Author Topic: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage  (Read 21047 times)

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2376
  • Likes Given: 1737
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #80 on: 10/25/2015 03:55 PM »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.
...on SLS.

It's a HSF too expensive for unmanned payloads alone that might be flown on other LV IF funded ...

I too wonder about "soft power" projection with HSF - how far will it go? The economics aren't encouraging beyond the overly, almost overtly exorbitant SLS funds to get a starvation level HSF program, with no leverage by other launch systems and habs/mission modules/landers/etc. ARM is at once both over and under so to speak.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #81 on: 10/25/2015 04:01 PM »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2376
  • Likes Given: 1737
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #82 on: 10/25/2015 04:07 PM »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).

On science missions, you hold your breath until the LV is "bought". Remember waiting this out with New Horizons, and some of the unfortunate comments of the time against it flying...

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
  • Physics Professor in SC, USA
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 406
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #83 on: 10/25/2015 05:47 PM »

Just because previous efforts failed doesn't necessarily mean this one will. The current effort is far different from SEI, which was a smorgasbord of insanely expensive projects.


Yes, it does.  There is even less support in the gov't now than in the past for such programs.  The "retooled" CxP has less support than ISS.  And this is a fact, it only exists because it is a jobs programs.  It had little to no support outside of the affected districts.

Really? SEI never even got off the ground while the current PoR is funded at $3 Billion a year.

Congresspeople see pretty much everything as a jobs program. The Rep. from Hawthorne isn't more pure than the Rep. from Huntsville. Both of them want jobs in their districts. If there were no jobs for any district for SLS/Orion or CC then they both would have been canceled long ago.

ISS was something for the shuttle to do.

Which is just proving my point. Massive payloads that required the unique capabilities of the shuttle were funded and completed. The same can happen for SLS.

Quote
Also, there IS no need for a gov't space station, that is why there will be no ISS-2.

There is no need for another government LEO space station. Commercial has shown that it is (or soon will be) mature enough to handle LEO duties. LEO commercial crew and cargo as well as a commercial LEO hab should all be established by the time ISS is de-orbited.

BEO is a different story. The capabilities and usage of a BEO space station will be different than a LEO station. Instead of focusing on microgravity science a BEO station can focus on being an exploration gateway to the moon and beyond.

Also a government BEO station will serve as an anchor for commercial usage of cis-lunar space. If ISS wasn't up there we wouldn't have commercial cargo, commercial crew, or commercial habs. Because of ISS we will soon have them all. We can follow the same successful pattern with a BEO station:

1. NASA launches station with SLS

2. NASA crews and supplies station initially with SLS/Orion

3. NASA contracts out cargo to the commercial side (Falcon Heavy and Dragon for example)

4. Finally, NASA contracts out crew to commercial side (upgraded Dragon with cislunar SM for example)

This pattern has already worked with ISS. Why can't it work for a BEO station?

Quote
Manifest destiny is no longer a valid reason for gov't managed space programs.  Once that is realized, the rest makes sense.  There isn't enough return for the tax payers for such programs, except those in specific districts

Really? There are many reasons for space exploration, not just "manifest destiny." National security, spinoff tech, inspiration, scientific understanding, eventual resource extraction ect. 

There wasn't a lot of "return" on the initial expeditions to the Americas either. I guess they should have all just gone home and never explored again.

Quote
And  in 1992, I was pro big gov't space.  I was fully for ISS.  I worked Shuttle Mir missions and early ISS logistics missions.  The issue is that there is no break through science. The same experiments are still flying.


Who says the BEO station has to have the same mission as ISS? A BEO station can explore different scientific questions as well as being an exploration gateway (i.e. a docking base for a reusable lunar lander).
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2376
  • Likes Given: 1737
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #84 on: 10/25/2015 06:00 PM »
Congresspeople see pretty much everything as a jobs program. The Rep. from Hawthorne isn't more pure than the Rep. from Huntsville. Both of them want jobs in their districts. If there were no jobs for any district for SLS/Orion or CC then they both would have been canceled long ago.
Not so much that these are "jobs programs" as much as what they return for the budget. A big rocket every few years verses a few hundred that actually increases GDP is quite a difference.

Offline Steam Chaser

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #85 on: 10/25/2015 06:48 PM »

If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Not only that, but none of these require(d) SLS anyway.

However, within this list is a glimmer of hope for SLS backers in Congress/NASA/industry if they play their cards correctly (which I don't think they are, for the long term).  Most of these missions are (very very roughly) in the $2B or so range (at least we hope they won't cost more, for the future ones).  However, JWST turned out to be more in the $8-9B range.

