Just a short story relating to the VAB. Thought it was interesting enough to write up (VAB - its continued revamp, local company doing good, etc.) :http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/vab-fire-suppression-system-upgrade/
Excellent article on EM-1. Really enjoyed reading the progress Doesn't look like their is any show stoppers now for EM-1.
According to a presentation given at the recent Von Braun symposium at Huntsville EM-2 is still base lined to use Block I.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 11/17/2015 07:38 amAccording to a presentation given at the recent Von Braun symposium at Huntsville EM-2 is still base lined to use Block I.Well that's both depressing and illogical. The interim upper stage isn't human rated; NASA both can't and wouldn't use it for a human flight. Their default plan would be to wait until the EUS was ready and delay the crewed flights. Maybe they could use a few cargo flights during the wait, especially for flight-proving EUS, but the current administration would prefer not to...probably in part to avoid the fee for flight rating it when it's only going to be once...or in this case hypothetically twice.
Quote from: redliox on 11/17/2015 08:18 amQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 11/17/2015 07:38 amAccording to a presentation given at the recent Von Braun symposium at Huntsville EM-2 is still base lined to use Block I.Well that's both depressing and illogical. The interim upper stage isn't human rated; NASA both can't and wouldn't use it for a human flight. Their default plan would be to wait until the EUS was ready and delay the crewed flights. Maybe they could use a few cargo flights during the wait, especially for flight-proving EUS, but the current administration would prefer not to...probably in part to avoid the fee for flight rating it when it's only going to be once...or in this case hypothetically twice.NASA is unlikely to shout out to the world that they will be flying EM-2 on EUS when in fact EUS has not been authorized to go into full development. Until that changes, the default baseline remains in place. Meaning: EM-2 scheduled to fly on SLS Block 1.I have no doubt that EUS will eventually be authorized to go into full development. But at some point in time NASA will have to make a decision: fly EM-2 per the schedule, possibly on Block 1, or delay EM-2 until EUS is ready to fly on a manned mission. Heck, NASA might even do something else: like flying EM-2 unmanned and deferring first manned flight to some later mission. That would at least save the cost of man-rating iCPS. Other (different) scenarios are possible as well.
So.. If I have this right.. Baseline they have core stretch.. 4-SSME and 5-seg.. and still not exceeding numbers that you would have gotten for shuttle length tank with 3 SSME and shuttle 4-seg SSRMS? And throw in with a conformal tank version of EUS to the above and would that out perform 1B?
NASA Awards Contract to Restart Development of Engines to Power Agency’s Journey to MarsRelease C15-049 - November 23, 2015 - Sarah RamseyNASA selected Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California, to restart production of the RS-25 engine for the agency's Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket in the world, and deliver a certified engine. SLS will use four RS-25 engines to carry the agency’s Orion spacecraft and launch explorers on deep space missions, including to an asteroid placed in lunar orbit and ultimately to Mars.Part of NASA’s strategy to minimize costs of developing the SLS rocket was to leverage the assets, capabilities, and experience of the Space Shuttle Program, so the first four missions will be flown using 16 existing shuttle engines that have been upgraded.Under the $1.16 billion contract, Aerojet Rocketdyne will modernize the space shuttle heritage engine to make it more affordable and expendable for SLS. The contract runs November 2015 and continues through Sept. 30, 2024.The new RS-25 engine developed under this contract will have fewer parts and welds and will be certified to a higher operational thrust level. The new engine benefits from improvements in materials and manufacturing techniques such as five-axis milling machines, 3-D manufacturing and digital X-rays.The contract restarts the firm’s production capability including furnishing the necessary management, labor, facilities, tools, equipment and materials required for this effort, implementing modern fabrication processes and affordability improvements, and producing hardware required for development and certification testing.The contract also allows for a potential future modification that would enable NASA to order six flight engines.NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, manages the SLS Program for the agency. Engine testing will be performed at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi and the SLS will launch from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.For information about NASA's Space Launch System and the RS-25 engine, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/slshttp://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-contract-to-restart-development-of-engines-to-power-agency-s-journey-to
Quote from: TrueBlueWitt on 11/17/2015 05:43 pmSo.. If I have this right.. Baseline they have core stretch.. 4-SSME and 5-seg.. and still not exceeding numbers that you would have gotten for shuttle length tank with 3 SSME and shuttle 4-seg SSRMS? And throw in with a conformal tank version of EUS to the above and would that out perform 1B? SLS Block 1 will easily out-lift a 3 x SSME 4-seg SRB concept. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/18/2015 03:00 amQuote from: TrueBlueWitt on 11/17/2015 05:43 pmSo.. If I have this right.. Baseline they have core stretch.. 4-SSME and 5-seg.. and still not exceeding numbers that you would have gotten for shuttle length tank with 3 SSME and shuttle 4-seg SSRMS? And throw in with a conformal tank version of EUS to the above and would that out perform 1B? SLS Block 1 will easily out-lift a 3 x SSME 4-seg SRB concept. - Ed KyleYeah, but is the extra lift per launch worth the cost of the entire Constellation and SLS programs? Even when you figure in the cost of the development of the side-saddle cargo pod (including the inevitable cost over-runs, etc), it's breathtaking how much money was wasted for not that much added lift. The whole sorry saga is just beyond words - especially if you figure out what could have been accomplished with the money thrown at this thing. When people say "There isn't enough money to go to Mars", I just want to scream at them. What could have been accomplished by now, if we'd gone ahead with a 'vanilla' Shuttle C concept and put the money into transfer and landing craft?
NASA's Ground Systems Development and Operations Program (GSDO) has successfully completed its critical design review, on the path to preparing for the agency's journey to Mars.Members of the review board completed their in-depth assessment of the plans for the facilities and ground support systems at Kennedy Space Center in Florida that will be needed to process NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft for deep-space exploration missions. A Standing Review Board composed of aerospace experts from NASA and industry also will provide an independent assessment. Results of the review process will be briefed to senior agency officials in the coming months as the last step in the process."The completion of this review represents a critical milestone for the GSDO team that clearly demonstrates we are on track with the launch site upgrades required to support SLS and Orion test, checkout and launch in 2018," said Mike Bolger, GSDO program manager.