Predicting the SLS

[Gregori]

I've set up a thread for speculation on what will be the final design of the SLS-HLV. In every other thread to date people have discussed what they think the design should be. We all have our personal preference but that's not what this thread is for.

This is for what you think NASA is likely to actually pick in a few months time.
I think it will be interesting for posterity to see who turns out to have predicted it right.


I'm predicting that the SLS will use SSME's on an 8m core, 5-Seg SRBs and an upper stage powered by a J2X. I would like to be wrong though.

[simonbp]

I'm predicting that the SLS will use SSME's on an 8m core, 5-Seg SRBs and an upper stage powered by a J2X. I would like to be wrong though.

I'd agree. Best bang for the buck.

[kraisee]

I think that's the way they'll ultimately go too -- but then they'll find they don't have much money left over to put anything on top.

Given this is a prediction thread, as the most outspoken supporter of this general approach, I predict the program will then have a 75% chance of getting chopped -- in precisely the same way as Apollo was.

The agency must change this Griffin-esque "bigger shiny rockets are all that matter" mindset or they will never make anything sustainable.

The basic Jupiter-130/Jupiter-246 combo remain all they actually *need* -- and they are affordable enough that we could use them quite a bit.

Anything else is just a pure waste of money -- and that increases the chances of ultimate program closure.

Ross.

[simonbp]

The basic Jupiter-130/Jupiter-246 combo remain all they actually *need* -- and they are affordable enough that we could use them quite a bit.

Anything else is just a pure waste of money -- and that increases the chances of ultimate program closure.

That's a bit harsh, Ross. It's also possible that just building 5-seg/4-SSME from the start would be overall cheaper than wasting time and money on a rocket you're just going to discard later (like J-130).

[kraisee]

A Bit Harsh.   Yes.

Its called "tough love" and I've never shied away from telling it how it is, rather than how we all wish it were.

This situation is far more precarious than most people realize.   There are some just *waiting* for NASA to screw this up again and they're all hoping NASA will take the high-cost option.

Ross.

[raketen]

I've set up a thread for speculation on what will be the final design of the SLS-HLV. In every other thread to date people have discussed what they think the design should be. We all have our personal preference but that's not what this thread is for.

This is for what you think NASA is likely to actually pick in a few months time.
I think it will be interesting for posterity to see who turns out to have predicted it right.



I'm predicting that the SLS will use SSME's on an 8m core, 5-Seg SRBs and an upper stage powered by a J2X. I would like to be wrong though.

Probably an enhanced EELV.  The bucks won't be there for a big SLS.

[robertross]

A Bit Harsh.   Yes.

Its called "tough love" and I've never shied away from telling it how it is, rather than how we all wish it were.

This situation is far more precarious than most people realize.   There are some just *waiting* for NASA to screw this up again and they're all hoping NASA will take the high-cost option.

Ross.

I don't think people do realize just how close this was.

There was VERY LITTLE public debate, that I had seen, on the Ares question. Sure we saw a blue ribbon panel, but it was glossed over with destinations & a change in course. Once we set that new course though, evrything (and anything) can change. (hmm...must ponder this some more)

But of course the same political landscape, and hence maneuvering, that gave NASA its second chance is soon changing, and the expectations to perform with less will no dubt put serious pressure on the end result (coming in on budget). If they're really close, they'll make it through - but if they're way off, it's a dim future.

The J-130/J-246 dynamic duo is the key. I've never liked the 5-segment idea, for purely recurring cost reasons. Keep the vehicle as inexpensive as possible. We are at a stage when we can go either way (4- or 5-segment), and the 4-segment keeps the costs down and preserves a great deal of commonality with what currently flies IE: fewer changes & a good pedigree.

[Chris Bergin]

It'll have SSMEs, I'll put money on that....ironically based on a conversation I had with someone important two hours ago (sorry, can't elaborate any further, anywhere, at this stage).

[2552]

8.4m SSME powered ET + 5-seg SRB core stage seems very likely to me. Recently, J-2X seems more likely to be kept based on this, or is it? Is NASA facing pressure from Congress to keep it? Is there any hint/rumor besides this that J-2X vs RL-10 has been decided internally yet or will be soon? Surely this is unlikely to result in J-2X being found more cost-effective than RL-10?

[robertross]

It'll have SSMEs, I'll put money on that....ironically based on a conversation I had with someone important two hours ago (sorry, can't elaborate any further, anywhere, at this stage).

hahaha...such a tease.

But I think that's a foregone conclusion *now* for a SD-HLV

[Lars_J]

Initial version of the SLS (without upper stage): 5-seg SRBs, 8.4m diameter core, 4 SSMEs.

(Not what I would hope for, but what I expect to see)

[sdsds]

I've set up a thread for speculation on what will be the final design of the SLS-HLV. [...]  This is for what you think NASA is likely to actually pick in a few months time.

Caveat: this is a prediction thread; all statements below are thus predictions.

1. What NASA presents in January will not be (even close to) the final design.

2. NASA will propose an ESMD design that exceeds the requirements of the law.  (Specifically they will propose a 4 SSME stretched core with 5-seg boosters, i.e. J-140SH.)

3. Congress, and in particular the Senate, will respond with a demand for the less costly approach of J-130/J-24x, and there will be no appropriation of funds.

4. That process will extend well beyond Feb 1, 2011, when the President will propose a 2012 budget.  That proposal will explicitly include funding for new 4-seg RSRM development and production.  In Sep 2011 ATK will fire the first 5-seg qualification motor.  ESMD and others will use "sunk cost" arguments to press for continued 5-seg qualification.

5. A compromise will emerge sometime in 2012 and will be reflected in FY2013 appropriations.  It will look a lot like J-130H.  Bids for development and production of the core will be solicited in 2013, but no funds will actually be paid to the contractor from the FY2013 budget.

6. Production of the cores at MAF won't begin in earnest until 2015.  First flight will be in 2017.

[RocketEconomist327]

I think that's the way they'll ultimately go too -- but then they'll find they don't have much money left over to put anything on top.

Given this is a prediction thread, as the most outspoken supporter of this general approach, I predict the program will then have a 75% chance of getting chopped -- in precisely the same way as Apollo was.

The agency must change this Griffin-esque "bigger shiny rockets are all that matter" mindset or they will never make anything sustainable.

The basic Jupiter-130/Jupiter-246 combo remain all they actually *need* -- and they are affordable enough that we could use them quite a bit.

Anything else is just a pure waste of money -- and that increases the chances of ultimate program closure.

Ross.

I really hope the big wigs who read this forum take this post to heart.  This is pretty much dead on, balls accurate, calibrated by a rocket...

I know conservatives want a vibrant NASA.  I also know those same conservatives will chop SLS if it goes down the road of CxP.

VR
RE327

[savuporo]

Predicting the SLS?
I am going to make this prediction based on past performance, nothing else : its not going to fly any payloads, before it gets axed.

I am wiling to bet a case of beer or a bottle of Chivas on that.

[Ronsmytheiii]

It'll have SSMEs, I'll put money on that....ironically based on a conversation I had with someone important two hours ago (sorry, can't elaborate any further, anywhere, at this stage).

I didn't know you had President Obama's Blackberry email address 

[FinalFrontier]

I think that's the way they'll ultimately go too -- but then they'll find they don't have much money left over to put anything on top.

Given this is a prediction thread, as the most outspoken supporter of this general approach, I predict the program will then have a 75% chance of getting chopped -- in precisely the same way as Apollo was.

The agency must change this Griffin-esque "bigger shiny rockets are all that matter" mindset or they will never make anything sustainable.

The basic Jupiter-130/Jupiter-246 combo remain all they actually *need* -- and they are affordable enough that we could use them quite a bit.

Anything else is just a pure waste of money -- and that increases the chances of ultimate program closure.

Ross.

I really hope the big wigs who read this forum take this post to heart.  This is pretty much dead on, balls accurate, calibrated by a rocket...

I know conservatives want a vibrant NASA.  I also know those same conservatives will chop SLS if it goes down the road of CxP.

VR
RE327

Thats exactly right. Conservatives (like myself) are about fiscal responsibility ABOVE ALL in an economic situation like this. While we all want a space program, we will not tolerate waste like CXP. It won't even get 1-2 years down the road if thats the direction things go. So I really hope that the big wigs (and the MSFC managment) is paying attention to whats being said here. You have one chance, use it. Present a j246/j130 proposal or don't even bother presenting.

Congress is watching, soon they will be watching with even more scrutiny.

[Patchouli]

The only thing I can say for sure about SLS is it will have SSMEs , 4 segment RSRMs,and a minimum payload of 60MT in it's baseline configuration with 80 to 100T LEO being the most likely payload size.

I consider Shuttle-C and the J-130 the low end and a light version of Ares V the high end.

[JohnFornaro]

Anything else is just a pure waste of money

From what I've read, I'd agree.

[aquanaut99]

Predicting the SLS?
I am going to make this prediction based on past performance, nothing else : its not going to fly any payloads, before it gets axed.

I am wiling to bet a case of beer or a bottle of Chivas on that.

Second that. SLS will get axed.

[Spacely]

Third that.  SLS, and specifically a SDHLV/DIRECT will never see the light of launch. 

It's unsustainable. Finishing Orion and seeding the rest to commercial and EELV upgrades would be a better use of money.