Author Topic: Boeing complete SLS Pathfinder Tank as MAF ET operations end  (Read 16488 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31292
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Boeing has been a strong  advocate for building a heavy lift vehicle. I applaud their dedication towards moving HV development along-- despite the reluctance of the White House to seriously get going with its agreed commitment to  SLS program.

Marcel F. Williams

They are not advocates, just looking for a buck

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Thanks Chris for showing that NASA is actually spending SLS funds on SLS tasks.


Just a point on this. There are no real SLS funds allocated. The delaying tactic from Bolden and company means they are trying to force the SLS funds into helping their commercial friends, who now apparently want more (so much for their projections).

Boeing and others are fighting back and spending their own time and  money to push this forward. This is clever as because of the delays by Bolden and company, money was wasted on the cancelled Constellation program. They have converted that contracted money into SLS work. A genius move.

And yes, Boeing are a commercial company, so this is very telling about the confidence in SLS. Look at their statements in Chris's very good article.

Well said, and very true.  However, for everyone else, like all things Boeing and others out there won't do that forever for obvious reasons.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3135
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1535
  • Likes Given: 122
Thanks Chris for showing that NASA is actually spending SLS funds on SLS tasks.


Just a point on this. There are no real SLS funds allocated. The delaying tactic from Bolden and company means they are trying to force the SLS funds into helping their commercial friends, who now apparently want more (so much for their projections).

Boeing and others are fighting back and spending their own time and  money to push this forward. This is clever as because of the delays by Bolden and company, money was wasted on the cancelled Constellation program. They have converted that contracted money into SLS work. A genius move.

And yes, Boeing are a commercial company, so this is very telling about the confidence in SLS. Look at their statements in Chris's very good article.

Well said, and very true.  However, for everyone else, like all things Boeing and others out there won't do that forever for obvious reasons.

Your missing the boat. Boeing didn't do this for free. They were under a Cost-Plus contract as part of Ares I development that had an end date NLT 30 Sep 2011. This was just one small contract that would cost just as much to complete as to cancel. All it would take to refocus was to change the nomenclature.

This contract was a technology proofing contract for manufactureing technology for making cryo tanks using modern practices which would really be applicable to anything using cryo propellants. The goals of such a contract was to gather data on the costs of the process, development of manufacturing procedures and to determine the quality of the resulting product.

Offline Chris Bergin

Thanks for the nice words about the article :)

Boeing has been a strong  advocate for building a heavy lift vehicle. I applaud their dedication towards moving HV development along-- despite the reluctance of the White House to seriously get going with its agreed commitment to  SLS program.

Marcel F. Williams

They are not advocates, just looking for a buck

All commercial companies - of which Boeing are one - are looking to create "bucks". However, I can say for a fact that the Boeing guys I know would completely disagree - and would feel insulted - by your representation with respect to this effort that they are "NOT" advocates and are "JUST" looking to make a buck.

I can also back that up with the facts of the article, which showed rather than banking the contacts and not doing any work with it on a cancelled program, they put it to good use, specifically for their efforts on SLS.


Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3135
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1535
  • Likes Given: 122
Thanks Chris for clarification.

Offline DDG40

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Slidell LA.
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 11
Thanks Chris for showing that NASA is actually spending SLS funds on SLS tasks.

I noticed one thing that may have escaped most. That the core is not really going to be an modified ET but a modern tech tank and structure although the diameter is common to that of the ET so that the handling tooling is the same as what was used on the ET. The welding systems are being replaced to be able to use modern tank welding practices.

All of this points to a less expensive and less manpower intensive manufacturing of the core than what occurred on the ET. Also since the new processes are different any retained or rehired personnel would have to be trained on the new processes.

