, then there was no more justification for the 1.5 architecture which required the Shuttle SRB. That would have destroyed his argument to Congress during his confirmation hearing that he could implement President Bush's VSE with his own Shuttle-derived system that he had created while at the Planetary Society. It's no coincidence that it duplicated exactly what became the Constellation program.QuoteI still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...It would have been a great cargo-only vehicle but was even more dangerous that Shuttle for manned flight.
The only thing wrong with the 1.5 architecture was the Ares rockets. Would have worked well with a Shuttle-C like cargo vehicle and EELV for crew.
I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV.
The only thing wrong with the 1.5 architecture was the Ares rockets. Would have worked well with a Shuttle-C like cargo vehicle and EELV for crew.
I don't think we should kid ourselves. Shuttle-C would have been no better, and would have evolved into something not very Shuttle derived. Just like SLS.
I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV.
Suppose Shuttle side-mount had been chosen. It might be ready to fly by now. Then what? NASA would still be in the position of not being able to afford much in the way of useful payloads and missions for it.
Personally, and I want to be frank and clear, I wish ill to the SLS program. I want it to be canceled as I strongly believe its cancelation would be positive overall for human space exploration. And I'm not ashamed to say this, nor should I. It's a human project and projects start and fail every day, sometimes paving the way for something better.
But sadly that isn't the direction that our leaders took us in. Their path did, however, guarantee the NASA budget remained strong, and that in turn did support all the jobs and contracts, even across a very difficult economic period in the country. But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started. C'est la vie.
Ross.
But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.
But sadly that isn't the direction that our leaders took us in. Their path did, however, guarantee the NASA budget remained strong, and that in turn did support all the jobs and contracts, even across a very difficult economic period in the country. But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started. C'est la vie.
Ross.
Wow, thank you Mr. Tierney for the insight.
I’m only a fan and still a student, so forgive me if I’m young and impatient, probably this makes me focus on what I’d like to see and easily forget that things are a bit more complicated that that : )
I know that talking is much easier than actually trying to make a difference and I greatly respect you for doing so.
With that said, your post really leaves me discouraged, and confirms suspicions that I and many here share.
The thing is, cynically, if this really is a perverted game aimed at maximizing costs, a game that NASA is essentially blackmailed into playing in order to keep their budget, what will happen if something unmasks it?
Because frankly this whole thing can go on only as far as NASA can claim there’s no better way to go than the SLS.
There has to be a point where reality prevails, when FH or New Glenn or the BFR or ACES come online and no one can claim SLS isn’t replaceable with better, cheaper alternatives anymore.
When this happens, because it’s a matter of when, not if, what happens politically? What happens to NASA? Will they attempt to keep the SLS indefinitely, even when proved unnecessary? If they have to get rid of it, what happens to NASA’s budget?
Is restructuring NASA to get rid of the SLS (and probably of the HLV program altogether) while still retaining its budget possible?
If I understand correctly you think it isn’t, I cannot argue with you on this with my very limited knowledge, and you’re probably right, but I really hope you’re wrong. Because, for how I see it, a big restructuring within NASA will be inevitable.
They'll have to abandon SLS and, maybe because I'm too young and naive, I think something positive for NASA and for spaceflight as a whole will stem for this. A new, challenging effort for sure, but a new vision, a new energy, a renewed dream.
Things will have to change, but the real priorities, the ones that count, will return to the forefront.
In this reality, to me, NASA is being saved from its resignation by someone else's dream. And you can bet I hope the ones who still dare to dream succeed and save the ones that no longer do (or in this case, are forced not to).
Maybe I'm just being naive, maybe this is impossible, but you know what? It's still worth pursuing and supporting.
After all what do we have now?QuoteBut we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.
We have this, no perspective, no dream.
And a dream, a positive dream, however hard to reach, will always be better than no dreams.
Francesco Torri, a random student from Italy.
If you cancel SLS, you risk all of those congressional support for NASA's top-line budget being reduced or even removed entirely
If NASA lost support in Congress, the budget could easily slip from the current $19-20bn/year levels to low single-digits. And then everything's lost.
But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms of the SLS that should and have been made over the years.Only one of many options. More likely is transferring it to some other project, like a lunar or Mars lander (built by the typical contractors) or a transfer vehicle or base, etc, built by the usual contractors.
However, I won't wish ill upon the program because I know that a very likely replacement for the program
is absolutely nothing! ...
That is fine. SLS block I (the one that actually will be flying) is basically the same class as NSC and Falcon Heavy. but who really cares if it's 30% more powerful? At the end of the day, what matters is ACTUALLY FLYING. If the designers were so worried about 30% more performance that they effectively sacrificed nearly a decade of launches, then they weren't effective designers.... I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...The side mount had a lot going for it. Chiefly it would have offered a pretty smooth transition from STS. The tank and SRBs would need few modifications, the launch pads and ground infrastructure would have to be changed but minimally. The workforce and tooling could have transitioned while flying out the last few STS missions minimizing the gap. The difficulty would have been developing that side mounted container.
However, the launcher itself wouldn't have been all that more capable both in terms of payload volume and mass than the Falcon Heavy. The Block I version of Not Shuttle-C would lift 71 metric tons to LEO with a 7.5 meter faring. We might be sitting here in 2018 with an operational NASA launcher but also with a cheaper alternative. I suspect that the Not Shuttle-C would still be called a failure in that case. SLS for all of its delays and problems is at least a lot more powerful than any other options at this time.
There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture.
It disappoints me so much - SLS could have been a wonderful launcher with great capability. But corners were cut; not using the lighter 4-segment boosters, not using 5x RS-25s in the corestage and not having from the beginning a decently strong upper stage. Dr Steve Pietrobon has recently crunched the numbers and determined that such a booster would have worked out quite well; capability-wise.
We'd still have a space science program that is second-to-none with a budget that is on par with that of the entire European Space Agency, along with continued practical investments in aeronautics, aerospace technology, and Earth science. And maybe Bezos, Musk et al. will find their way forward to the Moon or Mars or wherever on their own.
I don't believe that's the right choice, at least not yet. I think NASA's human space flight program can be reformed with the right leadership.
But if we truly believe that the US federal government really can't do better, then maybe it should stop trying.
Refocusing NASA's human spaceflight program to rely on transport architectures developed and provided by the industry isn't 'giving up', and it doesn't mean eliminating NASA's role in it but redefining it in a way that's actually meaningful and useful.
That is fine. SLS block I (the one that actually will be flying) is basically the same class as NSC and Falcon Heavy. but who really cares if it's 30% more powerful? At the end of the day, what matters is ACTUALLY FLYING. If the designers were so worried about 30% more performance that they effectively sacrificed nearly a decade of launches, then they weren't effective designers.I don't want to get too much into a policy discussion here but with hindsight I find it hard to believe that with the same actors any sort of rocket from that time period would have been successful. Not Shuttle-C, Jupiter, RAC-2, or any flavor of SLS would all have had to deal with the same things that have hobbled SLS. All the SDHLVs assumed a relatively smooth transition from STS. Instead the administration fought against any NASA owned vehicle. Then they delayed implementing the program for a year. Throughout all that time they laid off the STS workforce and scrapped as much infrastructure as they could. Congress gave the program a flat budget forcing wasteful concurrent engineering efforts and has never practiced any oversight other than making sure the money gets spent. Orion now freed from the Ares I mass constraints is still nowhere near being ready to fly even a decade later. If Orion was able to fly back then the we wouldn't have gotten commercial crew, maybe not even COTS, and SpaceX wouldn't be in as good of a position to be working on the BFR.
Hindsight is 20/20. I was more of an inline fan myself, but given all the difficulty that caused, side mount would've been a FAR better plan if the goal was to eliminate a launching gap. And then, use Delta IV Heavy in the same role as Ares I (which eliminates the safety concern).
I mean, in 2012 (when sidemount could've been flying if it had been cargo-only), Falcon Heavy didn't exist yet. Falcon Heavy didn't come onto the scene until 2018. Sidemount would've had 6 years of unrivaled dominance.
But now we inline SLS block I, which is hardly larger than sidemount, and probably won't launch until 2020, when BFR might fly. Block Ib might not fly until well until the mid 2020s, so basically inline will NEVER have dominance. AT BEST it might be like 10% higher performance than the next-largest rocket (Falcon Heavy) for a couple years before being totally out-classed by BFR.
So when all is said and done, Sidemount would've looked much better for NASA than SLS.
We can debate which design was better. However the best, most perfect, hardware will always fail if it doesn't have good project management and support of competent leadership. They could have rolled STS right into Not Shuttle-C or Direct but there was no way that was going to happen.
The question for me now: Is anyone working on what will come after SLS? I'm not seeing any light coming from that direction yet, and there needs to be *SOME* payloads after 2020, even in a world where SLS continues.
Refocusing NASA's human spaceflight program to rely on transport architectures developed and provided by the industry isn't 'giving up', and it doesn't mean eliminating NASA's role in it but redefining it in a way that's actually meaningful and useful.
We're in agreement.
That is fine. SLS block I (the one that actually will be flying) is basically the same class as NSC and Falcon Heavy. but who really cares if it's 30% more powerful? At the end of the day, what matters is ACTUALLY FLYING. If the designers were so worried about 30% more performance that they effectively sacrificed nearly a decade of launches, then they weren't effective designers.I don't want to get too much into a policy discussion here but with hindsight I find it hard to believe that with the same actors any sort of rocket from that time period would have been successful. Not Shuttle-C, Jupiter, RAC-2, or any flavor of SLS would all have had to deal with the same things that have hobbled SLS. All the SDHLVs assumed a relatively smooth transition from STS. Instead the administration fought against any NASA owned vehicle. Then they delayed implementing the program for a year. Throughout all that time they laid off the STS workforce and scrapped as much infrastructure as they could. Congress gave the program a flat budget forcing wasteful concurrent engineering efforts and has never practiced any oversight other than making sure the money gets spent. Orion now freed from the Ares I mass constraints is still nowhere near being ready to fly even a decade later. If Orion was able to fly back then the we wouldn't have gotten commercial crew, maybe not even COTS, and SpaceX wouldn't be in as good of a position to be working on the BFR.
Hindsight is 20/20. I was more of an inline fan myself, but given all the difficulty that caused, side mount would've been a FAR better plan if the goal was to eliminate a launching gap. And then, use Delta IV Heavy in the same role as Ares I (which eliminates the safety concern).
I mean, in 2012 (when sidemount could've been flying if it had been cargo-only), Falcon Heavy didn't exist yet. Falcon Heavy didn't come onto the scene until 2018. Sidemount would've had 6 years of unrivaled dominance.
But now we inline SLS block I, which is hardly larger than sidemount, and probably won't launch until 2020, when BFR might fly. Block Ib might not fly until well until the mid 2020s, so basically inline will NEVER have dominance. AT BEST it might be like 10% higher performance than the next-largest rocket (Falcon Heavy) for a couple years before being totally out-classed by BFR.
So when all is said and done, Sidemount would've looked much better for NASA than SLS.
I just don't see how the number of RS-25 on the bottom, the number or segments in the boosters, or where the cargo sits would have mattered against all that. We can debate which design was better. However the best, most perfect, hardware will always fail if it doesn't have good project management and support of competent leadership. They could have rolled STS right into Not Shuttle-C or Direct but there was no way that was going to happen.
The question for me now: Is anyone working on what will come after SLS? I'm not seeing any light coming from that direction yet, and there needs to be *SOME* payloads after 2020, even in a world where SLS continues.
What do you mean by that?
There are payloads in various stages of design that have not been assigned a launcher.
Reusability, reduced costs, distributed lift and new architectures like BFR's second stage/ crewed spacecraft/lander change the very foundations upon which NASA's current exploration plans are built. Are there already studies on how to change the plans accordingly, and to factor in these new capabilities?Has there been any recent NASA commissioned object which cost under $100000/kg?
Reusability, reduced costs, distributed lift and new architectures like BFR's second stage/ crewed spacecraft/lander change the very foundations upon which NASA's current exploration plans are built. Are there already studies on how to change the plans accordingly, and to factor in these new capabilities?Has there been any recent NASA commissioned object which cost under $100000/kg?
(probably not counting food)
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?
I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?
I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?
LOL, so you want the whole moon eh? :)
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?
I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?
LOL, so you want the whole moon eh? :)
;D I've heard NASA wants it too, again.
As for the rest, and thank you for the patience, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. I hear your insight on the decision making, but if you're suggesting they cannot even acknowledge the weakening case for the SLS, and evidence clearly supports this, how can you expect them to be planning for the post-SLS and associated payloads?
The question for me now: Is anyone working on what will come after SLS?
Sorry, Steven - I may have been talking about your SLS version from your lunar mission paper that had 6x RS-25s on the Corestage. I don't recall what version boosters you advocated.It disappoints me so much - SLS could have been a wonderful launcher with great capability. But corners were cut; not using the lighter 4-segment boosters, not using 5x RS-25s in the corestage and not having from the beginning a decently strong upper stage. Dr Steve Pietrobon has recently crunched the numbers and determined that such a booster would have worked out quite well; capability-wise.
That wasn't me but team DIRECT. I've only looked at using RSRMV and other new boosters. Also, with RSRM, you only need four engines on the core as the core is much lighter compared to SLS. Jupiter 246 could put 100.7 t into a 39x320 km delivery orbit. Block IB can put 93.1 t into a 241 km circular orbit. The reduced performance is due to the relatively low thrust of the core and EUS compared to Jupiter.
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?
I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?
LOL, so you want the whole moon eh? :)
;D I've heard NASA wants it too, again.
As for the rest, and thank you for the patience, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. I hear your insight on the decision making, but if you're suggesting they cannot even acknowledge the weakening case for the SLS, and evidence clearly supports this, how can you expect them to be planning for the post-SLS and associated payloads?
If I were a betting man (I'm not), I would bet that nobody at these levels is planning for anything in the post-SLS world yet. A bit of "head in the sand" going on here, IMHO. But te reality can't be put off much longer. 12-18 months, at most, I think. It would be interesting to see a group of, say, contractors who are aware that the writing is on the wall already, perhaps get together (as far as is legally allowable) and prepare a plan that would be ready to be switched-in at the appropriate moment.
I used to have a several hundred page document that pertained to all aspects of the 2009 'Not-Shuttle C' launcher;
...
I lost that huge, 700 page document in a massive hard drive crash I had three years ago.
Even better: link. There's no law against linking.
To narrow the search: could you tell me the thread name? :)
Bless your socks, Bro! :)To narrow the search: could you tell me the thread name? :)
Here is the L2 thread link:
SHUTTLE DERIVED HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE ASSESSMENT - 726 Pages - June, 10
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22048.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22048.0)
I lost that huge, 700 page document in a massive hard drive crash I had three years ago.
Actually; I managed to retrieve about 70% percent of the files and some were already backed up - just not all. Several folders of downloaded space exploration files were lost and they included the huge, missing Sidemount HLV file. Funnily enough - I only discovered it was missing a few weeks back. In those days, I couldn't afford multiple external hard drives. Now everything is triple-backed up! But let us not digress...I lost that huge, 700 page document in a massive hard drive crash I had three years ago.
The key word here is: back-up.
I've been using this (http://www.cobiansoft.com/cobianbackup.htm) for back-up purposes (to an external NAS) for years.
If I were a betting man (I'm not), I would bet that nobody at these levels is planning for anything in the post-SLS world yet. A bit of "head in the sand" going on here, IMHO. But te reality can't be put off much longer. 12-18 months, at most, I think. It would be interesting to see a group of, say, contractors who are aware that the writing is on the wall already, perhaps get together (as far as is legally allowable) and prepare a plan that would be ready to be switched-in at the appropriate moment.
Do I understand correctly that you are predicting the demise of SLS by the end of 2019? What is the writing on the wall that you see?
Few in this forum are less impressed with SLS than I, but I do not sense its impending doom. From the perspective of someone who wants to see NASA accomplish something in space, the SLS program is clearly in deep trouble, with its perennial delays and concomitant cost growth. But Congress seems quite happy with it, often funding it in excess of administration requests. The only criticism in recent years has come from a couple of members who are retiring. If SLS continues to flounder technically and fiscally, it will eventually be canned, but I do no reason to expect that to even begin before 2021 (i.e., after the next two elections).
A recession might change the picture, because with the government now choosing to run big deficits even when the economy is growing, the fiscal picture will probably look very scary if a downturn hits. But aside from that, I'm not seeing the writing on the wall. What am I missing?
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(
Can anyone -- and that includes you, NASA -- explain the flight schedule of SLS?
Prior to Congress' recent largess, EM-1 was supposed to fly uncrewed followed 3 long years later by EM-2, and the 1B configuration featuring the EUS. There was supposed to be a 3-year hiatus between EM-1 and EM-2 because of the need to modify the launch platform to accommodate the SLS 1B. Lord knows that span would have stretched into 4 or 5 or 7 or 10 years. Or never. Who knows.
BUT, with the funds to build an SLS 1B-capable launch platform, NASA can continue to launch the SLS 1 block with the ICPS upper stage. The launch cadence and EM-2 could be moved up accordingly, which means humans to BEO sooner IF the ICPS is human rated. More time and money.
