Author Topic: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding  (Read 35341 times)

Online Chris Bergin

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/schedule-first-sls-core-stage-sliding/

- By Philip Sloss

Wish we had some good news, but schedule issues mean SLS maiden launch (EM-1) is at least two years away and confidence levels for June 2020 holding is now less than 50 percent.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #1 on: 05/14/2018 10:07 pm »
This is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?! :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline HeartofGold2030

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • England
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #2 on: 05/14/2018 10:08 pm »
This is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?! :(

The exact same thing that happened to the Constellation program...

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #3 on: 05/14/2018 10:15 pm »
The article links to a previous article from 2012, saying that the heritage engine shields would be superseded by improved designs, (Better is the enemy of good enough.) but that the first flight remained on schedule for 2017, which at the time was 5 years away.
6 years later it's still over 2 years away.  A linear extrapolation says 2022.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #4 on: 05/14/2018 10:17 pm »
I'm guessing we are about 6-9 months out from a launch slip into 2021.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #5 on: 05/14/2018 10:28 pm »
This is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?! :(

The exact same thing that happened to the Constellation program...
At this rate; Vulcan-Centaur V will be flying before the SLS. If I were NASA, I'd be discretely talking to ULA about moving Orion over to that as a Hail Mary pass...
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online cwr

Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #6 on: 05/14/2018 10:41 pm »
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/schedule-first-sls-core-stage-sliding/

- By Philip Sloss

Wish we had some good news, but schedule issues mean SLS maiden launch (EM-1) is at least two years away and confidence levels for June 2020 holding is now less than 50 percent.

We used to have a problem where pdf slides with lots of info were unreadable in NSF articles.
Then a year or two back there was an upgrade to NSF article technology so that
clicking on such an image would expand it so that it was readable and all that info could be
enjoyed and analysed.

When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,
it does not expand.
I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from the
incorporation of the image.

If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable version
of the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].

Thanks for listening

Carl

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1601
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #7 on: 05/14/2018 11:53 pm »
When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,
it does not expand.
I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from the
incorporation of the image.

If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable version
of the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].

Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).

Online cwr

Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #8 on: 05/15/2018 12:49 am »
When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,
it does not expand.
I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from the
incorporation of the image.

If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable version
of the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].

Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).

Thanks, I can read that.

Carl

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #9 on: 05/15/2018 02:39 am »
When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,
it does not expand.
I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from the
incorporation of the image.

If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable version
of the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].

Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).

Thanks, I can read that.

Carl


Perfectly readable in the article. Either you are using a small phone or you need new glasses ;)

Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #10 on: 05/15/2018 02:45 am »
Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.

 ;D ;D

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #11 on: 05/15/2018 02:51 am »
At this rate; Vulcan-Centaur V will be flying before the SLS. If I were NASA, I'd be discretely talking to ULA about moving Orion over to that as a Hail Mary pass...

What missions would Orion make possible that wouldn't be possible with one of the other two capsules?

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #12 on: 05/15/2018 03:21 am »
Beyond Earth Orbit, of course?! One of the stated goals for Vulcan - particularly Vulcan/ACES - is propellant transfer. With that, it would have more than enough delta-v to send Orion on TLI.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline FireJack

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #13 on: 05/15/2018 03:26 am »
I suspect that the only saving grace for the SLS is that the human transport version of the BFR will probably take a lot  longer than a few years. Given how many problems they've been having just getting the dragon v2 ready I don't see them having something so much larger and complicated ready by 2025. Especially rated to take NASA astronauts.

Even if a cargo version is never really used I suspect using the SLS to launch humans into space will be its main justification, even if that doesn't happen until 2023.

Online cwr

Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #14 on: 05/15/2018 03:38 am »
When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,
it does not expand.
I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from the
incorporation of the image.

If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable version
of the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].

Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).

Thanks, I can read that.

Carl


Perfectly readable in the article. Either you are using a small phone or you need new glasses ;)
I was viewing it on a 24" workstation with Firefox under Linux.

I also tried it on a 26" screen on a system running windows 10 using a similar version of Firefox.


Results are the same - the image in the article does not expand when I click on it.
However the version supplied by AnalogMan in this thread worked as expected, a click produces an expanded version which is perfectly readable.

Thanks

Carl

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #15 on: 05/15/2018 04:02 am »
Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.
Please leave SpaceX out of this.
There is almost no comparison, although people will fill pages making them.
And your statement about Heavy is untrue.
“Isn’t great” is an understatement.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2195
  • Likes Given: 1000
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #16 on: 05/15/2018 05:12 am »
I was viewing it on a 24" workstation with Firefox under Linux.

I also tried it on a 26" screen on a system running windows 10 using a similar version of Firefox.

Results are the same - the image in the article does not expand when I click on it.

For future reference, the images on the new site are usually quite high resolution, but the browser will make them smaller to fit your screen.

Right clicking the image and opening it in a new tab will allow you to see it without this issue.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #17 on: 05/15/2018 07:26 am »
When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,
it does not expand.
I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from the
incorporation of the image.

If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable version
of the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].

Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).

Thanks, I can read that.

Carl


Perfectly readable in the article. Either you are using a small phone or you need new glasses ;)

Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.

FH was five years late and lotsa people here repeatedly asked the question when FH would finally launch.

But, to get back to SLS: first launch was mandated, by law, to be no later than December 2016. With the recent sliding of the CS schedule there is a very real chance that the new NET launch date for EM-1 will be in December 2020. That is four years behind schedule. Which is real bad for a government program gobbling up over a billion dollars PER YEAR. For comparison: FH was done on a mere $500 million IN TOTAL.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48174
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81664
  • Likes Given: 36933
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #18 on: 05/15/2018 09:12 am »
But, to get back to SLS: first launch was mandated, by law, to be no later than December 2016. With the recent sliding of the CS schedule there is a very real chance that the new NET launch date for EM-1 will be in December 2020. That is four years behind schedule.

That fact and the relative lack of noise in Washington about the slips, indeed consistently increased funding over what's requested year-on-year, makes clear that politically the dates don't matter, yet. I'm pretty sure EM-1 will fly, but the delays mean the launch landscape with SpaceX and Blue Origin is likely to be very different before EM-2 and that's when I guess the politics will change.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #19 on: 05/15/2018 11:32 am »
When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,
it does not expand.
I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from the
incorporation of the image.

If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable version
of the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].

Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).

Thanks, I can read that.

Carl


Perfectly readable in the article. Either you are using a small phone or you need new glasses ;)

Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.

FH was five years late and lotsa people here repeatedly asked the question when FH would finally launch.

But, to get back to SLS: first launch was mandated, by law, to be no later than December 2016. With the recent sliding of the CS schedule there is a very real chance that the new NET launch date for EM-1 will be in December 2020. That is four years behind schedule. Which is real bad for a government program gobbling up over a billion dollars PER YEAR. For comparison: FH was done on a mere $500 million IN TOTAL.

Per three months -- $4B per year of taxpayers' money, for a total of near$40B by the time it flies.
FH consumed $0 (zero taxpayers' dollars) -- and it is operational (and reusable)
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 11:40 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #20 on: 05/15/2018 11:43 am »
This is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?! :(

Build an additional mobile launcher!  :o
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #21 on: 05/15/2018 11:49 am »
I thought there was going to be two operational Crawlers? I know one was extensively upgraded and repaired over the last couple of years. I also know that the old Ares 1 tower is being modified and there's been talk of building another that will be full 'SLS Block 1B' compatible.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #22 on: 05/15/2018 01:00 pm »
I thought there was going to be two operational Crawlers? I know one was extensively upgraded and repaired over the last couple of years. I also know that the old Ares 1 tower is being modified and there's been talk of building another that will be full 'SLS Block 1B' compatible.

