Thanks for the great article! Its a pity the usual crowd is ready to attack the program over every little thing every time its so much as mentioned!
This is not looking good for SLS.
The first flight of any new rocket is bound to encounter design and initial production delays.
If SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...
No dates known yet for EM-3, but Chris Gebhardt theorizes that if EM-2 is successful and the SLS is declared operational, that EM-3 would then follow within one year. Which would make sense given NASA's prior statements on maintaining a safe launch cadence of no-less-than one launch per year for the SLS once operational.So that would put EM-3 out about June 2023.
EM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019
QuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.
I guess the current plan is for Europa Clipper to launch after EM-3 in the 2024 time frame?
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 09/22/2017 09:53 pmQuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.No. As the article states, after the LH2 tank issues, NASA announced back in May that EM-1 was slipping to "sometime in 2019."This is the first concrete date in 2019 that's been released. So this is the full impact of "the slip to 2019" as announced earlier this year.
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 09/22/2017 10:52 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 09/22/2017 09:53 pmQuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.No. As the article states, after the LH2 tank issues, NASA announced back in May that EM-1 was slipping to "sometime in 2019."This is the first concrete date in 2019 that's been released. So this is the full impact of "the slip to 2019" as announced earlier this year.We knew it was slipping to 2019, but not when in 2019. This is... rather late into the year.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 09/22/2017 09:53 pmQuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.True, but it isn't really a surprise given the issues Chris. G mentions in the article as well as the tornado that hit Michoud in February.
Are there any details on what the current slip rate is? Is it better then 1:1?
Quote from: envy887 on 09/22/2017 11:45 pmQuote from: ChrisGebhardt on 09/22/2017 10:52 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 09/22/2017 09:53 pmQuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.No. As the article states, after the LH2 tank issues, NASA announced back in May that EM-1 was slipping to "sometime in 2019."This is the first concrete date in 2019 that's been released. So this is the full impact of "the slip to 2019" as announced earlier this year.We knew it was slipping to 2019, but not when in 2019. This is... rather late into the year.From our article in May about the slip to 2019:"While GSDO and the Orion/EMS issues have a good chance of being resolved in time for the newly realigned Q4 2019 launch target, the Core Stage might be a different story."This was always late 2019. No we have a first target date.EDIT: My fault for not including the "Q4 2019" reference again in today's article. I've updated the article accordingly.
According to the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, SLS and CEV (now Orion) were supposed to be capable of supporting human missions beyond LEO by 2016. The Act was signed in October 2010, or 6 years and 2 months before the end of CY 2016.
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 appropriations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
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.
Great article and let's not miss the fact their have REDUCED the gap between EM-1 and EM-2. No small feat with the first crewed launch and EUS.
This was a great article and I appreciate the update.SLS can potentially let us do some worthwhile things in the 2020s (Europa Clipper and lunar gateway) that cannot be done otherwise in that time frame.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:58 pmTrue, but it isn't really a surprise given the issues Chris. G mentions in the article as well as the tornado that hit Michoud in February.Sure getting a lot of mileage out of that tornado...
True, but it isn't really a surprise given the issues Chris. G mentions in the article as well as the tornado that hit Michoud in February.
Quote from: okan170 on 09/22/2017 09:34 pmThanks for the great article! Its a pity the usual crowd is ready to attack the program over every little thing every time its so much as mentioned! It is disingenuous for someone as creative as you, Nathan, to dismiss this slip as 'every little thing.'Is there nothing that wouldn't get your full acceptance in this program?
'The usual crowd' as you call us* was apparently on the money all this time while Bolden et al continued to chant 2018 and #JourneytoMars -- both are now in the dust bin.
* I am a proud member of this group because I believe an organization as well staffed with professionals as is NASA should have its programs evaluated on their merit, not on their political backing.
