Author Topic: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract  (Read 40473 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4958
  • Liked: 2863
  • Likes Given: 1117
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #20 on: 10/14/2023 11:41 am »
On the contrary: The Orion LAS is oversized for a pure liquid launch vehicle. Easier to escape a Super Heavy failure than SLS which has motors which cannot turn off.
Maybe. As interesting as that discussion may be, please take it elsewhere. This thread is about the OIG report.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39454
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25567
  • Likes Given: 12232
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #21 on: 10/14/2023 11:50 am »
Which talks about commercial alternatives to SLS. Since Orion is the only payload, it’s kind of important.
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

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4958
  • Liked: 2863
  • Likes Given: 1117
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #22 on: 10/14/2023 12:08 pm »
Which talks about commercial alternatives to SLS. Since Orion is the only payload, it’s kind of important.
And as the report points out (albeit a bit nuanced), Orion is not the only solution if SLS is removed from the equation. Which begs the question: Why would other solutions have to cater to Orion? Simple answer: they don't. SLS and Orion are tied at the hip; they live and die together.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7006
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5691
  • Likes Given: 2364
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #23 on: 10/14/2023 02:13 pm »
Which talks about commercial alternatives to SLS. Since Orion is the only payload, it’s kind of important.
And as the report points out (albeit a bit nuanced), Orion is not the only solution if SLS is removed from the equation. Which begs the question: Why would other solutions have to cater to Orion? Simple answer: they don't. SLS and Orion are tied at the hip; they live and die together.
We have been discussing one SLS/Orion replacement for about 3 weeks at
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59662.0
The idea is to use no new hardware types except what's being developed for Artemis III already: Tanker, Depot, HLS, plus Crew Dragon. Use Crew Dragon for Earth-LEO and LEO-Earth. Use an OTV (which is a secind instance of Starship HLS) for LEO-NRHO-LEO. Use the first Starship HLS for NHRO-LS-NHRO as in Artemis III.

Please discuss in that thread, not here.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39454
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25567
  • Likes Given: 12232
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #24 on: 10/14/2023 02:13 pm »
The report doesn’t make that point clear at all. I think the report is supposed to be limited in scope to SLS in particular
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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18006
  • Liked: 7684
  • Likes Given: 3226
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #25 on: 10/15/2023 04:18 am »
https://twitter.com/jeffvader10/status/1712504224200736894

Quote
The one good thing to come out of this is NASA concurring with the recommendation to evaluate commercial alternatives

It’s a good report for calling bs on the suppossed savings from contract consolidation years before NASA starts down that road.  And the report puts a little sunshine on some cost data.

But in terms of effecting change, the report’s recommendations are pretty toothless — so much so that I didn’t bother quoting them.  Admittedly, there’s only so much an IG can do to force an agency to give up a current program and pursue a different one.  But the report doesn’t even directly address termination costs, which were the major stumbling block to terminating Constellation contracts during the Obama Administration, nevertheless force the agency to produce independent cost analyses, an independent analysis of alternatives, etc.  There’s little to nothing in this report that would prevent a repeat of the agency’s past mistakes, bureaucratic drift, and programmatic hijackings.  I’m exaggerating, but an ESD intern could read a Wikipedia article on competing heavy launch systems while Free and the rest of his organization continue to roll over on contract negotiations and overruns, and NASA would still meet the letter of the vague, loosey goosey recommendations in this IG report.

In terms of a path forward, the IG also totally misses the fact that SLS has been reduced from an aspirational, multi-payload HLV to a single-use crew launcher, despite the report noting the payloads that SLS has lost and been unable to secure.  Getting off SLS means getting off Orion and that means NASA must pursue a different lunar crew transport capability.  Exploring or even purchasing commercial heavy launch won’t change anything.  NASA has already migrated some Artemis payloads to Falcon Heavy.  NASA has to let go of the lunar crew transport function. If not, it will continue to saddle Artemis with Orion/SLS cost, flight rate, flight safety, and related issues.

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7006
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5691
  • Likes Given: 2364
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #26 on: 10/15/2023 03:35 pm »
The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.
This will depend on the definition of "available". One scheme proposes a second instance of HLS as an OTV to ferry crew from a Crew Dragon in LEO to NRHO. it uses no hardware that is not already needed for Artemis III. Is it "available"? How does its availability differ from EUS, Gateway, or an Orion with an NDS port?

