Author Topic: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters (May 2023)  (Read 24795 times)

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1737
  • Liked: 5372
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #40 on: 05/29/2023 06:27 pm »
Despite your and VSECOTSPE’s logic, there is absolutely no hope that this mess will be reformed from within

To be clear, I’ve made no argument that NASA’s exploration house will reform from within, certainly not with Free in charge (another reason to fire him) and likely not with Nelson in the Administrator’s suite.

Quote
The only answer is the end run, and frankly (distastefully to many) that means Musk/SpaceX.

SX is not an end run for the Moon.  They will only undertake lunar efforts if paid by NASA or bazillionaires.  And bazillionaire joy rides won’t recreate a program like what Artemis could/should be.

I’m repeating myself from other threads, but reform will start with the White House.  It’s possible that the combination of a flat budget over the next two years and Shelby’s exit will both push the Administration to undertake change and make it more possible.

But I would not bet on change yet.  More likely, the White House will let NASA and other discretionary agencies run on autopilot until either election results enable a non-flat budget calculus for FY25 or FY26 starts rolling.

And autopilot under the flat budget agreed to by the White House and House Republican leadership means multi-year delays in Artemis missions as Orion/SLS is slowed even further and/or the deferrel/termination of new content like the Blue Moon award and LTV.  I’ll try to post numbers in the Artemis thread later today or tomorrow.

Quote
Meanwhile, SLS will roll on until Congress finds a convenient way to shift their favorites onto other lucrative pit-digging operations for taxpayer dollars.

Congress cares about the Orion/SLS workforce.  Provide that workforce with other, more useful tasks (there’s plenty to pick from in a real human space exploration effort) and the Gordian knot of the Apollo/STS infrastructure/workforce that has bedeviled NASA since Goldin can be untied.  But if an administration fails to address the workforce as the Obama White House did, Congress will likely  just shove another iteration of STS/Ares V/SLS down the agency’s throat.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 3167
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #41 on: 05/29/2023 07:18 pm »
You are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.

An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged...
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy

Actually if you read that Wikipedia article, it does. But going into it would OT, so move along...  ;)

It says that it only accounts for a small part of the economic domain:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Economic transactions occur when two groups or parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. However, monetary transactions only account for a small part of the economic domain.

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1075
  • Liked: 1095
  • Likes Given: 2300
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #42 on: 05/29/2023 07:31 pm »
... quotes ...
Congress cares about the Orion/SLS workforce.  Provide that workforce with other, more useful tasks (there’s plenty to pick from in a real human space exploration effort) and the Gordian knot of the Apollo/STS infrastructure/workforce that has bedeviled NASA since Goldin can be untied.  But if an administration fails to address the workforce as the Obama White House did, Congress will likely  just shove another iteration of STS/Ares V/SLS down the agency’s throat.


Is the workforce argument as strong as it was 14 years ago though? Certainly commercial space has way way bigger share of US space workforce than it was back then. I doubt the "we must preserve shuttle technology" will be as compelling.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2023 07:32 pm by JayWee »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6712
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 2273
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #43 on: 05/29/2023 08:23 pm »
... quotes ...
Congress cares about the Orion/SLS workforce.  Provide that workforce with other, more useful tasks (there’s plenty to pick from in a real human space exploration effort) and the Gordian knot of the Apollo/STS infrastructure/workforce that has bedeviled NASA since Goldin can be untied.  But if an administration fails to address the workforce as the Obama White House did, Congress will likely  just shove another iteration of STS/Ares V/SLS down the agency’s throat.


Is the workforce argument as strong as it was 14 years ago though? Certainly commercial space has way way bigger share of US space workforce than it was back then. I doubt the "we must preserve shuttle technology" will be as compelling.
It's not about some generic "workforce". It's about specific jobs in specific facilities in specific congressional districts.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10470
  • Likes Given: 12164
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #44 on: 05/29/2023 09:05 pm »
You are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.

An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged...
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy

Actually if you read that Wikipedia article, it does. But going into it would OT, so move along...  ;)

It says that it only accounts for a small part of the economic domain:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Economic transactions occur when two groups or parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. However, monetary transactions only account for a small part of the economic domain.

*Sigh*

The paragraph preceding that gives you the answer, which is:
Quote
A given economy is a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure, legal systems, and natural resources as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. In other words, the economic domain is a social domain of interrelated human practices and transactions that does not stand alone.

The Artemis program is a science expedition, not a location where "interrelated human practices and transactions" will occur.