BUT, then we have Center Director Todd May telling NASA employees about new plans for the first four SLS flights to be on identical rockets (Block 1 presumably) without crew. The first launch would be in 2021 and the first launch with a crew (Block 1B, I guess) would be EM-5 in mid-2020s.
BUT, then the SLS 1 configuration doesn't allow co-manifesting of "gateway" components, so either a dedicated SLS flight, or more likely, a commercial rocket (NG, FH, BFR?) will be used to launch the "gateway."
I mean, whose on first? More money for a dedicated 1B mobile platform could wind up delaying crewed SLS missions.
Am I missing something? Or is NASA HQ just as confused as I am?
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(That's the job of the oversight committee in congress. I haven't heard much complaining from them about the program. All I ever seem to hear is hype...
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(That's the job of the oversight committee in congress. I haven't heard much complaining from them about the program. All I ever seem to hear is hype...
This is where all those features postponed 'to save money' become anchors holding the program from moving ahead.
Things like ECLSS, EUS, software, human ratings, etc. should have been ready for EM-1 or soon after but they were postponed and the money used elsewhere. Being simply unable to fly crew until 2025-2026 is a direct result of these management decisions to de-scope or postpone, decisions that will cost vastly more than was 'saved' earlier.
The program will not go faster with a second mobile launcher... slow is baked in. Costly is too.
I think that the realization that it is going to fail will take hold within the corridors of power within 12-18 months. How long it will take to change course... Who knows. Based on the Ares-SLS transition, I'd expect at least another year or two of change-over activities before anything is officially on a new path. That's why I think the first flight will probably take place - a last gasp before closure, similar to Ares-IX.
As for what writings on the wall, there are two really big ones that I see coming down the pipe, either of which is big enough to convince the power-brokers that SLS isn't worthwhile any longer.
1) The dreadful flight rate....
2) BFR/BFS will start flying in a similar time frame +/- a year-ish. SLS is going to take an enormous bashing when the press really grasps the fact that a popular commercial company has launched a bigger, better and far more capable launcher for less than 20% of the cost, and in half the time....
Agreed. If Congress had funded an upper stage from day one, there wouldn't be a need for a lot of this foolishness.
My hope is they actually forget about EUS for a while and just launch everything on iCPS. EUS looks a heck of a lot like Centaur V/ACES anyway, which ULA is going to build anyway.
It is the job of congressional oversight to ask why a program is behind schedule and costing the "the taxpayers's money" with no return... It is the head of the agency job to answer. Why do you think they have these committees?I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(That's the job of the oversight committee in congress. I haven't heard much complaining from them about the program. All I ever seem to hear is hype...
That's NASA's job, not some oversight committee's or Congress'.
It is the job of congressional oversight to ask why a program is behind schedule and costing the "the taxpayers's money" with no return... It is the head of the agency job to answer. Why do you think they have these committees?I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(That's the job of the oversight committee in congress. I haven't heard much complaining from them about the program. All I ever seem to hear is hype...
That's NASA's job, not some oversight committee's or Congress'.
SLS is a monster of there own creation and that's why they aren't going after it...
Full program costs, end-to-end (starting with the development money already spent, and including advanced boosters, lots of RS-25 engines, ML-1 and 2, ground crews, yadda, yadda, yadda). Just for interest sake, NASA might throw in a design set of missions say to the Moon and Mars and what would be that hardware cost and schedule assuming SLS/Orion alone for launch system.
My guess: $1-1.5T... 2050.
Full program costs, end-to-end (starting with the development money already spent, and including advanced boosters, lots of RS-25 engines, ML-1 and 2, ground crews, yadda, yadda, yadda). Just for interest sake, NASA might throw in a design set of missions say to the Moon and Mars and what would be that hardware cost and schedule assuming SLS/Orion alone for launch system.
My guess: $1-1.5T... 2050.
Even if the deep space exploration budget more than quadrupled (from around $4 billion a year today to say $20 billion a year) you wouldn't even get close to $1 Trillion spent by 2050. I don't think your guess is realistic. SLS/Orion are not the cheapest space hardware out there but they are hardly as expensive as some claim.
I'm happy to hear that Congress is funding an additional MLP for Block IB, leaving the first MLP for more Block I missions, in particular the first crewed flight of Orion. Crew rating iCPS is only $150M, which is only a small fraction of the NASA budget. My understanding is that once the Block I missions are completed, the Block I MLP will be converted to SLS cargo missions, with presumably the crewed elements moving over to the new Block IB MLP.
I'm happy to hear that Congress is funding an additional MLP for Block IB, leaving the first MLP for more Block I missions, in particular the first crewed flight of Orion. Crew rating iCPS is only $150M, which is only a small fraction of the NASA budget. My understanding is that once the Block I missions are completed, the Block I MLP will be converted to SLS cargo missions, with presumably the crewed elements moving over to the new Block IB MLP.
Agree that if Block 1 is used to get on with crew flights while ML-2 is being prepared for Block 1B, it will improve the program. Hopefully that is the way program is headed... but if the crewed flights are to wait for EUS and ML-2, then that advantage will be lost. Would be encouraging to see a payload plan, schedule, and budget.
So would EUS, but without any flight history to go on, it'd have a LOT more additional costs and time delays.My hope is they actually forget about EUS for a while and just launch everything on iCPS. EUS looks a heck of a lot like Centaur V/ACES anyway, which ULA is going to build anyway.
ICPS would have to be human-rated, with additional costs and time delays...
EUS as it stands now is a totally new stage which hasn't even been designed yet.
EUS as it stands now is a totally new stage which hasn't even been designed yet.
Really? It hasn't even been designed yet? I though the last couple of appropriations bills included something like $50M for EUS.
Is Europa Clipper meant to be deployed from within a payload fairing?
What details have NASA given of that and will it be tested in flight prior to the Europa Clipper launch?
Oops, I accidentally deleted my post. Anyway, the new NSF article says that NASA plans on using the first MLP eventually for cargo missions.Dr Steven - can you confirm for me if you've ever mathematically modeled an improved ICPS with stretched propellant tanks and a single MB-60 engine, or twinned RL-10C2 engines?
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/
"It is understood that ML-1 would be converted to provide SLS Block 1B with cargo-only mission capabilities."
Source for $150M to crew rate iCPS.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/08/decision-looms-on-when-to-introduce-new-sls-upper-stage/
"...human-rating the Delta 4-based interim single-engine upper stage, an effort NASA officials previously said will cost about $150 million."
Here's the reference the Aviation Week article indicating funding for ML-2 and second iCPS.
http://aviationweek.com/space-symposium/after-clash-house-science-panel-oks-nasa-authorization
"The bill also was amended to call for the construction of a second Mobile Launch Platform at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center for the Space Launch System (SLS) and to assemble a second Interim Cryrogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for the SLS. Those are both pacing items for the second test flight of the powerful rocket and the first currently slated to include an Orion capsule with astronauts."
Dr Steven - can you confirm for me if you've ever mathematically modeled an improved ICPS with stretched propellant tanks and a single MB-60 engine, or twinned RL-10C2 engines?
Full program costs, end-to-end (starting with the development money already spent, and including advanced boosters, lots of RS-25 engines, ML-1 and 2, ground crews, yadda, yadda, yadda). Just for interest sake, NASA might throw in a design set of missions say to the Moon and Mars and what would be that hardware cost and schedule assuming SLS/Orion alone for launch system.
My guess: $1-1.5T... 2050.
Even if the deep space exploration budget more than quadrupled (from around $4 billion a year today to say $20 billion a year) you wouldn't even get close to $1 Trillion spent by 2050. I don't think your guess is realistic. SLS/Orion are not the cheapest space hardware out there but they are hardly as expensive as some claim.
That's the point... you don't know what actually going to the Moon and Mars with SLS/Orion will cost, nor what SLS/Orion will cost through 130t version, when it will be done, etc.
I* don't either... just judging from the decade or two old estimate of $500B, and how well we've managed progress to date, I think $1T isn't wide of the mark. Probably optimistic if anything.
Do you see nothing wrong with being on this development path when no one knows what we're going to spend, when we'll get there, or even where we are going?
There won't be these funds to do Moon and Mars, as you say. I 100% agree.
So, why are we building SLS/Orion at all? So we can go cruise around 'Deep Space' four weeks at a time?
* Using the royal I here, representing all 100,000,000 taxpayers in the USA.
NASA budgeting reveals dim hopes for humans going to Mars
“Mars is off the table as far as I can tell."
Pathways report found that NASA could probably land humans on Mars in the 2050s,...https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-budgeting-reveals-dim-hopes-for-humans-going-to-mars/
I very recently noticed that the notional artwork for the Orbital ATK OmegA launcher is portraying what looks like a twin RL-10C Delta-style upper stage.
I wonder if ULA would want to swap the IPCS out for Centaur V when it's ready. Would the dimensions be comparable?
I wonder if ULA would want to swap the IPCS out for Centaur V when it's ready. Would the dimensions be comparable?
Fairly close. Centuar 5 is 5.4 m diameter but will have more exposed tank length. The SLS stage adapter would need to get a little shorter and wider.
Here's an article that confirms 2050 (actually later):QuoteNASA budgeting reveals dim hopes for humans going to Mars
“Mars is off the table as far as I can tell."QuotePathways report found that NASA could probably land humans on Mars in the 2050s,...https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-budgeting-reveals-dim-hopes-for-humans-going-to-mars/
I very recently noticed that the notional artwork for the Orbital ATK OmegA launcher is portraying what looks like a twin RL-10C Delta-style upper stage.
I don't see what benefit this would have for iCPS. OmegA's upper stage needs 2 engines because of the rather low staging velocity. Even the Castor 1200 configuration plus the Castor 300, without any strapons, gets it to less than 4.5 km/s by my math. DIVM+ stages a bit faster than that, and DIVH stages over 2 km/s faster. I doubt 6 GEM-63XLs will provide anywhere near the gain of 2 CBCs (though I've not done the math to confirm, since parallel stages are complicated), and the Castor 600 configuration will be even worse off. Either make the upper stage variable sized (like DCSS), which adds cost and GSE complexity, or leave it off entirely on the small-booster variants (huge loss of performance and insertion geometry options, if it works at all) and accept large gravity losses even on the big variants, or add more engines/higher thrust engines.
SLS puts iCPS very nearly in orbit, so ascent losses will be pretty much zero. And thrust doesn't matter much in orbit, beyond ~0.07 TWR. Any reduction in gravity losses would almost certainly be outweighed by the extra few hundred kg of engine/plumbing/structural mass. And unless iCPS's tanks were significantly enlarged (how? A vertical stretch would be similarly complex for GSE upgrades to EUS. Widening the tanks would be a huge design change, and have similar GSE impacts as well. A common bulkhead could help some, but not enough, and thats also a big design change. In either case, you're better off going all the way to EUS or Centaur V/ACES), the staging point isn't gonna drop enough for the extra thrust to matter
I wonder if ULA would want to swap the IPCS out for Centaur V when it's ready. Would the dimensions be comparable?
Fairly close. Centuar 5 is 5.4 m diameter but will have more exposed tank length. The SLS stage adapter would need to get a little shorter and wider.
Any adjustment to the MLP?
Here's an article that confirms 2050 (actually later):QuoteNASA budgeting reveals dim hopes for humans going to Mars
“Mars is off the table as far as I can tell."QuotePathways report found that NASA could probably land humans on Mars in the 2050s,...https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-budgeting-reveals-dim-hopes-for-humans-going-to-mars/
During a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council in late March, in reference to planning for human deep space missions, Gerstenmaier said, “We’re going to try and live within flat budgets.”
<snip>
Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.
Launchers yes; but not so much the crewed spacecraft :(
I was deliberately not bringing SpaceX/BFS into this discussion - unless you were - because that's a whole other/new ball game that will shake out in it's own good time, if it does. I was actually taking into account Dragon 2 and Starliner; even though there are no B.E.O. versions of those in the works, that we're aware of. If there were - those would be lower cost alternatives to Orion. Though Orion is a huge, heavy beast for a capsule spacecraft and it's Service Module has too little delta-v to be a worthy successor to the Apollo CSM :(Launchers yes; but not so much the crewed spacecraft :(
Well, about that... there would be one that coincidentally is designed to be a lander too.
Eh, if you discuss alternatives you can't really avoid mentioning SpaceX.
If discussing alternatives altogether is off-topic here then I'm sorry ;)
Not exactly sure where to put this(SX or SLS thread). Mods move if you know of a better place.My first laugh of the day, thanks! ;D
This is an interesting/flame inducing article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/
EDIT: Flame inducing as in the FH vs SLS arguments. Not trying to start one...I promise!
Not exactly sure where to put this(SX or SLS thread). Mods move if you know of a better place.
This is an interesting/flame inducing article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/)
EDIT: Flame inducing as in the FH vs SLS arguments. Not trying to start one...I promise!
Not exactly sure where to put this(SX or SLS thread). Mods move if you know of a better place.
This is an interesting/flame inducing article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/)
EDIT: Flame inducing as in the FH vs SLS arguments. Not trying to start one...I promise!
O - M - G
There is one final interesting nugget on the Boeing website. The end of the SLS blurb invites readers to "Learn more about why the SLS is the right choice for NASA" by linking to a news story in the London Evening Standard. This is a conservative British tabloid owned by a Russian oligarch and former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev.
The author of the Evening Standard story, an online general assignments reporter named Sean Morrison, did not listen to the NASA Advisory Council meeting where Gerstenmaier commented about the SLS' capabilities. Rather, he quoted (without linking) from another news article from the "technology news website Ars Technica."
The best part:Quote from: Eric BergerThere is one final interesting nugget on the Boeing website. The end of the SLS blurb invites readers to "Learn more about why the SLS is the right choice for NASA" by linking to a news story in the London Evening Standard. This is a conservative British tabloid owned by a Russian oligarch and former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev.
The author of the Evening Standard story, an online general assignments reporter named Sean Morrison, did not listen to the NASA Advisory Council meeting where Gerstenmaier commented about the SLS' capabilities. Rather, he quoted (without linking) from another news article from the "technology news website Ars Technica."
Why can't Boeing's marketing team just quote Gerst directly? Linking to a low-quality article that itself has no direct sources is just a small-time look.
The best part:Quote from: Eric BergerThere is one final interesting nugget on the Boeing website. The end of the SLS blurb invites readers to "Learn more about why the SLS is the right choice for NASA" by linking to a news story in the London Evening Standard. This is a conservative British tabloid owned by a Russian oligarch and former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev.
The author of the Evening Standard story, an online general assignments reporter named Sean Morrison, did not listen to the NASA Advisory Council meeting where Gerstenmaier commented about the SLS' capabilities. Rather, he quoted (without linking) from another news article from the "technology news website Ars Technica."
Why can't Boeing's marketing team just quote Gerst directly? Linking to a low-quality article that itself has no direct sources is just a small-time look.
Reminds me of when Time magazine declared Ares I one of the best inventions of 2009 -- and then Utah senator Bennett held a copy of Time up during a committee meeting, as though Time's editors were credible authorities on astronautics. Or when Gerst pointed to Inspiration Mars's interest in SLS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33193.msg1151472#msg1151472) to rationalize it.
To anyone who is paying attention, these pathetic attempts to justify SLS only undermine it.
Boeing must be worried. Perhaps SLS's remaining life expectancy is shorter than I thought.
<snip>
Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.
Only if you are on the SLS/Orion pathway. There are cheaper alternatives on the horizon.
<snip>
Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.
Only if you are on the SLS/Orion pathway. There are cheaper alternatives on the horizon.
Those won't make up for continuously decreasing purchasing power. "Commercial space" should not be an excuse to starve NASA to death, since it is very far away from being able to take over.
To anyone who is paying attention, these pathetic attempts to justify SLS only undermine it.
Boeing must be worried. Perhaps SLS's remaining life expectancy is shorter than I thought.
To anyone who is paying attention, these pathetic attempts to justify SLS only undermine it.
Boeing must be worried. Perhaps SLS's remaining life expectancy is shorter than I thought.
Am I alone recalling similar sorts of propaganda emanating from the Ares-I (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., shortly before that program experienced its final RUD?
Ross.
Am I alone recalling similar sorts of propaganda emanating from the Ares-I (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., shortly before that program experienced its final RUD?
Am I alone recalling similar sorts of propaganda emanating from the Ares-I (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., shortly before that program experienced its final RUD?
Ah, yes, "Safe, Simple, Soon." On line it was www.safesimplesoon.com, if I remember correctly, which persisted after the demise of Ares I -- perhaps watchusfly.com/top-5-reasons-sls-best-rocket-send-americans-mars (https://watchusfly.com/top-5-reasons-sls-best-rocket-send-americans-mars/) will outlast SLS.
NOTICE: This domain name expired on 4/1/2018 and is pending renewal or deletion.
