With less than 2 years until the planned November 2018 launch date for its first exploration mission (EM-1), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) three human exploration programs—Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion), Space Launch System (SLS), and Exploration Ground Systems (EGS)— are making progress on their respective systems, but the EM-1 launch date is likely unachievable as technical challenges continue to cause schedule delays. All three programs face unique challenges in completing development, and each has little to no schedule reserve remaining between now and the EM-1 date, meaning they will have to complete all remaining work with little margin for error for unexpected challenges that may arise.
Quote from: GAOWith less than 2 years until the planned November 2018 launch date for its first exploration mission (EM-1), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) three human exploration programs—Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion), Space Launch System (SLS), and Exploration Ground Systems (EGS)— are making progress on their respective systems, but the EM-1 launch date is likely unachievable as technical challenges continue to cause schedule delays. All three programs face unique challenges in completing development, and each has little to no schedule reserve remaining between now and the EM-1 date, meaning they will have to complete all remaining work with little margin for error for unexpected challenges that may arise.https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-414We all saw this coming in 2011 - the chickens are now coming home to roost.VRRE327
Quote from: RocketEconomist327 on 04/27/2017 06:38 pmQuote from: GAOWith less than 2 years until the planned November 2018 launch date for its first exploration mission (EM-1), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) three human exploration programs—Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion), Space Launch System (SLS), and Exploration Ground Systems (EGS)— are making progress on their respective systems, but the EM-1 launch date is likely unachievable as technical challenges continue to cause schedule delays. All three programs face unique challenges in completing development, and each has little to no schedule reserve remaining between now and the EM-1 date, meaning they will have to complete all remaining work with little margin for error for unexpected challenges that may arise.https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-414We all saw this coming in 2011 - the chickens are now coming home to roost.VRRE327And the write-up by Jeff Foust: http://spacenews.com/nasa-plans-to-delay-first-slsorion-mission-to-2019/IMO, this is what you get when you combine two thing: 1. Thrusting a certain design for a BFR onto the executing agency, without having that agencies prior consent (Obama and Bolden never wanted SLS in the first place)2. Penciling hard operational-by dates into law, without providing the executing agency with the money needed (same underfunding mistake that eventually led to the cancellation of CxP).Ultimately though IMO, those continued delays will not spell doom for SLS and Orion. But the current efforts of Bezos, Musk and ULA ultimately will IMO.
There is no conceivable BFR effort in the realm of the capacity of the SLS, where 10 to 15 billion is not sufficient--presuming competence of course.
Quote from: tdperk on 04/28/2017 02:53 pmThere is no conceivable BFR effort in the realm of the capacity of the SLS, where 10 to 15 billion is not sufficient--presuming competence of course.You are making the same mistake that Congress did, which is that you are forcing a solution, not asking for one.Maybe a U.S. Government BFR can be built for $10-15B, but the point that woods170 was making is that NASA was never asked how to do that. Instead Congress dictated the design and dictated a need date without a detailed analysis that showed that either doable. Good, Cheap, Fast - at most you get two, but as we're seeing with the SLS sometimes you only get one (my "Good" assumption is that Boeing can build a safe, workable rocket).Plus, regarding money, Congress never set a money limit for the SLS, only a spending rate. There is a difference.
Not at all. How do you pretend I have specified hardware? Let alone mandated the use of solid boosters made in Utah?
Such a booster as the SLS can be made for that money, and for far less.
"Good, Cheap, Fast - at most you get two ", taking in the Eon Time Dilation factor and comparing SpaceX's progress to NASA's, it seems you can get all three for certain relative values of fast.
As for the supposed difference between a rate and an overall limit, when rate and a time limit are given, the overall limit is the rate times the elapsed time. Or don't you believe in multiplication?
Quote from: tdperk on 04/28/2017 06:17 pmNot at all. How do you pretend I have specified hardware? Let alone mandated the use of solid boosters made in Utah?I never mentioned hardware.QuoteSuch a booster as the SLS can be made for that money, and for far less.Congress specified the capacity of the SLS, the need date, the components to be used, as well as the contractors for the SLS. NASA had no input.So my point was that Congress was not asking for a BFR to be built for $10-15B, or really any total amount.Quote"Good, Cheap, Fast - at most you get two ", taking in the Eon Time Dilation factor and comparing SpaceX's progress to NASA's, it seems you can get all three for certain relative values of fast.SpaceX is bound by the same constraints, but it looks like they are better at balancing them. Keep in mind though that we don't know what their internal goals are, only what Musk announces publicly, so we can only guess about "Good, Cheap, & Fast".QuoteAs for the supposed difference between a rate and an overall limit, when rate and a time limit are given, the overall limit is the rate times the elapsed time. Or don't you believe in multiplication?Congress has not defined an overall upper limit to the amount of spending on the SLS, only a rate of spending. Which means you can't get an actual number from multiplying Rate X Time, since Time is undefined. At least not a number that an accountant could use...
If you aren't pretending I specified hardware, how are you pretending I've specified a solution?
Whether they in any way hold the manufacturers to that limit is an as yet to be seen answer political question, and the answer is probably not.
Congress does set the priorities for spending government money, and it does that with legislation. The job of a President if they will not veto is ultimately to shut up and soldier--or risk impeachment if they refuse to obey the law. That's how it works.There is no conceivable BFR effort in the realm of the capacity of the SLS, where 10 to 15 billion is not sufficient--presuming competence of course.
You are imagining words on my behalf I have never said, written, thought, or implied.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/29/2017 06:00 amNot that it matters, but the only date that Congress associated with the SLS was the requirement to have an initial capability of 70-100mT to LEO by December 31, 2016. That didn't happen (obviously), and Congress didn't decrease the funding to the SLS, which means Congress isn't concerned about the final cost of the SLS like they are for other large programs.So you admit they set a limit, didn't mean it then, and this failure gives the government another opportunity to recover from it's stupidity and end the program.
Not that it matters, but the only date that Congress associated with the SLS was the requirement to have an initial capability of 70-100mT to LEO by December 31, 2016. That didn't happen (obviously), and Congress didn't decrease the funding to the SLS, which means Congress isn't concerned about the final cost of the SLS like they are for other large programs.
Quote from: tdperk on 04/29/2017 06:13 pmYou are imagining words on my behalf I have never said, written, thought, or implied.I'm just going by what you said, which here is one of the statements you made:Quote from: tdperk on 04/28/2017 06:17 pmSuch a booster as the SLS can be made for that money, and for far less.And let me quote properly so that it's clear what I said (and didn't say):QuoteQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/29/2017 06:00 amNot that it matters, but the only date that Congress associated with the SLS was the requirement to have an initial capability of 70-100mT to LEO by December 31, 2016. That didn't happen (obviously), and Congress didn't decrease the funding to the SLS, which means Congress isn't concerned about the final cost of the SLS like they are for other large programs.So you admit they set a limit, didn't mean it then, and this failure gives the government another opportunity to recover from it's stupidity and end the program.No, what I said was that Congress has not shown that they are concerned about the final cost. That does not mean that there was or is a final cost that has been determined. In fact we know that NASA has not shared any operational cost data with Congress, or at least did not share any during Obama's era, and Congress has not publicly asked for a cost estimate to finish the SLS.If a government official is not concerned about the ROI of a government program, then that is an indication that they don't care about the ROI of that government program. Which is fine if something is a "National Imperative", but not good for something where there isn't such a clear need. And I think the SLS falls into the latter category.
No, you disputed they put a limit on it, when you then later admitted they did.
That they have not yet enforced any limit is beside that point.
No worries, now that the republicans are in charge, the program is going to proceed at "warp-speed"...
Quote from: RocketEconomist327 on 05/03/2017 06:41 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 05/02/2017 08:26 pmNo worries, now that the republicans are in charge, the program is going to proceed at "warp-speed"...Actually you are incorrect. There is actually a lot more discussion about SLS in the halls. While the sensationalism of Spacex is getting headlines staff are really starting to look at the cost of the capability of SLS.You are correct the hardliners will not change but the malleable middle is getting more squishy about it.Well its pretty visible. You'd have to be blind to not see the PR effort the extreme commercial space folks are running to go after NASA's projects. They even manage to coordinate opinion articles to drown out any possible good news, its a pretty tight little operation!
Quote from: Rocket Science on 05/02/2017 08:26 pmNo worries, now that the republicans are in charge, the program is going to proceed at "warp-speed"...Actually you are incorrect. There is actually a lot more discussion about SLS in the halls. While the sensationalism of Spacex is getting headlines staff are really starting to look at the cost of the capability of SLS.You are correct the hardliners will not change but the malleable middle is getting more squishy about it.