Boeing Michoud has hired most of Lockheed's ET weld engineering (they boast about this). The welder's are all ex Lockheed ET welders. Lockheed was already manufacturing a stir friction welded LH tank when production stopped. If the LO2 and LH2 horizontal weld fixture are brought on line the only people that know how to operate them will be Lockheed personnel.
This week the LH2 Weld fixture is being brought back on line for possible modification to stir friction operations.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31292
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Thanks for the nice words about the article :)

Boeing has been a strong  advocate for building a heavy lift vehicle. I applaud their dedication towards moving HV development along-- despite the reluctance of the White House to seriously get going with its agreed commitment to  SLS program.

Marcel F. Williams

They are not advocates, just looking for a buck

All commercial companies - of which Boeing are one - are looking to create "bucks". However, I can say for a fact that the Boeing guys I know would completely disagree - and would feel insulted - by your representation with respect to this effort that they are "NOT" advocates and are "JUST" looking to make a buck.

I can also back that up with the facts of the article, which showed rather than banking the contacts and not doing any work with it on a cancelled program, they put it to good use, specifically for their efforts on SLS.


Willams is not referring to the Michoud Boeing but the Boeing proposal for an SDLV that has standalone core.

Boeing is willing to build anything that NASA will pay for.  It doesn't mean that are advocating SDLV or HLV because it is the best way to advance the USA in spaceflight. They see a way to make money on SLS and so they are positioning themselves to get a part of it.
« Last Edit: 08/27/2011 08:19 PM by Jim »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Thanks Chris for showing that NASA is actually spending SLS funds on SLS tasks.


Just a point on this. There are no real SLS funds allocated. The delaying tactic from Bolden and company means they are trying to force the SLS funds into helping their commercial friends, who now apparently want more (so much for their projections).

Boeing and others are fighting back and spending their own time and  money to push this forward. This is clever as because of the delays by Bolden and company, money was wasted on the cancelled Constellation program. They have converted that contracted money into SLS work. A genius move.

And yes, Boeing are a commercial company, so this is very telling about the confidence in SLS. Look at their statements in Chris's very good article.

Well said, and very true.  However, for everyone else, like all things Boeing and others out there won't do that forever for obvious reasons.


This contract was a technology proofing contract for manufactureing technology for making cryo tanks using modern practices which would really be applicable to anything using cryo propellants. The goals of such a contract was to gather data on the costs of the process, development of manufacturing procedures and to determine the quality of the resulting product.

So we mightt see a paper on this manufacturing tech?   I know looking at the photos that they seem to be using the new equipment installed a couple of years ago.  Maybe for the first time?  Any more details would make for interesting reading.
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Space Love 101

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Boeing has been a strong  advocate for building a heavy lift vehicle. I applaud their dedication towards moving HV development along-- despite the reluctance of the White House to seriously get going with its agreed commitment to  SLS program.

Marcel F. Williams

They are not advocates, just looking for a buck

You are not distinguishing between the corporate management of Boeing who makes the decision of where to spend money, and the Boeing employees who will actually do the work required for SLS. The latter are most definitely advocates.

It is these same advocates who have been working hard in such a way to put together a plan that corporate management is willing to invest their money and resources in. I will assume that your comment was not meant as an insult, but merely a statement of fact. However, it is not entirely correct.

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Boeing has been a strong  advocate for building a heavy lift vehicle. I applaud their dedication towards moving HV development along-- despite the reluctance of the White House to seriously get going with its agreed commitment to  SLS program.

Marcel F. Williams

They are not advocates, just looking for a buck

Why would a company in the space business want to make money:-)

The SLS will be good for NASA and also good for business. The SLS will allow companies like Bigelow  to launch their largest commercial space stations (BA-2100).  Go Boeing!

Marcel F. Williams

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5

[/quote]

Willams is not referring to the Michoud Boeing but the Boeing proposal for an SDLV that has standalone core.

Boeing is willing to build anything that NASA will pay for.  It doesn't mean that are advocating SDLV or HLV because it is the best way to advance the USA in spaceflight. They see a way to make money on SLS and so they are positioning themselves to get a part of it.
[/quote]

Even though a stand alone LOX/LH2 core vehicle makes sense as a cheaper and more expedient evolutionary first step towards an HLV, I'm not so sure if the current administration really wants a vehicle that justifies anything being commissioned by NASA  to be built. Because if you build it, you have to use it! And I see no evidence that the current administration wants NASA to conduct any serious manned missions within cis-lunar space in the near future.