Mark Geyer filled in for Bill Gerstenmaier for an exploration update at the SSB meeting. Nothing new, but notable that the EM-2 mission profile he showed assumed ICPS upper stage, not EUS.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/991392463297409027?s=20QuoteMark Geyer filled in for Bill Gerstenmaier for an exploration update at the SSB meeting. Nothing new, but notable that the EM-2 mission profile he showed assumed ICPS upper stage, not EUS.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/991392463297409027?s=20QuoteMark Geyer filled in for Bill Gerstenmaier for an exploration update at the SSB meeting. Nothing new, but notable that the EM-2 mission profile he showed assumed ICPS upper stage, not EUS.
So, an official NASA presentation now assuming iCPS as the upper stage, in stead of EUS. That makes the revert, back to iCPS, more-or-less official.
Just keep in mind that what came out of NASA as "SLS" barely resembles what the Senate had specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). Sure, it has the solid boosters and uses Space Shuttle main engines. But design-wise and operations-wise, the SLS design that NASA came up with a year after the Act was passed is far different than the SLS that is described in the Act.
[snip] ... [/snip]
Sigh. Well, there's always you-know-who, who seem to be taking the space business seriously.
Yeah, I didn't want to get too far off in the weeds. Just trying to shed a little light on how SLS got where it is now. I'm sure many of our newer members missed a lot of the excitement of a decade ago.
But as a wise person once said, sometimes you just have to put your behind in the past.
Could the moderators please spin-off an SLS-technical aspects discussion/update thread so the handful of us wanting that information don't have to wade thru the endless Money-Schedule-Policy Blues tunes? At a certain point it gets incredibly redundant.Just read the articles from Chris B/G and Philip and you should be good to go... :)
I'm awfully saddened at the way Orion and SLS have been bungled, and have come around in my thinking in a lot of ways. But there should be even just ONE place I can go that will tell me what's really going on from a technical viewpoint- not flashy Bonging Powerpoints about Mars, or pro-everyone else declarations; just facts about the rocket itself.
Could the moderators please spin-off an SLS-technical aspects discussion/update thread so the handful of us wanting that information don't have to wade thru the endless Money-Schedule-Policy Blues tunes? At a certain point it gets incredibly redundant.
I'm awfully saddened at the way Orion and SLS have been bungled, and have come around in my thinking in a lot of ways. But there should be even just ONE place I can go that will tell me what's really going on from a technical viewpoint- not flashy Bonging Powerpoints about Mars, or pro-everyone else declarations; just facts about the rocket itself.
I think the Jupiter 246 could hit the 130 ton requirement with multiple J-2Xs and upper stage stretch, and/or a 3rd stage.
Especially if you interpret the requirement as 130 short tons (118,000 kg). Which happens to be exactly what the Saturn V could do.
The Act as written (inspired by Mike Griffin?) made it conveniently impossible to use the work of the DIRECT effort, uh, directly. And NASA (aka the Obama Administration) was not happy about being directed by Congress to build SLS after they went to all the trouble of canceling Constellation. It was the perfect storm of passive-aggressiveness between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government. "You want a rocket? I'll give you a rocket, all right."
Do we know where ICPS came from?
Do we know where ICPS came from?
It came about from the requirements from Congress. An initial version with 70 t payload and a final version with 130 t payload.
It did. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 basically funded DIRECT to be built. The J-130 had no upper stage and easily put 70+ t into LEO. Add the JUS to become the J-240 and it went to 130+ t in LEO.
<snip>
Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.
Only if you are on the SLS/Orion pathway. There are cheaper alternatives on the horizon.
Those won't make up for continuously decreasing purchasing power. "Commercial space" should not be an excuse to starve NASA to death, since it is very far away from being able to take over.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to as "continually decreasing purchasing power". Aside from the 'blip' that is the 2017 budget, NASA's budget has been growing consistently, at a rate above the rate of inflation, every year since 2013. And 2018's budget fully corrects 2017's dip.
If you're talking about sensible and efficient use of the money, I'd agree with you. Didn't we all learn exactly how much 'fat' exists within NASA programs compared with efficient commercial ones...
There has got to be Landers - crew and cargo - plus surface Habitats, otherwise all the big fancy rockets in the world don't mean much. SLS, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, Vulcan... Without 'Mission Modules' - of which Landers are the most important - there is no mission... :(
I was deliberately not bringing SpaceX/BFS into this discussion - unless you were - because that's a whole other/new ball game that will shake out in it's own good time, if it does. I was actually taking into account Dragon 2 and Starliner; even though there are no B.E.O. versions of those in the works, that we're aware of. If there were - those would be lower cost alternatives to Orion. Though Orion is a huge, heavy beast for a capsule spacecraft and it's Service Module has too little delta-v to be a worthy successor to the Apollo CSM :(Launchers yes; but not so much the crewed spacecraft :(
Well, about that... there would be one that coincidentally is designed to be a lander too.
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)That is what they should have been building from Day One - not all the 'Block 1' etc nonsense. The SLS corestage as originally envisaged had 5x RS-25 on the corestage. You've crunched the numbers and come up with 6x RS-25. Either config, with decent upper stages, starts to get great payload into LEO and BLEO - making the throwing away of all that magnificent hardware each time a bit easier to justify.
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why? (I have my suspicions/theories).
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)A three stages plus boosters rocket? How could this be affordable?
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why? (I have my suspicions/theories).
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)A three stages plus boosters rocket? How could this be affordable?
ICPS would work as the third stage, so all you need to develop is the large second stage. It should be cheaper than that.This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)A three stages plus boosters rocket? How could this be affordable?
Don't you know? The US has lots of money. The FY2018 budget is $4,094B. I estimate the total development and hardware cost for 11 missions to be $40.8B, or $4.08B per year over 10 years. That is only 0.1% of the Federal budget.
ICPS would work as the third stage, so all you need to develop is the large second stage. It should be cheaper than that.
ICPS would work as the third stage, so all you need to develop is the large second stage. It should be cheaper than that.
iCPS is too small and has too high a boiloff rate.
Use the second stage to start TLI, iCPS to finish it. It's baselined for a ~2 hour coast in LEO.
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)A three stages plus boosters rocket? How could this be affordable?
Don't you know? The US has lots of money. The FY2018 budget is $4,094B. I estimate the total development and hardware cost for 11 missions to be $40.8B, or $4.08B per year over 10 years. That is only 0.1% of the Federal budget.
Also, out of all the versions that will get you at least 130 t of payload, this one was the cheapest. Its powerful enough to a do a Lunar landing in a single launch and a Mars mission using only three launches.
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)If you're gonna go with 3 stages, I know of a better design that also gets 140t to LEO...
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)If you're gonna go with 3 stages, I know of a better design that also gets 140t to LEO...
Use the second stage to start TLI, iCPS to finish it. It's baselined for a ~2 hour coast in LEO.
You are then left with a big uncontrolled stage in LEO. This version stages just before LEO insertion, so the second stages re-enters and burns up. The third stage also does Lunar orbit insertion and 75% of powered descent, so it needs to be low boiloff.
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why?
In photos from psloss the SLS core stage engine section has 5 holes for RS25s of which the center hole has a bolted in plug. By having 4 engines they didnt have to modify the center engine to be fixed or have a restricted gimbal range as well additional thermal protection. There are additional reasons whicj i will not blist in this post.I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why? (I have my suspicions/theories).
Pure speculation:
* To reduce near-term costs, in particular by delaying the need to re-start production of RS-25's;
* In the long run, to justify a contract for advanced SRB's in order to meet the 130-tonne payload requirement.
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why?
There was a discussion here on NSF but I can't locate it at the moment. As I recall it came down to extending the number of flights by flying less engines. The video you showed had (iiirc) a 10 meter core. I could be wrong about that though. Redesigning to a 7.4 meter core (Shuttle/DIRECT), 4xRS-25's became viable again.
NASA replied: “Now that the SLS design has matured and the program has more data as a result of progress with hardware manufacturing and testing, our current analysis shows the Block 1 configuration of SLS can deliver an estimated mass of 95 metric tons (209,439 pounds) to low-Earth orbit based on a 200 by 200-kilometer orbit with a 28.5 degree inclination, which is a commonly used orbit in the industry for estimating performance.”
According to the agency: “NASA’s early analyses of launch windows for Europa Clipper in 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025 indicate that direct trajectories are feasible for SLS Block 1. Further analyses are expected to confirm these early findings with the possibility of some minor configuration modifications. June 2022 is the earliest launch window. Each launch window is about 30 days, each window can get the spacecraft to Europa in 2.5 to 2.7 years, and each window can support a mass for Europa Clipper of at least 6 metric tons.”
Everyone needs to dig back to 2010. Congress specified a Phase One effort to provide 70-plus tons to LEO (or was it tonnes? It was never clear.)
(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
What was clear back then was that an "inline" core built using Shuttle External Tank (ET) tooling, powered by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), boosted by a pair of four segment reusable solid rocket boosters (RSRBs), had been shown, repeatedly during studies, capable of lifting more than 75 tonnes directly to LEO, easily meeting the Senate's initial 70 tonne SLS goal. This was called the "4/3" model (4-segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, no upper stage). Congress might have been expecting this design when it wrote its bill.
(3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and developed, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow-on Space Launch System.
But these LEO numbers have always been useless pieces of information regardless, because SLS is not going to LEO!. The proper metric is escape velocity payload, or similar.
What was clear back then was that an "inline" core built using Shuttle External Tank (ET) tooling, powered by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), boosted by a pair of four segment reusable solid rocket boosters (RSRBs), had been shown, repeatedly during studies, capable of lifting more than 75 tonnes directly to LEO, easily meeting the Senate's initial 70 tonne SLS goal. This was called the "4/3" model (4-segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, no upper stage).
But these LEO numbers have always been useless pieces of information regardless, because SLS is not going to LEO!. The proper metric is escape velocity payload, or similar.
- Ed Kyle
Everyone needs to dig back to 2010. Congress specified a Phase One effort to provide 70-plus tons to LEO (or was it tonnes? It was never clear.) What was clear back then was that an "inline" core built using Shuttle External Tank (ET) tooling, powered by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), boosted by a pair of four segment reusable solid rocket boosters (RSRBs), had been shown, repeatedly during studies, capable of lifting more than 75 tonnes directly to LEO, easily meeting the Senate's initial 70 tonne SLS goal. This was called the "4/3" model (4-segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, no upper stage). Congress might have been expecting this design when it wrote its bill.
But NASA skipped "4/3" and went directly to "5/4" (with an upper stage). The Agency still talked about the obsolete "Phase One" 70 ton(ne) goal to LEO nonetheless, from the outset, for some reason.
Anyone who paid attention - and we did here at NasaSpaceFlight - knew full well that SLS as we now know it could, if it needed to do so, lift far more than 70 tonnes to LEO.
But these LEO numbers have always been useless pieces of information regardless, because SLS is not going to LEO!. The proper metric is escape velocity payload, or similar.
- Ed Kyle
I really wish that Jim would do a myths of direct or what ever thread like he did myths of CXP but I doubt he can at the moment due to working on SLS .
Everyone needs to dig back to 2010. Congress specified a Phase One effort to provide 70-plus tons to LEO (or was it tonnes? It was never clear.) What was clear back then was that an "inline" core built using Shuttle External Tank (ET) tooling, powered by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), boosted by a pair of four segment reusable solid rocket boosters (RSRBs), had been shown, repeatedly during studies, capable of lifting more than 75 tonnes directly to LEO, easily meeting the Senate's initial 70 tonne SLS goal. This was called the "4/3" model (4-segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, no upper stage). Congress might have been expecting this design when it wrote its bill.
But NASA skipped "4/3" and went directly to "5/4" (with an upper stage). The Agency still talked about the obsolete "Phase One" 70 ton(ne) goal to LEO nonetheless, from the outset, for some reason.
Anyone who paid attention - and we did here at NasaSpaceFlight - knew full well that SLS as we now know it could, if it needed to do so, lift far more than 70 tonnes to LEO.
But these LEO numbers have always been useless pieces of information regardless, because SLS is not going to LEO!. The proper metric is escape velocity payload, or similar.
- Ed Kyle
While I disagree with some points, I do agree that NASA and the contractors probably did undersell performance in order to justify the upgrades that led to the current SLS situation. (perhaps this was not your main point, but that's how I connect the dots)
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms of the SLS that should and have been made over the years.
However, I won't wish ill upon the program because I know that a very likely replacement for the program
is absolutely nothing! There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation recognize this and have given modest support to SLS/Orion.
It could very well come to pass that humans Beyond Low Earth Orbit gets indefinitely postponed or axed.
That would be terrible. It would also be dreadful for the commercial companies pursuing deep space exploration and Musk mentioned in his 2016 speech that he hopes NASA doesn't cancel its current efforts.
There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture.
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove....
I'm not sure different historical scenarios with different Shuttle-derived HLVs would have changed the ultimate outcome.
It really doesn't matter whether the vehicle is inline or sidemount, how many SSMEs it employs, or whether it uses 4- or 5-segment SRBs. No matter the technical decisions, the vehicle still _must_ fully employ the old STS workforce and fully utilize the old STS infrastructure.
And that means we're still stuffing a ~$3-5 billion per year program into a ~$1-2 billion per year bag.
And when you try to do that, you wind up with the gross safety compromises, year-for-year delays, programmatic dithering, ground equipment screw-ups, unaffordability, and incompetent flight rate that we see in SLS today and Constellation previously.
There are only two ways out of this dilemma:
1) Ramp down/phase out/retire/RIF the old STS workforce and infrastructure. (Politically unacceptable as a whole.)
2) Redirect the old STS workforce and infrastructure towards deep space human space exploration architecture elements that don't duplicate and compete very poorly with commercial offerings. (More politically possible with a strong Administrator and White House backing.)
I suspect the actual way out, if it ever emerges, will be a combination of these two.
There is an old military saying that "Amateurs talk about tactics, generals study logistics."
The NASA parallel would be something like "Amateurs talk about vehicle configurations and rocket engines, managers change the workforce and infrastructure."
There's nothing wrong with armchair aerospace engineering. But we shouldn't kid ourselves either.
A serious discussion about fixing NASA's human space flight program would focus on workforce and infrastructure and not fixate on vehicle configurations and rocket engines.
The vehicle we got in SLS is NOT what DIRECT advocated for. It never was. It was far larger, more costly, and more complex than what direct proposed, and by the time all the damage from Griffin and the Obama administration's waffling was undone what we were left with in 2011 was something that had far exceeded the purpose of using SDHLV in the first place. Even for all that, it still could have worked were it not continuously grown in size and the flight rate reduced due to an absolutely piss poor budget and jackass contractors and their friends in the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)..
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove, the enemies of any spaceflight funding continuing beyond shuttle were all around, and there was absolutely no possible way to save the abortion that was CXP.
II don't understand why people want to play this game and act like everything was so easy and there was some obvious alternative solution, there were none. Every possible one was considered and at that time SDHLV was about the only thing standing between some very angry goons and the remaining NASA budget post CXP. And that includes the commercial funding, no NASA no commercial funding. The only possible alternative that might have worked out better would have been going with the ULA ACES and expanded EELV proposals, but these would have had major pitfalls of their own and would have required alot of new hardware, and would have leverage exactly none of what CXP had left over.
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove....
In 2010 ULA, which was at the time the USA's most credible rocket builder, offered derivatives of the Atlas V and Delta IV with LEO capacities up to 140 tonnes (see 2nd & 3rd attachments to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1251621#msg1251621))..
Nasa will do as its told from now on or it will cease to exist. It nearly did this time around. There won't be a second chance. They either stay in budget and on time or they go away: Its that simple.
The vehicle we got in SLS is NOT what DIRECT advocated for. It never was. It was far larger, more costly, and more complex than what direct proposed, and by the time all the damage from Griffin and the Obama administration's waffling was undone what we were left with in 2011 was something that had far exceeded the purpose of using SDHLV in the first place. Even for all that, it still could have worked were it not continuously grown in size and the flight rate reduced due to an absolutely piss poor budget and jackass contractors and their friends in the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)..
Again you are going from a reusable vehicle to a disposable one. To build the Orbiter Atlantis it took from March of 1980 till April of 1984 according to NASA’s website. A SDHLV is going to need much of the same systems as the shuttle. In addition, most expendable rockets are ordered at least 2 years before the mission. To expect the same flight rate for the same money as the shuttle disposing of expensive shuttle parts is a bit much. And the complexity as well as size have a lot to do with being a SDHLV in the first place. For instance a lox/kerosene first stage ala Saturn V and Falcon 9 and Atlas would make for a smaller more compact first stage as well as eliminate the reason for the SRB and make for a cheaper vehicle to operate but politically that was not viable. To give you an idea of the difference between the Shuttle and Saturn V, the Shuttle system actually masses more dry than the Saturn V. The VAB floor as well as the Crawlers had to be beefed up to handle it. The Saturn V would mass more wet but it wouldn’t do so until it was at the pad and filled with propellant. Not to mention the operational changes as the SRBs are both toxic and potentially explosive(i.e some offices had to be moved out of the VAB).QuoteAt that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove, the enemies of any spaceflight funding continuing beyond shuttle were all around, and there was absolutely no possible way to save the abortion that was CXP.
Atlas V was in existence at the time of CXP and has sent cargo and will soon send crew to the ISS. The first goal of CXP was to send crew and cargo to the ISS not send people to the moon. Ares 1 was not needed and only served the political goal of keeping the shuttle workforce around. Commercial space has existed since the late 80ies\early 90ies. The only difference between humans and cargo is that one is a bit more delicate than the other.QuoteII don't understand why people want to play this game and act like everything was so easy and there was some obvious alternative solution, there were none. Every possible one was considered and at that time SDHLV was about the only thing standing between some very angry goons and the remaining NASA budget post CXP. And that includes the commercial funding, no NASA no commercial funding. The only possible alternative that might have worked out better would have been going with the ULA ACES and expanded EELV proposals, but these would have had major pitfalls of their own and would have required alot of new hardware, and would have leverage exactly none of what CXP had left over.
Any SDHLV would have required lots of new hardware and there was little of CXP to leverage.
To expect the same flight rate for the same money as the shuttle disposing of expensive shuttle parts is a bit much. And the complexity as well as size have a lot to do with being a SDHLV in the first place.
Ares 1 was not needed and only served the political goal of keeping the shuttle workforce around. Commercial space has existed since the late 80ies\early 90ies.It did not do this and was intended to serve the political goal's of ATK and Mike Griffin and Co only. It would not have kept shuttle workforce around because of it's delays.
Not to mention the operational changes as the SRBs are both toxic and potentially explosive(i.e some offices had to be moved out of the VAB).
2) Redirect the old STS workforce and infrastructure towards deep space human space exploration architecture elements that don't duplicate and compete very poorly with commercial offerings. (More politically possible with a strong Administrator and White House backing.)There is nothing to re-direct except a vacant launchpad in the form of LC 39 B and the VAB. Everyone and almost everything from STS is long gone already CXP and friends saw to that.
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):
When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT. Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302 stated: "The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit". This was pulled directly from the team's work and subsequent conversations with prominent committee members. ATK's influence was all over the advanced capability and it was the DIRECT 246 Heavy (modified) that is reflected in the advanced capability requirement. The Senate Bill said: "the capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more". The Heavy was never the aim of the team, but a concession to the knowledge that by that time the 5-segment SRB was a certain thing. The team believed it could likely use the SRB for the initial capability by simply leaving out the center segment, effectively making it a 4-segment SRB. At that time the SRB's were still to be recovered and reused.
Bolden was dragging NASA's feet and slow walking the process so completely (likely at the direction of Obama) that by the time SLS was announced the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). and friends had completely redesigned the LV and had effectively resurrected the Ares-V in its place. It even started with 5xRS-26s. At that time there was still enough of the STS infrastructure and personnel left to make it possible for it to actually be a SDHL but that quickly evaporated as the entire program began slipping to the right by a year every year and became a perpetual jobs program rather than a space program that was actually supposed to do anything.
And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.
Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past. That program can never be resurrected so there's no need to rehash what might have been. SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown. Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP. So I hope we can all, even the non-supporters, support a successful program to get SLS/Orion into space. What NASA does with it after that - well that's up to the new vehicle's designers: Congress.
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):
When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT.
Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past.
SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown.
Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP.
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.
NASA is already prohibited by law from competing with commercial companies. If anything it is commercial that is allowed to compete with NASA for payloads. Cancellation of SLS is not a sure bet. It is a proven money maker for the Senators and Congressmen to feed federal funds back to their home districts. So assuming it survives, the US Gov is going to want to keep its own HSF program to fly US Gov payloads, crew and probes on US Gov vehicles. Remember, the government does not have to show any black ink. If it runs short it just taxes more, prints more, or both.
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.
NASA is already prohibited by law from competing with commercial companies. If anything it is commercial that is allowed to compete with NASA for payloads. Cancellation of SLS is not a sure bet. It is a proven money maker for the Senators and Congressmen to feed federal funds back to their home districts. So assuming it survives, the US Gov is going to want to keep its own HSF program to fly US Gov payloads, crew and probes on US Gov vehicles. Remember, the government does not have to show any black ink. If it runs short it just taxes more, prints more, or both.
SLS doesn't have to show a profit, but it does have to show a public benefit, or the public will stop funding it.
And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.
I really wish that Jim would do a myths of direct or what ever thread like he did myths of CXP but I doubt he can at the moment due to working on SLS .
*snip*
And would require just about as much work as SLS does. Those studies like direct were at best first order. It is like saying if I put a more powerful engine in my car it would go faster. Well true, but can the engine fit under the hood and can the body support it? What about the power train, braking, center of gravity, suspension, wheel base, fuel economy(or millage per tank)and so forth. The shuttle was designed with a different purpose in mind reusable space plane not HLV. It was designed using technology and assembly methods from the 70ies and to expect it to be easy to mold into a rocket appropriate for the 21st centaury is wishful thinking.
The rocket would need new avionics as the shuttle's avionics are mostly in the shuttle itself and were reused.
Without a mission no one can say what is or is not a useless piece of information. LEO is perfectly good spot to stage a Mars mission, an NEO mission, or an moon mission that would make the Saturn V look about as powerful as an model rocket. But with no mission(at the time) driving the requirements of the rocket well any old number will do I guess.
Between SLS, Exploration Ground Systems, and Orion, the Exploration Systems Development budget is a solid $3-$4 billion per year, not the $1-$2 billion that you posit.
Shuttle functioned well enough on that kind of budget, and actually flew missions to boot.
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.Another 10 billion dollars and ten years lost forever.
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):
When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT. Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302 stated: "The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit". This was pulled directly from the team's work and subsequent conversations with prominent committee members. ATK's influence was all over the advanced capability and it was the DIRECT 246 Heavy (modified) that is reflected in the advanced capability requirement. The Senate Bill said: "the capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more". The Heavy was never the aim of the team, but a concession to the knowledge that by that time the 5-segment SRB was a certain thing. The team believed it could likely use the SRB for the initial capability by simply leaving out the center segment, effectively making it a 4-segment SRB. At that time the SRB's were still to be recovered and reused.
Bolden was dragging NASA's feet and slow walking the process so completely (likely at the direction of Obama) that by the time SLS was announced the Alabama mafioso and friends had completely redesigned the LV and had effectively resurrected the Ares-V in its place. It even started with 5xRS-26s. At that time there was still enough of the STS infrastructure and personnel left to make it possible for it to actually be a SDHL but that quickly evaporated as the entire program began slipping to the right by a year every year and became a perpetual jobs program rather than a space program that was actually supposed to do anything.
And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.
Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past. That program can never be resurrected so there's no need to rehash what might have been. SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown. Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP. So I hope we can all, even the non-supporters, support a successful program to get SLS/Orion into space. What NASA does with it after that - well that's up to the new vehicle's designers: Congress.
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.
The likely big projects over the next few years are the Mars Transfer Vehicle, various space stations, the Moon base, the Mars base and rovers. In situ resource utilization (IRSU) on the Moon, Mars and asteroids will exist but requires a different skill set from making rockets. The rocket side of lunar landers is already under way but its cabin is not. IMHO Those are the areas that the SLS NASA sites should enter.
QuoteNASA replied: “Now that the SLS design has matured and the program has more data as a result of progress with hardware manufacturing and testing, our current analysis shows the Block 1 configuration of SLS can deliver an estimated mass of 95 metric tons (209,439 pounds) to low-Earth orbit based on a 200 by 200-kilometer orbit with a 28.5 degree inclination, which is a commonly used orbit in the industry for estimating performance.”
The SLS, he argued, offered “a capability right now that no one else has, and so we want to deliver it.” However, he said he’d be open to revisiting that should commercial vehicles with similar capabilities enter service in the future. “If there comes a day when someone else can deliver that, then we need to think differently. It’s always evolving.”
http://spacenews.com/bridenstine-emphasizes-partnerships-with-industry-to-achieve-nasa-goals/QuoteThe SLS, he argued, offered “a capability right now that no one else has, and so we want to deliver it.” However, he said he’d be open to revisiting that should commercial vehicles with similar capabilities enter service in the future. “If there comes a day when someone else can deliver that, then we need to think differently. It’s always evolving.”
SLS will continue and likely fly within the next 24 months. Nothing currently out there matches its capability, so why do you think NASA would suddenly cancel it now?
SLS will continue and likely fly within the next 24 months.
Nothing currently out there matches its capability...
...so why do you think NASA would suddenly cancel it now?
I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night but its unreasonable to think NASA should cancel its POR before BFR is a proven entity.
IMO, we're likely at least a decade away from that.
It's been disappointing to see this Administration and this new Administrator give into and not challenge the politics surrounding SLS/Orion.Not challenging the politics surrounding SLS/Orion was likely a condition of one or two confirmation votes.
I do not see a challenge to SLS. It is wanted by senators from both parties in states where it is made.
According to his NASA bio (https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/todd-may-bio.html), Todd May earned his bachelor's degree in 1990, which likely makes him quite young by retiree standards. So I'd guess he's leaving NASA but not truly retiring. Seems a little odd.
I would tend to agree, except that if that's the path Todd May is following then I would have expected an announcement of where he is going.
Since SpaceX is going to do refueling in LEO for BFR. IF, another big IF, they develop refueling the second stage in orbit, would say a 40 ton payload launched on FH, then refuel the second stage. Can this match TMI with SLS block II? If so, then FH alone with refueling would probably be cheaper than SLS. At that point would that kill SLS? Or if New Glen gets going and could do refueling of their hydrolox second stage? How about Vulcan w/ACES and refueling? Seems to me refueling in LEO is going to be the way to go. More vendors, more counties involved to, by using smaller launch vehicles to deliver fuel. More launches = lower costs for all. Why isn't NASA working on this instead?
At that point would that kill SLS?
At that point would that kill SLS?
SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.
I hope someone within the agency is already working on a plan to transition the workforce into this particular vacuum when it happens.
As we both know all too well (!) there is a whole range of additional projects that could be used to keep all the same funds flowing to the right places and all the same people working hard. All it will take (!) is to get the political figures to accept the new direction. I'd love to work on such a thing, but the politics just gets my blood boiling a little too much, and I think it would be wise to pass on the middle aged heart attack :)
Ross.
Why isn't NASA working on this instead?Without addressing the alternative, because it is irrelevant - NASA did not specify this launch system.
Politicians understand getting caught.
QuoteNASA replied: “Now that the SLS design has matured and the program has more data as a result of progress with hardware manufacturing and testing, our current analysis shows the Block 1 configuration of SLS can deliver an estimated mass of 95 metric tons (209,439 pounds) to low-Earth orbit based on a 200 by 200-kilometer orbit with a 28.5 degree inclination, which is a commonly used orbit in the industry for estimating performance.”
Here's the SLS users guide. Unfortunately, Block I performance is not listed. Block IB can put a minimum mass of 94.0 t into a 463 km orbit. Future upgrades increase this to 100.7 t. Block II is 108.3 t. Extrapolating to 200 km, I get 97.7 t, 104.7 t and 112.3 t. I don't see how Block I can get anywhere near 95 t with iCPS using a single RL-10 engine. We also see that Block II doesn't get anywhere near 130 t payload to LEO.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170005323
QuoteNASA replied: “Now that the SLS design has matured and the program has more data as a result of progress with hardware manufacturing and testing, our current analysis shows the Block 1 configuration of SLS can deliver an estimated mass of 95 metric tons (209,439 pounds) to low-Earth orbit based on a 200 by 200-kilometer orbit with a 28.5 degree inclination, which is a commonly used orbit in the industry for estimating performance.”
Here's the SLS users guide. Unfortunately, Block I performance is not listed. Block IB can put a minimum mass of 94.0 t into a 463 km orbit. Future upgrades increase this to 100.7 t. Block II is 108.3 t. Extrapolating to 200 km, I get 97.7 t, 104.7 t and 112.3 t. I don't see how Block I can get anywhere near 95 t with iCPS using a single RL-10 engine. We also see that Block II doesn't get anywhere near 130 t payload to LEO.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170005323
A fifth RS-25 on the corestage and a stronger upper stage would just about get them to 130 metric tons to L.E.O. So why aren't they doing it?! That's the $64 billion dollar question. Almost literally...
A fifth RS-25 on the corestage and a stronger upper stage would just about get them to 130 metric tons to L.E.O. So why aren't they doing it?! That's the $64 billion dollar question. Almost literally...
SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.Musing: This could end up in a pretty nasty manner.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.
SLS will continue and likely fly within the next 24 months.
A recent assessment of the completion date for the first Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage now puts it at the end of May, 2019, close to the middle of next year. The date indicates that production and assembly schedules are still sliding and is reducing confidence in meeting the June, 2020 date that was at the late end of NASA’s schedule forecast for the Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) launch.
Nothing currently out there matches its capability
so why do you think NASA would suddenly cancel it now?
I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night
but its unreasonable to think NASA should cancel its POR
SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.Musing: This could end up in a pretty nasty manner.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.
If Blue Origin and/or SpaceX start launching vehicles that are obviously cheaper and comparable or superior in performance before SLS, Congress is going to be in an very awkward position. A very likely escape for them at that point will be to blame NASA management and engineering for failing to follow the law. Lots of congressional hearings, high dudgeon, forced resignations, etc.
I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night
This is where these massive government programs look so stupid IMHO. You compare the long-term progress, the money expended and the results it has produced. Then look at the progress made in the commercial sector, faster and for a lot less investment, and NASA no longer looks like a good investment.
Unable to Advance Exploration -- SLS can't put up enough payload in a year, or even over multiple years, to support NASA's Mars DRMs. SLS can't even maintain the cadence of lunar missions from Apollo.
Bad Industrial Policy -- Three US companies (BO, SX, ULA) currently field or are pursuing five different HLVs (BFR/BFS, FH, NA, NG, VH). Properly managed, there could be great redundancy and a healthy domestic heavy lift market for the USG to rely on. Improperly managed, there will be a glut of capability and contraction and shrinkage in US heavy lift capabilities. The Administration should be consolidating USG heavy lift needs on these vehicles, not separating out and stovepiping USG needs.
In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.
Ross.
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.
In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system.
I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night
Missed your original post of this, but it was quoted later and I feel the need to respond.
While I also expect that a successful BFR system will show a really clean pair of heels to all of its competitors, that's not the end of the story.
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.
In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.
Ross.
but they will LAND the whole booster for reuse.
but they will LAND the whole booster for reuse.
Eventually. SpaceX went through like 20 boosters before the first reflight booster. If it took the same amount of cores to get there that would be 140 BE-4 engines before reflight matters. 140 BE-4 engines would be enough engines for 70 vulcan flights. If the goal is "assured access" that would be fine with about 6 flights a year. I'm not saying 6 is the right number, or even the number I expect, but 6 is how many flights you would want a year if the goal is to have a flight proven system ready. So 140 engines would get you to summer of 2033, by which time I'm guessing Vulcan and New Glenn would both be eyeing retirement. In terms of serving the market there are advantages in being big and streamlined. But if you are talking about what is cheap to subsidize, the small system is going to be hard to beat.
Although, to go in a completely different direction, I think the market could support two or even three heavy lifters so assured access wont actually end up being a selling point.
In relation to being a backup USG heavy lifter (to SLS or otherwise), Blue's cost to develop reuse wouldn't end up being relevant, since Blue is shouldering that cost themselves and betting that they will be competitive enough in the commercial market to survive without subsidy.
In relation to being a backup USG heavy lifter (to SLS or otherwise), Blue's cost to develop reuse wouldn't end up being relevant, since Blue is shouldering that cost themselves and betting that they will be competitive enough in the commercial market to survive without subsidy.
If they are doing that anyway, the assured access is already a moot point. The assured access would only matter if there aren't going to be two launchers without any funds being disbursed for the purposes of creating assured access.
A scenario where there are fewer then two heavy launchers requires one of these things IMHO:
-Disastrous setback for Raptor and/or BE-4
-The GTO market dries up so there isn't enough market to sustain two launchers
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.
In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.
In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion. And that's for national security where redundancy is much more important than civil space, NASA never had any redundancy in their own launch system.
Also BFR is not just a super heavy, it's also in-space habitat + lander, there's no point to provide a super heavy backup without the corresponding habitat and lander.
Even in either of those cases I think they probably would still have FH and Vulcan ACES 564 (which with distributed launch can send 35 tonnes anywhere SLS can). FH will stick around due to F9 business, and Vulcan will be mostly supported by NSS launches, NASA ISS crew, NASA science missions, plus the occasional GTO dual berth.
So the downside of a potential SLS-less future is reasonable, while the upside is very high indeed, in terms of HLV and SHLV capabilities.
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.
In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion. And that's for national security where redundancy is much more important than civil space, NASA never had any redundancy in their own launch system.
Also BFR is not just a super heavy, it's also in-space habitat + lander, there's no point to provide a super heavy backup without the corresponding habitat and lander.
The backup for the Space Shuttle is the Russian Soyuz. NASA has been using it for several years now. Soyuz carries fewer passengers and considerably less cargo.
I can guarantee there will be politicians grandstanding & acting astounded at, what is in reality, their failure, their specifications, their pork, and ultimately their rocket. Most sickening will be watching the ones that count Houston, MSFC, Stennis, and Michoud as their constituents (this is all debatable & I'm sure someone will take offense, just my opinion, but let's be honest, there's no naturally occuring reason why a bunch of rocket engineering sprouted up in Alabama). It'll be breathtaking, revolting, and yet predictable, their hypocrisy and complete disrespect/disdain to the working American taxpayer. And they will get away with it.SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.Musing: This could end up in a pretty nasty manner.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.
