Author Topic: SLS General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 223773 times)

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 491
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1120 on: 11/22/2017 04:02 PM »
Hi Space-People: Sorry to butt-in but where does the figure that CC is 10x safer than Soyuz come from, especially since CC hasn't flown yet? Happy Thanksgiving to all!

My understanding is that number comes from the requirement from NASA, that LOC is 1:270 for Commercial Crew.

The below NSF article goes into more detail.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/08/asap-concerns-commercial-crew-loc-risks/

Offline Bubbinski

Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1121 on: 12/06/2017 12:46 PM »
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline whatever11235

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1122 on: 12/06/2017 01:25 PM »
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4964
  • Liked: 2964
  • Likes Given: 4184
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1123 on: 12/06/2017 01:28 PM »
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline whatever11235

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1124 on: 12/06/2017 02:28 PM »
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.

I hope you are right.

Offline Formica

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 254
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1125 on: 12/06/2017 10:48 PM »
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.

You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty twelve billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.

Edit: adjusted the sunk cost amount to reflect ncb1397's dose of reality  :)
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 01:21 AM by Formica »

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1126 on: 12/06/2017 10:56 PM »
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive.

Would you mind quoting the text for those of us who don't do twitter? Thanks!

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5162
  • Liked: 786
  • Likes Given: 549
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1127 on: 12/06/2017 11:04 PM »
Attached is the tweet from Eric Berger's space twitter feed.

It would be beyond ironic if SLS delays meant that Europa Clipper failed to reach Europa much sooner than if launched on an Atlas V in 2022.

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 1434
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1128 on: 12/06/2017 11:38 PM »
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane or tragic! :'(  Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS :(

Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop an 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept... I asked Mr Bruno about an 8x solid booster Vulcan a couple years back. He said there are no plans, but didn't rule out the idea. An 8x SRM Vulcan/Centaur 5 or ACES should get about 50 metric tons into a low inclination Earth orbit (28.5 degrees approx.). 'Distributed Launch' with or without propellant transfer gets more than 100x metric tons up in 2x close-proximity launches for a fraction of the cost of a single SLS Block 1B (105 tons). Yes - that statement is speculative. But I'd be more than happy to see it honestly debunked: if that's possible.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 04:11 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Bubbinski

Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1129 on: 12/07/2017 01:12 AM »
If this thing about 2023 is indeed valid, what would be driving this delay from 2019-20? Only thing I can think of would be a change to the EUS upper stage from iCPS, necessitating mods to the launch tower (on the transporter). Any other reasons anyone can think of?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1130 on: 12/07/2017 01:14 AM »
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I知 not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.

You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.

Just to add a little precision to these discussions. On page 460 of the FY 2018 NASA Budget Request document(linked below), they have a total showing SLS program costs including formulation and development stages. Adding the Prior to 2016 amount to the 2016 actual amount and the 2017 enacted amount yields a figure of 9.923 billion through October 1, 2017(2 months, 5 days ago). Doing the same for Exploration Ground Systems(which is attributable to both Orion and SLS ground support costs) yields a number of 2.068 billion. Total "sunk costs" For SLS are therefore <$12 billion as of 8 weeks ago.

There is some discrepancy between what NASA spent and what was allocated by Congress. For instance, in FY 2016, NASA was allocated $2 billion even for SLS but this newer budget document seems to indicate that $1.922 billion was spent(~96% of appropriations for that year, other years could be less). This partly explains the disconnect between the perceived cost of the SLS program and the actual cost of the SLS program. The budget bills are the only things that make headlines every year, not NASA accounting of the year after the fact. Other explanations for the discrepancies lie with taking the most recent figures and extrapolating figures back to ~2010 when it was in the infancy and conflating constellation costs with the SLS program.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 01:20 AM by ncb1397 »

Offline Formica

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 254
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1131 on: 12/07/2017 01:16 AM »
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane! :'(  Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS :(

Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop and 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept...

All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.

Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS. Bid out launching Orion and DSG components. Let ULA and SpaceX compete with their heavy lift options (Atlas V 551, DIVH, FH). Boeing has demonstrated they can compete on a firm fixed price basis with CST-100; let them do the same with heavy lift. Keep the DSG components on cost plus and give that to Boeing if you have to.

I know that these are not new ideas, and that they border on fantasy. But as someone who came to NSF by way of DIRECT so many years ago, it is heartbreaking to see how SLS has turned out.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 02:31 AM by Formica »

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1132 on: 12/07/2017 01:34 AM »
2023 doesn't sound right unless they mean the first crewed launch EM-2, which would sound more plausible.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1133 on: 12/07/2017 01:39 AM »
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane! :'(  Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS :(

Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop and 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept...

All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.

Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.

Not understanding how ditching SLS and keeping Orion would placate Shelby, who's all about the booster, not the spacecraft (which is built in somebody else's district).
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 01:40 AM by punder »

Offline Markstark

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1134 on: 12/07/2017 01:46 AM »
Eric is one of my favorite space reporters, after NSF of course, but I think his sources is incorrect or he/she meant EM-2

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 421
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1135 on: 12/07/2017 01:57 AM »
He clarified in follow on tweets, yes he does mean EM-1. Obviously this is just one guy's opinion, not a fact. But if you want to see where the opinion comes from, go back to page 1 of this thread and take a look. Back in July 2015 they're expecting EM-1 to happen in July 2018, i.e. 3 years out. Now we're in December 2017 and new EM-1 date is June 2020, still 2.5 years out, you can calculate the time dilation factor here.

Offline Markstark

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1136 on: 12/07/2017 02:08 AM »
I saw the clarification. I still don't believe it. Or don't want to believe it lol. Anything is possible though.... except maybe moving the 2020 date to left :/
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 02:20 AM by Markstark »

Offline Formica

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 254
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1137 on: 12/07/2017 02:29 AM »
All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.

Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.

Not understanding how ditching SLS and keeping Orion would placate Shelby, who's all about the booster, not the spacecraft (which is built in somebody else's district).

I stand corrected and will update my post.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1138 on: 12/07/2017 02:47 AM »
He clarified in follow on tweets, yes he does mean EM-1. Obviously this is just one guy's opinion, not a fact. But if you want to see where the opinion comes from, go back to page 1 of this thread and take a look. Back in July 2015 they're expecting EM-1 to happen in July 2018, i.e. 3 years out. Now we're in December 2017 and new EM-1 date is June 2020, still 2.5 years out, you can calculate the time dilation factor here.

It was NET July 2018 back then. That wasn't the "risk informed date" as has become obvious. Use the new NET of December 2019. So, in 2.4 years(July 2015 to December 2017), the time to earliest possible launch has shrunk by 1 year(from 3 years to 2 years). Even if you use a ratio of 2.4 years real time to advance 1 year in schedule, the launch goes off in 4.8 years or around October 2022.

But this is a meaningless exercise. In the next 6 months, the NET will still likely be December 2016 and so based on those two arbitrary end points, it would be a 1:1 time dilation factor. The only non-arbitrary way to do this would be to use times when the date is updated as snapshots and not arbitrary start points like July 2015. I haven't done it yet. I'll update this later if I can reconstruct it.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 02:59 AM by ncb1397 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10284
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2060
  • Likes Given: 638
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1139 on: 12/07/2017 11:56 AM »
If this thing about 2023 is indeed valid, what would be driving this delay from 2019-20?

Job security for Shelby's Alabama-based workers. SLS is, after all, little more than a massive jobs program at this point.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags: