Another interesting article by Philip Sloss with - of course - cool L2 renders from Nathan Koga https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/And no, this thread is not for anyone to post "OMG, give it all to SpaceX cause they never slip launch dates"
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 06/21/2017 07:45 pmAnother interesting article by Philip Sloss with - of course - cool L2 renders from Nathan Koga https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/And no, this thread is not for anyone to post "OMG, give it all to SpaceX cause they never slip launch dates" No, but I think a decent case for skipping Block 1 all together could be made at this point while spinning em-1 into an EFT flight on delta or falcon heavy.
Quote from: yokem55 on 06/21/2017 07:50 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 06/21/2017 07:45 pmAnother interesting article by Philip Sloss with - of course - cool L2 renders from Nathan Koga https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/And no, this thread is not for anyone to post "OMG, give it all to SpaceX cause they never slip launch dates" No, but I think a decent case for skipping Block 1 all together could be made at this point while spinning em-1 into an EFT flight on delta or falcon heavy.Apart from being a red-tape nightmare NASA is also well trained in keeping all it's options open. So, it should not come as a surprise to hear that NASA is in fact looking into exactly what you propose: turn EM-1 into an EFT-2 on Delta IV Heavy with the first flight SLS being a Block 1B (thus skipping Block 1).
Quote from: woods170 on 06/21/2017 08:48 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 06/21/2017 07:50 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 06/21/2017 07:45 pmAnother interesting article by Philip Sloss with - of course - cool L2 renders from Nathan Koga https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/And no, this thread is not for anyone to post "OMG, give it all to SpaceX cause they never slip launch dates" No, but I think a decent case for skipping Block 1 all together could be made at this point while spinning em-1 into an EFT flight on delta or falcon heavy.Apart from being a red-tape nightmare NASA is also well trained in keeping all it's options open. So, it should not come as a surprise to hear that NASA is in fact looking into exactly what you propose: turn EM-1 into an EFT-2 on Delta IV Heavy with the first flight SLS being a Block 1B (thus skipping Block 1).Are they really considering this? Interesting change of events, though I still expect to see Block 1 fly in 2019.
Presumably it would still be used if EFT-2 is assigned to a Delta IV Heavy?
To use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 07:09 amTo use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.I don't disagree, but it's ironic that this is exactly the plan with respect to flying ICPS on SLS.
The bureaucratic waste and glacial pace of SLS/Orion are really very tiresome. So are NASA's excuses (the tornado ate my homework...) for delays. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/For goodness sake, a lot of the hardware, at least, is derived from STS and the RS-25 engines are even "flight proven." I get it that modifications are needed to take the RS-25s as an example (inlet pressure and temp, etc.). But after tens of billions of dollars spent and the better part of a decade, is this any way to run a railroad?
If the United States is going to stay a preeminent world power, it’s going to require failure, said Gen. John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command. “We’ve lost the ability to go fast, test, and fail,” Hyten said. “We tie the hands of our engineers and acquisition folk because we expect every test to work and if it doesn’t work it’s on the front page of the newspaper. We have got to get back to where we accept risk.”
Between 1959 and 1964, with $17 billion in current-year dollars, the military created the Minuteman nuclear missile, delivering “800 missiles deployed in five different bases across America, 160 launch holes, all the missile alert facilities, all the launch control centers, all the command and control,” Hyten said.Now, building the next-generation GBSD is estimated to cost $84 billion for 400 missiles and isn’t set to be completed until 2029.“How did we get to the point where it used to be that we could deliver 800 three-stage solid rocket motors…and now it takes us 12 to 17 years, so in other words, four times as long, four times as expensive, for half the capability?” Hyten said.
Quote from: Proponent on 06/22/2017 08:22 amQuote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 07:09 amTo use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.I don't disagree, but it's ironic that this is exactly the plan with respect to flying ICPS on SLS.Yeah, a very expensive set of iCPS specific hardware and testing is implemented for a stage that will likely fly just once on SLS (if ever). It was originally supposed to be 2 flights before EM-2 was promoted to EUS.But heck, we have US Congress to thank for this mess. They were the ones ordering a launcher that could grow from 70 mT to LEO to 130 mT to LEO.But with regards to iCPS flying on Delta IV Heavy: it would be worse than just making the one-use-only mods. After the mission is flown the one-use-mods would have to be reversed, given that iCPS is not the baseline upper stage of Delta IV Heavy. So, flying iCPS on a Delta IV Heavy would incurr the cost of changing the ground systems TWICE. IMO it is for this reason that any further missions of Orion on Delta IV Heavy will use the standard DCSS.