If Blue Origin and/or SpaceX start launching vehicles that are obviously cheaper and comparable or superior in performance before SLS, Congress is going to be in an very awkward position. A very likely escape for them at that point will be to blame NASA management and engineering for failing to follow the law. Lots of congressional hearings, high dudgeon, forced resignations, etc.
[The backup for the Space Shuttle is the Russian Soyuz.
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.
What is the proposal you are referencing?
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.
What is the proposal you are referencing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_Heavy
And regardless, Congress has not been worried about a lack of redundancy for the SLS, so full-speed ahead!
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.
What is the proposal you are referencing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_Heavy
Atlas V Heavy was probably two years away from becoming operational, but work would not have started without the U.S. Government approving funding for it. But Delta IV Heavy would be unlikely to stay out of commission for longer than it would take to make Atlas V Heavy operational, so it was never required.
The SLS, if used to it's maximum capabilities, would likely be a single-point-of-failure transportation system. But so far there are no near-term plans that really require it's full capabilities, or at least in a way that can't be replaced with an alternative.
And regardless, Congress has not been worried about a lack of redundancy for the SLS, so full-speed ahead!
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.
What is the proposal you are referencing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_Heavy
Atlas V Heavy was probably two years away from becoming operational, but work would not have started without the U.S. Government approving funding for it. But Delta IV Heavy would be unlikely to stay out of commission for longer than it would take to make Atlas V Heavy operational, so it was never required.
The SLS, if used to it's maximum capabilities, would likely be a single-point-of-failure transportation system. But so far there are no near-term plans that really require it's full capabilities, or at least in a way that can't be replaced with an alternative.
And regardless, Congress has not been worried about a lack of redundancy for the SLS, so full-speed ahead!
The USG has never before had back-up capability. Saturn V -- no back-up. Shuttle -- no back-up. Today -- no capability. Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.
Zero or one big rocket has always been sufficient... but this isn't about rockets and/or exploration. It is about padding the pockets of giant defense contractors and keeping the Federal work-force secure. Must keep the cash flowing, logic be damned.
The USG has never before had back-up capability. Saturn V -- no back-up. Shuttle -- no back-up. Today -- no capability. Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.
Also, New Glenn with 7 engines is completely reusable and can deliver 40 tons to LEO.
It, with solids, would cost as much or more than New Glenn
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion. And that's for national security where redundancy is much more important than civil space....
The USG has never before had back-up capability. Saturn V -- no back-up. Shuttle -- no back-up. Today -- no capability. Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.
never before?
COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon
All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.
...
NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.
The USG has never before had back-up capability. Saturn V -- no back-up. Shuttle -- no back-up. Today -- no capability. Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.
never before?
COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon
All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.
The USG has never before had back-up capability. Saturn V -- no back-up. Shuttle -- no back-up. Today -- no capability. Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.
never before?
COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon
All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.
...
NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.
The USG has never before had back-up capability. Saturn V -- no back-up. Shuttle -- no back-up. Today -- no capability. Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.
never before?
COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon
All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.
Since NASA has 'learnt its lesson', and the military requires redundancy, should they be contracting with SpaceX (or whomever can build a SLS-class vehicle) to build a back-up to SLS/Orion?
...
NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.
The USG has never before had back-up capability. Saturn V -- no back-up. Shuttle -- no back-up. Today -- no capability. Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.
never before?
COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon
All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.
Since NASA has 'learnt its lesson', and the military requires redundancy, should they be contracting with SpaceX (or whomever can build a SLS-class vehicle) to build a back-up to SLS/Orion?
I might be mis-understanding your post but just in case I am not:...
NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.
The USG has never before had back-up capability. Saturn V -- no back-up. Shuttle -- no back-up. Today -- no capability. Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.
never before?
COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon
All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.
Since NASA has 'learnt its lesson', and the military requires redundancy, should they be contracting with SpaceX (or whomever can build a SLS-class vehicle) to build a back-up to SLS/Orion?
Since SpaceX is going to do refueling in LEO for BFR. IF, another big IF, they develop refueling the second stage in orbit, would say a 40 ton payload launched on FH, then refuel the second stage. Can this match TMI with SLS block II? If so, then FH alone with refueling would probably be cheaper than SLS. At that point would that kill SLS? Or if New Glen gets going and could do refueling of their hydrolox second stage? How about Vulcan w/ACES and refueling? Seems to me refueling in LEO is going to be the way to go. More vendors, more counties involved to, by using smaller launch vehicles to deliver fuel. More launches = lower costs for all. Why isn't NASA working on this instead?
Not saying they will do this, I think there are many reasons why they never would, but what if SpaceX started offering a raptor upper stage option for FH launches customer specific only?
SLS is a joke.
SpaceX could kill SLS ( in terms of performance vs block 1 and cost/kg to orbit ) right now if they wanted to. I am relatively confident they aren't the only ones who could, but basically just build a raptor upper stage for Falcon Heavy block 5. That's about all they would need to do for an immediate solution.
One SRB failure out of all the Shuttles flights. The failure was caused by the fact that O-ring seals used in the joint were not designed to handle the unusually cold conditions that existed at this launch. More operational fault than design fault.
Do not forget that SLS currently relies on super large solid rocket motors, they are not known for their safety over liquid systems or smaller solids.
One SRB failure out of all the Shuttles flights. The failure was caused by the fact that O-ring seals used in the joint were not designed to handle the unusually cold conditions that existed at this launch. More operational fault than design fault.
Do not forget that SLS currently relies on super large solid rocket motors, they are not known for their safety over liquid systems or smaller solids.
There have been lot liquid engined power LV failures over years. NB failures aren't always engine failures, some are fuel system eg F9 2 COPV failures. Shuttle its self, Altas V and maybe Soyuz are only LVs to come close to Shuttle SRBs for reliability.
Even Atlas V is not perfect if you include the earlier versions it evolved from.
The only other large SRBs that I can think of are Ariane 5, no failures so far which is more than can be said for Iiquid stages.
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS).
Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.
We have been stuck in LEO long enough.
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.
Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.
I don't know what year you are citing for the Shuttle, but it was funded to fly 6-8 times per year, whereas the SLS is currently only planned to fly about once per year.
So no single payload requires the SLS.
Haven't needed it. And until LOP-G gets funded, still don't.
Again, it's not a good idea to conflate capabilities with need...
Even if they have to pad out the payload with concrete, they have to hit 100 tons and we should not allow for even a nanosecond of delay past the last day of the year.
If THAT happens, I will accept that it's "pretty awesome". If that isn't happening, I consider it a mediocre design
So why not just do the second stage and ditch the SLS?
QuoteSo no single payload requires the SLS.
Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.
QuoteSo no single payload requires the SLS.
Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.
Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.
When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!
If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.
Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.
When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!
If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.
To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).
ISS - 18.9%
Planetary Science - 10.7%
SLS - 10.4%
Earth Science - 9.2%
Astrophysics - 6.6%
Orion - 6.5%
Exploration Ground Systems - 4.3 %
Space Technology - 3.7%
Heliophysics - 3.3%
Aeronautics - 3.3%
Exploration R&D - 1.9%
Education .5%
Cross Agency/Construction/Communication/Misc - 20.7%
Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.
To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).
Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.
Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.
When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!
If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.
To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).
ISS - 18.9%
Planetary Science - 10.7%
SLS - 10.4%
Earth Science - 9.2%
Astrophysics - 6.6%
Orion - 6.5%
Exploration Ground Systems - 4.3 %
Space Technology - 3.7%
Heliophysics - 3.3%
Aeronautics - 3.3%
Exploration R&D - 1.9%
Education .5%
Cross Agency/Construction/Communication/Misc - 20.7%
Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.
The difference between the ISS and SLS is that the ISS performs research as it's task. SLS will not discover any new thing, will not give any insight into cancer, the common cold or any other thing. It will just splash into the ocean after lifting a tiny capsule to a much smaller and much more limited facility. It is just plain transportation. The ISS on the other hand could be used to test long duration ECLSS and frankly likely has given loads of information about that subject and lots of others. I hate too say this but frankly exploration is a bit over rated at the moment given our limited ability and frankly the cost.
what next...the IRS?
If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?
QuoteSo no single payload requires the SLS.
Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.
Orion is in the same boat as SLS.
Which lunar lander require SLS? Let's name it.
If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?
It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.
If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free.
In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months.
I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity research in LEO. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.
Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.
QuoteSo no single payload requires the SLS.
Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.
Orion is in the same boat as SLS.
Which lunar lander require SLS? Let's name it.
What lunar lander doesn't?
I don't know what year you are citing for the Shuttle, but it was funded to fly 6-8 times per year, whereas the SLS is currently only planned to fly about once per year.
In the post-Columbia era the shuttle flew around 4 times a year. I am referencing budget numbers from the end of SSP.
QuoteSo no single payload requires the SLS.
Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.
QuoteHaven't needed it. And until LOP-G gets funded, still don't.
LOP-G has been funded. Look at the latest budget.
QuoteAgain, it's not a good idea to conflate capabilities with need...
I think we have different understandings of the word "need". Your definition of "need" implies an absolute necessity, like a person "needs" water or food in order to survive. Let me demonstrate with an analogy.
According to your definition I don't "need" to remember my wife and I's anniversary.
Thats quite an expansive 'Any' there.
If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free.
Not quite. LEO is cheaper to access due to use of smaller rockets. Reusable rockets are also easier to create for LEO. Any spacecraft that travels somewhere is going to be more mass constrained than a space station. Any spacecraft that needs to land on a body even if it is earth is going to be more mass and volume constrained than a station.
If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?
It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.
If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free. In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months. Anyways, I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus/dream chaser and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity in LEO research/maintain manned spaceflight while exploration spins up. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.
Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.
I don't know what year you are citing for the Shuttle, but it was funded to fly 6-8 times per year, whereas the SLS is currently only planned to fly about once per year.
In the post-Columbia era the shuttle flew around 4 times a year. I am referencing budget numbers from the end of SSP.
Then you are using inaccurate information for comparison, since the Shuttle program costs were decreasing as the program ended.
Besides, I'm not sure what you think you are comparing? Unit cost? Operational costs? Color? They are two very different transportation systems, so they are not apples-to-apples from a top-level point of view.QuoteQuoteSo no single payload requires the SLS.
Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.
You should know that there are many proposals for lunar landers that rely on commercial transportation systems, such as this one from ULA back in 2009 (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/affordable-exploration-architecture-2009.pdf) that relied on nothing bigger than a Delta IV Heavy and created a reusable space infrastructure for conducting long-term operations on our Moon. ULA also addressed lunar exploration (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/dual-thrust-axis-lander-(dtal)-2009.pdf) and in-space refueling (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/evolving-to-a-depot-based-space-transportation-architecture.pdf).
We don't lack commercial transportation options.QuoteQuoteHaven't needed it. And until LOP-G gets funded, still don't.
LOP-G has been funded. Look at the latest budget.
Congress allocating some funding to explore an idea is not the same as Congress committing to fully funding a program. So far Congress is only allowing NASA to explore the idea of the LOP-G.QuoteWhich is why Congress was willing to commit up to 4% of our national GDP to the Apollo budget (today NASA overall gets less than 0.5%).QuoteAgain, it's not a good idea to conflate capabilities with need...
I think we have different understandings of the word "need". Your definition of "need" implies an absolute necessity, like a person "needs" water or food in order to survive. Let me demonstrate with an analogy.
According to your definition I don't "need" to remember my wife and I's anniversary.
If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?
It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.
If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free. In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months. Anyways, I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus/dream chaser and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity in LEO research/maintain manned spaceflight while exploration spins up. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.
Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.
SLS will not have the flight rate nor the performance to do a robust exploration program with it's current budget. To do that, we either need a larger budget or a cheaper rocket.
If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?
It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.
If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free. In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months. Anyways, I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus/dream chaser and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity in LEO research/maintain manned spaceflight while exploration spins up. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.
Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.
SLS will not have the flight rate nor the performance to do a robust exploration program with it's current budget. To do that, we either need a larger budget or a cheaper rocket.
I would suggest the following budget, all of which fits within the combined current 2018 HSF budget(Exploration/ISS combined) of ~9 billion.
SLS - $1.8 billion
Ground Systems - $.4 billion
Super Heavy lift #2 (backup/next-gen) - $1.3 billion
Orion - $1 billion
Exploration Crew Vehicle #2 (backup/next-gen) - .8 billion
LOP-G - $ .5 billion
In Space Vehicle #2 (backup)- .5 billion
lander # 1 (primary)- .9 billion
lander # 2 (backup) - .6 billion
3 COTS flights - $200 million each - $ .6 billion
1.5 CC flights - $300 million each - $ .45 billion
LEO research - $ .15 billion
commercial LEO station development- .3 billion
total - 9.3 billion
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.
For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.
And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.
Both have various levels of secure funding for their projects that is not likely to disappear, unlike SLS funding which is a ? each year.
That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.
For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.
What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's. Food is like a kilogram per day per person. Same with water. So, 120 man days is 240 kg. So, it could probably be pushed to a few weeks/months on just the lander...not even counting a pre-placed rover that is...a single launch potentially over multiple seperate sorties. The rover doesn't show up in the budget above because it is essentially rounding error. The Apollo one cost a couple hundred million total in today's cost. This would need to be pressurized, be able to recharge itself(or charge from a surface module/lander), etc so maybe on the order of $1 billion + over multiple years. So, we are talking about 1.3 SHLVs per year and 1 HLV per year for 1 mission that lasts weeks to months each year. And that is just one Block 1 For the SHLV as the lander get's offloaded to Falcon Heavy or whatever so it doesn't need to co-manifest anything.And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.
That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.
Thats quite an expansive 'Any' there.
You are implicitly assuming that in space refueling is impossible, with 'smaller rockets'.
If you're restricting that to current vehicles - sort-of-fair enough, but you don't really get to do that if you're bringing SLS into it.
I question extremely also the 'more mass constrained' argument.
Taking as a concrete example BFS to the moon, per 7 launches (with a pre-positioned tanker in LLO) it gets the whole pressurised volume of ISS, and 100 tons of hardware, for far lower than the cost of a typical ISS module. (rather more if you leave the BFS on the moon).
Various commercial entities are making noises about on-orbit refuelling, or at least rapid reusability.
It doesn't seem very credible that fuel in orbit should continue to be valued at around >$10k/kg that SLS unitary launch does if you're talking about 50 years into the future.
An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface. Any extended duration stay requires a large hab and rover to be pre-placed. If you're using ISRU for water or oxygen that also needs to be pre-placed.
Commercial.
An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface. Any extended duration stay requires a large hab and rover to be pre-placed. If you're using ISRU for water or oxygen that also needs to be pre-placed.
Not only that but lunar ISRU isn't a developed enough technology to build a lunar base that depends on it. It would likely be tested on the moon first beforehand and so you still need some commercial resupply and you will probably need resupply for ISRU parts. Which get delivered how? SLS or commercial....
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.
For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.
What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's. Food is like a kilogram per day per person. Same with water. So, 120 man days is 240 kg. So, it could probably be pushed to a few weeks/months on just the lander...not even counting a pre-placed rover that is...a single launch potentially over multiple seperate sorties. The rover doesn't show up in the budget above because it is essentially rounding error. The Apollo one cost a couple hundred million total in today's cost. This would need to be pressurized, be able to recharge itself(or charge from a surface module/lander), etc so maybe on the order of $1 billion + over multiple years. So, we are talking about 1.3 SHLVs per year and 1 HLV per year for 1 mission that lasts weeks to months each year. And that is just one Block 1 For the SHLV as the lander get's offloaded to Falcon Heavy or whatever so it doesn't need to co-manifest anything.And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.
That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.
An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface.
Not only that but lunar ISRU isn't a developed enough technology to build a lunar base that depends on it. It would likely be tested on the moon first beforehand and so you still need some commercial resupply and you will probably need resupply for ISRU parts. Which get delivered how? SLS or commercial....
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.
For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.
What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's. Food is like a kilogram per day per person. Same with water. So, 120 man days is 240 kg. So, it could probably be pushed to a few weeks/months on just the lander...not even counting a pre-placed rover that is...a single launch potentially over multiple seperate sorties. The rover doesn't show up in the budget above because it is essentially rounding error. The Apollo one cost a couple hundred million total in today's cost. This would need to be pressurized, be able to recharge itself(or charge from a surface module/lander), etc so maybe on the order of $1 billion + over multiple years. So, we are talking about 1.3 SHLVs per year and 1 HLV per year for 1 mission that lasts weeks to months each year. And that is just one Block 1 For the SHLV as the lander get's offloaded to Falcon Heavy or whatever so it doesn't need to co-manifest anything.And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.
That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.
An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface.