Sorry, didn't intend to sidetrack this discussion -- just thought it bazaar that SLS/Orion would be looking to double its launch capability when they are having such a difficult time establishing initial operational capability.  It seems obvious to anyone who has managed a project that adding ML-2, the EUS design/build, additional iCPS stages, human rating iCPS, human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably. 
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #23 on: 05/15/2018 03:12 pm »
I suspect that the only saving grace for the SLS is that the human transport version of the BFR will probably take a lot  longer than a few years...

Even if a cargo version is never really used I suspect using the SLS to launch humans into space will be its main justification, even if that doesn't happen until 2023.

I don't think so.  For similar missions, SLS/Orion has worse loss-of-crew projections than the projections STS had at the end of that program.  Someone in power will eventually wake up to this and start asking why we're spending so much on a system that is projected to kill astronauts at a faster rate than STS, a system which we terminated after ISS deployment was complete precisely because of flight safety concerns.  Maybe SLS continues as a hyper-expensive cargo transport for reasons of jobs and misbegotten national pride.  But if anyone responsible is paying attention, I don't think SLS, and maybe not Orion, ever launches astronauts.  Manifest rumblings a few weeks ago that pushed out the first crewed flight may have been the first toes in this water.

Also, in the scenario that BFR never comes to fruition, there are still other vehicles for delivering crew to exploration expeditions, either via modifications to those vehicles or via architectures staged in LEO.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #24 on: 05/15/2018 04:10 pm »
When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,
it does not expand.
I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from the
incorporation of the image.

If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable version
of the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].

Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).

Thanks, I can read that.

Carl


Perfectly readable in the article. Either you are using a small phone or you need new glasses ;)

Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.

FH was five years late and lotsa people here repeatedly asked the question when FH would finally launch.

But, to get back to SLS: first launch was mandated, by law, to be no later than December 2016. With the recent sliding of the CS schedule there is a very real chance that the new NET launch date for EM-1 will be in December 2020. That is four years behind schedule. Which is real bad for a government program gobbling up over a billion dollars PER YEAR. For comparison: FH was done on a mere $500 million IN TOTAL.

Actually, operational capability was mandated NLT Dec 2016. That would imply an earlier test launch.

Quote
Priority should be placed on the core elements with
the goal for operational capability for the core elements not
later than December 31, 2016.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #25 on: 05/15/2018 04:14 pm »
This is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?! :(

Build an additional mobile launcher!  :o
Just  respecify the mobile launcher to get the whole stack to LEO.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #26 on: 05/15/2018 04:22 pm »

adding ML-2,
the EUS design/build,
additional iCPS stages,
human rating iCPS,
human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1
 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably. 

All separate and unrelated workforces.
There is no need to "human rate" Block 1 SLS, it was designed that way.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #27 on: 05/15/2018 04:32 pm »
I thought there was going to be two operational Crawlers? I know one was extensively upgraded and repaired over the last couple of years. I also know that the old Ares 1 tower is being modified and there's been talk of building another that will be full 'SLS Block 1B' compatible.

Sorry, didn't intend to sidetrack this discussion -- just thought it bazaar that SLS/Orion would be looking to double its launch capability when they are having such a difficult time establishing initial operational capability.  It seems obvious to anyone who has managed a project that adding ML-2, the EUS design/build, additional iCPS stages, human rating iCPS, human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably.

The critical path seems to be through Michoud and Stennis, which are unrelated to any of those things.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2458
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10225
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #28 on: 05/15/2018 04:40 pm »
Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.

NB:  Over those few years, both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy (first from its Falcon 9 Heavy incarnation) increased their capability by >100%.  Have SLS capabilities been similarly increased?
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 05:07 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #29 on: 05/15/2018 04:57 pm »
The critical path seems to be through Michoud and Stennis, which are unrelated to any of those things.

Also software development, about which we keep hearing worrisome noises. But again, transferring workers from ML-2 wouldn't make that happen any faster...

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #30 on: 05/15/2018 05:56 pm »

adding ML-2,
the EUS design/build,
additional iCPS stages,
human rating iCPS,
human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1
 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably. 

All separate and unrelated workforces.
There is no need to "human rate" Block 1 SLS, it was designed that way.

Not according to the people writing SLS software -- the software was NOT written such that it could be used for crewed flight.  The iCPS was also NOT supposed to get crew qualified... NASA specifically decided the $150M needed to qualify it wasn't worth it when they decided that SLS Block 1 would only fly once, and that it would NOT fly crew.  (But like everything in this program, that decision subsequently was changed.)  These are just a couple of the requirements shoved downstream 'to save money' in this never ending saga of mis-management.

But you are free to be of the opinion that all of this is business as usual for NASA, and thus fine. 
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #31 on: 05/15/2018 06:48 pm »

1.  Not according to the people writing SLS software -- the software was NOT written such that it could be used for crewed flight. 

2. The iCPS was also NOT supposed to get crew qualified...

But you are free to be of the opinion that all of this is business as usual for NASA, and thus fine. 

No opinions, just facts.  You just poked at two minor points when the bulk of your post was wrong.

1.  That is just a software revision and not man rating.   Having different increments of software during project development is common across many industries.   MSL was launched without the software to land or to rove.   Fighter aircraft have just the software to fly and not operate weapons during early test flights.

2.  It is just one item, it doesn't change that

adding ML-2 is KSC
the EUS design/build is MSFC, who can use the resources from the core stage group since it is production
additional iCPS stages is ULA
human rating Block 1 SLS is just a software upgrade by MSFC SW group
building multiple copies of Block 1 is Boeing


Online Torbjorn Larsson, OM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 79
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #32 on: 05/15/2018 07:18 pm »
But, to get back to SLS: first launch was mandated, by law, to be no later than December 2016. With the recent sliding of the CS schedule there is a very real chance that the new NET launch date for EM-1 will be in December 2020. That is four years behind schedule.

That fact and the relative lack of noise in Washington about the slips, indeed consistently increased funding over what's requested year-on-year, makes clear that politically the dates don't matter, yet. I'm pretty sure EM-1 will fly, but the delays mean the launch landscape with SpaceX and Blue Origin is likely to be very different before EM-2 and that's when I guess the politics will change.

Yikes. If this trend continues, people will be more interested in when the SLS program is discontinued than when it launch. Is there a poll for this?


adding ML-2,
the EUS design/build,
additional iCPS stages,
human rating iCPS,
human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1
 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably. 

All separate and unrelated workforces.
There is no need to "human rate" Block 1 SLS, it was designed that way.

Not according to the people writing SLS software -- the software was NOT written such that it could be used for crewed flight.  The iCPS was also NOT supposed to get crew qualified... NASA specifically decided the $150M needed to qualify it wasn't worth it when they decided that SLS Block 1 would only fly once, and that it would NOT fly crew.  (But like everything in this program, that decision subsequently was changed.)  These are just a couple of the requirements shoved downstream 'to save money' in this never ending saga of mis-management.

But you are free to be of the opinion that all of this is business as usual for NASA, and thus fine. 

Oh, come on. These are programs with enormous number of options and changes. NASA is maybe too good at managing programs instead of having them ditched, no company is beset by changing politics externally and internally (say, budget). There is no easy comparison, and Constellation was grounded by others. And that is when they manage program tactics that they do not agree with (say, contract forms).

Strategic decisions have been mistaken for sure (Constellation, DIRECT), and they are of course part of management. I don't know if anyone expects to avoid them. ('If you don't crash rockets/programs, you are not trying hard enough.')

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #33 on: 05/15/2018 08:49 pm »
Please do not bring SpaceX into this discussion. That includes FH, F9, BFR, BFS, ITS, Dragon 1, Dragon 2, etc.
While you're at it, you might also leave out Blue.

Thanks. We don't need every thread pointing out the same obvious[1] facts[2]

1 - or debating about which facts are obvious and which aren't.
2 - or debating about which facts are actually not facts.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #34 on: 05/15/2018 08:57 pm »
Please do not bring SpaceX into this discussion. That includes FH, F9, BFR, BFS, ITS, Dragon 1, Dragon 2, etc.
While you're at it, you might also leave out Blue.

Thanks. We don't need every thread pointing out the same obvious[1] facts[2]

1 - or debating about which facts are obvious and which aren't.
2 - or debating about which facts are actually not facts.

Well if we compare SLS to Vulcan...

(I joke, I joke)

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #35 on: 05/15/2018 09:03 pm »
So who's actually responsible for SLS? I mean someone who can actually be held accountable for this? I guess the biggest issue is that year after year, schedule slip after schedule slip, billion after billion, nobody has been held accountable? Does everyone get a prize for just showing up? If there's no repercussions, then there's no skin in the game and....well, we all know how that works out.

So, seriously, who the hell is running this show?
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #36 on: 05/15/2018 09:15 pm »
So who's actually responsible for SLS?

Brief history:
Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttle
Wanted to keep going to space so Ares program emerged
Ares program was a dog so Obama cancelled it
The Senate was up in arms at Ares being cancelled (jobs in the right states and we didn't have alternative heavy rockets)
They compromised and made the SLS, like the Ares but a little cheaper
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 09:16 pm by johnfwhitesell »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #37 on: 05/15/2018 09:20 pm »
So who's actually responsible for SLS?

Brief history:
Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttle
Wanted to keep going to space so Ares program emerged
Ares program was a dog so Obama cancelled it
The Senate was up in arms at Ares being cancelled (jobs in the right states and we didn't have alternative heavy rockets)
They compromised and made the SLS, like the Ares but a little cheaper
Ha....Yeh, got a few hundred threads about all that on here. I wasn't asking the "big" who but the actual, who. As in, "Go ask Mike what the heck is going on. He's the one in charge of this mess..." So, who is Mike?
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Online ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 770
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #38 on: 05/15/2018 09:50 pm »
^^ Congress is the answer

That's why there is no responsibility and it is just chugging along.  It is doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to be doing.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 09:52 pm by ulm_atms »

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #39 on: 05/15/2018 10:03 pm »
My former supervisor once said, "if we have to fight WWII again, we would loose".  He did not like some of our suppliers, with parts missing bolts and nuts. 

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #40 on: 05/16/2018 02:39 pm »
Sometimes I wonder if this program only exists to make the F-35 program look better in comparison.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #41 on: 05/16/2018 02:57 pm »
My former supervisor once said, "if we have to fight WWII again, we would loose".  He did not like some of our suppliers, with parts missing bolts and nuts.

If you take the current incentive structure for government procurement (especially around military and related areas), and apply a little game theory, it's not a mystery why we have a sort of nasty "Nash Equilibrium" that exists today. You end up with this:

-Purposely bloated/stretched development/R&D timelines (Paid "by the hour") ...incentivized to make sure the job continues
-Purposely bloated workforce and facilities (congressional leverage)
-Purposely bloated supplier structures (Again above, also more steps for a profit/management cut to be taken)
-Monopolies and duopolies.. What better way to insure government protection than to be "too big to fail" by being the government's only machined handwavium widget manufacturer.

All in all, far too many hands in the cookie jar and almost no accountability to go around. This is why we end up with all these pecuniary vanishing acts like the F-35, SLS, DDG-1000, etc.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #42 on: 05/16/2018 05:07 pm »
So who's actually responsible for SLS? I mean someone who can actually be held accountable for this? I guess the biggest issue is that year after year, schedule slip after schedule slip, billion after billion, nobody has been held accountable? Does everyone get a prize for just showing up? If there's no repercussions, then there's no skin in the game and....well, we all know how that works out.

So, seriously, who the hell is running this show?

No one -- it is obviously not being 'run', it is wandering down the same path as Constellation.

This is exactly what you can expect if you reward programmatic failure (Constellation) with new, open-ended programs for the same players.

Congratulations Congress/NASA/MSFC/SLS Development Team.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2018 05:09 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #43 on: 05/16/2018 05:16 pm »
So, who is Mike?

The American electorate.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #44 on: 05/16/2018 09:21 pm »
So who's actually responsible for SLS?
Ha....Yeh, got a few hundred threads about all that on here. I wasn't asking the "big" who but the actual, who. As in, "Go ask Mike what the heck is going on. He's the one in charge of this mess..." So, who is Mike?

While
So who's actually responsible for SLS?

Brief history:
Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttle
Wanted to keep going to space so Ares program emerged
Ares program was a dog so Obama cancelled it
The Senate was up in arms at Ares being cancelled (jobs in the right states and we didn't have alternative heavy rockets)
They compromised and made the SLS, like the Ares but a little cheaper
Ha....Yeh, got a few hundred threads about all that on here. I wasn't asking the "big" who but the actual, who. As in, "Go ask Mike what the heck is going on. He's the one in charge of this mess..." So, who is Mike?

Not sure if that's a reference to a lyric or a show or something, but the root cause of this whole long-running, multi-administration fiasco does actually lay at the feet of a guy named Mike.

That would be Griffin, Dr.

It was his order to change the results of the original ESAS study that set this specific line of domino's falling.

I never did find out the precise reason for him choosing to do that, but all the pieces of the puzzle available to me primarily point to ATK as the prime force that influenced that specific decision.

It appears that Shelby et al followed and took advantage of that initial impetus. One thing led to another, more parties got involved at different points, all pulling in different directions and this is where we are today.

What I'll never understand is that Griffin apparently hated the Scotty rocket, yet he still forced the ESAS team to change the study results and promote the 1.5 launch solution ahead of the LV-24/25 'simple' SDHLV that actually scored higher in the original pre-adjusted review.

Ares-1 was too costly even without Ares-V, and the next administration didn't want to stomach CxP - a decision which I can't actually disagree with (my disagreement was with ditching the core VSE policy that was above it).   We ended up with SLS heading to a bare rock.   From there, this year another new admin has decided that the rock is pointless, and instead we're now going back to the moon, just not back to the surface.

The domino's haven't finished falling yet, but for my money, Mike Griffin's decisions back in 2005 are the root cause all of this.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2018 09:28 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #45 on: 05/16/2018 11:26 pm »
So, seriously, who the hell is running this show?

^^ Congress is the answer

That's why there is no responsibility and it is just chugging along.  It is doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to be doing.

Yep. A small cadre of senators from states that supply "legacy" parts from STS, or have NASA HSF centers. Senators who have worked their way up into chairmanships of committees that oversee NASA. Along with a few representatives from those districts. It IS doing exactly what they want it to: providing a pork flavored gravy train.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #46 on: 05/17/2018 03:52 am »
I'd have gone with the Jupiter-246, but...

OT, but what am I up to these days?   I'm currently chasing funding for a really exciting, game-changing, EO sat project.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 06:57 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #47 on: 05/17/2018 04:58 am »
Nor should anyone bring up Direct 3.0  (What is Ross doing these days, anyways?) Which would have been up and running 4 years ago.

If Direct had been up an running 4 years ago, wouldn't that mean we would have run out of RS-25s three years ago and still be waiting for new ones to be made?

Offline SgtPoivre

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Paris - France
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #48 on: 05/17/2018 05:37 am »
So who's actually responsible for SLS?

Brief history:
Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttle
Wanted to keep going to space so Ares program emerged
Ares program was a dog so Obama cancelled it
The Senate was up in arms at Ares being cancelled (jobs in the right states and we didn't have alternative heavy rockets)
They compromised and made the SLS, like the Ares but a little cheaper
Ha....Yeh, got a few hundred threads about all that on here. I wasn't asking the "big" who but the actual, who. As in, "Go ask Mike what the heck is going on. He's the one in charge of this mess..." So, who is Mike?
My understanding:
- NASA MSFC is in charge of overall SLS launcher design and manufacturing with Boeing supporting it for some System design activities
- Boeing is the contractor in charge of the Core stage and the avionics ring
- ULA is in charge of iCPS stage
- ATK is in charge of the boosters
- Completely separately, NASA JSC is in charge of the Orion spacecraft with Lockheed-Martin as its main contractor.

So I guess that Mike in this case would be the SLS program manager at MSFC : John Honeycutt
(according to https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-names-john-honeycutt-space-launch-system-program-manager)

Of course this guy operates in a very constrained & political environment, but in the end he is still responsible for the project.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 05:48 am by SgtPoivre »

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #49 on: 05/17/2018 07:08 am »
So who's actually responsible for SLS?

Brief history:
Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttle
Wanted to keep going to space so Ares program emerged
Ares program was a dog so Obama cancelled it
The Senate was up in arms at Ares being cancelled (jobs in the right states and we didn't have alternative heavy rockets)
They compromised and made the SLS, like the Ares but a little cheaper
Ha....Yeh, got a few hundred threads about all that on here. I wasn't asking the "big" who but the actual, who. As in, "Go ask Mike what the heck is going on. He's the one in charge of this mess..." So, who is Mike?
My understanding:
- NASA MSFC is in charge of overall SLS launcher design and manufacturing with Boeing supporting it for some System design activities
- Boeing is the contractor in charge of the Core stage and the avionics ring
- ULA is in charge of iCPS stage
- ATK is in charge of the boosters
- Completely separately, NASA JSC is in charge of the Orion spacecraft with Lockheed-Martin as its main contractor.

So I guess that Mike in this case would be the SLS program manager at MSFC : John Honeycutt
(according to https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-names-john-honeycutt-space-launch-system-program-manager)

Of course this guy operates in a very constrained & political environment, but in the end he is still responsible for the project.

The guy who was ultimately in charge of CxP (Jeff Hanley) was taken off the job when it became clear that CxP would bite the dust. He ended up in some hidden-away corner of NASA (associate director for strategic capabilities at JSC). From there he transitioned thru three other low-exposure positions within NASA before leaving NASA in 2015. He ended up at the Aerospace Corporation.

When the time arrives for SLS to go the same way that CxP went mr. Honeycutt will also be removed and quickly re-located to some obscure position in the depths of NASA. Within a few years after that NASA will cut him loose permanently.

Politics 101: when the crap hits the fan get the usual suspects out of the way pronto.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #50 on: 05/17/2018 10:48 am »
That would be Griffin, Dr.

It was his order to change the results of the original ESAS study that set this specific line of domino's falling.

I never did find out the precise reason for him choosing to do that, but all the pieces of the puzzle available to me primarily point to ATK as the prime force that influenced that specific decision.

My guess would be that he struck a deal with the Shuttle-state congresspeople:  he agreed to use a Shuttle-derived architecture and they agreed to fund his moon program.  Unfortunately for us space cadets, Griffin got snookered in that the congresspeople didn't really care about going to the moon, they just wanted the hardware development for its jobs and money.  They knew they could keep that coming without funding NASA at the level needed to actually go to the moon.  The resulting endless development that continues today is precisely what the they.  The gravy train will end some day, but it has lasted through multiple election cycles, and that's practically forever in terms of practical politics.  The current score is Shuttle States 40 billion or so, Space Cadets 0.

Quote
What I'll never understand is that Griffin apparently hated the Scotty rocket, yet he still forced the ESAS team to change the study results and promote the 1.5 launch solution ahead of the LV-24/25 'simple' SDHLV that actually scored higher in the original pre-adjusted review.

What is the Scotty rocket?



Ares-1 was too costly even without Ares-V, and the next administration didn't want to stomach CxP - a decision which I can't actually disagree with (my disagreement was with ditching the core VSE policy that was above it).   We ended up with SLS heading to a bare rock.   From there, this year another new admin has decided that the rock is pointless, and instead we're now going back to the moon, just not back to the surface.

The domino's haven't finished falling yet, but for my money, Mike Griffin's decisions back in 2005 are the root cause all of this.

Ross.
[/quote]

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #51 on: 05/17/2018 05:15 pm »
Jee whiz its great to see Ares V back from the dead.

What shall we call it Son of the Stick or 'Griffin's Bane'  ::)

2021 is totally ridiculous. Even 2020 is totally ridiculous. Congress needs to call some committee meetings on this and get the ball rolling on replacement. Either that or fire the program managers and get people in there who can fix this mess, if it can be fixed at all. We are not doing CXP/JWST 2.0 forget it.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #52 on: 05/17/2018 05:42 pm »
Of course this guy operates in a very constrained & political environment, but in the end he is still responsible for the project.

Let's remember that NASA did not design the SLS, Congress did. And all they did was provide some loose requirements.

So blaming NASA for the plight of the SLS is like blaming the cook on a submarine for not having fresh vegetables - they can only work with what they were given...
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 SgtPoivre

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Paris - France
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #53 on: 05/17/2018 06:13 pm »
Of course this guy operates in a very constrained & political environment, but in the end he is still responsible for the project.

Let's remember that NASA did not design the SLS, Congress did. And all they did was provide some loose requirements.

So blaming NASA for the plight of the SLS is like blaming the cook on a submarine for not having fresh vegetables - they can only work with what they were given...
I do not fully share your statement, that's standard practice in the industry to have to manage whimsical clients who provide loose, un-specific and inconsistent operational needs.
Think about having a middle-east Emir as your client for a complex combat system.

Congress does bear some responsibility but it is NASA which defined the detailed specification for this launcher system and who is responsible for managing the program.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 06:13 pm by SgtPoivre »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #54 on: 05/17/2018 07:12 pm »
That would be Griffin, Dr.

It was his order to change the results of the original ESAS study that set this specific line of domino's falling.

I never did find out the precise reason for him choosing to do that, but all the pieces of the puzzle available to me primarily point to ATK as the prime force that influenced that specific decision.

My guess would be that he struck a deal with the Shuttle-state congresspeople:  he agreed to use a Shuttle-derived architecture and they agreed to fund his moon program.  Unfortunately for us space cadets, Griffin got snookered in that the congresspeople didn't really care about going to the moon, they just wanted the hardware development for its jobs and money.  They knew they could keep that coming without funding NASA at the level needed to actually go to the moon.  The resulting endless development that continues today is precisely what the they.  The gravy train will end some day, but it has lasted through multiple election cycles, and that's practically forever in terms of practical politics.  The current score is Shuttle States 40 billion or so, Space Cadets 0.

The very first domino in the sequence seems to have been ATK demanding a big fat lucrative development contract (they proposed either 5-seg or advanced composite boosters - interestingly, over the years they've actually managed to get BOTH!) or they were leaving the business entirely. After that, the events seem to have gone exactly as you describe.

Quote
Quote
What I'll never understand is that Griffin apparently hated the Scotty rocket, yet he still forced the ESAS team to change the study results and promote the 1.5 launch solution ahead of the LV-24/25 'simple' SDHLV that actually scored higher in the original pre-adjusted review.

What is the Scotty rocket?

Ares-1 was always Scott Horowitz's baby.

At the time when Griffin/Garriott published their paper for Planetary Society (July 2004), Horowitz was the executive in charge of ATK's sales team, charged with making more money for the company.

It was he who made it clear that ATK's CEO (IIRC, Dan Murphy) was absolutely determined to get their big fat dev. contract or they were getting out of the big SRB business entirely.   To do so, he who came up with a new vehicle designed around their SRB's, and that's what Griffin/Garriott presented (it sounds to me as though the behind-closed-doors agreements were already effectively a done-deal by that point).   What would later become Ares-I was intended specifically to drive future dev. and production contracts for the company.

Its little surprise that in 2005 Horowitz became Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, specifically to consolidate that plan.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 07:42 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #55 on: 05/17/2018 07:23 pm »
Of course this guy operates in a very constrained & political environment, but in the end he is still responsible for the project.

Let's remember that NASA did not design the SLS, Congress did. And all they did was provide some loose requirements.

So blaming NASA for the plight of the SLS is like blaming the cook on a submarine for not having fresh vegetables - they can only work with what they were given...
I do not fully share your statement, that's standard practice in the industry to have to manage whimsical clients who provide loose, un-specific and inconsistent operational needs.
Think about having a middle-east Emir as your client for a complex combat system.

Congress does bear some responsibility but it is NASA which defined the detailed specification for this launcher system and who is responsible for managing the program.


But there is real truth to the claim.

Congress *HAS* imposed a significant number of critical requirements for SLS, each of which was deliberately designed to cut-off certain design options (usually ones that could have reduced costs) and the system has effectively been backed into a very small corner in terms of "design space".

The tree of options has been pruned so much, that there are only one or two remaining branches on the whole thing!

Technically, nobody  in Congress is using PTC CREO software to "design" the actual hardware, no, but if the board of a motor company instructs their designers that they want a new car that must be of a particular type and style, must use this engine, that gearbox, these wheels, those brakes, be able to seat x number of people and must be made from a particular combination of materials on a specific existing production line, you remove a whole load of options and the designers no longer have much room to do anything original - mostly their job becomes making it "look good".   That's what Congress have effectively done with both SLS and Orion - the designers are simply not free to make the best product, they must instead make the best one that fits the over-riding political requirements - far from the same thing.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 07:31 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #56 on: 05/17/2018 07:40 pm »
So interesting that the answer to a fairly straightforward question wrt who's in charge of the SLS program is: Everyone, No-one, Congress, and a program manager named John. Well, therein resides the fundamental truth about this program...

If a NASA rocket program exists but theirs nobody running it, will it ever launch?
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 07:41 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #57 on: 05/17/2018 07:45 pm »
Dunno.   But it sure can suck down money like few other things...

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #58 on: 05/17/2018 07:47 pm »
Of course this guy operates in a very constrained & political environment, but in the end he is still responsible for the project.

Let's remember that NASA did not design the SLS, Congress did. And all they did was provide some loose requirements.

So blaming NASA for the plight of the SLS is like blaming the cook on a submarine for not having fresh vegetables - they can only work with what they were given...
I do not fully share your statement, that's standard practice in the industry to have to manage whimsical clients who provide loose, un-specific and inconsistent operational needs.
Think about having a middle-east Emir as your client for a complex combat system.

I don't see how that disagrees with my point. Whimsical customers only have themselves to blame for bad outcomes.

Quote
Congress does bear some responsibility but it is NASA which defined the detailed specification for this launcher system and who is responsible for managing the program.

1. NASA did not design or define the SLS before Congress specified it in 2010.

2. NASA did not have input into the requirements Congress laid out in S.3729.

3. Congress did not ask NASA for a full-up budget estimate of the SLS before telling NASA to build the SLS.

4. Congress did specify that the core elements of the SLS must be operational by December 31, 2016, but they did not ask NASA if that was possible, nor how much it would cost to achieve that date BEFORE they wrote it into law. And obviously NASA didn't meet that date, and Congress didn't care that they didn't meet it.

So based on all of that NASA can't be late, and can't be over-budget on the SLS because Congress never gave them an opportunity to commit to a budget or schedule at the beginning of the program. Congress told them to go build the SLS, and didn't care about the cost.

So now do you see why it's not NASA's fault for the SLS? NASA has never been in control of the SLS program - on purpose.
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 AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #59 on: 05/17/2018 08:18 pm »
Of course this guy operates in a very constrained & political environment, but in the end he is still responsible for the project.

Let's remember that NASA did not design the SLS, Congress did. And all they did was provide some loose requirements.

So blaming NASA for the plight of the SLS is like blaming the cook on a submarine for not having fresh vegetables - they can only work with what they were given...

I think it unfair to equate NASA and a submarine cook -- one of them has to deliver their product on time.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #60 on: 05/18/2018 12:22 am »
New article:
Quote
Contamination found in SLS engine tubing
Quote
A “routine quality assurance inspection” of the core stage, he said, discovered contamination in tubing in the engine section of the core stage, which hosts the vehicle’s four RS-25 main engines and associated systems. That contamination turned out to be paraffin wax, which is used to keep the tubes from crimping while being manufactured but is supposed to be cleaned out before shipment.
Quote
The contamination was initially found in a single tube, he said, but later checks found similar residue in other tubes. All the tubing in the core stage is now being inspected and cleaned, a process he said is not straightforward because of the “mass of tubing” in the engine section and also because cleaning is a “non-trivial process.”
http://spacenews.com/contamination-found-in-sls-engine-tubing/
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #61 on: 05/18/2018 01:26 am »
New article:
Quote
Contamination found in SLS engine tubing
Quote
A “routine quality assurance inspection” of the core stage, he said, discovered contamination in tubing in the engine section of the core stage, which hosts the vehicle’s four RS-25 main engines and associated systems. That contamination turned out to be paraffin wax, which is used to keep the tubes from crimping while being manufactured but is supposed to be cleaned out before shipment.
Quote
The contamination was initially found in a single tube, he said, but later checks found similar residue in other tubes. All the tubing in the core stage is now being inspected and cleaned, a process he said is not straightforward because of the “mass of tubing” in the engine section and also because cleaning is a “non-trivial process.”
http://spacenews.com/contamination-found-in-sls-engine-tubing/

 ::) ::) ::)

IMO, that doesn't say anything good about their quality control...

I hope SLS doesn't destroy LC-39B before it is canceled.

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #62 on: 05/18/2018 03:13 am »
New article:
Quote
Contamination found in SLS engine tubing
Quote
A “routine quality assurance inspection” of the core stage, he said, discovered contamination in tubing in the engine section of the core stage, which hosts the vehicle’s four RS-25 main engines and associated systems. That contamination turned out to be paraffin wax, which is used to keep the tubes from crimping while being manufactured but is supposed to be cleaned out before shipment.
...

 ::) ::) ::)

IMO, that doesn't say anything good about their quality control...

Their quality control is what caught the problem. Plenty of other rocket projects have had nasty problems with the quality of stuff they got from vendors, up to and including LOM on a Falcon 9 due to problems with a strut.

Personally, I'm baffled as anyone by the delays and expense in the SLS program, but production teething troubles like this seem to be routine in any such project, so I'm not sure they can account for it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #63 on: 05/18/2018 10:20 am »
...

Their quality control is what caught the problem. Plenty of other rocket projects have had nasty problems with the quality of stuff they got from vendors, up to and including LOM on a Falcon 9 due to problems with a strut.

Personally, I'm baffled as anyone by the delays and expense in the SLS program, but production teething troubles like this seem to be routine in any such project, so I'm not sure they can account for it.