If the SLS backers could make some deals to get the JWST budget wedge directed (once JWST funding starts winding down) towards multiple (let's say 3-4 per decade) science missions that still large, but closer to the $2B or so range, and managed so the missions actually get close to their budget targets, and they come up with reasons to justify flying these missions on SLS, then SLS could be in business with a decent number of non-Orion payloads.  However, I don't really expect any of that to happen.

There are also other ways involving these sorts of science/technology missions out of the payload bind that SLS finds itself in.  For example, the SLS backers could make a deal with Mikulski to have a space telescope built at GSFC that would be periodically serviced in cislunar space by astronauts delivered by SLS/Orion using tools developed by the GSFC satellite servicing group.  However, I don't see any indications anything like that is going to happen.

The ARM boulder could be used to justify multiple SLS/Orion missions ... or multiple ARM missions could deliver multiple boulders from different kinds of asteroids (and Mars moons) so multiple SLS/Orion missions to visit them could be justified.  This would work even better if the ARM hardware could be made reusable.  However, I don't see any indications anything like that is going to happen (even 1 ARM mission is in doubt).

There also doesn't seem to be any serious backing for other activities that could justify multiple SLS/Orion flights, such as a cislunar habitat or a lunar lander.

It's almost as if the SLS/Orion backers (by which I mean the ones actually driving SLS/Orion, not fans of SLS/Orion) are so confident in their political strength that they don't really want to have actual missions.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #86 on: 10/25/2015 06:53 PM »


1. Exploration doesn't need a gateway and a BEO station isn't the present objective.  You're talking about a non-existant fantasy program.

2. "If ISS wasn't up there we wouldn't have commercial cargo, commercial crew, or commercial habs. Because of ISS we will soon have them all. We can follow the same successful pattern with a BEO station:"

Those things only occurred because there was a catastrophe with the government launch program that had every intention of continuing till the 2020s servicing the station, a catastrophe that led to its cancellation and a gap between government systems during which station still had to be supplied and for which the commercial plan had positive qualities of its own in being able to be afforded with a tiny creation outlay.  It also happened because people pushed for a commercial supply means rather than a government one, while you are pushing for the mandate of creating and rationalizing a new government system, one that will introduce bad motivators to serve itself first and foremost.  The people in the future may act the very same way you are acting now: to favour the government system during a decision period.  This new system is so expensive it pushes out and minimizes the commercial activity that would occur.  Your commercial resupply of a BEO station would only occur a significant amount of time from now, and would be work in scope less than what occurs at the present LEO station as a comparative example.  There is also no guarantee that this station program lasts during the period in which you would have your commercial involvement and that NASA doesn't just move on to its next exciting thing.

There is also another way to create objectives: Bake in commercial involvement from the start in creating the objective and being involved with it.  There is ample modern commercial launch capability and ample evidence that this path can lead to earlier and expansive significant outcomes.

3.  The Shuttle was bad.  It was a bad means to achieve those ends.

Imagine telling someone in the early 1970s who wants the future space station to occur in the near term and who wants it to be a significant commercial involvement platform that hey, instead of doing that, instead of starting the objective now with commercial involvement, we will build a space shuttle, it will gobble up decades of funding doing makework activities before any significant objective activity occurs and we will push the creation of the station objective to the the decade of the year 2000, and we will push commercial involvement to the very end of the station program 40-45 years from now and when it's almost over and with only a tiny slice of program spending compared for it compared to the frontload on the government system and only if something really bad happens to the shuttle which we have every intention of being the basis for the space program and which will generate bad motivators to force that to continue to occur.  What you want is terrible and completely lopsided compared to what that person wants.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2376
  • Likes Given: 1737
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #87 on: 10/25/2015 07:13 PM »
While we're on this kick, Apollo Saturn cost about as much as the national interstate highway system.

Both still accrue credit (in different ways) to America. Likewise Shuttle and doubtless SLS to differing degrees.

But the GDP increase of the interstate highway system did considerable to the economic power of America.

Which is why China has been assiduous in also building transportation infrastructure.

Back to SLS and its design review (thread) - if the "potential" for the SLS as at CDR is to deliver as above, too much is left out at this stage for it to similarly return credit of sorts.

We are reaching a pivot point with CDR where there needs to be a definite change. Not seeing it.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #88 on: 10/25/2015 07:25 PM »
Once you have SLS, it's going to cost a lot to maintain the capability, whether you launch zero, one or two times per year. The variable cost per launch will be comparatively tiny.

So with a "cost to payload" model that reflects that reality, it should be possible to use the non-HSF excess capacity.

I like the idea of "interplanetary bus" missions: one SLS is used to send a collection of missions to a common destination, or at least trajectory. A central, robust, core handles; Nav, Comms relay, Propulsion, etc., and dispenses sub-payloads as required. E.g. Orbiters, landers, deeper space probes that need a lift and slingshot. International partners, cubes-sats, etc.