Since the Obama administration really didn't want an HLV, the SLS is really a Congressional program. So I think its also going to be up to Congress to decide what missions the SLS will be used for within cis-lunar space since there is no enthusiasm in the White House to assign missions for a future SLS that they didn't want in the first place.

Marcel F. Williams


Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Thanks Chris for showing that NASA is actually spending SLS funds on SLS tasks.


Just a point on this. There are no real SLS funds allocated. The delaying tactic from Bolden and company means they are trying to force the SLS funds into helping their commercial friends, who now apparently want more (so much for their projections).

Boeing and others are fighting back and spending their own time and  money to push this forward. This is clever as because of the delays by Bolden and company, money was wasted on the cancelled Constellation program. They have converted that contracted money into SLS work. A genius move.

And yes, Boeing are a commercial company, so this is very telling about the confidence in SLS. Look at their statements in Chris's very good article.

Well said, and very true.  However, for everyone else, like all things Boeing and others out there won't do that forever for obvious reasons.


This contract was a technology proofing contract for manufactureing technology for making cryo tanks using modern practices which would really be applicable to anything using cryo propellants. The goals of such a contract was to gather data on the costs of the process, development of manufacturing procedures and to determine the quality of the resulting product.

So we mightt see a paper on this manufacturing tech?   I know looking at the photos that they seem to be using the new equipment installed a couple of years ago.  Maybe for the first time?  Any more details would make for interesting reading.
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20983.msg564323#msg564323
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31292
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299

Even though a stand alone LOX/LH2 core vehicle makes sense as a cheaper and more expedient evolutionary first step towards an HLV,


No, it doesn't.  NASA doesn't have the missions or money for the added expenses to justify it nor would it be allowed per the law.
« Last Edit: 08/28/2011 01:56 PM by Jim »

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Chris –

Thanks for the interesting article.  Would you please provide a link to the Boeing overview mentioned below? 

“The pathfinder is also representative of a Liquid Oxygen tank that is extensible to the Space Launch System,” noted a Boeing overview (available on L2).

v/r,
F=ma

Offline Gary NASA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Liked: 1246
  • Likes Given: 46
This is great from Boeing.

Offline Chris Bergin

Writing another SLS article today. Again, mainly hardware related.

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 13
Looking forward to it Chris!

Offline Chris Bergin

Another SLS article, with a home thread on the HLV section as it's nothing to do with politics :)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/shuttle-donate-entire-mps-to-sls/

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
No Ed Kyle. There's the SLS Pathfinder LOX Tank. As much as you'd love Ares I to come back, this has been explained to you this is NOT Ares, this is for SLS, and was subscale for a reason.

NASA can call it whatever it wants to call it, but its real origin is quite clear.  It is 5.5 meters diameter, its plans and tooling having previously been devised for Ares I.  If it was a real SLS pathfinder tank, it would be 8.4 meters or whatever diameter.  Unless SLS is being shrunk down to 5.5 meters?

 - Ed Kyle

No, I think they were just saving money by using what was 'lying around', Ed. The next pathfinder tank should be 8.4m, unless the upper stage decision ends up being a clear derivative of the Ares 1 upper stage; perhaps lengthened slightly for more propellant for SLS' EDS duties.
Is there a potential that the upper stage would become 5.5 meters? If that did happen, what is the justification for the SLS? Couldn't Atlas, Delta or Falcon meet these objectives?
I'm not saying that is what is happening, but if it is under consideration, would there still be a justification for the SLS, considering there would be pre-existing options with far less up front costs and time to market.
Can anyone verify that 5.5 meters is not under consideration for the upper stage?

Offline Davinator

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 30
Great run of SLS articles Chris. There really isn't any other media covering SLS as much as here. Aviation Week are the nearest, but they are mainly very short and more summaries. This is where the news is.

Tags: