Author Topic: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma  (Read 99005 times)

Online Chris Bergin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/06/nasa-resolve-sls-upper-stage-dilemma/

Been working with this in the background for a while now, but here's where we are with all of this DCSS vs EUS status.

Many thanks again to Nathan for the majority of the cool renders here out of L2.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline tesla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Researcher
  • State College, PA, USA
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #1 on: 06/30/2015 01:50 pm »
Great article! Looks like EM 2 will have the EUS onboard. :D

So the budget language implies that there will likely be a SLS Mission between EM 1 (2018) and EM 2 (2021). Correct?
« Last Edit: 06/30/2015 01:51 pm by tesla »
Go SLS and Orion! God bless America.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #2 on: 06/30/2015 02:14 pm »
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. 

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #3 on: 06/30/2015 02:22 pm »
Too bad they can't just rebuild the old Saturn IVB stage and use it.

    I'm really finding it odd that they keep putting together this new stage set up with the odd assembly of tankage, which requires more mass in the way of fairings, instead of simply designing and building equipment that fits together properly.

     In a vacume, this doesn't matter too much, but it seems kind of mass wasteful and economically wasteful to have to add fairings to a craft that could be designed better from the get go.  Is the current stack simply a placeholder for a better design, or is there some reason thatthey're designing what appears to be a less efficent rocket stack than they could?
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #4 on: 06/30/2015 02:41 pm »
I think they should work with ULA to develop ACES upper stage

not really feasible for many contractual and propriety reasons
« Last Edit: 06/30/2015 02:42 pm by Jim »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #5 on: 06/30/2015 02:59 pm »
Very informative article Chris, thank you! :) I usually look at ASAP as a “self licking ice-cream cone” but this time I think they make sense...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #6 on: 06/30/2015 04:26 pm »
What I don't get from this article, is they say it'll take "at least $150M to human rate the ICPS engine".

But won't the EUS almost assuredly use the RL-10 engine?  The article mentions four RL-10-C1's, where the DCSS/ICPS would use presumably the RL-10-C2, but wouldn't it cost the same to human rate the RL-10C either way? 

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?  That would make more sense.  Otherwise the human rating investment into the RL-10C for ICPS would be applicable to the EUS.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #7 on: 06/30/2015 05:28 pm »
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?

My understanding is that systems are human-rated, not individual components of the system.  So even though you make a new system out of a bunch of components that have been used on other human-rated systems, they still have to be human-rated for the new system.

That being the case, the $150M to human-rate the ICPS would be for efforts that would not be transferrable to the EUS, so overall a waste of money.

This situation is, to put it gently, due to fictitious requirements from Congress when they created the SLS:

"Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016."

Good, Fast, Cheap - pick any two.  So it's pretty clear how NASA was forced into this situation...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #8 on: 06/30/2015 07:24 pm »
Probably also worth noting the system which would be human rated would not be the Delta stage, but a slight variant of it. So even if ICPS were human rated, DCSS would not be. How "clever" is that!?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #9 on: 06/30/2015 09:06 pm »
So with crew flight happening on the second SLS, they're basically thinking that they should forgo ICPS entirely so the EUS gets a flight test?  Outside of funding this sounds like a matter of renegotiating with Boeing or just biting the bullet and using the EUS for the first time with a crew.  The later has happened before; the shuttle was never launched unmanned, only flight tested within the atmosphere ala Enterprise.  It will be tricky for NASA to get itself out of this odd corner.

The only way I could see the EUS getting squeezed in for an unmanned flight test is if they sanction a probe (ala Europa Clipper or MSR) to double for the test, unless of course they just want to fly a dummy payload like with the first Delta 4...which seems a touch wasteful on a huge SLS.

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?).

I'm going to guess an 80% chance of option #2, and 20% of option #3.  Looking at NASA history, when they're really on the wire they quietly bite the bullet (Apollo 13, Space Shuttle testing), although sadly rushed decisions led to Challenger & Columbia.  All the same, if there's no fresh money and appearances and schedules to keep, they will take a risk - although they would do their best to mitigate the risk.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline JohnF

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #10 on: 06/30/2015 09:55 pm »
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. however would that delay the first flight, probably ??

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #11 on: 06/30/2015 10:12 pm »
If EUS can't be ready in time for EM-1, and it probably can't, then option #3. A cargo flight with some sort of module, maybe one from Bigelow. Put it in a lunar retrograde orbit and give EM-2 a destination.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #12 on: 06/30/2015 10:22 pm »
Quote
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...

Doesn't the change to advanced boosters, even if they are composite solids, technically change the configuration from Block IB to Block IIB?

If the RL-10s are eventually swapped out with MB-60s:
     1. How much performance is gained?
     2. How much will it cost to re-certify the US as human rated?
     3. Will the block nomenclature be altered from IIB to something else, perhaps IIC?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #13 on: 06/30/2015 10:26 pm »

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?).


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.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #14 on: 06/30/2015 10:46 pm »
Good, 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"...

I thought it was clear by now that the 2016 date was not picked out of thin air, but was based on what the engineers thought they could do.  Indications are that they were right, but other circumstances (largely the actions of the Administration in delaying program start by a year) have intervened - I don't know what exactly the impact of the weld tool mishap was, but before it I believe SLS was on track for 2017 with margin despite the lower budgets.

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.  Getting it done in a reasonable amount of time is an entirely reasonable goal, especially if you're expecting/hoping for a new Republican President in 2013...

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.

It's probably too late to save any money on the first ICPS; if it isn't already under construction, it will be soon.  It doesn't have to be man-rated; the controversy is over the second flight unit, which does.
« Last Edit: 06/30/2015 11:04 pm by 93143 »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #15 on: 06/30/2015 10:55 pm »
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.
Congress should go with Vulcan/ACES. That would solve so many issues/problems.
Money better invested for America and space launches/missions.

Would be able to do all LEO/GTO and ( crew explorations missions, if funded ).

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #16 on: 07/01/2015 12:41 am »
Let's not kid ourselves here - nothing in this article is exactly new information. The need to make a decision on EUS is just getting to the boiling point. The Pros  and Cons remain the same, but now there may be funding to accelerate.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/nasa-confirms-eus-sls-block-ib-design-em-2-flight/

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #17 on: 07/01/2015 03:40 am »

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?).


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.

Let's put a multi-billion dollar absolutely irreplaceable planetary probe on the first EUS.

What could possibly go wrong?

I say move EM-1 back and fly it with EUS.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #18 on: 07/01/2015 03:56 am »
I can't believe I'm actually writing these words.

I can't get behind the SLS program.  8 years to get to the firsts unmanned  test flight then 4 more, yes 4!, to the second.

Thousands of jobs, tens of billions of dollars, and 2 flights in 12 years.  This is the pinnacle of government inefficiency and contractor abuse of the government.

I dearly love space exploration, that's why I can't get behind a rocket program that literally doesn't get off the ground.
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 03:57 am by wannamoonbase »
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: NASA told to resolve SLS Upper Stage dilemma
« Reply #19 on: 07/01/2015 05:57 am »
Good, 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"...

Presidents can't remove funding, only Congress can.  And only Congress can create funding laws, Presidents can only veto them.

Quote
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.

I'm a scheduling professional, so understanding requirements and understanding how to achieve them is something I do.  The challenges for the SLS have not been all money related.  A lack of clarity on long-term needs has caused the current situation with not knowing if the ICPS was a necessary interim step or not, and now we're seeing that play out with lots of high level indecision.

As to how fast the program should go, that depends entirely on when the SLS is actually needed...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0