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1085
  • Liked: 1475
  • Likes Given: 669
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #27 on: 10/15/2023 06:58 pm »

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

They did exactly that to the Shuttle. Your optimism and faith in Congress is touching.  Considering that this House is willing to torch the good faith and credit of the USA, a little thing like a Moon landing wouldn't be much of an obstacle to them.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5435
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3752
  • Likes Given: 6489
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #28 on: 10/15/2023 08:28 pm »
Which talks about commercial alternatives to SLS. Since Orion is the only payload, it’s kind of important.
And as the report points out (albeit a bit nuanced), Orion is not the only solution if SLS is removed from the equation. Which begs the question: Why would other solutions have to cater to Orion? Simple answer: they don't. SLS and Orion are tied at the hip; they live and die together.
Can you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark.


As for another solution catering to Orion, that's more political than technical. Getting Congress to kill off the SLS turkey will be hard enough. Expecting them to kill Orion too seems to assume higher level of collective congressional rationality than I've come to expect.🤣


IF they ditch SLS and the run a few Artemus missions with the overpriced Orion spam can without ditching the whole program, then MAYBE there will be enough pressure to use one of the less expensive alternatives that will hopefully be fully developed by then. Or maybe they'll ditch the whole thing and learn Chinese so they can vacation at a lunar resort.

We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline Tommyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #29 on: 10/15/2023 09:42 pm »
Which talks about commercial alternatives to SLS. Since Orion is the only payload, it’s kind of important.
And as the report points out (albeit a bit nuanced), Orion is not the only solution if SLS is removed from the equation. Which begs the question: Why would other solutions have to cater to Orion? Simple answer: they don't. SLS and Orion are tied at the hip; they live and die together.
Can you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark.


As for another solution catering to Orion, that's more political than technical. Getting Congress to kill off the SLS turkey will be hard enough. Expecting them to kill Orion too seems to assume higher level of collective congressional rationality than I've come to expect.🤣


IF they ditch SLS and the run a few Artemus missions with the overpriced Orion spam can without ditching the whole program, then MAYBE there will be enough pressure to use one of the less expensive alternatives that will hopefully be fully developed by then. Or maybe they'll ditch the whole thing and learn Chinese so they can vacation at a lunar resort.
Without SLS, Orion hasn't got a ride to NRHO.
Without Orion to launch to NRHO, SLS hasn't got a reason to keep existing.

Offline pochimax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • spain
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #30 on: 10/15/2023 09:57 pm »
What you have to keep in mind is that the SLS not only launches the Orion but also an additional payload.
(I do not consider it realistic or possible to commercially replace the SLS of Artemis III, which is already very advanced in its construction).
So the commercial proposals would have to take charge of launching the Orion to the Moon and also in another launch the Gateway modules or whatever. Including the design and construction of a tugboat.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7006
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5691
  • Likes Given: 2364
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #31 on: 10/15/2023 10:23 pm »
What you have to keep in mind is that the SLS not only launches the Orion but also an additional payload.
(I do not consider it realistic or possible to commercially replace the SLS of Artemis III, which is already very advanced in its construction).
So the commercial proposals would have to take charge of launching the Orion to the Moon and also in another launch the Gateway modules or whatever. Including the design and construction of a tugboat.
The only planned SLS cargo I know of is the I-HAB module for Gateway. It is intended to launch together with an Orion on a Block 1B SLS during Artemis IV. It cannot launch until the Block 1B is built and its ML-2 launch platform is built.

IMHO, Gateway is worthless except as a nanny for Orion, which cannot survive on its own during a long Lunar mission. However, if you really, really want to add a big habitat to the tiny initial gateway, then just keep the first HLS or the second HLS or both after they return to NRHO from the lunar surface, instead of throwing them away. Each HLS has larger pressurized volume than I-HAB. This would require some mods to HLS. A better alternative is a custom Gateway based on Starship, probably derived from HLS.

As to Artemis III being "advanced in its construction": sunk costs are sunk. If a viable alternative can be delivered in the same timeframe as the longest-lead Artemis III deliverable, then the existence of this hardware is irrelevant.


Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2472
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2158
  • Likes Given: 1279
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #32 on: 10/15/2023 11:20 pm »
What you have to keep in mind is that the SLS not only launches the Orion but also an additional payload.
(I do not consider it realistic or possible to commercially replace the SLS of Artemis III, which is already very advanced in its construction).
So the commercial proposals would have to take charge of launching the Orion to the Moon and also in another launch the Gateway modules or whatever. Including the design and construction of a tugboat.
The only planned SLS cargo I know of is the I-HAB module for Gateway. It is intended to launch together with an Orion on a Block 1B SLS during Artemis IV. It cannot launch until the Block 1B is built and its ML-2 launch platform is built.

IMHO, Gateway is worthless except as a nanny for Orion, which cannot survive on its own during a long Lunar mission. However, if you really, really want to add a big habitat to the tiny initial gateway, then just keep the first HLS or the second HLS or both after they return to NRHO from the lunar surface, instead of throwing them away. Each HLS has larger pressurized volume than I-HAB. This would require some mods to HLS. A better alternative is a custom Gateway based on Starship, probably derived from HLS.

As to Artemis III being "advanced in its construction": sunk costs are sunk. If a viable alternative can be delivered in the same timeframe as the longest-lead Artemis III deliverable, then the existence of this hardware is irrelevant.
Regardless of if any of these ideas proposed here are good or not, I don't see any of this happening anytime soon.  You would have to get NASA, the White house and Congress to agree.  Outside of discussions on a few websites like this, I don't see anyone else having a serious discussion about this.  At best it would take 3 to 4 years to get all parties to sign off on this.  Then it would take another 3 or 4 years minimum (very optimistic on my part) to get all the design and testing done.  By that time construction of hardware is probably under way for Artemis VII and VIII.  I don't see any NASA funded human flights to the Moon on anything other than SLS and Orion this decade.

Where I do see possibilities of alternatives are after Starship is flying commercial cruises to the Moon and the lower cost option stares Congress in the face.  The other possibility is after New Glenn is flying and has a refuelable upper stage and the option of putting Orion on it becomes possible.  Either of these could finally put the pressure on to retire SLS especially if budgets get tighter.  In the meantime I don't believe the required decision making parties will take any alternative to SLS/Orion seriously and construction of hardware will continue on regardless of if it is a good idea or not.  I see us committed out to Artemis VIII at a minimum.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4958
  • Liked: 2863
  • Likes Given: 1117
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #33 on: 10/15/2023 11:24 pm »
Can you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark.

Only launch manifest for SLS in the foreseeable future is Orion as part of Artemis. Only LV manifested to launch on SLS is Orion. That is very unlikely to change. SLS is simply too expensive for other missions (one reason why Europa Clipper moved to FH). Orion is tied to Artemis, which is tied to SLS. Could Orion be untied from SLS? Maybe--a number of other threads discuss options. But the cost for an Orion mission is still very steep--regardless of LV--so once you take one out of the equation, think the other will follow.

edit: p.s. OIG report hints at that with the statement "NASA’s SLS single-use rocket". Single use = Orion/Artemis.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2023 11:28 pm by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18006
  • Liked: 7684
  • Likes Given: 3226
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #34 on: 10/15/2023 11:40 pm »
Can you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark.

Only launch manifest for SLS in the foreseeable future is Orion as part of Artemis. Only LV manifested to launch on SLS is Orion. That is very unlikely to change. SLS is simply too expensive for other missions (one reason why Europa Clipper moved to FH). Orion is tied to Artemis, which is tied to SLS. Could Orion be untied from SLS? Maybe--a number of other threads discuss options. But the cost for an Orion mission is still very steep--regardless of LV--so once you take one out of the equation, think the other will follow.

edit: p.s. OIG report hints at that with the statement "NASA’s SLS single-use rocket". Single use = Orion/Artemis.

SLS will also be used for Gateway modules: IHab and Esprit (and perhaps the Airlock). However, Orion will also be part of these missions.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1812
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #35 on: 10/16/2023 07:55 am »
Can you expand on SLS and Orion being joined at the hip? Straight up question. No snark.

Only launch manifest for SLS in the foreseeable future is Orion as part of Artemis. Only LV manifested to launch on SLS is Orion. That is very unlikely to change. SLS is simply too expensive for other missions (one reason why Europa Clipper moved to FH). Orion is tied to Artemis, which is tied to SLS. Could Orion be untied from SLS? Maybe--a number of other threads discuss options. But the cost for an Orion mission is still very steep--regardless of LV--so once you take one out of the equation, think the other will follow.

edit: p.s. OIG report hints at that with the statement "NASA’s SLS single-use rocket". Single use = Orion/Artemis.

SLS will also be used for Gateway modules: IHab and Esprit (and perhaps the Airlock). However, Orion will also be part of these missions.

Only if NASA have the SLS Block 1B available. More likely the Falcon Heavy will launch the iHab, Esplit and airlock modules to NRHO due to cost and scheduling. Since the SLS Block 1B be on schedule is extremely unlikely, IMO.

Kinda of silly waiting for a $4.5B+ SLS Block 1B/Orion stack (according to NASA IG) when you can booked several Falcon Heavies for less than $200M each immediately. So @joek is likely correct that the Orion will be the only payload for the SLS. Which NASA is unlikely to get the Block 1B version operational any time soon.
« Last Edit: 10/16/2023 07:59 am by Zed_Noir »

Offline tbellman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1030
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #36 on: 10/16/2023 09:04 am »
Only if NASA have the SLS Block 1B available. More likely the Falcon Heavy will launch the iHab, Esplit and airlock modules to NRHO due to cost and scheduling. Since the SLS Block 1B be on schedule is extremely unlikely, IMO.

Kinda of silly waiting for a $4.5B+ SLS Block 1B/Orion stack (according to NASA IG) when you can booked several Falcon Heavies for less than $200M each immediately. So @joek is likely correct that the Orion will be the only payload for the SLS. Which NASA is unlikely to get the Block 1B version operational any time soon.

The problem is not to throw those modules on a trans-lunar injection (TLI) trajectory, but to bring them from that trajectory and over to the NRHO orbit, meet up with the Lunar Gateway and dock with it.  Falcon Heavy can't do that on its own.  Nor can SLS, of course; Orion is planned to do that.  But Falcon Heavy can't throw Orion+IHab on a TLI.

A space tug could certainly be developed to perform that task, and it would almost certainly be significantly smaller and cheaper than Orion.  But that development needs to be done.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7006
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5691
  • Likes Given: 2364
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #37 on: 10/16/2023 02:57 pm »
Only if NASA have the SLS Block 1B available. More likely the Falcon Heavy will launch the iHab, Esplit and airlock modules to NRHO due to cost and scheduling. Since the SLS Block 1B be on schedule is extremely unlikely, IMO.

Kinda of silly waiting for a $4.5B+ SLS Block 1B/Orion stack (according to NASA IG) when you can booked several Falcon Heavies for less than $200M each immediately. So @joek is likely correct that the Orion will be the only payload for the SLS. Which NASA is unlikely to get the Block 1B version operational any time soon.

The problem is not to throw those modules on a trans-lunar injection (TLI) trajectory, but to bring them from that trajectory and over to the NRHO orbit, meet up with the Lunar Gateway and dock with it.  Falcon Heavy can't do that on its own.  Nor can SLS, of course; Orion is planned to do that.  But Falcon Heavy can't throw Orion+IHab on a TLI.

A space tug could certainly be developed to perform that task, and it would almost certainly be significantly smaller and cheaper than Orion.  But that development needs to be done.
Yep, it's a problem. by co-manifesting I-Hab with Orion, the two launch together into the same TLI orbit and can then mate to each other. Orion then moves this combined spacecraft into NRHO and performs the RPOD. I have not done the math, but just qualitatively this seems it will be pretty challenging to dock the I-HAB to HALO using Orion. the I-HAB port to be docked is at the "front" of I-HAB/Orion/EUS, while the Orion thrusters are more or less in the middle of I-HAB/Orion/EUS.

So now what? unless the new OTV is co-manifested, you need your new OTV to RPOD with the Gateway-bound module after it's launched and before it needs to change orbits to reach Gateway. If it's co-manifested, then your LV (FH or other) must lift the whole thing.

My preferred solution as a Starship enthusiast is to replace Gateway entirely, using a custom Starship. It's likely to be cheaper than an individual Gateway module and its LV, and this is certainly true if the module launches on SLS/Orion.

Offline pochimax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • spain
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #38 on: 10/16/2023 06:27 pm »
Quote
Only launch manifest for SLS in the foreseeable future is Orion as part of Artemis. Only LV manifested to launch on SLS is Orion. That is very unlikely to change.

Since Artemis IV, every SLS is for launch Orion + other thing. In the case of missions IV and V, the "other things" are Gateway modules already being made in Europe and Japan.

Obviously, as of today, if NASA doesn' t want to made "other things" for lauching on SLS the problem of finding a commercial substitute will be easier, as the problem reduces then only to launching Orion. If NASA continues to initiate contracts to launch payloads jointly with the Orion beyond Artemis V, the commercial alternative becomes a little more complicated (due to the need for the tugboat, that is, you need not only a rocket but also a tugboat).

Offline pochimax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • spain
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract
« Reply #39 on: 10/16/2023 06:33 pm »
My preferred solution as a Starship enthusiast is to replace Gateway entirely, using a custom Starship. It's likely to be cheaper than an individual Gateway module and its LV, and this is certainly true if the module launches on SLS/Orion.

very difficult to cancel or modify the gateway for a Starship. NASA would have to pay Europe and Japan for everything invested so far. I don't think ESA or JAXA could be convinced of the change. It's a very, very unrealistic scenario.

So, ...actually the problem is simplified and reduced to launching the two or three international modules of the Gateway with the SLS or with a commercial alternative. Any other variant is not a plausible scenario.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1