...issues with all three programs separately and with integrating hardware and software between them...L2 notes say that currently the areas most critical to the schedule are the SLS Core Stage, Orion’s European Service Module (ESM), construction and activation of GSDO’s Mobile Launcher, and software development across the board.
“We will try our best to launch [in daylight] but there’s only a few months out of the year where you get enough daylight, both in the early morning and late at night — and of course we’re looking at two different coasts here. There’s only about three or four months where we could possibly get both. We’re going to trade one against the other.”
Quote“We will try our best to launch [in daylight] but there’s only a few months out of the year where you get enough daylight, both in the early morning and late at night — and of course we’re looking at two different coasts here. There’s only about three or four months where we could possibly get both. We’re going to trade one against the other.”If SLS/Orion can only launch crewed a few summer months out of each year, then the likelihood that all three program elements can be integrated by summer 2019 for EM-1 is even smaller.I'm guessing that a realistic launch date with 50%-80% confidence for EM-1 is summer 2020 at the earliest.I hope the agency is honest with the Administration about this.
Since we can't go back and unspend money already spent then the cost of NASA going forward is where we should make the changes. It only matters going forward. If no changes are made, then more of the same. Congress should separate out the funds going to the contractors and the funds going to NASA. Cut the latter.
Quote from: jtrame on 06/22/2017 11:35 amSince we can't go back and unspend money already spent then the cost of NASA going forward is where we should make the changes. It only matters going forward. If no changes are made, then more of the same. Congress should separate out the funds going to the contractors and the funds going to NASA. Cut the latter.Thats right, lets get that nasty nasty government out of the way of those poor noble companies and just make it a money-hose directly to them since they will always make the right choices!Sometimes this forum's reaction to any SLS news is incredibly predictable.
It says optimal conditions with daylight launch and landing for this particular mission is a few months of the summer. It also says they don't have to launch in daylight. That's a preferred time of year to launch, not a requirement.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 10:37 amQuote from: Proponent on 06/22/2017 08:22 amQuote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 07:09 amTo use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.I don't disagree, but it's ironic that this is exactly the plan with respect to flying ICPS on SLS.Yeah, a very expensive set of iCPS specific hardware and testing is implemented for a stage that will likely fly just once on SLS (if ever). It was originally supposed to be 2 flights before EM-2 was promoted to EUS.But heck, we have US Congress to thank for this mess. They were the ones ordering a launcher that could grow from 70 mT to LEO to 130 mT to LEO.But with regards to iCPS flying on Delta IV Heavy: it would be worse than just making the one-use-only mods. After the mission is flown the one-use-mods would have to be reversed, given that iCPS is not the baseline upper stage of Delta IV Heavy. So, flying iCPS on a Delta IV Heavy would incurr the cost of changing the ground systems TWICE. IMO it is for this reason that any further missions of Orion on Delta IV Heavy will use the standard DCSS.You don't seriously believe Congress 'invented' the 70-130t progression, do you?It most likely was handed to Senator Shelby's staff by a contractor lobbyist.
What I don't understand is why NASA had to spend a fortune building new tooling using bleeding edge technology to make the tanks. What was wrong with the tooling used to build the Shuttle tanks? Might have needed some modifications, but not replacement with experimental equipment.
Quote from: RonM on 06/22/2017 03:29 pmWhat I don't understand is why NASA had to spend a fortune building new tooling using bleeding edge technology to make the tanks. What was wrong with the tooling used to build the Shuttle tanks? Might have needed some modifications, but not replacement with experimental equipment.Maybe the same reason SpaceX invented and paid for new tooling to make tanks?NASA development funds helped Elon develop better welding tech for Tesla vehicle manufacture by way of SpaceX. That plus NASA employee inventor Jeff Ding and his supporting NASA coworkers, based on issued patents. Over two decades, so a 25+ career at NASA.Obviously wasted government spending because who needs better and cheaper welding than gas or electric melt fusion welding. Vacuum tubes were just fine. The Soviets won the space race when they stuck to tubes. Transistors were just not needed, because you just make the rocket motors and fuel tanks bigger.
Quote from: RonM on 06/22/2017 03:29 pmWhat I don't understand is why NASA had to spend a fortune building new tooling using bleeding edge technology to make the tanks. What was wrong with the tooling used to build the Shuttle tanks? Might have needed some modifications, but not replacement with experimental equipment.Because NASA misinterpreted 70 short tons as 70 metric tons, possibly intentionally. That meant they HAD to use a bigger tank with 5-seg boosters. Bigger tank meant thicker walls than the shuttle tank, which meant new tooling.
Disadvantage is that political need of the moment (aka "will of the Congress") means they are exceedingly reckless in the use of fiat. What was desirable at one point is the boondoggle at the next point.
No, my conclusion from the data given. How do you cut the overhead and still have a lean and mean NASA still calling the shots. How do you redesign NASA going forward to save money without cutting the money to the hardware. I just didn't state it very well.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/22/2017 11:07 pmQuote from: RonM on 06/22/2017 03:29 pmWhat I don't understand is why NASA had to spend a fortune building new tooling using bleeding edge technology to make the tanks. What was wrong with the tooling used to build the Shuttle tanks? Might have needed some modifications, but not replacement with experimental equipment.Because NASA misinterpreted 70 short tons as 70 metric tons, possibly intentionally. That meant they HAD to use a bigger tank with 5-seg boosters. Bigger tank meant thicker walls than the shuttle tank, which meant new tooling.No. It was the growth path. It was clear from the onset that the core tankage would have to be suitable for the 130 (m)T version as well. And that meant thicker walls than the shuttle tank from the onset. It had nothing to do with mistaking 70 short tons for 70 metric tons.
Way back in 2011 we predicted that this was turning into a slow train wreck. But 6 years on and still watching the same train wreck continue at a glacial pace is excruciatingly painful in the extreme.
Quote from: clongton on 06/23/2017 04:49 pmWay back in 2011 we predicted that this was turning into a slow train wreck. But 6 years on and still watching the same train wreck continue at a glacial pace is excruciatingly painful in the extreme.Especially since Jupiter would be flying today.
Quote from: RonM on 06/23/2017 06:00 pmQuote from: clongton on 06/23/2017 04:49 pmWay back in 2011 we predicted that this was turning into a slow train wreck. But 6 years on and still watching the same train wreck continue at a glacial pace is excruciatingly painful in the extreme.Especially since Jupiter would be flying today.Would it, though? With the same cooks in the kitchen, how can you be sure of a different outcome?
Nobody with any pull in Congress is interested in spaceflight in the slightest. They are only interested in keeping the jobs going as long as possible at the centers and contractors. That gets votes for the next election campaign. It oughta be a crime - but it isn't. Sad - so very sad.
Quote from: clongton on 06/23/2017 06:38 pmNobody with any pull in Congress is interested in spaceflight in the slightest. They are only interested in keeping the jobs going as long as possible at the centers and contractors. That gets votes for the next election campaign. It oughta be a crime - but it isn't. Sad - so very sad.Yes, Congressmen and women should work against the interests of their constituents! If only the world worked logically like this!
Quote from: jtrame on 06/22/2017 11:35 amSince we can't go back and unspend money already spent then the cost of NASA going forward is where we should make the changes. It only matters going forward. If no changes are made, then more of the same. Congress should separate out the funds going to the contractors and the funds going to NASA. Cut the latter.Thats right, lets get that nasty nasty government out of the way of those poor noble companies and just make it a money-hose directly to them since they will always make the right choices!
Yes, Congressmen and women should work against the interests of their constituents! If only the world worked logically like this!
I'd like to ask a real question here. I've followed various rocket programs since the early 90s (mid 80's if you want to count Shuttle II). In each and every case, the program has been cancelled, sometimes during flight testing (CRV). Why can't this country get it's act together? Why have their been so many? Why are they all cancelled before they fly? Why has it taken this long to get nowhere? When Obama shelved the shuttle, there should have been at least one replacement already flying.
Quote from: okan170 on 06/30/2017 05:15 pmYes, Congressmen and women should work against the interests of their constituents! If only the world worked logically like this!Ignoring the obvious sarcasm for a moment, if they had flown Shuttle C, then all the usual suspects apart from the shuttle refurb crew would have continued to be happily employed and there would even be some development work to be shared out. Apart from that, we would most likely be flying by now, not in the Monty Python position we are in at the moment of cancelling Ares V, renaming it SLS, designing it again, and then waiting till 2019 to fly the thing. That, with the expectation that it will soon be cancelled yet again, and we will have another five to ten year wait while they come to yet another design that they may or may not actually fly. I'd like to ask a real question here. I've followed various rocket programs since the early 90s (mid 80's if you want to count Shuttle II). In each and every case, the program has been cancelled, sometimes during flight testing (CRV). Why can't this country get it's act together? Why have their been so many? Why are they all cancelled before they fly? Why has it taken this long to get nowhere? When Obama shelved the shuttle, there should have been at least one replacement already flying.
This isn't space policy .. .let's not veer too far in that direction. Thanks.