Quote from: AncientU on 09/23/2017 12:14 amSure getting a lot of mileage out of that tornado...I think these are the kinds of comments Nathan is talking about. Of course they should "get a lot of mileage" out of this. A flipping tornado hit the main production facility. If a tornado or earthquake seriously damaged Hawthorne or Decatur I would be more than understanding if their schedule slipped.
Sure getting a lot of mileage out of that tornado...
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me.
How about countering with specific information on exactly what was damaged and how exactly that affected the SLS program? Then we can debate what a reasonable schedule impact from that could be.
$1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: AncientU on 09/23/2017 12:24 pmQuote from: okan170 on 09/22/2017 09:34 pmThanks for the great article! Its a pity the usual crowd is ready to attack the program over every little thing every time its so much as mentioned! It is disingenuous for someone as creative as you, Nathan, to dismiss this slip as 'every little thing.'Is there nothing that wouldn't get your full acceptance in this program?Is there nothing that would even get tacit acceptance from you?
There is already a thread that asks that exact question (in both directions). It is in space policy, so I think that is a sign here is the wrong place for this discussion.
I think these are the kinds of comments Nathan is talking about. Of course they should "get a lot of mileage" out of this. A flipping tornado hit the main production facility. If a tornado or earthquake seriously damaged Hawthorne or Decatur I would be more than understanding if their schedule slipped. ..."Perfect is the enemy of good enough"
One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost. - Ed Kyle
Jeff Foust @jeff_foustNASA HQ public affairs says they’ll have an official update to the planned EM-1 launch date next month.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...You mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what?
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmYou mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows...
You mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what?
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/23/2017 10:44 pmQuote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmYou mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows... Actually if you look at the NASA budget the agency has lost around $6 Billion (2014 dollars) since 1991. Major human spaceflight programs like the space shuttle and Constellation may come and go but they are replaced with programs like SLS/Orion. Just look at what happened in 2010. There is no guarantee that if SLS/Orion were canceled their funds would go to your preferred space project. That isn't "fear mongering." That's a fact.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...You mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows...
One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost.
Hence, my read is that Orion/SLS is (or rather, was) supposed to be operational only to LEO by the end of 2016.
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/23/2017 10:44 pmQuote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmYou mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows... Actually if you look at the NASA budget the agency has lost around $6 Billion (2014 dollars) since 1991. Major human spaceflight programs like the space shuttle and Constellation may come and go but they are replaced with programs like SLS/Orion.
Just look at what happened in 2010. There is no guarantee that if SLS/Orion were canceled their funds would go to your preferred space project. That isn't "fear mongering." That's a fact.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/23/2017 04:15 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 03:29 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. $1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 03:29 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. $1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.
{snip}What happened in 2010 supports my point. The funds for NASA programs did not go away, despite the fear mongering here and elsewhere.Of course there is no guarantee for what will happen in the future. But the past history supports my claim, and not your fear mongering. I assume you understand that Congress has no specific attachment to specific programs, only that they bring jobs to their district. If anything else can do that, they will all jump on it in a heartbeat.And no, I don't expect a replacement program (*IF* SLS is cancelled) to be any more efficient. This is the nature of the beast.
The manned EM2 flight is far more important than EM1, as long as EM1 delays don't effect EM2 I don't care when EM1 flys. For those criticizing schedule slippages, this is a large space project, slippages and going over budget a the norm not exception. If you can't accept that then an interest in spaceflight is not for you.
...which underscores my point! There has been a slow and steady decline since 1991 (the prime days of the Shuttle program) until now, and the in that time Shuttle disappeared, ISS came, CxP came and went, SLS appeared. Are you seeing the trend here?
Of course there is no guarantee for what will happen in the future. But the past history supports my claim, and not your fear mongering. <snip>And no, I don't expect a replacement program (*IF* SLS is cancelled) to be any more efficient. This is the nature of the beast.
Following RS-25 engine delivery to MAF, teams will spend seven months integrating the engines into the MPS (Main Propulsion System) of the Core Stage...
Quote from: woods170 on 09/24/2017 09:33 amTell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: noneWhat 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.Orion will weigh 25 tonnes or more. Nothing but SLS could boost that mass trans-Lunar. Certainly nothing but SLS could boost Orion plus PPE or DSG at the same time, which is the current plan. Those missions will accelerate 33-35 tonnes of "revenue payload" beyond LEO all at once. - Ed Kyle
Tell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: noneWhat 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.
Apart from Orion, no HSF BEO payloads exist right now. Not right now and not for many years to come given that PPE and DSG are only conceptual in nature right now.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/25/2017 02:56 amQuote from: woods170 on 09/24/2017 09:33 amTell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: noneWhat 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.Orion will weigh 25 tonnes or more. Nothing but SLS could boost that mass trans-Lunar. Certainly nothing but SLS could boost Orion plus PPE or DSG at the same time, which is the current plan. Those missions will accelerate 33-35 tonnes of "revenue payload" beyond LEO all at once. - Ed KyleAs was correctly pointed out back in the DIRECT days, the CAIB did not recommend that a future Shuttle replacement not carry crew and cargo together. It was recommended that they not be together “in the same vehicle” unless absolutely necessary. Thus Orion carrying crew and stacked on the SLS with separately encapsulated cargo for delivery to BEO is a legitimate use of the vehicle as recommended in the CAIB, just the same as we had proposed back then for the Jupiter Shuttle replacement system. In this way Ed’s postulations are correct. However I tend to [partially] agree with Wood’s position because if NASA is only going to send crew BEO in Orion, then the flight rate of the SLS would need to be significantly increased - which we all know is not going to happen - ever. No one expects NASA crew to spend 1-1/2 years aboard the DSG or in a lunar surface outpost before being rotated out. So the use of commercially available crew vehicles capable of cis-lunar operations flying and rotating NASA cis-lunar crew is specifically indicated. Which begs the question – Why use Orion at all? If NASA is only going to fly SLS once every 12-18 months or so it will take FOREVER to gain a legitimate safety record for this manned spacecraft. Wouldn’t NASA be far better off using Commercial Crew vehicles for ALL its crewed missions and reserving SLS for massive cargo launches - uncrewed? I agree with Woods – make maximum use of the SLS capability by using it to launch Skylab-style stations and outposts. Make them big enough to fully use the SLS capability. Whatever the SLS is capable of delivering to the target location – make the delivered vehicle that size. SLS is going to fly so infrequently because of cost that it is a waste of capability not to max it out every time it flies – and NOT by substituting a hardly ever flown human spacecraft as ballast to justify a too-small cargo delivery.Fly SLS – if properly utilized it is justified for heavy lift delivery, even if it is infrequently used. But ditch Orion completely. It’ll never be used often enough to ever be declared operational because the only vehicle capable of flying it will hardly ever fly. Use the Commercial Crew capabilities for human delivery that has been so painfully developed over the past few years for ALL crewed flights. Orion is a waste of resources and a huge waste of money - money that could be better utilized in payload development. Ditch Orion but keep SLS. At least SLS can deliver something of value for all its investment. Orion never will.
1. Nobody seems in the least worried about gaining "a legitimate safety record" before putting crew on Orion. The first all-up Orion flight will be crewed.2. But the DSG isn't going to be permanently inhabited or have rotating crews. Crew will fly there on Orion, then fly back home on the same Orion 3 weeks later.
I suspect that the SLS will be used to build the Moon base and deliver its in situ resource utilization (ISRU) machinery.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/25/2017 03:34 amI suspect that the SLS will be used to build the Moon base and deliver its in situ resource utilization (ISRU) machinery.There are a lot of missions the SLS could be used to support, but so far none of them, including a Moon base, have been authorized and funded.The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded. That would be a challenge for getting it built, tested, and made ready for flight by 2024, which some have speculated would be the first operational SLS flight where NASA's SLS safe launch tempo is no-less-than once every 12 months.
