I think they should work with ULA to develop ACES upper stage
Or did they intend to say that $150M would be to human rate the whole DCSS stage, where that money could be better invested into the EUS?
It has also been suggested that the Block 1B version of SLS, sporting the EUS and advanced boosters could provide all the required up mass capability NASA envisions for the rocket...
So it seems like there's three options:1) Forgo ICPS entirely and fly EUS from the start.2) ICPS on EM-1, EUS on EM-2 (at risk to crew).3) Squeeze in a second flight between EM-1 and EM-2 (EM-2 renamed EM-3?).
Good, Fast, Cheap - pick any two. So it's pretty clear how NASA was forced into this situation...
Option #1, EUS gets tested on first flight, put some type of payload on it, no sense in waisting money on the ICPS, a stage that's only going to be flown once.
I think they should work with ULA to develop ACES upper stage that can handle multiple engines. RL-10 (1-6), J2X if it is ever developed, and BE-3 (vacuum version). Have it man rated, and it could handle a multiple of roles. It would improve Atlas, Delta IV heavy, and Vulcan when it comes on line. It could be stretched for more or larger engines, or a standard version with RL-10's.
Quote from: redliox on 06/30/2015 09:06 pmSo it seems like there's three options:1) Forgo ICPS entirely and fly EUS from the start.2) ICPS on EM-1, EUS on EM-2 (at risk to crew).3) Squeeze in a second flight between EM-1 and EM-2 (EM-2 renamed EM-3?).Yup, sounds like that's the conundrum. That's part of the appeal of the Europa mission, it could be that 1st EUS mission prior to a crew launching on it, but after the ICPS intial test mission.Myself, I opt for #1. Do the tower umbilicals just one time, put all of the money that hasn't been spent -yet- on ICPS into the EUS. And just launch EM-1 on the EUS as soon as the budget allows. Probably be a year or two delay but it's already been delayed a could of years from the original target date. Had Congress really wanted flying NASA-built hardware by 2016 or 17, NAA2010 should have with more directly Shuttle-derived like Direct. The upper stage still would have needed to be developed to go beyond LEO, but the SRB's would basically be used unchanged, the infrastructure would be very similar, and the core would essentially be a modified ET. So there should have been more money/resources to throw at the JUS sooner, that weren't tied up with the core and SRB's.But they didn't, so now, let's just get what we want the first time and not waste money on a 1 time interim step.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/30/2015 05:28 pmGood, Fast, Cheap - pick any two. So it's pretty clear how NASA was forced into this situation...Yep. Admin budget requests way below the necessary (authorized) level, and a Congress too divided and cash-strapped to fully reverse the cuts. It was, after all, the upper stage development that Congress was talking about when they used the phrase "subject to appropriations"...
SLS was never a crash program; it's been funding-limited from the start. Slowing down a project like this increases the total cost, even if the annual budgets are lower.