Or just  big cheap payloads like tanks of hypregolics or water at L1/L2.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2376
  • Likes Given: 1737
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #89 on: 10/25/2015 07:41 PM »
I like the idea of "interplanetary bus" missions: one SLS is used to send a collection of missions to a common destination, or at least trajectory. A central, robust, core handles; Nav, Comms relay, Propulsion, etc., and dispenses sub-payloads as required.

In practice these never happen, because bringing together all of them presents unacceptable schedule risk. So they are always cut.

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
  • Physics Professor in SC, USA
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 406
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #90 on: 10/25/2015 08:08 PM »

1. Exploration doesn't need a gateway and a BEO station isn't the present objective.  You're talking about a non-existant fantasy program.

Really? I guess Lewis and Clark should have just started their expedition from Washington D.C. since "exploration doesn't need a gateway."

NASA's current plans involve spending a great deal of time in cis-lunar space with at least an EAM accompanying Orion. Given other space program's interests in exploring the lunar surface it is not hard to imagine a BEO station smaller than ISS being the next step.

Quote
Those things only occurred because there was a catastrophe with the government launch program that had every intention of continuing till the 2020s servicing the station,

That doesn't invalidate my point. Without ISS there would be no need for commercial cargo or crew.

Quote
The people in the future may act the very same way you are acting now: to favour the government system during a decision period.  This new system is so expensive it pushes out and minimizes the commercial activity that would occur.  Your commercial resupply of a BEO station would only occur a significant amount of time from now

The problem with your argument is that said commercial resupply would already exist at the time a BEO station comes online. Falcon Heavy would be available (along with Vulcan) and the existing commercial cargo crafts could be upgraded to serve BEO (a much easier task given they don't carry crew).

SLS's launch rate is insufficient to allow it to do all the tasks needed to keep a BEO station running plus whatever else it is required for. In essence because of the success of commercial cargo plus the launch rate of SLS commercial involvement would already be "baked in."

Quote
Imagine telling someone in the early 1970s who wants the future space station to occur in the near term and who wants it to be a significant commercial involvement platform that hey, instead of doing that, instead of starting the objective now with commercial involvement, we will build a space shuttle

You do realize that the shuttle was originally intended to be commercially operated? That didn't work out. The commercial sector that existed then was non-existent compared to what is going on today.

SLS is designed for a specific purpose (BEO hauling) and can be complemented by commercial entities.

This insistence that everything must be commercial immediately is putting the cart before the horse and risks dooming any chance of getting out of LEO anytime soon. I would like to avoid that.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31348
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #91 on: 10/25/2015 08:38 PM »

Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).

EFT-1, PNH, and Juno do not count they are not flagship missions and did not cost like the others

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31348
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #92 on: 10/25/2015 08:48 PM »

Really? There are many reasons for space exploration, not just "manifest destiny." National security, spinoff tech, inspiration, scientific understanding, eventual resource extraction ect. 

There wasn't a lot of "return" on the initial expeditions to the Americas either. I guess they should have all just gone home and never explored again.


More nonsense.
National security does not need space exploration and existing launch vehicles are sufficient.
spinoff tech is a poor excuse and doesn't work that way anymore.  Other sectors produce more spinoff.  Space exploration is looking to those for tech vs the other way around.
Spending billions for "inspiration" is a poor use of money
scientific understanding can be done without SLS size vehicles
The US gov't does not need to be involved with resource extraction, that is for the industry and the market place to do.  And anyways, there is little out there that would be useful on earth.

wrong analogy.  There were readily available resources in Americas.  But to use the analogy, the gov'ts didn't built and sail the ships.  The gov't paid others to do it.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2015 08:51 PM by Jim »

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #93 on: 10/25/2015 09:19 PM »

Think your forgot some. Orion EFT 1, EM-1(Delta IV Heavy, SLS), New Horizons(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Juno(used heavier Atlas than MSL), Solar Probe Plus(Delta IV Heavy, 2018).

EFT-1, PNH, and Juno do not count they are not flagship missions and did not cost like the others

This is what I was referring to...bolding is mine.


If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

Not true at all.   There always has been the capability to launch large payloads, but there never is funding to support it, except for about one per decade.

Cassini - 90's, MSL- 00's, JWST- 10's, etc.   
ARM, Mars 2020, and Europa Clipper are not all going to fly.

Size cannot be conflated with cost. It would be interesting to graph cost of a mission vs the GTO capability of the rocket used to launch the mission. There is this thinking that as mass and delta v increase, the mission cost goes up as well predictably. So, a mission needing a Atlas 551 would always cost more than a mission using an Atlas 401 or something using an SLS will always cost more than something using a Delta Heavy. Just using some anecdotes, there doesn't seem to be a good predictive fit for the data that would cause SLS missions to necessarily cost exorbitantly more if using the incremental SLS cost. Take a 1.5 billion dollar mission like SPP using a Delta IV Heavy vs a 2.5 billion dollar mission like MSL using a Atlas 541.