Going outside let's them stretch their legs. Otherwise, they are just sleeping. Astronauts are selected based on claustrophia tests. Apollo did it for half a week. The difference between that and weeks psychologically may not be as great as you think. And besides, my scenario included a pressurized rover as heavy as SLS or equivalent can throw to the lunar surface(10 mT+, granted if you wanted to use all of it you would need a larger budget than the $1-2 billion previously mentioned), so doing multiples of Apollo's duration shouldn't be a problem. And yes, at 1 launch per year, this would take a year to set up.
Not only that but lunar ISRU isn't a developed enough technology to build a lunar base that depends on it. It would likely be tested on the moon first beforehand and so you still need some commercial resupply and you will probably need resupply for ISRU parts. Which get delivered how? SLS or commercial....
If you take out ISRU for oxygen via the aluminum oxides, then we are talking about 2 kilograms of water per astronaut per day or 360 kg total for 2 crew for 2 months (food + water + oxygen). Given that the rover is being offloaded, and that weighed 210 kg on Apollo, this should be easily doable.
Not saying they will do this, I think there are many reasons why they never would, but what if SpaceX started offering a raptor upper stage option for FH launches customer specific only?
Doesn't discussion about what upper stages SpaceX may or may not offer in the future belong in the SpaceX section of the forum?SLS is a joke.
No my friend. The joke is the ad nausem declarations that SLS is doomed or that it is stupid or dumb or whatever other negative adjective you wish to ascribe to it. It is being built and at some point in the next few years it will lift off. Maybe a commercial company will create something with just as much or more capability in the near future. I hope they do, but the future isn't guarenteed.
Personally I'd rather the PoR continue with changes to make it better managed and more effecient vs. just throwing it all away and changing course yet again because reasons. Much better in my mind to have dissimilar redundancy (for less cost than STS BTW) for deep space HSF.
Commercial is going to do what they are going to do regardless of SLS/Orion. The success or failure of commercial efforts are not dependent on SLS/Orion. That is a good thing.
Lets just go somewhere in space instead of having endless arguments about the perfect way to get there.
I am happy to let the program of record continue
Maybe a commercial company will create something with just as much or more capability in the near future.
Doesn't discussion about what upper stages SpaceX may or may not offer in the future belong in the SpaceX section of the forum?
just throwing it all away and changing course yet again because reasons. Much better in my mind to have dissimilar redundancy (for less cost than STS BTW) for deep space HSF.
Much better in my mind to have dissimilar redundancy (for less cost than STS BTW) for deep space HSF.
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.
I say that if SLS can launch 100 tons to orbit, we should fund four such launches a year in 2018, 2019 and 2020. Each launch should be funded for a billion dollars and the funding should be cash on delivery. There should however be zero wiggleroom on either the date or the payload. Even if they have to pad out the payload with concrete, they have to hit 100 tons and we should not allow for even a nanosecond of delay past the last day of the year.
If THAT happens, I will accept that it's "pretty awesome". If that isn't happening, I consider it a mediocre design. It's just giving us what other systems are giving us, but with a bigger second stage. So why not just do the second stage and ditch the SLS?
What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's.
Both SLS versions could get overrun by BO's NA and SpaceX's BFR.
QuoteSo no single payload requires the SLS.
Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.
Does Orion need SLS, or does SLS need Orion? Kind of hard to tell these days.
SLS/orion will cost around 3.8 billion per year STS cost 4.5 in 2010 dollars
One solid rocket failure out of hundreds of flights
Because rockets are not legos.
I did mention Vulcan ACES distributed launch as one of the soon to exist not the list of could exist. The reason why I list ACES DL as soon to exist is market pressure. ULA must create a reason why Vulcan/ACES would be picked over other LVs. And do it quick. Otherwise they will just fold as a business, not quickly but ultimately over the next decade. Also ACES DL capability is not far from the first generation system of Centaur V. It is an upgrade of the US not a replacement. Upgrades are much lower costs and can be dome incrementally over many launches to prove out each subsystem in order of subsystem dependencies. Refueling capability being the last. ICE being the first (used for power to perform extended missions), then extra insulation for even longer coasts, followed by full IVF for extremely long coasts. Then ending with on-orbit refueling.What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's.
Yes, it's possible to operate under extremely thin mass margins with extremely heroic assumptions about ISRU. But what's the freakin' point? Unless your ISRU includes a magical black box where you feed in moon dust and tractors come out the other side, you aren't building anything. You are talking about a mission mass to surface of under 20 tons minus the lander and the fuel to get them home alive. You have maybe 10 tons of actual payload, ISRU, food, astronauts, scientific equipment, batteries, habitat. All you are doing is taking surface samples and those surface samples are only good for anything if in the future you can deliver more then 10 measly tons to the surface. That means you need something else instead. You need a space tug or a reusable rocket and preferably both. And if you need that, then why the hell bother with the SLS? It's not going to develop into those things.
When a test pilot steps into an untested plane, they are doing it because that plane is worth something. Either that plane is useful or that plane is testing a valuable technology. Either way we care whether that plane flies or not. If we dont care about whether the plane flies or not, we wouldn't risk the life of a test pilot. And that's safe compared to what astronauts would be asked to do sending them to the moon on the razor thin margins you are talking about. Yes, we sent the Apollo astronauts on those margins but back then we didn't have any technological alternatives. Today, we have better options.Both SLS versions could get overrun by BO's NA and SpaceX's BFR.
If we are talking about lunar deliveries then ACES deserves a mention and I will die on this hill. Once you have a few ACES parked in orbit from satellite deliveries, you can use them to start leapfrogging fuel into higher orbits efficiently. Because of the efficiency with leapfrogging you could get mass fractions just as high if not higher then a big dumb rocket while still bringing all your hardware back to LEO for reuse. It's pretty good with ACES itself but if that orbital tug was getting it's fuel delivered to LEO by reusable rocket's it's dirt cheap. Everytime SpaceX or Blue delivers ~200 tons of fuel to ACES in LEO you could put a 40 ton payload on the launch pad and fly straight to the moon. Some people might think that's weak tea but it's a complete system with no additional hardware or fancy shit. You dont need to pay for a logistics hub space station or launch 6 super-heavy rockets in rapid succession or shift cargo between vehicles. It's a baseline with very minor adjustments to existing hardware and it's a pretty damn good baseline.
When a test pilot steps into an untested plane, they are doing it because that plane is worth something. Either that plane is useful or that plane is testing a valuable technology. Either way we care whether that plane flies or not. If we dont care about whether the plane flies or not, we wouldn't risk the life of a test pilot. And that's safe compared to what astronauts would be asked to do sending them to the moon on the razor thin margins you are talking about. Yes, we sent the Apollo astronauts on those margins but back then we didn't have any technological alternatives. Today, we have better options.
The projected US Federal deficit is so large now, they may well make severe cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, public health services, humanities (all of them) and NASA. Total debt is now $21T and will exceed $33T by 2028. That's an annual deficit of $1T. (Figures from the Congressional Budget Office, taking into account recent changes to the tax formula) An expensive rocket with no important missions will be easy to cut.
This could all change, if Congress reverses course.
There IS NO POR. SLS was never a POR it was a vehicle that was meant to become part of a new POR.
or launch 6 super-heavy rockets in rapid succession.
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.
Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.
When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!
If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.
To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).
ISS - 18.9%
Planetary Science - 10.7%
SLS - 10.4%
Earth Science - 9.2%
Astrophysics - 6.6%
Orion - 6.5%
Exploration Ground Systems - 4.3 %
Space Technology - 3.7%
Heliophysics - 3.3%
Aeronautics - 3.3%
Exploration R&D - 1.9%
Education .5%
Cross Agency/Construction/Communication/Misc - 20.7%
Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.
The projected US Federal deficit is so large now, they may well make severe cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, public health services, humanities (all of them) and NASA. Total debt is now $21T and will exceed $33T by 2028. That's an annual deficit of $1T. (Figures from the Congressional Budget Office, taking into account recent changes to the tax formula) An expensive rocket with no important missions will be easy to cut.
This could all change, if Congress reverses course.
Economy grew in nominal dollars by 4.1% in 2017(not real gdp growth which backs out inflation) which means a 20.5 trillion dollar economy(2018) would grow to 21.34 trillion at the same rate by next year or an annual change of .84 trillion. So, we are talking about a gain in the debt of 160 billion over the change in the size of the economy. The net change in debt to GDP ratio would be 21 trillion(your numbers)/ 20.412 trillion(IMF estimate of U.S. GDP in 2018) or 102.88% to 22 trillion/21.34 trillion or 103.09% with a trillion dollar deficit. This is a net change of .21% per year or 2.1% over the next decade by 2028.
You can see that debt-to-gdp is essentially flatlining here...
(https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=usadebt2gdp&v=201802121827v)
And it should be noted that the OECD projects nominal gdp growth at 5% for 2019...
see: https://data.oecd.org/gdp/nominal-gdp-forecast.htm
You can see that debt-to-gdp is essentially flatlining here...
Bingo. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make for almost six months now every time SLS delays or related topics regarding what NASA should be doing come up.You can see that debt-to-gdp is essentially flatlining here...
The US is in the middle of an economic boom. Debt-to-gdp should be shrinking, not flatlining. Politicians failing at countercyclical fiscal policy as usual.
can there just be a thread for SLS bashing
Then you are using inaccurate information for comparison, since the Shuttle program costs were decreasing as the program ended.
You should know that there are many proposals for lunar landers that rely on commercial transportation systems, such as
Congress allocating some funding to explore an idea is not the same as Congress committing to fully funding a program. So far Congress is only allowing NASA to explore the idea of the LOP-G.
Personal analogies are not appropriate for discussions of space hardware... ;)
Commitment requires identifying a goal, recognizing the cost, and actually getting the full Congress to commit to the long-term funding of the effort. That has not happened yet for LOP-G, nor for a return-to-Moon program. It absolutely COULD happen, but has not yet.
Censoring or relocating criticism of this debacle will not stop it from being a debacle.
It IS doomed and it can be factually proven it's doomed.
1. It was supposed to be operational by 2016.
If it was a salvageable program you would have already heard proposals for how to salvage it.
Also let me address thisQuoteI am happy to let the program of record continue
Ironically SLS still got farther than CXP in terms of pieces of the actual rocket being built and tested but it is a vehicle not a program of record.
Wrong. They already have it's called the Falcon Heavy.
The Vulcan vehicle family
New Glenn
BFR
When the time comes for cuts what do you think is going to be cut first exactly? People's entitlements and food stamps, medicare and medicaid?
They will simply cancel the program and the space lobby will dissolve or have already dissolved by then, leaving you with absolutely nothing and little or even worse no funding for commercial space.
It provides no redundancy for anything this has already been covered. It will cost far more than STS on a per launch basis and will cost massively more in terms of development and overhead if you want a grand total on the accounting. There is absolutely no reality where this program costs less than STS the chance for achieving that died years ago.
Orion flew on a DIVH for its first test flight. What does that tell you?
The first half of this is entirely fake and made up.
There is absolutely no way to accurately determine that it will cost LESS than STS.
SLS was never intended to provide redundancy for national security payloads.
What redundant missions are going to use the magic SLS lego rocket as a backup because somehow it will be flying and no other commercial vehicle will be able to loft the same payload?
Where is this coming from this idea people have that SLS is going to launch this year?
Censoring or relocating criticism of this debacle will not stop it from being a debacle.
I did mention Vulcan ACES distributed launch as one of the soon to exist not the list of could exist.
The reason why I list ACES DL as soon to exist is market pressure. ULA must create a reason why Vulcan/ACES would be picked over other LVs. And do it quick.
What razer thin margins?
When you are talking about running life support on less mass then the ISS while on a much more precarious supply line, it's a razor thin margin.
Science investigations: 1,070 kg (2,359 lb)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-14
Crew supplies: 344 kg (758 lb)
Vehicle hardware: 148 kg (326 lb)
Spacewalk equipment: 99 kg (218 lb)
Computer resources: 49 kg (108 lb)
Russian hardware: 11 kg (24 lb)
External payloads: 926 kg (2,041 lb)
Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM)
Materials ISS Experiment Flight Facility (MISSE-FF)
Pump and Flow Control Subassembly (PFCS)
{snip}
You should know that there are many proposals for lunar landers that rely on commercial transportation systems, such as
I'll grant there are some lunar lander concepts that don't require an SLS sized rocket. Not all concepts though have the smaller amount of dry mass needed to be launched on a commercial rocket.
{snip}
Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.
When you are talking about running life support on less mass then the ISS while on a much more precarious supply line, it's a razor thin margin.
I don't think it is less than ISS.
I think a better way to move manned exploration forward is to improve the life support systems, not build uneeded rockets. The technology currently in use on ISS is fragile and breaks down all the time, requiring a lot of crew time to tinker with. No way those scale up to interplanetary missions. NASA's labs, as well as SpeceX, are working on new designs for, for example, the CO2 scrubber.
When you are talking about running life support on less mass then the ISS while on a much more precarious supply line, it's a razor thin margin.
I don't think it is less than ISS.
The hardware mass is what I was referring to. The ISS life support modules alone weigh as much as 4-8 lunar payloads for the SLS block 1b.I think a better way to move manned exploration forward is to improve the life support systems, not build uneeded rockets. The technology currently in use on ISS is fragile and breaks down all the time, requiring a lot of crew time to tinker with. No way those scale up to interplanetary missions. NASA's labs, as well as SpeceX, are working on new designs for, for example, the CO2 scrubber.
Not to mention that if these missions are supposed to be going anywhere the scale needs to be much, much bigger. If we want a real moon base, it can't be oxygen for two people, it needs to be oxygen for 100 people plus additional liquid oxygen for the landers to take back to the rockets.
Also, the intended use of the FH is in its fully reusable mode.
We have to perfect ECLSS for 2 people first before you test it out on 100 people in BLEO. We haven't been beyond LEO for nearly 50 years, we're not starting from scratch, but to make the leap that we're suddenly ready to sent 100 people to the moon for months or years on end is ridiculous.No, we don't.
Not to mention that if these missions are supposed to be going anywhere the scale needs to be much, much bigger. If we want a real moon base, it can't be oxygen for two people, it needs to be oxygen for 100 people plus additional liquid oxygen for the landers to take back to the rockets.
The hardware mass is what I was referring to. The ISS life support modules alone weigh as much as 4-8 lunar payloads for the SLS block 1b.
Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.
If the goal is to create a robust exploration program, then we need two things: affordable launch, and the ability to refuel and resupply in space without returning to Earth. Without those things we cannot go further or stay longer than Apollo.
SLS does neither of those. The way to affordable launch is to increase the launch rate, not pile everything onto a single vehicle once a year. This would have worked with EELVs, but now that commercial competition (and partial reuse) has arrived in EELV, so much the better.
What the Exploration program really needs to be developing is on-orbit fuel storage and transfer (both cryogens and storables), and in-space vehicle refurbishment and resupply, and orbital transfer vehicles.
That is, if the goal is really a robust and sustainable exploration program. Except that's not really the goal with SLS and Orion, is it?
The summary is concise but that is not the question. That has never been the question, the answer has always been yes and the American people are more interested now than they have been in many decades, thanks in part to disruptors like SpaceX. There is alot more interest in space exploration especially among the Gen Y and Gen Z than I think people in the industry realize, the problem is that it's very hard for people to dedicate their life and their choice of college education and career path to this when NASA has no direction and continues to announce delays and wasted money.Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.
If the goal is to create a robust exploration program, then we need two things: affordable launch, and the ability to refuel and resupply in space without returning to Earth. Without those things we cannot go further or stay longer than Apollo.
SLS does neither of those. The way to affordable launch is to increase the launch rate, not pile everything onto a single vehicle once a year. This would have worked with EELVs, but now that commercial competition (and partial reuse) has arrived in EELV, so much the better.
What the Exploration program really needs to be developing is on-orbit fuel storage and transfer (both cryogens and storables), and in-space vehicle refurbishment and resupply, and orbital transfer vehicles.
That is, if the goal is really a robust and sustainable exploration program. Except that's not really the goal with SLS and Orion, is it?
This is a concise summary of where we stand.
Do we want a robust and sustainable exploration program?
That is the question...
I'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program before I accept that SLS is "doomed" and will never do anything useful.Not sure it's worth responding to the rest of this post since this piece right here sums up the problem with the rest of the post entirely.
I'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program
QuoteI'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program before I accept that SLS is "doomed" and will never do anything useful.Not sure it's worth responding to the rest of this post since this piece right here sums up the problem with the rest of the post entirely.
This is the exact thing, almost word for word, that Doug Cooke and Mike Griffin used to tell us. In fact we even had, at one point, someone from MSFC in the final days of CXP post Aug Com come onto this site and make a thread where they tried to argue vehemently that the program had nothing wrong with it and would not be cancelled. This was after an expert panel had already recommended cancellation to the Congress and the POTUS, and everyone including the engineers within the program had already known it was done for.
QuoteI'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program before I accept that SLS is "doomed" and will never do anything useful.Not sure it's worth responding to the rest of this post since this piece right here sums up the problem with the rest of the post entirely.
This is the exact thing, almost word for word, that Doug Cooke and Mike Griffin used to tell us. In fact we even had, at one point, someone from MSFC in the final days of CXP post Aug Com come onto this site and make a thread where they tried to argue vehemently that the program had nothing wrong with it and would not be cancelled. This was after an expert panel had already recommended cancellation to the Congress and the POTUS, and everyone including the engineers within the program had already known it was done for.
The reason I know you are wrong is because we literally did this exact song and dance before 10 years ago. Denial of the facts, particularly the budgetary, timeline, and engineering facts of a program like this does not save the program.QuoteI'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program
I can almost certainly guarantee you there are people in Congress with these plans in mind already. There are also some within NASA including those who never wanted SLS to start with. They are currently the minority but who constitutes the makeup of Congress may be about to change yet again. By the time you see "actual plans in motion" it will already be over with, the only thing you will see is maybe a similar panel or committee meeting to Augustine and then actual cancellation. The Todd May comments from a few months ago are bad enough as it is, so too are many of the SLS presentations recently, which depict a program and that is barely or not functioning at all. This is all very very similar to CXP in 2007 and 2008, way too similar in fact with the only major differences being:
1. Some elements of SLS are built.
2. Orion is built, sort of.
As opposed to nothing being built. Unfortunately it's still not anywhere near enough for the money and time spent or the legal obligations of the space act.
...
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.
...
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.
Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.
...
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.
Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.
That is about what you would expect. The spread between LEO and BLEO during the 1960s was $1.6 billion for Mercury, $7.3 billion for Gemini and $109 billion for Apollo or a factor of 12x(Apollo:Gemini+Mercury). All of these are in 2010 dollars. There were 6 manned Mercury missions, 10 manned Gemini missions and 11 manned Apollo flights when comparing Apollo to Gemini and Mercury combined...so a similar number of flights. The development side of commercial crew is $6.3 billion, a similar cost to Gemini and Mercury combined when you inflate to today's costs and add in the operational commercial crew mission costs. Applying the same 12x factor to the commercial crew development cost would be $75.6 billion.
... if I remember the payload numbers correctly Vulcan wouldn't approach SLS's capability without distributed lift.
Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon.
The ISS doesn't meet your criteria for manned human spaceflight minimum crew size. And before you build a 100+ person base, you would want multiple site survey teams characterizing many sites to determine the suitable location.
The hardware mass is what I was referring to. The ISS life support modules alone weigh as much as 4-8 lunar payloads for the SLS block 1b.
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.
...
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.
Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.
Once BFR is built, flying, and certified -- at zero cost to the taxpayers -- you'll no doubt find another strange rationale to oppose cancelling the POR.
SLS should stand on its merit, or fail. Merit must include value for the tax dollars spent and timely delivery of the procured vehicle.
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.
You can do any proposed SLS goal using Vulcan and ACES instead. Including putting a 20 ton station module around the Moon and a lunar lander. SLS is a bad design even in a world without BFR and SpaceX. BFR will only make this fact explicitly manifest in a way that hopefully cannot be ignored anymore, but it is true long before BFR flies.
The SLS Block 1B doesn't do 40 to TLI, it does 36, you appear to have no fuel reserve and the lander you are talking about doesn't exist.
This isn't some small segue or a change of topic. Now you have to develop an entirely new system. So it's three systems, each of them needing to do their jobs really well
...
You can also see the inefficiency of a single purpose system in the IMLEO numbers. For BFS to send one person to the moon requires a fully fueled vehicle in LEO or an IMLEO of ~1200 mT. Apollo did the same task on a little over 100 mT. For certain tasks, you(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you) would want a smaller vehicle (talking about the lander piece) anyway.
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.
BFR will only make this fact explicitly manifest in a way that hopefully cannot be ignored anymore, but it is true long before BFR flies.
Cost vs system number isn't a linear relationship. As far as the cost of the additional piece, 82% of the cost of Apollo was the launch vehicle and the crew vehicle. Adding a lander cost an additional 21%. The cost of combining the functions of lander and the crew vehicle required the Nova rocket, which would have likely increased the cost of the 2 systems by at least 20% if not more.
You can also see the inefficiency of a single purpose system in the IMLEO numbers. For BFS to send one person to the moon requires a fully fueled vehicle in LEO or an IMLEO of ~1200 mT. Apollo did the same task on a little over 100 mT. For certain tasks, you(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you) would want a smaller vehicle (talking about the lander piece) anyway.
These are the kind of statements that are so wrong, making them discredits everything else in your post.QuoteNew Glenn
Still on paper.QuoteBFR
Same as NG but farther along with actual components.
Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.I actually agree to some extent, and am not ready to actively call for cancellation of the SLS yet, but your awareness of how far along the other options are seems to be lacking. How you define "truly available" is important and should be discussed.
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.The BFS portion of BFR will be flying next year based on current schedules. It sounds like you are saying to wait until the whole system is developed. The BFS testing should quickly prove out the high risk portions of the overall system. After that, BFR will be an existing and obviously better path forward. NASA could step in and say "we'll pay you to keep building this" though an even better option would be to instead just divert funds to payloads so that NASA actually can do something with BFR other than looking silly saying "oh wait... you built that, give us some years to build something as a payload."
I look forward to it flying in the next month or so.Ship testing and "start flying" aren't actually the same thing. Current plans have start flying still within the "ship testing" section of that plan, though even if it amounts to a few months of delays, those delays on a 2 year old schedule on a program of this size is less of a delay than I expected. Especially since that clearly is the "no margin" version of the schedule.
...
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.
Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.
Once BFR is built, flying, and certified -- at zero cost to the taxpayers -- you'll no doubt find another strange rationale to oppose cancelling the POR.
SLS should stand on its merit, or fail. Merit must include value for the tax dollars spent and timely delivery of the procured vehicle.
Then you clearly don't understand my argument if you think once BFR is flying and certified I would find new reasons for SLS/Orion.
The way you slant your argument makes it impossible for any government run program to exist in your mind, which is why you call for canceling literally all of them (with a few exceptions). Its the same arguments I hear opponents to California Highspeed Rail stating over and over and over.
Then you clearly don't understand my argument if you think once BFR is flying and certified I would find new reasons for SLS/Orion.
The BFS portion of BFR will be flying next year based on current schedules. It sounds like you are saying to wait until the whole system is developed. The BFS testing should quickly prove out the high risk portions of the overall system.
Ship testing and "start flying" aren't actually the same thing. Current plans have start flying still within the "ship testing" section of that plan, though even if it amounts to a few months of delays, those delays on a 2 year old schedule on a program of this size is less of a delay than I expected. Especially since that clearly is the "no margin" version of the schedule.
The BFS portion of BFR will be flying next year based on current schedules. It sounds like you are saying to wait until the whole system is developed. The BFS testing should quickly prove out the high risk portions of the overall system.
You don't know what testing will prove. Their last upper stage has a 1/28 failure rate, which would relegate this to a non-human lander, non-human launcher. And that took the better part of a decade to gather that information.
Between landing failures, launch failures, flight failures: a total of approaching a dozen falcon 9 first stages have prematurely been destroyed. If BFS goes anything like that and then BFR after that....
Development testing failures hardly indicate poor operational reliability.
Development testing failures hardly indicate poor operational reliability.
The real question is how many BFRs/BFSs can they build a year. You likely can't lose ~10 of them to running out of ignition fluid, running out of hydraulic fluid, legs not latching, tanks coming loose, tanks bursting, guidance problems or all the myriad causes of Falcon 9 first stage failures without pushing out operations many many years.
Easier if you never fly... then you have a record that is beyond reproach.
People like you won't let them fly.
People like you won't let them fly.
Wont let in what way? Wont let it be funded for a couple dozen billion dollars? Wont let it have a spot on the launch pad? Wont let it have a cargo? In what way has the schedule of SLS been delayed by a single day by people like him?
edit: And that reason is likely because we spent approaching $400 billion on LEO spaceflight. It is going up by $1 billion every few months.
edit: And that reason is likely because we spent approaching $400 billion on LEO spaceflight. It is going up by $1 billion every few months.
No, the reason why is because most people dont want to pay one billion dollars for flags and footprints, let alone 40 billion dollars.
People like you won't let them fly.
Wont let in what way? Wont let it be funded for a couple dozen billion dollars? Wont let it have a spot on the launch pad? Wont let it have a cargo? In what way has the schedule of SLS been delayed by a single day by people like him?
Somebody always comes up with some reason why this stuff can't be completed. It isn't his fault, it is people with his attitude's fault that actually have some say in the matter. There is a reason we haven't soft landed on the moon since 1972. There is a reason why people haven't left LEO since 1972.
I'm pretty sure we already went through this. The incremental cost in mass of extended crew stays is not that great.
For instance, a single block 1B lands the equivalent of 2-3 fully loaded Cygnus cargo modules on the moon
Easier if you never fly... then you have a record that is beyond reproach.
People like you won't let them fly. X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it. Ares 1 has a test launch, cancel it. SLS has 5/10 booster segements complete, the upper stage complete, and the core stage half way through construction...cancel it. Ares V doesn't even start development, blame NASA for the failure in development and then use that as an excuse to cancel the next program.
If you are concerned about the annual cost, you should advocate reducing the budget, which would be an easier lift politically. But the cancel the SLS crowd can't even get that done, so the chances of anything beyond that are even less likely.
You can do any proposed SLS goal using Vulcan and ACES instead. Including putting a 20 ton station module around the Moon and a lunar lander. SLS is a bad design even in a world without BFR and SpaceX. BFR will only make this fact explicitly manifest in a way that hopefully cannot be ignored anymore, but it is true long before BFR flies.
X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it.
Ares 1 has a test launch, cancel it.
Ares V doesn't even start development
SLS has 5/10 booster segements complete, the upper stage complete, and the core stage half way through construction...cancel it.
, blame NASA for the failure in development and then use that as an excuse to cancel the next program.
edit: And that reason is likely because we spent approaching $400 billion on LEO spaceflight. It is going up by $1 billion every few months.
<snip>
You can't spend 1/10th the money on something 10x as difficult.
There is a reason why people haven't left LEO since 1972.
Which is an awesome feature, not a limitation!
Considering Musk already presented the expendable price of FH, it's apparent that SpaceX has no issue expending one if paid to. We also know that expending a FH adds nothing to the complexity of the launch.
The reason I know you are wrong is because we literally did this exact song and dance before 10 years ago. Denial of the facts, particularly the budgetary, timeline, and engineering facts of a program like this does not save the program.
I can almost certainly guarantee you there are people in Congress with these plans in mind already.
The last statement is self contradictory. Rephrasing it says "still on paper, but not on paper"
-Both rockets have existing major components on test stands today (engines)
-New Glenn is the further along rocket, it has less to prove, its factory is built, it has a full scale engine in test, its upper stage engine is flying today in a non-vacuum variant, and its launch pad is fully under construction.
-BFR is just starting to build the factory, though manufacturing equipment for the first prototype exists and should fly first, first flight is farther from operational than it is for NG due to the different development plan.
How you define "truly available" is important and should be discussed.
X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it.
NASA's Ivan Bekey told congress that X-33 doesn't work, and congress cancelled it.
I understand that NASA and Lockheed Martin are proposing to fly the vehicle in about a year, but with an Aluminum fuel tank. I think to do so would be a big mistake for 3 reasons:http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1421
</snip>
X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it.
NASA's Ivan Bekey told congress that X-33 doesn't work, and congress cancelled it.
-QuoteI understand that NASA and Lockheed Martin are proposing to fly the vehicle in about a year, but with an Aluminum fuel tank. I think to do so would be a big mistake for 3 reasons:http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1421
</snip>
Like I said, NASA isn't allowed to fly...because reasons. It wasn't that it didn't work. That is a gross mis-characterization of the facts.
quite familiar with advanced space transportation, having spent 19 years at NASA Headquarters from 1978 to 1997, including 6 years as Director of Advanced Programs in the Office of Space Flight in which I was directly responsible for the identification, definition, and advocacy of advanced Earth-to-space and in-space transportation, and other positions directing Advanced Concepts which identified a broad range of far-reaching technologies for space transportation.
Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them?
Also if you read old X-33 threads, pretty much everyone here supported it and are disappointed it's cancelled. The only ones who didn't miss it are those in the industry (Jim for example), so it's gross mis-characterization to say "we (as in space enthusiasts) won't let them fly".
Couple of key differences between 10 years ago and today.
1. By this time during President Obama's first term CxP had already been canceled. The signs that the Obama administration was going to cancel CxP were apparent all the way back in 2007 when his campaign advocated canceling CxP and diverting the money to pre-K.
The current administration on the other hand has made no moves to cancel SLS/Orion.
Obviously there are people advising the administration on space policy who are not fans of SLS and the admin has been pushing more of a commercial space angle (which is a good thing in my view) but there has been nothing like we saw in 2009/2010.
2. As you mentioned in your post hardware is actually coming down the line. NASA has the design locked down, engines are ready, core stage is being constructed, the upper stage is nearly complete, SRBs are nearly ready and so on. CxP didn't even come close to having this amount of hardware ready to fly.
Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them? Even in expendable mode FH couldn't launch Orion or anything above 20 mt to TLI.
FH definitely has a role to play with LOP-G but I don't think it can launch every payload that would be needed.
Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them? Even in expendable mode FH couldn't launch Orion or anything above 20 mt to TLI.
SLS robs commercial of potential payloads.
Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them? Even in expendable mode FH couldn't launch Orion or anything above 20 mt to TLI.
SLS robs commercial of potential payloads.
This is like saying that Ford robs Uber of paying customers because they sell vehicles directly. Or is it Uber robbing Ford of car sales. The reality is there is no entitlement for either of them. Last I checked, Boeing/Aerojet Rocketdyne/Orbital were all commercial companies.
The SLS Block 1B doesn't do 40 to TLI, it does 36, you appear to have no fuel reserve and the lander you are talking about doesn't exist.
Space enthusiasts wouldn't constantly moan about the massive unaffordable costs of .05% of the the federal budget dedicated to X spaceflight project and how it was going to bankrupt the country (yes, this came up a few pages back).
ie the debate over the Moon or Mars is useless there is not enough money given the choice of vehicles...to do either
QuoteSpace enthusiasts should constantly moan about the costs. Not because it would bankrupt the country in general, but because it bankrupts the spaceflight industry. There is only a certain amount of $ billions that actually go towards spaceflight every year, relatively constant since the end of Apollo when adjusted for inflation, and unless a miracle happens this aint going to change anytime soon. Unless you are content with flying a handful of astronauts in small tin cans for countless billions (and space enthusiasts should not be), the only way forward is increased cost efficiency.
Yes. the current space industrial complex has produced vehicles that are to expensive for the resources that the country will likely allocate to use them to accomplish anything. ie the debate over the Moon or Mars is useless there is not enough money given the choice of vehicles...to do either
QuoteSpace enthusiasts should constantly moan about the costs. Not because it would bankrupt the country in general, but because it bankrupts the spaceflight industry. There is only a certain amount of $ billions that actually go towards spaceflight every year, relatively constant since the end of Apollo when adjusted for inflation, and unless a miracle happens this aint going to change anytime soon. Unless you are content with flying a handful of astronauts in small tin cans for countless billions (and space enthusiasts should not be), the only way forward is increased cost efficiency.
Yes. the current space industrial complex has produced vehicles that are to expensive for the resources that the country will likely allocate to use them to accomplish anything. ie the debate over the Moon or Mars is useless there is not enough money given the choice of vehicles...to do either
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as SLS/Orion gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around a high Lunar orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year...
You made a factually incorrect statement. Obama did not advocate cancelling the Constellation program in 2007
The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years,”
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as SLS/Orion gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around a high Lunar orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year...
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable of ISS gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....
See what I did there? If we really want to pursue the cheapest thing that counts as spaceflight, it should be suborbital. Costs on seats ar
e 100x lower. Of course, direct comparisons like that are super unfair because of the rocket equation.
suborbital - 3- 4 km/s
LEO - 9-10 km/s
lunar orbit - 13-14 km/s
lunar surface - 18-19 km/s
Comparing LEO costs vs suborbital is not a relevant comparison. Neither is lunar orbit vs LEO. But the only non-relevant comparisons that are made are the ones that make commercial crew and one particular contractor look good.
Instead of sending astronauts to LEO for trip #200 and day #7300, why don't you actually fund that circumlunar mission that SpaceX was talking about? This repeat and rewash of the same rote task over and over again is just as pointless as using ISS's budget to fly astronauts to sub-orbital space 3 times a day.
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as SLS/Orion gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around a high Lunar orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year...QuoteThis is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable of ISS gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....
The ISS is far more capable of long term spaceflight and science than Orion ever will be.
. The only semi-unique capability it has for HSF is proving out longer duration spaceflight, of which nothing has been done on that for over 2 years. But the only reason you want to go longer, is to go farther...or to save money (ISS really isn't helping with the second). And if you had the capability to go farther, you would by default have the pre-requisite capability to test whatever duration is required to go that distance using the same exact system.
Anyways, you can do microgravity experiments far cheaper using Dragonlab/Cygnus/Dream chaser. Then the users might actually pay for it or a significant portion of it.
You might want to check out the ISS space station research page for a list of experiments that are ongoing(there are a lot!).
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments_category (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments_category)
According to Boeing (AIAA Space 2013) Block IB does 39.1 t to TLI.