You want to debate this more, PM me. Otherwise let's get back to the topic at hand, which is that yet ANOTHER non-biased investigation of the SLS program has found rampant mismanagement and overpayments to contractors. This will only end when the SLS program is ended...  :(
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 3167
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #45 on: 05/29/2023 10:10 pm »
You are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.

An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged...
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy

Actually if you read that Wikipedia article, it does. But going into it would OT, so move along...  ;)

It says that it only accounts for a small part of the economic domain:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Economic transactions occur when two groups or parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. However, monetary transactions only account for a small part of the economic domain.

*Sigh*

The paragraph preceding that gives you the answer, which is:
Quote
A given economy is a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure, legal systems, and natural resources as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. In other words, the economic domain is a social domain of interrelated human practices and transactions that does not stand alone.

The Artemis program is a science expedition, not a location where "interrelated human practices and transactions" will occur.

You want to debate this more, PM me. Otherwise let's get back to the topic at hand, which is that yet ANOTHER non-biased investigation of the SLS program has found rampant mismanagement and overpayments to contractors. This will only end when the SLS program is ended...  :(

I was talking about private lunar missions that will be enabled by the Artemis program (not the Artemis missions themselves). The Sustained Lunar Evolution Segment discusses the lunar economy. You can reply on this topic in this thread if you wish:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57221.msg2477294#msg2477294

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39442
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25545
  • Likes Given: 12224
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #46 on: 05/29/2023 10:24 pm »
I don’t see why astronauts couldn’t shop online from the international space station, so I kind of suspect this has already occurred. The difference might be on a private space station you can order food from the kitchen, and you pay the cook to prepare your food. Or you pay for someone to 3-D print you something. On space station, the original arrangement with the Sabatier reactor was that the company provided the reactor for free but would get paid by NASA per liter of water it produced from the hydrogen and CO2 feedstocks that were waste products. I’m sure the transactions were all occurring on computers on earth, but there is no reason why that would have to be so, nor does it really matter where the ledger computer is located.

I would not be surprised if there is an informal barter economy on ISS where people exchange personal items. Kind of like what happens on naval vessels.

The real question of economy is whether there are multiple entities doing business with one another on orbit. NASA gets money from these private astronaut flights to the international space station, and I don’t see why they couldn’t get money from private astronauts visiting some Artemis base on the moon or Gateway or something. And I imagine some similar arrangement to the Sabatier reactor on ISS where some lunar water mining company could sell water to NASA by the liter. Of course, there were some experiments with this already with a CLPS landers and regolith.


NASA is buying seats on commercial landers, and already Starship is gonna be used by private astronauts for lunar flyby missions, and although the physical landers will be different (at least at first), no doubt Dear Moon style Starships will benefit a lot from commonality with HLS. And Artemis benefits a lot from SpaceX (and Blue Origin for that matter) being willing to pay most of the development cost. This is already the beginning of a nascent lunar economy. Not just pure government as the only customer, nor purely top-down requirements from NASA to determine everything.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2023 10:34 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 3167
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #47 on: 05/30/2023 12:53 pm »
NASA inspector general faults agency on SLS booster and engine overruns:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-faults-agency-on-sls-booster-and-engine-overruns/

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 3167
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #48 on: 05/30/2023 05:09 pm »
I struggle to find (as in I want to believe there is) a benefit to Artemis that outweighs the $50 billion sunk into Orion/SLS/EGS through last year:

https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-sls-and-orion

I just don’t see it.  The relative pittance planned to be spent on landers ($6 billion) and other surface systems (few billion?) is bass ackwards.  And even if it wasn’t, those lunar activities are heavily constrained by a mission rate of one crew of four every year or two.  And even if there was a better ratio of transport to actual lunar activity, there’s no clear articulation in Melroy’s goals of what that lunar activity is supposed to deliver, certainly nothing worth some handful of tens of billions of dollars.

I wish it were otherwise, but so far, no justification/rationale or capability/achievement for Artemis has been put forth that is commensurate with its cost.

Artemis inherited SLS and Orion. The rest of Artemis: the Artemis Accords, HLS, the Spacesuits, CLPS, the LTV are all great programs or agreements that can and should survive SLS and Orion. The Moon to Mars goals and strategies are fine but in the end what really matters are the programs that are associated with these objectives and the programs are good.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8190
  • Liked: 6906
  • Likes Given: 2972
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #49 on: 05/31/2023 01:30 am »
They should contract for services like they have done for HLS and commercial crew, etc.