"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."Haven't they said repeatedly that its being funded now under the NextStep and ARM allocation or are we just forgetting that again.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/25/2017 02:33 pm"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."Haven't they said repeatedly that its being funded now under the NextStep and ARM allocation or are we just forgetting that again.
"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."
Lightfoot cautioned that the Deep Space Gateway remained just a concept at this time, without the former endorsement of the project by the administration or Congress.
Doesn't anybody even care about crew safety... anymore?
Doesn't anybody even care about... fiscal responsibility anymore?
Quote from: ZachF on 09/25/2017 11:14 pmhttps://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43641.0The entire global LV business is $5.5 billion/year... That we're spending $4 billion/year just to develop SLS/Orion is a titanic waste of money.Even $1.5-2 billion a year is equal to 1/4 to 1/3 of the global LV business by $, for about one launch per year.The SLS/Orion budget would be for SLS *and* Orion - launch plus payload, so obviously launch would not cost $1.5-2 billion per year. It would cost half as much or less, for the equivalent mass capability of roughly 6-8 big expendable launch vehicles or 12-14 medium size launchers. Since 2007 inclusive, only ten launches out of the 853 total launches worldwide have gone beyond Earth orbit. Those payloads weighed a combined 20.3 tonnes. SLS 1B could do half-again as much mass beyond Earth orbit in one launch, and probably for less money than those 10 launches. - Ed Kyle
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43641.0The entire global LV business is $5.5 billion/year... That we're spending $4 billion/year just to develop SLS/Orion is a titanic waste of money.Even $1.5-2 billion a year is equal to 1/4 to 1/3 of the global LV business by $, for about one launch per year.
Actually if you look at the NASA budget the agency has lost around $6 Billion (2014 dollars) since 1991. Major human spaceflight programs like the space shuttle and Constellation may come and go but they are replaced with programs like SLS/Orion. Just look at what happened in 2010. There is no guarantee that if SLS/Orion were canceled their funds would go to your preferred space project. That isn't "fear mongering." That's a fact.
Quote from: clongton on 09/25/2017 02:13 pmDoesn't anybody even care about crew safety... anymore?I've asked the same thing with SLS/Orion carrying a projected LOC of 1-in-75 for a simple lunar flyby. That's slightly worse than the projected LOC of 1-in-90 for STS at program end, and barely different from the demonstrated LOC of 1-in-67 for STS over its lifetime.Morally, it is hard to justify flying astronauts on a system that is projected to take their lives at a somewhat higher rate than its predecessor system.Politically, it is hard to continue developing a program with flight crew safety figures that are worse or no better than its predecessor program, which was terminated for reasons of flight crew safety.And programmatically, real human space exploration missions will carry higher-risk elements than ETO launch, a quick lunar flyby, and EDL back at Earth. It is hard to see how such missions can have reasonable chances of success when what should be the lowest-risk segments of these missions will be exposed to such high probabilities of loss.
But flying crew on EM-2 without an actual all-up test flight of EUS and Orion is just asking for trouble.
On the other hand, previous reporting indicated that Europa Clipper would launch before EM-2, and this seems like it should be required for safety (no crew on first launch of EUS), but it does not appear to be accounted for in this schedule.
Quote from: meberbs on 09/24/2017 05:36 pmOn the other hand, previous reporting indicated that Europa Clipper would launch before EM-2, and this seems like it should be required for safety (no crew on first launch of EUS), but it does not appear to be accounted for in this schedule.I suppose this is necessarily up in the air at the moment, since, as far as I know, the launch vehicle for Europa Clipper has yet to be determined (vague memory says a decision is due a year from now).But still, you'd think there would might be a placeholder or conditional indication of some sort.
SLS / Orion is a successor to Apollo, not to STS.
And what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.
Quote from: su27k on 09/26/2017 07:29 amAnd what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.This is the difficult part, right here. As a spectator, it seems that this is where the process has failed for the last 30 years. Politically, there hasn't been a case for the budget needed to operate one system, while properly funding the development of the successor. Apollo was cancelled early, before STS was ready. STS was cancelled well before its successor was ready. I fervently hope this can change.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 07:06 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/23/2017 04:15 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/23/2017 03:29 pmQuote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. $1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost. - Ed KyleAh yes. I was waiting for that argument to rear it's ugly head.Tell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: noneWhat 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.Two points why your post is poor in quality:1. Falcon Heavy is not intented for launching (pieces of) a deep space architecture. Thus, the comparison tot SLS block 1B is apples-to-oranges.2. SLS will launch, at best, pieces of a deep space architecture in co-manifest mode. Because no single item of the developing deep space architecture warrants the need of SLS Block 1B capacity, on it's own. Simply put: a less powerful launcher could do the job just as well and have the virtue of having to fly more often to get the job done. Thus preventing the huge financial waste of having a standing army for a launcher that, on average, flies only once a year.
Quote from: jgoldader on 09/26/2017 05:51 pmQuote from: su27k on 09/26/2017 07:29 amAnd what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.This is the difficult part, right here. As a spectator, it seems that this is where the process has failed for the last 30 years. Politically, there hasn't been a case for the budget needed to operate one system, while properly funding the development of the successor. Apollo was cancelled early, before STS was ready. STS was cancelled well before its successor was ready. I fervently hope this can change.Was there budget to both operate Apollo and develop Shuttle? I doubt it. Just like there was no budget for developing CxP during Shuttle.Ideally NASA should not be operating one giant launch system (giant as in its budget footprint), the budget should be spent on smaller projects that hopefully have some synergy.
Just comparing tonnage is like making deep space exploration into Lego elements. It woefully fails to account for an enormous host of other factors that come into play when you piece-meal an exploration stage into being from tens to hundreds of individually-launched payloads.
I am a strong proponent of SLS, but I am not a strong proponent of the idea of heading off into the Solar System in a kludged-up structure of Bigelow inflatables and Cygnus closets as your exploration craft.
SLS will at least allow for putting together larger pieces into good-sized spacecraft, rather than attaching a whole lot of tin cans, each barely able (if at all) of providing one person's minimal personal space requirements.
Yes, there is no funding to *build* such a large-structure DSH at the moment, but Marshall's DSH plans are for a structure as large in diameter as the SLS.
And their hab design requires SLS to launch; it would not possibly be achievable with 13 F9 launches -- structurally, if not tonnage-wise.
For example, the Apollo TLI stage was about 320,000 pounds, placed by a single launch into a very low Earth orbit of about 90 statute miles circular, on later missions. You could have put up that many tons of mass in something like 40 Atlas launches, or 20 Titan II launches, or six to eight Saturn IB launches. So, by that logic, the Saturn V was a useless waste of money.But... each individually launched payload needs its own structure, its own avionics, its own maneuvering and attitude control system... so your one-launch TLI stage weighs 320,000 pounds, but 40 individually-launched piecework payloads will weigh on the order of half a million pounds. And can't be placed in an unstable parking orbit, because it will take weeks, if not months, to assemble them all into the piecework variant of an Apollo TLI stage, so your initial energy requirements, just to get to LEO to assemble, go up.Just comparing tonnage is like making deep space exploration into Lego elements. It woefully fails to account for an enormous host of other factors that come into play when you piece-meal an exploration stage into being from tens to hundreds of individually-launched payloads.
The only way to match SLS BLEO capabilities with smaller LV is by distributed launch, which is whole new technology to be developed and proven. Even then the EELVs in 2010 would've been to small, something in 35-50t class would be need. Commercially developed DL and 3 vehicles in this class are now in development, only 5-7yrs to late. Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
No SpaceX discussion here. SLS is the real rocket and not an impossible concept suggested by an eccentric billionaire.
The only way to match SLS BLEO capabilities with smaller LV is by distributed launch, which is whole new technology to be developed and proven. Even then the EELVs in 2010 would've been to small, something in 35-50t class would be need. Commercially developed DL and 3 vehicles in this class are now in development, only 5-7yrs to late.
So it is a race between the newly announced SpaceX BFR flight to Mars and the SLS EM-2 test flight in 2022 to see which one get off the pad first. Pass the popcorn for the forthcoming launches
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 09/28/2017 06:36 pmThe only way to match SLS BLEO capabilities with smaller LV is by distributed launch, which is whole new technology to be developed and proven. Even then the EELVs in 2010 would've been to small, something in 35-50t class would be need. Commercially developed DL and 3 vehicles in this class are now in development, only 5-7yrs to late.This is the same fallacy in another form: you identify one weakness of a non-heavy-lift approach and conclude that heavy lift is better. The fact remains that there is as yet literally no technical justification for SLS.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 09/29/2017 06:24 amSo it is a race between the newly announced SpaceX BFR flight to Mars and the SLS EM-2 test flight in 2022 to see which one get off the pad first. Pass the popcorn for the forthcoming launchesI do in-fact believe BFR will fly, or something close to it. But I would add 10 years to the schedule, so 2032 would be first test flight of BFR IMO. For the 2020s, SLS/Orion will have plenty to do.
For the 2020s, SLS/Orion will have plenty to do.
I dunno. It's late 2017. For that statement to become true, the payload hardware needs to be in mid- to late-development now. Since Apollo, NASA human spacecraft programs (STS, ISS, Orion) have required a decade or more to design, develop, launch, and become operational.Even if DSG gets the go-ahead soon and doesn't encounter the schedule issues of those earlier programs, the emergence of ITS and similar reusable upper stages/spacecraft on an early 3030s timetable would make DSG obsolete soon after completion.{snip}
Quote from: UltraViolet9 on 09/29/2017 07:56 pmI dunno. It's late 2017. For that statement to become true, the payload hardware needs to be in mid- to late-development now. Since Apollo, NASA human spacecraft programs (STS, ISS, Orion) have required a decade or more to design, develop, launch, and become operational.Even if DSG gets the go-ahead soon and doesn't encounter the schedule issues of those earlier programs, the emergence of ITS and similar reusable upper stages/spacecraft on an early 3030s timetable would make DSG obsolete soon after completion.{snip}EM-2 is aiming for 2022. If ITS is 2030+ that give DSG 10-15 years before a rival turns up. ITS is SpaceX only where as DSG could be hosting several lunar landers from different manufacturers.
EM-2 is aiming for 2022.
If ITS is 2030+ that give DSG 10-15 years before a rival turns up.
ITS is SpaceX only where as DSG could be hosting several lunar landers from different manufacturers.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/29/2017 08:24 pmEM-2 is aiming for 2022.The DSG won't be complete and have an airlock until 2026.And that schedule holds only if the Administration and Congress approve the DSG soon.The DSG will also need to evade the kind of weak rationales, political tinkering, changing partnerships, and multiple redesigns that put Alpha/Freedom/ISS in development hell for over a decade.DSG is obviously simpler than ISS. But even if it's approved soon, based on more recent experience with our "simple" Orion, I doubt DSG can avoid similar (if not quite as long) delays as ISS and Orion.QuoteIf ITS is 2030+ that give DSG 10-15 years before a rival turns up.I don't think ITS is the only "rival". Blue Moon or an ACES lander don't need the DSG and can use multiple launchers. Even the little guys like Moon Express don't talk about DSG.I doubt ULA will pursue an ACES lander without NASA skin in the game. But Blue Origin certainly has a backer with deep enough pockets to bring Blue Moon forward in whatever timeframe he wants.{snip}
Quote from: Proponent on 09/29/2017 11:15 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 09/28/2017 06:36 pmThe only way to match SLS BLEO capabilities with smaller LV is by distributed launch, which is whole new technology to be developed and proven. Even then the EELVs in 2010 would've been to small, something in 35-50t class would be need. Commercially developed DL and 3 vehicles in this class are now in development, only 5-7yrs to late.This is the same fallacy in another form: you identify one weakness of a non-heavy-lift approach and conclude that heavy lift is better. The fact remains that there is as yet literally no technical justification for SLS.The same can be said to your argument "The fact remains that there is as yet literally no technical justification for SLS". Technical justification? That is as subjective a "fact" as any.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/26/2017 03:49 amQuote from: ZachF on 09/25/2017 11:14 pmhttps://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43641.0The entire global LV business is $5.5 billion/year... That we're spending $4 billion/year just to develop SLS/Orion is a titanic waste of money.Even $1.5-2 billion a year is equal to 1/4 to 1/3 of the global LV business by $, for about one launch per year.The SLS/Orion budget would be for SLS *and* Orion - launch plus payload, so obviously launch would not cost $1.5-2 billion per year. It would cost half as much or less, for the equivalent mass capability of roughly 6-8 big expendable launch vehicles or 12-14 medium size launchers. Since 2007 inclusive, only ten launches out of the 853 total launches worldwide have gone beyond Earth orbit. Those payloads weighed a combined 20.3 tonnes. SLS 1B could do half-again as much mass beyond Earth orbit in one launch, and probably for less money than those 10 launches. - Ed KyleCould do, but will not do as no such payload exists and will not exist given the path NASA has chosen for developing a deep space outpost.
SLS is a bit of an Ouroboros....
To support lunar operations the DSG does not need an airlock, just two docking ports.
NASA needs to duck political meddling, possibly by getting extra features included in additional modules.
If there is significant messing around with the habitation modules requirements NASA can simply buy and fit a B330 from Bigelow as a 'temporary' measure.
The ACES lander does not have a heat shield so it cannot reenter. To be reusable therefore the lander needs leaving in either lunar orbit or LEO.
and at the present time there is no where in space they can be refuelled
A second ACES transfer stage that pushes a capsule, able to reenter, to DSG permits manned Moon landings.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/30/2017 03:25 am{snip}and at the present time there is no where in space they can be refuelledFor reasons of flight safety, I don't see that place being the DSG. NASA is not going to attach large tanks of pressurized, temperature-sensitive propellants to a man-tended station like DSG.And there probably won't be a place (or places) for refueling in space some time to come. Until there is sufficient demand, it doesn't make sense to invest in a propellant depots. One-off upper stages or maybe robotic servicers will do the work until then.
{snip}and at the present time there is no where in space they can be refuelled
QuoteA second ACES transfer stage that pushes a capsule, able to reenter, to DSG permits manned Moon landings.Now we're back to the airlock, which doesn't come online until 2026 or later.
Back in 2010 the concept of doing an RTLS of a an orbital-class rocket booster also seemed to be an impossible concept. And yes, it was suggested by that same eccentric billionaire (with the difference that Elon wasn't a billionaire back then).
Per waiting on the new EM-1 date.L2 info shows they are deciding between the "best case" date of December 2019 and a "risk informed" date of Q2 (around May) 2020 for EM-1.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 10/14/2017 01:55 pmPer waiting on the new EM-1 date.L2 info shows they are deciding between the "best case" date of December 2019 and a "risk informed" date of Q2 (around May) 2020 for EM-1.This is getting way beyond ridiculous. We are talking a 3 year delay from the originally NASA-targeted launch date and almost 4 years of delay from the mandated-by-law launch date.What the h*ll is the delay this time? It can't be all ESM related.
If NASA really is scheduling a possible EM-1 date of May 2020, the hard minimum 30 month duration for pad rework prior to EM-2 would put EM-2 at NET Oct 2022.
I'm still curious about Europa Clipper's launch between EM-1 and EM-2. How vulnerable will it be if either of the Orion launches are delayed? It still seems to be poised to play guinea pig for the EUS before the crew ride it themselves.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/14/2017 07:07 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 10/14/2017 01:55 pmPer waiting on the new EM-1 date.L2 info shows they are deciding between the "best case" date of December 2019 and a "risk informed" date of Q2 (around May) 2020 for EM-1.This is getting way beyond ridiculous. We are talking a 3 year delay from the originally NASA-targeted launch date and almost 4 years of delay from the mandated-by-law launch date.What the h*ll is the delay this time? It can't be all ESM related.Actually, most of it is. The ESM delivery date keeps sliding. Some of the delays were related to the friction stir weld issues (ie, core stage) and some were driven by software, but by and large the more recent slips are driven by ESM delivery.
There's always a blame game. The Orion end of the stack blamed Ares I during the CxP schedule stretch and it turned out it was mainly their end. I think we all remember the flapping over Thurst Oscillation, which was overplayed. Orion's continual changes were feeding down to Ares I, not the other way around. Orion said they had to keep changing because Ares I couldn't lift it. Back and forth. Probably needed better project management. ESM certainly gets a lot of the blame. I think a lot of that is valid when they have to send an ESM minus some of its tanks just to protect some schedule.
In September, the agency said in a statement that it would announce a new target date for EM-1 in October, citing the need to account for a range of issues, including progress on the European-built Orion service module and shutdowns at NASA centers from hurricanes in August and September.However, an update in October is increasingly unlikely. “Within a few weeks, I think [NASA Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot] intends to codify whatever that date is going to be,” Todd May, director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, said in remarks at the American Astronautical Society’s Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium here Oct. 25.Bill Hill, deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development at NASA, offered a similar assessment. “Probably in the next month, maybe sooner,” he said in an interview.
The management problems abound for the SLS/Orion/GSE projects.https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/gao-warns-nasa-to-avoid-management-mistakes-like-those-that-led-to-columbia-tragedy/My primary worry about the NASA upper management is that they seem to be cut off from what is really happening at the lower levels and are in the dark about schedule and possibly even costs (since schedule and costs are two peas in the same pod) but hopefully not about safety. But this latest GAO report gives questions even about that aspect.Some of that is having less control and insight into the actual activities than they normally would have over the contractors because of the changes in the contracts to help supposedly reduce costs. It was a risk. One that seems to have bitten them. But this is not to say that even if they had the improved control and insight that the end result would be any different. There is evidence including the nature of the problems that have plagued the program that no other action other than what was taken would have resulted in any better schedule outcome. But going forward in a more tightly interdependent task schedule this loser coupling may pose schedule risks that can cause it's own problems. Too many players, contractors, NASA centers, even independent NASA project managers that just coordinate their activities and are not really controlled except at the NASA Director's level. The main problem is 3 separate congressional budget lines which makes 3 separate independent project mangers that manage their separate projects independently and only abide by the interface control documentation existing between them.
Recently, the managing editor of the NASASpaceFlight.com, Chris Bergin, suggested that NASA managers are deciding between a "best case" launch date of December 2019 for the SLS rocket, and a "risk informed" date the second quarter of 2020. Bergin is a reliable source of inside information about NASA, and sources subsequently confirmed this information to Ars.
Yes. That is pretty normal for a big programme like this. Don’t be so negative om SLS just because it isn’t a newspace company thats working on it. And look at all the delays SpaceX is having with Falcon Heavy. I bet even BFR/BFS won’t fly like planned before the 2030’ ;-)
Lightfoot: think we’ll be selecting an EM-1 launch date in about a week. #vonbraun
If the real launch date once it occurs whether it is scheduled for earlier in late 2019 or not is in May 2020, then the next earliest SLS launch date possible is Dec 2022. Also if that EC would launch before EM-2 but EC launch would not take place until Mid 2023 with the possible quick turn around for another SLS launch (possible but not likely) 6 months later putting EM-2 in 1Q2024. That is 12 years after the start of the SLS/Orion program with it's first manned test launch. At least one problem the availability of the PPE to fly on EM-2 with such a date may not be a concern being that there would be about 5 years to produce the PPE once on contract to meet that date.