One of the problems with SLS, is that large solids are expensive and not reusable. Also the liquid engines are also expensive and unless I am mistaken, do not use any 3D printed parts.
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....
You made a factually incorrect statement. Obama did not advocate cancelling the Constellation program in 2007
Actually he did, although he couched it in terms of "delaying" rather than out and out canceling.
"You know, in the old days, it was great," Trump told the boy, along with an audience of more than 600. "Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We've got to fix our potholes. You know, we don't exactly have a lot of money."
My point was that you could see CxP's demise coming from a mile away in those days.
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile.
Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....
Instead of sending astronauts to LEO for trip #200 and day #7300, why don't you actually fund that circumlunar mission that SpaceX was talking about?
{snip}
Words matter. Stick to the definitions everyone uses, which means "delay" does not mean "cancel".
{snip}
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile.
There is this interesting divide in the space community. Some want to focus on figuring out how humanity will be able to expand out into space - and stay there, while others just want to go somewhere for short trips.
You do realize we've already done that, so why do you think taxpayers should pay for a publicity stunt like that? Have you no concern for taxpayer money?
And I don't know who said anything about short trips. A single SLS Block 1B can put 6 full loaded Cygnus modules in NRHO or 2-3 on the lunar surface, which could supply a crew of 3 for 2 years or 8-12 months respectively. So, the idea that there is some sort of limit to super short duration because of SLS/Orion capacity just doesn't hold water. And that isn't even counting that cargo manifest lists often have crew supplies at ~15% of the mass. I'm assuming the resupply mass per person per day stays at total ISS historical uplift levels, even though there are things in there that are not absolutely necessary, like the latest Chinese designed laptops or gorilla suits.
Instead of sending astronauts to LEO for trip #200 and day #7300, why don't you actually fund that circumlunar mission that SpaceX was talking about? This repeat and rewash of the same rote task over and over again is just as pointless as using ISS's budget to fly astronauts to sub-orbital space 3 times a day.
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile.
There is this interesting divide in the space community. Some want to focus on figuring out how humanity will be able to expand out into space - and stay there, while others just want to go somewhere for short trips.
I'm definitely part of the former, and you seem to be part of the latter. Right?
...
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile.
There is this interesting divide in the space community. Some want to focus on figuring out how humanity will be able to expand out into space - and stay there, while others just want to go somewhere for short trips.
I'm definitely part of the former, and you seem to be part of the latter. Right?
...
I, too, am part of the former. Humanity has a basic drive to explore and discover. Science is fundamentally just that -- and then we reap the benefit of the discoveries as a society. Maybe this is why exploration and discovery are hard-wired into our character -- it may be the process by which humanity survived and thrived is most every corner of the planet when only stone tools were state-of-the-art technology and the planet was a very dangerous place for a slow and probably tasty biped.
Problem with SLS/Orion is that Congress/NASA/large defense contractors have settled for a whole lot less so that their nests would be well feathered. We cannot realistically 'explore' with a system as costly and incapable as this old tech. Settling for a tin can in the vicinity the Moon is not exploration, it actually is a roadblock to exploration. (Note: error in former post, meant Lunar orbit instead of Earth orbit)
Because of the penchant for spending without return, instead of purchasing value for taxpayers' funds, SLS/Orion will likely continue until it collapses of its own weight as did Constellation*. Best we can hope for from the USG is that some or all of the funds freed up when that happens go to true exploration; second best would be that the USG stays out of the way.
* Post mortem will show that SLS/Orion repeated virtually all of the Constellation errors.
One more thing, no Augustine Commission did not invent or invite "ares IV lite" that is ridiculous. They suggested a 26.7 inline SDHLV similar to J130 with block 2 being close to a J246 only with a j2x upper stage instead of RL 10, but made no specific recommendations. Aug Com did not invent SLS that is ridiculous, with that said Aug Com was also very hesitant and very harsh with regard to the idea of another government run LV program, and much was said about finding a better model for providing LV's, including with regard to what we had at the time commercially which was ULA EELV.
First, the Committee examined the question: do we need a heavy-lift capability? While it is obvious that the ability to inject massive spacecraft away from low-Earth orbit is vital for exploration, there is some question as to the smallest practical size of the launcher that will be used to carry cargo to low-Earth orbit. The Committee reviewed the issue of whether exploration beyond low-Earth orbit will require a “super heavy-lift” launch vehicle (i.e., larger than the current “heavy” EELVs, whose mass to low-Earth orbit is in the 20-25 mt range), and concluded that it will. However, the rationale for this decision is subtler than usually thought, and hinges on three factors: the size and mass capability of the launcher and of the entire U.S. launch capacity; in-space refueling capability; and the launch reliability expected for a given mission.
No one knows for certain the mass or dimensions of the largest piece of hardware that will be required for future exploration missions. It will likely be larger than 25 metric tons (mt) in mass, and may be larger than the approximately five-meter diameter fairing of the largest current launchers
One more thing, no Augustine Commission did not invent or invite "ares IV lite" that is ridiculous.
The committe concluded that EELV was likely not going to cut it.
The upgraded EELV
systems would have a core
vehicle that would, by itself,
have a launch capability to
low-Earth orbit in the range
of 30 to 35 mt. Using a “su-
per-heavy” variant that would
have a core and two boosters
of the same basic design, and
when used in conjunction
with an upgraded common hy-
drogen/oxygen upper stage, it
is likely to have a maximum
payload to low-Earth orbit in
the range of 75 mt. This ex-
ceeds the nominal minimum
for a heavy lifter useful for
exploration as defined above.
A representative of this cate-
gory of launchers is the Atlas
5 Phase 2 Heavy.
If
there were the capability to fuel
propulsion stages in space, the
single-largest mass launched
would be considerably less than
in the absence of in-space refu-
eling. The mass that must be
launched to low-Earth orbit in
the current NASA plan, without
its fuel on board, is in the range
of 25 to 40 mt, setting a notion-
al lower limit on the size of the
super heavy-lift launch vehicle
if refueling is available.
All of the options would benefit from the development of inspace
refueling, and the smaller rockets would benefit most
of all. A potential government-guaranteed market to provide
fuel in low-Earth orbit would create a strong stimulus to the
commercial launch industry.
The Committee cautions against the tradition of designing
for ultimate performance at the expense of reliability, operational
efficiency, and life-cycle cost.
ISS has not been a useless program far far from it. We never had an orbiting complex that allowed for long duration or even one year or longer stays in micro gravity. Additionally COTS money is a big part of why SpaceX was able to get where they are, without it I doubt they would have survived long enough to develop the technology that is actually making real change in the modern day. No BFR no raptor no merlin 1 d no falcon 9 blocks no landings.
I could go on about all the research done on station but it's not worth it. While ISS shares many of the same faults as Apollo, Shuttle, and yes even CXP and SLS, the main difference is that ISS despite all the odds, all the cuts all the shortcomings, actually got built and works and does useful things/. ISS is a massive achievement and may end up being the greatest thing we ever do in space, though I really hope not.
If you killed ISS right now and raided the entire budget, hell lets go further, if you did that AND killed SMD and JWST, you STILL would not be able to do anything more than perhaps buy a couple extra SLS flights and maybe human rate ICPS. That's it. You would still not have enough money to speed up the timeline, you would still not be able to pay to build and operate LOPG, you would still not have enough money for DSG, you would still not be able to build any follow on SLS blocks, such as those capable of the much vaunted '100mt to LEO' any faster or at all for that matter.
You should look at the budget I posted a few pages back. I didn't raid any budget for SLS/Orion. SLS and Orion gets modest cuts in resources to fund back up options and additional capacity and other components required for a complete architecture. ISS completed its mission after 20 years and if it hasn't completed its mission in 20 years, who is to say it will complete its mission in 30?
...
Pot calling the kettle black IMO. As far as the USG being in the way. I seriously doubt that anything the USG does will block the use of whatever trajectories or launch windows that SpaceX or anybody else will want. This idea that the USG space activities is hindering anything or "in the way"(especially exploration) is one of the more bizarre ideas that I have seen pop up on occasion. ...
It is not that there is a direct connection between SLS (congressional support) and other SHLV commercial existing g and under development. It is just that the programs that the involved contractors of SLS do not have reason to spend any of their own capitol to develop any features that would compete with an ongoing profitable (to them) contract. This is why the development of competing features using ACES is so delayed. But other providers not involved with SLS do not have the disincentive. But the lack of support as a customer does make some impact on their schedule....
Pot calling the kettle black IMO. As far as the USG being in the way. I seriously doubt that anything the USG does will block the use of whatever trajectories or launch windows that SpaceX or anybody else will want. This idea that the USG space activities is hindering anything or "in the way"(especially exploration) is one of the more bizarre ideas that I have seen pop up on occasion. ...
Watch what happens when SLS/Orion is threatened by a new exploration-class vehicle.
Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words).*/Congressional lapdogs/large defense contractors working on SLS/Orion will try to take it out.
This exact coalition is already standing in the way of orbital refueling and an architecture that uses existing and under-development commercial launch vehicles.
* appreciate the robo-editorial insertion.
You should look at the budget I posted a few pages back. I didn't raid any budget for SLS/Orion. SLS and Orion gets modest cuts in resources to fund back up options and additional capacity and other components required for a complete architecture. ISS completed its mission after 20 years and if it hasn't completed its mission in 20 years, who is to say it will complete its mission in 30?
Here is the value of ISS and COTS over SLS ad why the mission of the ISS is ongoing and the mission of something like SLS ends in a few minutes.
Your 2 kg of water per crew is based off ISS numbers. The ISS has a water recycling system that can recycle up 70% of the crew’s waste water. If you don’t have a system like that on your lunar base then the water needs are going to increase.
LEO is the perfect proving grounds for such a systems because of the much higher flight rate of supplies to the ISS. If something breaks or does not work as planned a replacement part could be sent in 3 months or sooner(i.e. quick exchange this part with that thing on the next resupply flight). With a flight rate of only about 2 per year any resupply that uses SLS is going to be slow.
You specified 1kg of food per day ignores volume issues.
You can use other rockets and small landers for logistics express delivery. In fact, this is exactly what NASA is doing in CLPS.
You can use other rockets and small landers for logistics express delivery. In fact, this is exactly what NASA is doing in CLPS.
I think you are onto something here. Express deliveries on smaller rockets could definitely help simplify the logistics by giving you more margin for error. You could even make regularly scheduled express deliveries where every two months you send over whatever is needed most.
You can use other rockets and small landers for logistics express delivery. In fact, this is exactly what NASA is doing in CLPS.
I think you are onto something here. Express deliveries on smaller rockets could definitely help simplify the logistics by giving you more margin for error.
And if you committed to a block buy of express deliveries, say buying 12 launches each on two different systems, you could get a decent price and reliability.
Getting back to the issues of the SLS development program.
Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.
For the present and near future this right here is all anyone really needs to understand:QuoteGetting back to the issues of the SLS development program.
Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.
Here is the rub. By the time this thing makes it's first flight, which will be un-manned and in-capable of doing an actual mission thanks to the program's own ridiculous timeline and requirements, it will be 'too late'.
What flies in 2020-2022 will not be an operational vehicle or "The real" SLS, it will be a one or at most a two off vehicle.
Meanwhile at the same time:
New Glenn will either be in service or nearing service
Vulcan will most likely be beginning service
ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
BFR will be either close to service or entering service depending on technical challenges and/or any re-designs due things discovered in the test campaign. The test campaign is underway right now with the first BFS test vehicle either already under construction or due to start shortly.
The raptor engine exists right now, though scaling remains a mystery as details are tightly held in house at this time.
BE-4 is under going it's flight test validation program right now
For the present and near future this right here is all anyone really needs to understand:QuoteGetting back to the issues of the SLS development program.
Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.
Here is the rub. By the time this thing makes it's first flight, which will be un-manned and in-capable of doing an actual mission thanks to the program's own ridiculous timeline and requirements, it will be 'too late'.
What flies in 2020-2022 will not be an operational vehicle or "The real" SLS, it will be a one or at most a two off vehicle.
Meanwhile at the same time:
New Glenn will either be in service or nearing service
Vulcan will most likely be beginning service
ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
BFR will be either close to service or entering service depending on technical challenges and/or any re-designs due things discovered in the test campaign. The test campaign is underway right now with the first BFS test vehicle either already under construction or due to start shortly.
The raptor engine exists right now, though scaling remains a mystery as details are tightly held in house at this time.
BE-4 is under going it's flight test validation program right now
WILL Be...??? If this was 2015 I might agree with you, but we are halfway through 2018.
BFR "entering service"? ??? Don't expect it till 2028 or 2030 at best. It will be a major development effort. Look how long we waited for FH, and it has flown ONCE! Have we seen the Raptor yet? Is it being run on the test stands at 100% yet?
NG? I don't expect it to fly before 2025. Maybe 2022 for some test flights..maybe. BE4 hasn't been run at full throttle yet. We'll see it on the test stands in 2020 I think, clustered and being run at 100%+.
Maybe Vulcan and BE4 in 2022. Why? Aren't there sufficient RD-180's , AV and DIVH in the pipeline? No pressure. My point is none of the things you mentioned are a given. Especially in the timeline mentioned. Anything can happen. If anything, SLS is further along than any of the items you mentioned.
...in 2020-2022...ACES hopefully will be in serious development by then, but today they are just at the concept stage, and everything I have heard indicates they are unlikely to start moving past that point until Vulcan/Centuar V is on the pad. (Problem is their parent companies rather than current leadership from what I can tell.)
ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
BFR "entering service"? ??? Don't expect it till 2028 or 2030 at best. It will be a major development effort. Look how long we waited for FH, and it has flown ONCE! Have we seen the Raptor yet? Is it being run on the test stands at 100% yet?How many times FH has flown so far has a lot to do with how much F9 capability increases have limited the need for FH for current missions. It hasn't even been 10 years since the first successful Falcon 1 launch, so saying BFR won't launch until 2028 is not consistent with how quickly Falcon Heavy was developed. BFR today is further along than FH in 2008. Besides, FH was basically a back burner program needed "eventually." BFR will be the majority of all SpaceX R&D going forward, with a priority of ASAP.
NG? I don't expect it to fly before 2025. Maybe 2022 for some test flights..maybe. BE4 hasn't been run at full throttle yet. We'll see it on the test stands in 2020 I think, clustered and being run at 100%+.This statement doesn't even make sense. BE-4 is on the test stand now. A "cluster of BE-4s" would be a rocket on the pad. (no McGregor-like site for Blue, they will static fire at their pad only) From that point, something would have to explode for the launch to not be within 1 year.
Maybe Vulcan and BE4 in 2022. Why? Aren't there sufficient RD-180's , AV and DIVH in the pipeline? No pressure. My point is none of the things you mentioned are a given. Especially in the timeline mentioned. Anything can happen. If anything, SLS is further along than any of the items you mentioned.You just were making up random delays for all of those other rockets. SLS has a history of consistently being delayed, and honestly I will be somewhat surprised if first launch is before 2022 at this point. Probably 2 years between first and second launch (and the second launch would be the first non-test payload). SLS is not a given either, and is the worst performance for its cost out of any of them. All of the other projects discussed are moving forward with plans that have them leapfrog past SLS within 1-2 years.
For the present and near future this right here is all anyone really needs to understand:QuoteGetting back to the issues of the SLS development program.
Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.
Here is the rub. By the time this thing makes it's first flight, which will be un-manned and in-capable of doing an actual mission thanks to the program's own ridiculous timeline and requirements, it will be 'too late'.
What flies in 2020-2022 will not be an operational vehicle or "The real" SLS, it will be a one or at most a two off vehicle.
Meanwhile at the same time:
New Glenn will either be in service or nearing service
Vulcan will most likely be beginning service
ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
BFR will be either close to service or entering service depending on technical challenges and/or any re-designs due things discovered in the test campaign. The test campaign is underway right now with the first BFS test vehicle either already under construction or due to start shortly.
The raptor engine exists right now, though scaling remains a mystery as details are tightly held in house at this time.
BE-4 is under going it's flight test validation program right now
WILL Be...??? If this was 2015 I might agree with you, but we are halfway through 2018.
BFR "entering service"? ??? Don't expect it till 2028 or 2030 at best. It will be a major development effort. Look how long we waited for FH, and it has flown ONCE! Have we seen the Raptor yet? Is it being run on the test stands at 100% yet?
NG? I don't expect it to fly before 2025. Maybe 2022 for some test flights..maybe. BE4 hasn't been run at full throttle yet. We'll see it on the test stands in 2020 I think, clustered and being run at 100%+.
Maybe Vulcan and BE4 in 2022. Why? Aren't there sufficient RD-180's , AV and DIVH in the pipeline? No pressure. My point is none of the things you mentioned are a given. Especially in the timeline mentioned. Anything can happen. If anything, SLS is further along than any of the items you mentioned.
ACES hopefully will be in serious development by then, but today they are just at the concept stage, and everything I have heard indicates they are unlikely to start moving past that point until Vulcan/Centuar V is on the pad. (Problem is their parent companies rather than current leadership from what I can tell.)
Raptor upper stage would not exist unless problems happen with BFR. The Air Force contract is just about the engine, and only needs the "raptor upper stage" as a possibility, not an intended future.