Those contracts have competition. Applying the same logic to SLS would mean either not using RS-25 on SLS, or taking the design to a competing engine manufacturer. As long as it's sole sourced to Aerojet and NASA has no choice about using it, NASA is over a barrel.

NASA designed themselves into a corner with SLS by using RS-25 with no possibility of a change to anything else. They could have used off-the-shelf hydrocarbon engines and gotten the required performance while having competitive options. But the "not-invented-here" delusion is strong...
« Last Edit: 05/31/2023 01:31 am by envy887 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10470
  • Likes Given: 12164
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #50 on: 05/31/2023 03:03 am »
...
I wish it were otherwise, but so far, no justification/rationale or capability/achievement for Artemis has been put forth that is commensurate with its cost.

Artemis inherited SLS and Orion.

No, the Artemis program was built on top of the SLS+Orion.

Prior to the V.P. Pence announcing the 2024 Moon landing goal, SLS supporters (including those on NSF) had been claiming that the SLS was a "Moon rocket", and obviously the Orion as-built can only make it to the Moon, so the SLS+Orion were perceived as the only option to allow a Moon landing by the end of a potential second Trump Administration. There was simply no other option for making the 2024 politically-oriented date.

Quote
The rest of Artemis: the Artemis Accords, HLS, the Spacesuits, CLPS, the LTV are all great programs or agreements that can and should survive SLS and Orion. The Moon to Mars goals and strategies are fine but in the end what really matters are the programs that are associated with these objectives and the programs are good.

It doesn't look like Congress agrees with your assessment, since Congress continues to dump money into the SLS, regardless of the MANY warnings that U.S. Taxpayer money is NOT being economically spent. Because the goal that Congress has for the Artemis program is not what your goal is - everything BUT the SLS+Orion are just secondary to spending money on the right large NASA contractors, as the cost overruns on the RS-25 and booster show.

If Congress truly cared about the Artemis program then they would care about WHY the SLS & Orion program costs so much, are NOT meeting their planned schedule goals, and CANNOT provide a meaningful Artemis mission tempo without massive budget increases. In other words, Congress would care about what it would take to make the Artemis program more than a flags & footprints exercise...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 3167
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #51 on: 05/31/2023 02:50 pm »
No, the Artemis program was built on top of the SLS+Orion.

Prior to the V.P. Pence announcing the 2024 Moon landing goal, SLS supporters (including those on NSF) had been claiming that the SLS was a "Moon rocket", and obviously the Orion as-built can only make it to the Moon, so the SLS+Orion were perceived as the only option to allow a Moon landing by the end of a potential second Trump Administration. There was simply no other option for making the 2024 politically-oriented date.

I am not sure that I agree with that assessment. VP Pence made it clear in his March 2019 speech that the 2024 goal should be attained by all means necessary and he specifically referred to commercial rockets as a possibility. Trump made a similar comment later on to say that NASA should seek the help of commercial companies (these billionaires love their rockets comment). Bridenstine was essentially forced by Shelby to conclude that SLS was the only way to go but it was obvious that there was other options including Falcon Heavy and Orion which NASA had started to look at.

Quote
It doesn't look like Congress agrees with your assessment, since Congress continues to dump money into the SLS, regardless of the MANY warnings that U.S. Taxpayer money is NOT being economically spent. Because the goal that Congress has for the Artemis program is not what your goal is - everything BUT the SLS+Orion are just secondary to spending money on the right large NASA contractors, as the cost overruns on the RS-25 and booster show.

If Congress truly cared about the Artemis program then they would care about WHY the SLS & Orion program costs so much, are NOT meeting their planned schedule goals, and CANNOT provide a meaningful Artemis mission tempo without massive budget increases. In other words, Congress would care about what it would take to make the Artemis program more than a flags & footprints exercise...

I am not sure that I agree with that assessment either. These other Artemis programs received sufficient funding from Congress. The HLS FY23 budget was more than adequate.

In terms of SLS and Orion, I don't think that Congress will cancel them anytime time soon especially now that Artemis I has flown. Having said that, Congress is supportive of reducing costs and you can hear more and more questions during hearings about reducing and controlling costs. So I wouldn't say that it is not a concern. As you noted, Congress is largely to blame for these costs because of the passage of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and the appropriations that followed it but they usually blame NASA for the costs overrun and not themselves (that is generally what politicians do).

The reason that Artemis won't be a flag and footprint program is because of the public-private partnerships that were created as part of the Artemis program. Every major Artemis program (HLS, the Spacesuits, CLPS and the LTV) that was created since 2017 has been a public-private partnership (except for the PPE and Halo). NASA expects these providers to have non-NASA customers. To me that is the most exciting part of the Artemis program. Eric Berger called the Artemis Accords and HLS the most exciting part of the Artemis Accords and I agree with him, they are. It's popular to be negative these days but there is a lot of positive programs or agreements within Artemis such as the Artemis Accords, HLS, the Spacesuits, CLPS and the LTV.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2023 03:41 pm by yg1968 »

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 882
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #52 on: 05/31/2023 08:21 pm »
Bridenstine was essentially forced by Shelby to conclude that SLS was the only way to go but it was obvious that there was other options including Falcon Heavy and Orion which NASA had started to look at.
I think that what happened to Kathy Lueders was a pretty good sign that "other options" were not actually on the table no matter how much they appeared to be.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 3167
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #53 on: 05/31/2023 09:35 pm »
Bridenstine was essentially forced by Shelby to conclude that SLS was the only way to go but it was obvious that there was other options including Falcon Heavy and Orion which NASA had started to look at.
I think that what happened to Kathy Lueders was a pretty good sign that "other options" were not actually on the table no matter how much they appeared to be.

That happened after Bridenstine left, under the new Administration. However, if your point is that Congress never would have accepted a non-SLS-solution, I agree with that.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10470
  • Likes Given: 12164
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #54 on: 05/31/2023 09:45 pm »
Bridenstine was essentially forced by Shelby to conclude that SLS was the only way to go but it was obvious that there was other options including Falcon Heavy and Orion which NASA had started to look at.
I think that what happened to Kathy Lueders was a pretty good sign that "other options" were not actually on the table no matter how much they appeared to be.

That happened after Bridenstine left, under the new Administration. However, if your point is that Congress never would have accepted a non-SLS-solution, I agree with that.

Bridenstine never could have forced Congress to consider an alternative to the SLS, because of the exact issues the NASA OIG found in this latest report - the program is functioning as intended by Congress, which is NOT the same as being the right solution for the right price.

The proof of that is that despite many of these types of reports being released, Congress doesn't care. The Artemis program is just a fig leaf for spending money on the SLS and Orion programs, regardless of how expensive, inefficient, and outmoded they may be.

If Congress really cared about the Artemis program they would be looking for ways to remove the elements of the Artemis program that are holding back the potential for returning to the Moon. Let me know when that happens and I'll be happy to say I was wrong, but until then the Artemis program is not really a priority within Congress, spending money on the right SLS & Orion contractors is the priority.
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 spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2638
  • Likes Given: 3005
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #55 on: 05/31/2023 09:46 pm »
SLS was originally supposed to use off the shelf components.  Boosters, SSME, and RL-10's on the upper.  They spent a lot developing the 5 segment solids, a lot on changing the SSME to RS-25's, and a lot on developing the J2X that they didn't or haven't used.  Direct had the right approach.  Use what they had until Jupiter could evolve. 

Spending some money to manufacture the RD-180 in America and making an 8-10 engine RD-180 booster with a J2X upper stage would have been cheaper and given the same or better results.  This booster could have been made reusable using F9 technology. 

Solids are heavy and expensive and cost as much to refurbish as new ones.  Core and RS-15's are expendable and expensive.  No clear way to evolve into a reusable rocket. 

Almost all new rockets being developed are to be reusable.  Neutron, New Glenn, Starship/Superheavy, and probably a few others.  We already have Falcon 9 and FH as well as Electron parachuting down for possible reuse.  I was hoping these new ones would be operational by now to make SLS obsolete.  I still think it will be obsolete by 2030 or 2035.  Not even as long as the Shuttle's 30+ years. 

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 882
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #56 on: 05/31/2023 11:00 pm »
SLS was originally supposed to use off the shelf components.  Boosters, SSME, and RL-10's on the upper.  They spent a lot developing the 5 segment solids, a lot on changing the SSME to RS-25's, and a lot on developing the J2X that they didn't or haven't used.  Direct had the right approach.  Use what they had until Jupiter could evolve. 

Spending some money to manufacture the RD-180 in America and making an 8-10 engine RD-180 booster with a J2X upper stage would have been cheaper and given the same or better results.  This booster could have been made reusable using F9 technology. 

Solids are heavy and expensive and cost as much to refurbish as new ones.  Core and RS-15's are expendable and expensive.  No clear way to evolve into a reusable rocket. 


We keep coming back to the SLS program being a jobs program for certain companies and districts and having nothing to do making rational engineering decisions to promote human spaceflight or advance a return to the moon. None of the current design and implementation of SLS makes any sense unless you approach it in these terms.

I have not followed the engine saga for the RS-25s. Please correct me if I have missed something - at what point did they realise that they did not have enough shuttle engines to fulfil the SLS program? I would have thought that this point would come up pretty early in planning the SLS. In descriptions of the development of the SLS it seems to be almost an afterthought that they would need to somehow come up with more SSMEs to keep the program going. If I've missed something, I'm sorry.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10470
  • Likes Given: 12164
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #57 on: 05/31/2023 11:39 pm »
I have not followed the engine saga for the RS-25s. Please correct me if I have missed something - at what point did they realise that they did not have enough shuttle engines to fulfil the SLS program? I would have thought that this point would come up pretty early in planning the SLS. In descriptions of the development of the SLS it seems to be almost an afterthought that they would need to somehow come up with more SSMEs to keep the program going. If I've missed something, I'm sorry.

IIRC there was some consideration of using the RS-68 instead of the SSME/RS-25, but once they decided to use the SSME/RS-25 they would have known that they were going to need to build more engines.

As a note, Aerojet Rocketdyne makes both the RS-68 (used on Delta IV) and the SSME/RS-25, so the SLS program was going to provide guaranteed work for them regardless which was chosen.
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 joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 1113
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #58 on: 06/01/2023 12:18 am »
I have not followed the engine saga for the RS-25s. Please correct me if I have missed something - at what point did they realise that they did not have enough shuttle engines to fulfil the SLS program? I would have thought that this point would come up pretty early in planning the SLS. In descriptions of the development of the SLS it seems to be almost an afterthought that they would need to somehow come up with more SSMEs to keep the program going. If I've missed something, I'm sorry.

IIRC there was some consideration of using the RS-68 instead of the SSME/RS-25, but once they decided to use the SSME/RS-25 they would have known that they were going to need to build more engines.

As a note, Aerojet Rocketdyne makes both the RS-68 (used on Delta IV) and the SSME/RS-25, so the SLS program was going to provide guaranteed work for them regardless which was chosen.

Yup. But IIRC that was squashed cuz RS-68: (1) Had no relationship to Shuttle. Which, as we all know would have violated the raison d'être of SLS continuing on with reusing Shuttle legacy parts (*cough*). (2) Would have to be human rated (a long history of yes-no-maybe with RS-68). (3) The heat flux and ablative nozzles in proximity to the SRB's would likely have been problematic. (4) ...

In any case, those issues were recognized fairly early on. And much of the rework to use RS-68's likely would have landed outside of AJR. So path of least resistance (*cough*), RS-25 it wuz and is.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2023 12:20 am by joek »

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • United States
  • Liked: 1110
  • Likes Given: 391
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #59 on: 06/01/2023 12:40 am »
I have not followed the engine saga for the RS-25s. Please correct me if I have missed something - at what point did they realise that they did not have enough shuttle engines to fulfil the SLS program? I would have thought that this point would come up pretty early in planning the SLS. In descriptions of the development of the SLS it seems to be almost an afterthought that they would need to somehow come up with more SSMEs to keep the program going. If I've missed something, I'm sorry.

IIRC there was some consideration of using the RS-68 instead of the SSME/RS-25, but once they decided to use the SSME/RS-25 they would have known that they were going to need to build more engines.

As a note, Aerojet Rocketdyne makes both the RS-68 (used on Delta IV) and the SSME/RS-25, so the SLS program was going to provide guaranteed work for them regardless which was chosen.

Yup. But IIRC that was squashed cuz RS-68: (1) Had no relationship to Shuttle. Which, as we all know would have violated the raison d'être of SLS continuing on with reusing Shuttle legacy parts (*cough*). (2) Would have to be human rated (a long history of yes-no-maybe with RS-68). (3) The heat flux and ablative nozzles in proximity to the SRB's would likely have been problematic. (4) ...

In any case, those issues were recognized fairly early on. And much of the rework to use RS-68's likely would have landed outside of AJR. So path of least resistance (*cough*), RS-25 it wuz and is.

It's very simple: you tell a congressman that reusing the RS25 will be simple, quick and cheap. Building more of the same engine will also be simple, quick and cheap.

Then you go write contracts to refurbish existing RS25s and start up production of new ones to the tune of billions.

Seems like it all went exactly to plan.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0