MSL
mission cost: 2.5 billion
LV GTO payload: 8290 KG

SPP
mission cost: 1.5 billion
LV GTO payload: 14,220 KG

New Horizons
mission cost: .9 billion
LV GTO payload: 8900 KG

JWST:
mission cost: 8.7 billion
LV GTO payload: 10,500 KG

DAWN:.5 billion
LV GTO payload: 2000 KG

I put these values into google spreedsheets and can't see how you can fit a line to extrapolate a cost for a mission with the payload capability of SLS.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jkUnPH3e2nN40izEDB0UD50zeeGlZlMJGwhSdDELLYw/pubhtml
« Last Edit: 10/25/2015 09:20 PM by ncb1397 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2206
  • Likes Given: 2730
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #94 on: 10/25/2015 09:23 PM »
If SLS proves successful, then payloads will come.

I may think the SLS is a waste of money, but I have not doubt that the SLS, given enough time and money, can work as planned.  And if the metric for success is that it doesn't blow up on launch, then that's the wrong metric anyways.

So what are the metrics for success for the SLS?
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 Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3450
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2206
  • Likes Given: 2730
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #95 on: 10/25/2015 09:36 PM »
Now that the SLS has passed CDR, NOW can NASA release the cost estimates for building and flying the SLS?  They were supposed to be released after the KDP-C (Key Decision Point -C) milestone, but were not.

Not releasing cost information is usually because the information is thought to be outside the acceptable range of expectations - not that there are any cost expectations for the SLS, since it wasn't built to satisfy a known requirement, and the design was not selected based on alternatives that did have cost ranges estimated.

But NASA knows that once you announce a number then you get compared and measured on it.  Since there are no funded programs for the SLS to support yet, that means Congress and everyone would be able to use official cost information to do their own comparisons between the SLS and other existing and potential alternatives.  Which is good if that means NASA is encouraged to use the most cost effective architectures for future exploration, but that means the SLS may not end up being one of those.

So sure, there are political reasons for not releasing the cost information.  But hiding information is not a valid reason for not releasing the cost information.  Let's hope they release it sooner rather than later...
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 mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #96 on: 10/25/2015 09:58 PM »
What's the issue with ice?  It not like the Saturn I, IB, or V ever had a problem with ice.  I thought the ice was a problem for the shuttle and would not be for SLS?

Exactly Mike, wasn't that the idea of having an inline rocket ?, the Saturns flew with ice falling off no problem, why can't SLS ?
The S-1, S-1B, and S-1C first stages were LOX/RP and were un-insulated like other LOX/RP stages (e.g. Atlas, Jupiter, Thor, Titan 1), but the Saturn LOX/LH2 upper stages all had insulation (exterior insulation on S-II, interior insulation on S-IV and S-IVB).  The insulation was there on primarily to reduce LH2 boiloff.  That is why the STS ET had insulation too, although ice was also a factor there.  That is why Delta 4's CBC and upper stages and the Centaur stage on Atlas 5 all have insulation. 

More than half a tonne of ice shook off of Saturn 5 when those F-1 engines started.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed,

I get the boil-off issie.  That's not my question.  The OP said "No, of course not. It's purely based on thermal analysis. If we could get away with it, we would just paint it white, because it's easier and cheaper, but it would form too much ice on it if we did that."

Why is too much ice an issue?  Ice was an issue with Shuttle because pieces flew off and could damage it.  This of course makes me ask why was the shuttle insulation not inside the outer skin of the vehicle?  But that's a different issue.

Why is "too much ice" an issue?

1,  Is it a performance hit because some or all does not fall off?
2.  Did not the LOX cause ice to form on Redstone, Atlas, Saturn S-1, S-1B, and S-1C stages, among others?  Why was this ice not "too much"?  (I know ice formed, hence my original question.)
3.  Do they believe there is a possibility of falling ice damaging SRBs or other systems?
4.  Something else I don't know.  (Not being a rocket scientist, but only a booster fan boy, I am sure the knowledge gaps are great.)

and, can someone tell me why the insulating foam for the ET was not inside, anyway.  I've always wondered,

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31348
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #97 on: 10/25/2015 10:15 PM »

and, can someone tell me why the insulating foam for the ET was not inside, anyway.  I've always wondered,

Cost and less risk of ingesting.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLS Critical Design Review (CDR) Coverage
« Reply #98 on: 10/25/2015 10:53 PM »
This has swayed. No trim, but locking it as we're all over the place and into political stuff.

Chris G has a CDR event article in work, but because we've covered SLS so much rehashing the Presser from Friday would have added very little. So we'll have a look forward style article.

We can work with the existing SLS threads.

Tags: