SLS General Discussion Thread 8

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I am hopeful that this "episode" of Artemis completes successfully and we move on to next "episode". Thus it will have successfully gotten the Artemis program truly off the ground. Where the Artemis program may be at end of year 2024 is filled with a lot of tasks that need completion in the next 2 years to make the expected schedule for Artemis 2 and set up for Artemis 3 about a year to 18 months after that.

I have my fingers crossed for no significant issues for the rest of this mission.

[Eric Hedman]

I look at it as SLS will fly out through at least the rest of this decade regardless of if people complain that there is a better way.   It isn't getting canceled until a private Starship or other commercial vehicle flies passengers to and from the Moon for a lot less and makes it painfully obvious to Congress.  So I am rooting for SLS to fly and put the first infrastructure on the Moon.  Then I expect a transition that might take until 2035.  In the meantime, SLS, New Glenn, and others have nothing stopping them from advancing and proving the point that a new architecture is better.  Would I like to see the NASA money shifted to speed it up?  Yeah.  But political reality says it isn't likely to happen.  Why worry about it?

[Mackilroy]

Mainly because it means tremendous opportunity cost, given NASA’s limited budget, and irrelevance for the agency over the long term if they have to keep flying it.

[Robotbeat]

I look at it as SLS will fly out through at least the rest of this decade regardless of if people complain that there is a better way.   It isn't getting canceled until a private Starship or other commercial vehicle flies passengers to and from the Moon for a lot less and makes it painfully obvious to Congress.  So I am rooting for SLS to fly and put the first infrastructure on the Moon.  Then I expect a transition that might take until 2035.  In the meantime, SLS, New Glenn, and others have nothing stopping them from advancing and proving the point that a new architecture is better.  Would I like to see the NASA money shifted to speed it up?  Yeah.  But political reality says it isn't likely to happen.  Why worry about it?

Rest of the decade, so about through Artemis 4?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I look at it as SLS will fly out through at least the rest of this decade regardless of if people complain that there is a better way.   It isn't getting canceled until a private Starship or other commercial vehicle flies passengers to and from the Moon for a lot less and makes it painfully obvious to Congress.  So I am rooting for SLS to fly and put the first infrastructure on the Moon.  Then I expect a transition that might take until 2035.  In the meantime, SLS, New Glenn, and others have nothing stopping them from advancing and proving the point that a new architecture is better.  Would I like to see the NASA money shifted to speed it up?  Yeah.  But political reality says it isn't likely to happen.  Why worry about it?

Rest of the decade, so about through Artemis 4?

I keep having a debate with myself as to whether Artemis 4 or 5 in 2029.

Artemis 4 may get delayed to NET 2028 due to ML-2 or EUS. If so the best possible for Artemis 5 is 2029. But 4 slips enough it would push 5 into 2030.

[VSECOTSPE]

Rest of the decade, so about through Artemis 4?

NASA IG says NET 2026 for Artemis III:

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/CT-2022-01.pdf

At least one greybeard says NET 2028 for Artemis III:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/11/the-oracle-who-predicted-slss-launch-in-2023-has-thoughts-about-artemis-iii/

NET means that the likely launch date is somewhere later.  So we could be looking at 2030 for Artemis III (not IV).  Artemis I was six years late.  Artemis III was scheduled for 2024.  Six years would put it in 2030.

[Robotbeat]

The greybeard prediction I don’t think was NET.

[VSECOTSPE]

The greybeard prediction I don’t think was NET.

It is.  He stated, “My starting point is 2028.”

[ppb]

These Artemis missions and the SLS/Orion vehicles are like building the fanciest Conestoga wagon, circa 1868. Imagine a 10-ton wagon for a family of four, dwarfing every other wagon to that time, pulled by a team of 50 horses that needed to be replaced every 200 miles on the western trail to California. The wagon had its own enclosed kitchen and bathroom compartments along with running water and heat, all carried on the most advanced wagon suspension to date. This fantastic vehicle had been under development since 1850 and required millions of dollars of government funding. In the meantime, starting in 1863, audacious and dreamy-eyed private companies started planning and building a transcontinental railroad, which many people thought was impossibly impractical and could never replace the trusty wagon technology. Who wouldn’t be excited about that first successful trip of the SuperWagon that took that family the farthest, safest, and in the most comfort?

[DanClemmensen]

These Artemis missions and the SLS/Orion vehicles are like building the fanciest Conestoga wagon, circa 1868. Imagine a 10-ton wagon for a family of four, dwarfing every other wagon to that time, pulled by a team of 50 horses that needed to be replaced every 200 miles on the western trail to California. The wagon had its own enclosed kitchen and bathroom compartments along with running water and heat, all carried on the most advanced wagon suspension to date. This fantastic vehicle had been under development since 1850 and required millions of dollars of government funding. In the meantime, starting in 1863, audacious and dreamy-eyed private companies started planning and building a transcontinental railroad, which many people thought was impossibly impractical and could never replace the trusty wagon technology. Who wouldn’t be excited about that first successful trip of the SuperWagon that took that family the farthest, safest, and in the most comfort?

or a real example:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutty_Sark
"Cutty Sark is a British clipper ship. Built on the River Leven, Dumbarton, Scotland in 1869 for the Jock Willis Shipping Line, she was one of the last tea clippers to be built and one of the fastest, coming at the end of a long period of design development for this type of vessel, which halted as steamships took over their routes."

[dlapine]

Any thoughts on the current claim that the next Orion won't be ready as planned for any launch in 2024?

"Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate considers the non-core avionics reuse to be the primary critical path for the Artemis II mission, with total preparation work between missions to take about 27 months" - current NASA IG.
The current plan requires that the critical avionics equipment to be recovered from the current Orion vehicle after it's safe return to Earth and re-used in the next Orion, or entirely new avionics be built.

The full article is on Ars- https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/12/artemis-i-has-finally-launched-what-comes-next/

Discussion of the next SLS mission's timing NET date should include this for consideration.

[Coastal Ron]

Any thoughts on the current claim that the next Orion won't be ready as planned for any launch in 2024?
...

When the Orion is ready for its next flight is not related to the SLS, and how the Orion schedule affects the next Artemis launch is Artemis related, not SLS.

[Coastal Ron]

From the "Battle of the Heavyweight Rockets" thread, because this was an SLS-only discussion:

From latest NSF article, Green Run in scheduled for 2024 for EUS.

Nice try Khadgars, but we are talking "never on time"-Boeing here. I will procede to torpedo your argument straight away:
Green Run for the Core Stage of SLS was originally scheduled for 2017. Actual was 2021. Boeing's performance has not inproved in recent years. Quite the contrary actually. Meaning that, similar to what happened with the SLS Core Stage, it is likely that EUS will miss that 2024 Green Run date. By a fairly large margin.

Other people here, mostly in private conversations, also tried to convince me that EUS will fly sooner than 2027. One of them came up with the argument that the EUS completed its CDR in late 2020, so all that was left to do was build it and launch it. I shot that one down by countering that SLS completed its CDR in 2015, but it took another 7 years before it actually launched. And no, completing CDR does not mean that "all that is left is building it and launching it". The guy showed an unbelievable level of ignorance.

What several people, even here, overlook is that EUS development is another Cost Plus program. Boeing will milk it for all it is worth IMO. Actually completing it on time is not their main concern. Particularly not given the fact that the ML-2, needed to launch Block 1B, is even further behind schedule.  Boeing can really slow-walk EUS development and still have it finished before ML-2 is ready. Another factor that makes Boeing "feel safe", with regards to any delay to EUS, is the fact that EUS development was sole-sourced to Boeing. There is literally no other company that could become a threat to EUS/Boeing if Boeing screws the pooch during EUS development. If EUS is late, than NASA can scream and yell all they want, but it won't make any difference. And Boeing knows it. They've got NASA by the gonads on this one. Just like they got NASA by the gonads with regards to the SLS Core Stage.
IMO Boeing will perform badly, like they have before. And IMO like before NASA will reward them with a follow-on contract to build at least 10 EUS stages.

Things never change.

Nice try?  You can leave your snarky comments at the door please.  All I posted was information directly from this very site. 

Additionally the EUS is a far simpler design than the Core Stage, of which 1 has flown and 4 are currently in production.  Its anyone's guess if Boeing will be late (I wouldn't be shocked), but the tooling is already in-place and in production which was a major cause of Core Stage delay.

You did reference an NSF article, but that article was quoting Boeing, and THAT is what we are discussing/debating - obviously Boeing is responsible for what they say, not NSF.

Based on the history of Boeing schedule forecasts, why would anyone believe what Boeing says? They have no fear of losing the contract if they are late, and if anything they may still get a bonus from NASA for being late - just like they have been getting on the SLS Core Stage contract.

It is not unreasonable to state that Boeing has no right to be believed right now, for any NASA large contract. Boeing of late has seemed to excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of success, in ways no one expected.

So while the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) may seem like a straightforward design and production challenge, everyone thought the SLS Core Stage would be a straightforward design and production challenge, yet Boeing was still many years late on that. And it isn't just Boeing that has been a concern, but the Artemis program in general has major problems in completing what should be straightforward engineering challenges - Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2) will be years late, and is so far being forecast to cost 2.5X more than planned.

People want to believe in the Artemis program, which is fine. But you can't ignore that so far the SLS program does NOT have a history that supports the belief that Boeing can forecast an accurate date two years into the future.

[jadebenn]

https://twitter.com/NASA_SLS/status/1600250584124252210

Some SLS manufacturing is moving to the Cape. Specifically in regards to the engine sections.

[ChrisC]

The nasa.gov link above goes here ...

NASA Advances Artemis Moon Rocket Production for Future Missions
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-advances-artemis-moon-rocket-production-for-future-missions.html

Shipping the engine section, and subsequent sections, from Michoud to KSC and then assembling there implies that there will be no green run test at Stennis.  So the core stage for Artemis-3 will get its first firing as a full stack doing a static fire on LC-39B?

Is Artemis-2 getting a green run test, or is it also skipping it?

[Hog]

The nasa.gov link above goes here ...

NASA Advances Artemis Moon Rocket Production for Future Missions
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-advances-artemis-moon-rocket-production-for-future-missions.html

Shipping the engine section, and subsequent sections, from Michoud to KSC and then assembling there implies that there will be no green run test at Stennis.  So the core stage for Artemis-3 will get its first firing as a full stack doing a static fire on LC-39B?

Is Artemis-2 getting a green run test, or is it also skipping it?

No greenrun test, never was one scheduled, SLS has already flown.

[jadebenn]

Shipping the engine section, and subsequent sections, from Michoud to KSC and then assembling there implies that there will be no green run test at Stennis.  So the core stage for Artemis-3 will get its first firing as a full stack doing a static fire on LC-39B?

Is Artemis-2 getting a green run test, or is it also skipping it?

No greenrun test, never was one scheduled, SLS has already flown.

There was a CS-2 green run for a while, but that's been gone since the Bridenstine days. I don't think further green runs were ever planned after CS-2.

There will be no 39B static fires. The engines will be lit up on the pad and the computers will decide whether to go or no-go in the 6 seconds before SRB ignition.

[russianhalo117]

Shipping the engine section, and subsequent sections, from Michoud to KSC and then assembling there implies that there will be no green run test at Stennis.  So the core stage for Artemis-3 will get its first firing as a full stack doing a static fire on LC-39B?

Is Artemis-2 getting a green run test, or is it also skipping it?

No greenrun test, never was one scheduled, SLS has already flown.

There was a CS-2 green run for a while, but that's been gone since the Bridenstine days. I don't think further green runs were ever planned after CS-2.

There will be no 39B static fires. The engines will be lit up on the pad and the computers will decide whether to go or no-go in the 6 seconds before SRB ignition.

For Core Stages with legacy RS-25D's the answer is a confirmed no. Core stage green run testing with block upgrades and production restart RS-25E's is an available option but has not yet been exercised to date. The B-2 test stand position is currently undergoing active reconfiguration for the upcoming EUS Pathfinder fit check testing and EUS-1 undergoing a similar test campaign as CS-1. This includes green run testing using four RL10C-3SL (Sea Level) engines. Afterwards EUS-1 would see its set of ground test engines swapped for the first set of flight engines.

[sdsds]

The nasa.gov link above goes here ...

NASA Advances Artemis Moon Rocket Production for Future Missions
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-advances-artemis-moon-rocket-production-for-future-missions.html

Shipping the engine section, and subsequent sections, from Michoud to KSC and then assembling there implies that there will be no green run test at Stennis. [...]

First, thanks for shifting the discussion of this here. In my view there may well be many more implications to this production change. The first I can think of is that without the engine section attached, could there be room on the barge for longer core stage tanks? And a 10 m engine section with 5 RS-25 engines?  Are they maybe inching their way towards SLS Block 3? By the time they get to Block 5, SLS could be Ares 5! :-/

[jadebenn]

First, thanks for shifting the discussion of this here. In my view there may well be many more implications to this production change. The first I can think of is that without the engine section attached, could there be room on the barge for longer core stage tanks? And a 10 m engine section with 5 RS-25 engines?  Are they maybe inching their way towards SLS Block 3? By the time they get to Block 5, SLS could be Ares 5! :-/

I've been told the goal is to increase SLS production cadence, with the shuffle allowing the existing MAF workforce to focus on core and EUS production, with the new team at KSC working solely on the engine sections. Hiring issues at MAF (hard to get people to move to the surroundings) may have also played a role. In comparison, the area around KSC is positively bustling right now.