IIRC, that was on their 19th of 53 Falcon 9 flights since SLS construction began.
When Block 1 flies the first time in a few years, F9 will have another 100 or so flights completed, and maybe another failure or two.

Happens when you actually fly.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2018 06:34 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #64 on: 05/18/2018 11:33 am »
LOP-G modules won't be ready to launch until 2023 anyway. Plenty of time for delays.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2018 01:11 pm by Oli »

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #65 on: 05/18/2018 06:03 pm »
With other problems and now this new one core delivery for testing will be 4 months behind schedule. There was only a 6 month pad due to the difference between the Dec 2019 NET date given and the Jun2020 given. Meaning that the launch of EM-1 is already likely into Q4 2020.

Another question is that have they started the needed tasks to be able to deliver the third flight unit by 2022 for flight in 2023?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #66 on: 05/18/2018 06:26 pm »
Another question is that have they started the needed tasks to be able to deliver the third flight unit by 2022 for flight in 2023?

The SLS factory is designed to produce more than one, but less than two flight sets per year, so there should be no reason to start work on flight sets that will not fly until 2023.

The delays so far are mainly from setting up the production line and getting the bugs out, and getting the initial units qualified.

That said, because of the huge gap in time between flights, starting far earlier on the next one would be prudent since they haven't proved that they understand how to build flight hardware right the first time - which is a common problem with very low-rate production.
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 kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #67 on: 05/18/2018 10:02 pm »
The SLS factory is designed to produce more than one, but less than two flight sets per year, so there should be no reason to start work on flight sets that will not fly until 2023.

***WOW***   I've been busy elsewhere so I haven't been watching all that closely in recent years, but I definitely hadn't heard that.

For all the investment and updated manufacturing hardware that they've been going on about, that's a truly dreadful throughput rate compared to what they were able to do with ET. They had scaled operations back to just ~6 per year, but the core infrastructure was actually designed to produce up to FORTY! And I know for a fact that it could have produced ET-sized core stages in similar numbers.

So WTF?   I don't think that this thread is an inappropriate place to ask whether there is any info as to where exactly the bottleneck(s) are in the process?   And are they hard-stops imposed by the chosen infrastructure, or are they relatively soft barriers that can be very easily bypassed, should the need ever arise (not that I personally think it ever will)?

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2018 10:13 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #68 on: 05/18/2018 10:31 pm »
You are right to be amazed/outraged, Ross. And I'm puzzled as to why more people aren't :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #69 on: 05/18/2018 10:45 pm »
You are right to be amazed/outraged, Ross. And I'm puzzled as to why more people aren't :(

The US spends about as much on archaic medical paperwork in two days as it spends on the archaic SLS in a year.  There are bigger problems.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #70 on: 05/18/2018 10:58 pm »
The SLS factory is designed to produce more than one, but less than two flight sets per year, so there should be no reason to start work on flight sets that will not fly until 2023.

***WOW***   I've been busy elsewhere so I haven't been watching all that closely in recent years, but I definitely hadn't heard that.

For all the investment and updated manufacturing hardware that they've been going on about, that's a truly dreadful throughput rate compared to what they were able to do with ET. They had scaled operations back to just ~6 per year, but the core infrastructure was actually designed to produce up to FORTY! And I know for a fact that it could have produced ET-sized core stages in similar numbers.

The production rate capability has been known for years. Here is a 2015 SpaceNews article with the outgoing Boeing Program Manager talking about it:

Quote
Boeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility.

Which makes sense, since NASA has identified one flight no-less-than every 12 months as the minimum safe flight rate. And since Congress did not give NASA any direction as to how many flights per year the SLS was supposed to support, NASA chose the least expensive option. In fact a higher production rate could not be justified until a known long-term need was identified - and no long-term need has been identified so far.

Quote
So WTF?   I don't think that this thread is an inappropriate place to ask whether there is any info as to where exactly the bottleneck(s) are in the process?

No, it's not. The general SLS thread is the better place. And don't get too hung up on this production capability, there are likely no real barriers for ramping up to 3-4 per year. But talking about more than one/year is fantasy at this point anyways...   ;)
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 AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #71 on: 05/18/2018 11:20 pm »
...
And don't get too hung up on this production capability, there are likely no real barriers for ramping up to 3-4 per year. But talking about more than one/year is fantasy at this point anyways...   ;)

There is no way that 16 RS-25Es will be made in a year. 
Current plan is for 2 engines per year.

Mobile launcher and pad can maybe stretched to handle two per year, as probable four boosters can be prepared(till they run out of casings).  At the moment, these seem to be the only pieces capable of supporting better than one flight per year.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2018 11:24 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #72 on: 05/18/2018 11:42 pm »
...
And don't get too hung up on this production capability, there are likely no real barriers for ramping up to 3-4 per year. But talking about more than one/year is fantasy at this point anyways...   ;)

There is no way that 16 RS-25Es will be made in a year. 
Current plan is for 2 engines per year.

Mobile launcher and pad can maybe stretched to handle two per year, as probable four boosters can be prepared(till they run out of casings).  At the moment, these seem to be the only pieces capable of supporting better than one flight per year.

The real barrier to increasing the SLS flight rate is the lack of need for increasing the flight rate - no steady demand from "customers" for the SLS unique capabilities.

If there was a need to ramp up the flight rate - and sustain it for many years - solutions to RS-25E engine supply, SRM casings, MLP constraints, etc., would be identified.

But instead here we are without a clearly identified future demand and lack of clarity from Congress and the President, so no long-term planning can be done to address these issues. Even though they are quite solvable given enough time and money...
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 AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #73 on: 05/19/2018 12:15 am »
Yes, lots of time and lots of money.  If someone actually needed a high flight rate, they probably would have designed a different launcher.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #74 on: 05/19/2018 01:45 am »
The SLS factory is designed to produce more than one, but less than two flight sets per year, so there should be no reason to start work on flight sets that will not fly until 2023.

***WOW***   I've been busy elsewhere so I haven't been watching all that closely in recent years, but I definitely hadn't heard that.

For all the investment and updated manufacturing hardware that they've been going on about, that's a truly dreadful throughput rate compared to what they were able to do with ET. They had scaled operations back to just ~6 per year, but the core infrastructure was actually designed to produce up to FORTY! And I know for a fact that it could have produced ET-sized core stages in similar numbers.

So WTF?   I don't think that this thread is an inappropriate place to ask whether there is any info as to where exactly the bottleneck(s) are in the process?   And are they hard-stops imposed by the chosen infrastructure, or are they relatively soft barriers that can be very easily bypassed, should the need ever arise (not that I personally think it ever will)?

Ross.

This was discussed at length several years ago. Knowing that the amount of money going into production would never increase, the line was optimized to keep a small crew steadily at work producing one core per year. There is no bottleneck. It was intentionally designed for maximum efficiency in relation to funding. No going faster, but also no layoffs, furloughs, or downtime.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #75 on: 05/19/2018 04:21 am »
This was discussed at length several years ago. Knowing that the amount of money going into production would never increase, the line was optimized to keep a small crew steadily at work producing one core per year. There is no bottleneck. It was intentionally designed for maximum efficiency in relation to funding. No going faster, but also no layoffs, furloughs, or downtime.

Unless you have documentation showing otherwise, I don't think that was the calculus used. Because there were no SLS production budget expectations from Congress - in fact no overall cost expectations from Congress either.

Plus the current 1-ish per year production rate is horribly inefficient, with production personnel having to shift around the shop to work on different parts. More of a job shop type environment than serial production.

The factory is set up to exactly match the lowest flight rate NASA would allow for safety reasons (i.e. no-less-than every 12 months when operational), with margin built in to catch up if production falls behind. As a manufacturing scheduling professional that's what I would have recommended too when the future launch demand is unknown (DSG & LOP-G are recent proposals).

And I don't think future production is affected yet with these schedule slippages, but obviously the test schedule is affected.
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 Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #76 on: 05/19/2018 12:11 pm »
Congress does bear some responsibility but it is NASA which defined the detailed specification for this launcher system and who is responsible for managing the program.

1. NASA did not design or define the SLS before Congress specified it in 2010.

2. NASA did not have input into the requirements Congress laid out in S.3729.

You have quite sensibly pointed out before that if Congress had asked NASA for input into SLS's design, there presumably would be records.  Though officially NASA is under the control of the president, though, it is not an entirely monolithic organization.  For example, during the shouting over the original Obama FY 2011 proposal for NASA, Robert Lightfoot, then MSFC director, said publicly of the proposal that MSFC study heavy-lift technology for five years, "We don't need to study it, we know how to do it" (I paraphrase).

That's just a long-winded way of saying that I wonder whether there might have been some back-channel input from the likes of MSFC into the Senate's "design" for SLS.  Maybe a few NASA employees did a little moonlighting as unpaid consultants to Congress.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2018 12:11 pm by Proponent »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #77 on: 05/19/2018 03:19 pm »
Congress does bear some responsibility but it is NASA which defined the detailed specification for this launcher system and who is responsible for managing the program.

1. NASA did not design or define the SLS before Congress specified it in 2010.

2. NASA did not have input into the requirements Congress laid out in S.3729.

You have quite sensibly pointed out before that if Congress had asked NASA for input into SLS's design, there presumably would be records.  Though officially NASA is under the control of the president, though, it is not an entirely monolithic organization.  For example, during the shouting over the original Obama FY 2011 proposal for NASA, Robert Lightfoot, then MSFC director, said publicly of the proposal that MSFC study heavy-lift technology for five years, "We don't need to study it, we know how to do it" (I paraphrase).

That's just a long-winded way of saying that I wonder whether there might have been some back-channel input from the likes of MSFC into the Senate's "design" for SLS.  Maybe a few NASA employees did a little moonlighting as unpaid consultants to Congress.

Of course, the MSFC 'contractors' had input... they always do, even to the extent of writing the language that our elected representatives put into legislation.

Interesting to note that Robert Lightfoot -- who started his career at MSFC over 30 years ago, headed that center, and since was senior civil servant in NASA and Acting Administrator for a record duration -- never actually designed, built, and launched an orbital rocket.  See bolded statement; who is the 'we' to which he refers?  It is unlikely that the less senior civil servants (essentially all civil servants in NASA) have had that experience either.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2018 03:22 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #78 on: 05/19/2018 03:33 pm »
That's just a long-winded way of saying that I wonder whether there might have been some back-channel input from the likes of MSFC into the Senate's "design" for SLS.  Maybe a few NASA employees did a little moonlighting as unpaid consultants to Congress.

If NASA employees are not acting in their official government positions then they are just private citizens, not NASA officials. And there would be no need for the Senate to go behind the back of the President and the NASA Administrator since Congress can ask (demand) input from any government agency & department - which is actually the normal process Congress uses to gather information pertinent to crafting legislation.

Occam's razor folks, no need to dive into the realm of conspiracies...
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 kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #79 on: 05/19/2018 05:12 pm »
Congressional offices have plenty of resources to lean upon.

The order comes down "I want more of the money to come here" and the staff will reach out to a multitude of different contacts at many different levels of many different organisations to learn the pertinent information needed to make that happen.

The people they pay most attention to are at company board level, or equivalent - in the assumption that they're there because they properly understand the business (which is sadly not always the case).

The staffers correlate the various bits of info, consult with their opposite numbers in other like-minded offices, OMB, White House and others where necessary, and together they form plans that best achieves the goal of their bosses. This is where NASA might be drawn into some of the discussions, but understand they DO NOT SET POLICY, they are only used for advice.

Ultimately one guy - a recognised expert who is respected by multiple offices - tends to write up a new bit of legislation based on all these discussions, requirements and compromises, and then it will be passed around for modifications. About 80-90% of the original draft tends to make it to the floor of the House and Senate.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2018 05:15 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #80 on: 05/19/2018 11:46 pm »
Unless you have documentation showing otherwise, I don't think that was the calculus used.

It's in the old threads and was written by a person of authority. It may have been posted before you joined the board, but I'm not going to take the time to look it up for you. You are free to believe it or not.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 01:05 am by TomH »

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #81 on: 05/20/2018 01:25 am »
I too remember how many core they could produce in a year.  It was at least two or three per month with multiple shifts and enough people.  This was brought up in the Direct threads.  If Direct was selected, multiple launches could be made for more payload to LEO.  The more cores manufactured, the lower the cost per each.  This was at least 10 years ago or more. 

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #82 on: 05/20/2018 06:35 am »
I too remember how many core they could produce in a year.  It was at least two or three per month with multiple shifts and enough people.  This was brought up in the Direct threads.  If Direct was selected, multiple launches could be made for more payload to LEO.  The more cores manufactured, the lower the cost per each.  This was at least 10 years ago or more.

That may have been possible with one of the Jupiter proposals and plenty of money. If you have not yet set up a production line, you can plan to optimize it as you so choose, but this discussion is centered specifically on how they actually did choose to optimize the line for SLS. They chose to optimize it for one core per year. Could it go faster? Yes. But it would not be operating at its optimum efficiency in relation to the way it was originally set up. In order to speed up, they'd need to bring in temporary laborers who are not skilled in the task at hand. They'd have to ask suppliers for increased deliveries, and those suppliers would have to make similar adjustments for labor, raw materials, etc. Now if a flood of new money became available, sure, you could re-optimize your materials and labor arrangements. You renegotiate the amount of materials you want delivered and on what schedule. You train new line workers and bring them up to speed on what they are to do. Re-optimizing requires some adjustment.

In relation to SLS, not Direct, they optimized the run for one core per year. They could change that if they wanted to, but it would require adjustments as described above.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 06:50 am by TomH »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #83 on: 05/20/2018 04:35 pm »
Unless you have documentation showing otherwise, I don't think that was the calculus used.

It's in the old threads and was written by a person of authority. It may have been posted before you joined the board, but I'm not going to take the time to look it up for you. You are free to believe it or not.

You think you remember something, but you're not sure when or where it was? And it was a NSF post, not a public document outlining official actions of our government?

Not sure how this answered my question...  ;)
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 Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #84 on: 05/20/2018 04:53 pm »
They chose to optimize it for one core per year. Could it go faster? Yes. But it would not be operating at its optimum efficiency in relation to the way it was originally set up.

When you are only producing one unit per year, "optimum efficiency" is not valid metric.

Quote
In order to speed up, they'd need to bring in temporary laborers who are not skilled in the task at hand.

The production folks will have years of notice that a production rate change is coming, so I don't see any scenario where they would need to bring in unskilled temporary workers.

Quote
They'd have to ask suppliers for increased deliveries, and those suppliers would have to make similar adjustments for labor, raw materials, etc.

The biggest problem with the SLS is that it has no dedicated supply chain outside of the SLS factory. Everything is built at such a low volume that the suppliers are moving their personnel and tooling around to work on other customer orders in between SLS needs.

And for critical components the U.S. Government would have to pay to stockpile unique parts so that they won't run out of them, so in reality there are planned engineering changes in the future that they will have to deal with re-qualification again for critical items because of obsolescence.

I've had to deal with this with a number of different types of products, including restarting product lines that were shut down.

Quote
Now if a flood of new money became available, sure, you could re-optimize your materials and labor arrangements. You renegotiate the amount of materials you want delivered and on what schedule. You train new line workers and bring them up to speed on what they are to do. Re-optimizing requires some adjustment.

As long as the production rate is one per year there is no "optimizing" that can be done. Increase it to 2-3 per year and then you can start operating as a production line instead of a job shop, but there is no indication that will ever happen.
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 AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #85 on: 05/20/2018 05:36 pm »
The program is actually designed to be perpetually in development mode (20-25 years... IOW, forever).  With no program budget and nothing that resembles a schedule, they can grind along forever without getting into the nastiness of 'production' or 'optimizing.'  Just how 'we' like our government programs.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 05:37 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online John Santos

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #86 on: 05/20/2018 06:20 pm »

...
And don't get too hung up on this production capability, there are likely no real barriers for ramping up to 3-4 per year. But talking about more than one/year is fantasy at this point anyways...   ;)

There is no way that 16 RS-25Es will be made in a year. 
Current plan is for 2 engines per year.

Mobile launcher and pad can maybe stretched to handle two per year, as probable four boosters can be prepared(till they run out of casings).  At the moment, these seem to be the only pieces capable of supporting better than one flight per year.
People (not just you) appear to be confusing "production rate" with "production time".  It is perfectly possible to configure operations such that 16 (or more) RS25Es or 1.5 (or more) SLS rockects can be rolled off the factory floor in a year, while each takes much longer than a year to produce.  This is normally the way assembly lines work.  You just need to have the floor space and access to the jigs to start work on the 2nd (and 3rd and maybe the 4th) core stage or engine while the 1st core stage (or engine) is still being assembled.

Also, the first few engines (or core stages) are produced at a much lower rate than possible because the manufacturer is still refining procedures and because they don't want to get too far ahead and then discover through testing that they need to go back and redo parts of the 2nd and 3rd item that have already been completed.  It's more efficient to wait until they've made a few and fixed all the problems than to start stamping them out as fast as possible and then go back and rework the defects.

In another comment (can't find it now) someone said there was no reason to start work on the next core stage now because they can build more than one a year, but the next flight is so many years off.  A production rate of 1+ a year definitely DOES NOT imply that it takes less than a year to build one.

Edit: I think I was mis-remembering Ron's comment #67, about not starting on a flight unit for 2022-3 yet, because they still need to iron out a lot of wrinkles.  I think he understands both the scheduling and development issues and wasn't implying they could start in 2021-2022 for a core stage planned to fly just one year later.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 06:31 pm by John Santos »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #87 on: 05/20/2018 06:35 pm »
There were less than 48 RS-25s built in a 30-year Shuttle program... so around 10% of the production rate.  Certainly given a huge amount of money, and a huge lead time AJR could get 'production' running for 16 RS-25s per year -- all of which would be thrown away after a single use.  Most of the SLS budget might do it by 2030 or so. (Recall that it took $1.15B and eight years to get a 'production' line running for 2 per year.)

So no, it cannot happen, at least not in this universe.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #88 on: 05/20/2018 07:56 pm »
People (not just you) appear to be confusing "production rate" with "production time".  It is perfectly possible to configure operations such that 16 (or more) RS25Es or 1.5 (or more) SLS rockects can be rolled off the factory floor in a year, while each takes much longer than a year to produce.

Well said, and I think what people are forgetting is that Boeing and NASA know what the lead time is in case Congress plans to authorize enough activity in space that more than one flight per year is needed.

For instance the SLS factory can ramp up to two rockets per year fairly quickly (tooling already supports that), but the supply chain would likely need a couple of years to get ready for that on a sustaining basis. Going above two flights per year may not take much longer to prepare for, but the key thing is that you don't want to be jerking the supply chain around by increasing, decreasing, then increasing again. Every change in production rate costs money that the taxpayer has to fund.
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 Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #89 on: 05/24/2018 01:06 pm »
Good move retiring STS.

I'd rather be stuck in LEO, than stuck on the ground.
Paul

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #90 on: 05/24/2018 08:09 pm »
Good move retiring STS.

I'd rather be stuck in LEO, than stuck on the ground.

Get used to it. 
We're only half way there (seven years down, seven years to go), if you are waiting for SLS/Orion.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #91 on: 05/24/2018 08:14 pm »
Good move retiring STS.

I'd rather be stuck in LEO, than stuck on the ground.

Get used to it. 
We're only half way there (seven years down, seven years to go), if you are waiting for SLS/Orion.
EM-2 (manned lunar flyby) is still officially scheduled at 5 years out I thought?

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #92 on: 05/24/2018 08:21 pm »
One flight per year is no good for any kind of Moon or Mars permanent manned activity.  Mars alone will take about 6 SLS flights to assemble a Mars craft capable of going to and from Mars with a small lander.  At this rate the SLS program is just a money pit.  Either ramp production up or cut the budget and build something useful for Mars or the with the money and let commercial launch it. 

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #93 on: 05/24/2018 11:02 pm »
Good move retiring STS.

I'd rather be stuck in LEO, than stuck on the ground.

Get used to it. 
We're only half way there (seven years down, seven years to go), if you are waiting for SLS/Orion.
EM-2 (manned lunar flyby) is still officially scheduled at 5 years out I thought?

And EM-1 is officially scheduled in late 2019.

I expect EM-1 to happen in 2021, second SLS launch to be NET 2022-2023 with SM-1, and then 1-2 years later, EM-2 in 2024-2025* (all assuming SLS is still alive at those points -- not even a 50-50 proposition IMO).

2025 is seven years away.


* Note that when I suggested first crew flight in 2024-2025 about a year or two ago, several responses on this thread were aghast that such a thing could be possible.  Looking not-so-unlikely these days, even with a second mobile launcher.  In another year or two, it may be considered optimistic.

Edit: added quote below with emphasis added:
This really locks them into a three-year or so gap between EM-1 and the subsequent launch.  Can't start modifying the ML until EM-1 flies, no matter how late it slides into 2019 or 2020.  (Once you start the mods, a 'cargo' launch can't fly using a second ICPS -- don't know if that was the plan, though.)  Probably pushes the first manned flight to 2024/2025.  There was talk of compressing the big interval between EM-1 and EM-2 (so that the manned flight -- EM-3 -- wouldn't also slip), but now that seems unlikely.

Where do you get this non-sense?  I have never seen any documentation that shows 2024/2025 as EM-2.  In fact, most documentation shows 2021, which exactly corresponds to the 36 months it will take to modify the ML for EUS after EM-1.
« Last Edit: 05/25/2018 12:06 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #94 on: 05/24/2018 11:11 pm »
This whole situation is one big cluster-frakk! :(  How long will it be until this is universally acknowledged and dealt to?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #95 on: 05/24/2018 11:29 pm »
I don't think anything will be done until SpaceX launches a BFR/BFS successfully.  Not only this, but when Vulcan w/ACES launches, and when New Glenn launches, it makes no sense for NASA to even build SLS.  With 40-60 tons to LEO with three available launch companies, they can spend the money on assembly of a large Nautilus X exploration craft.  Nautilus X was designed for 20 ton launches and in space assembly.  With 40-60 ton parts, instead of 20 ton parts, fewer launches could be make for quicker assembly.  The Nautilus parts could be contracted out to the same contractors making SLS so they can keep their work force busy.  Maybe NASA couldn't botch that.   

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #96 on: 05/25/2018 09:36 am »
This whole situation is one big cluster-frakk! :(  How long will it be until this is universally acknowledged and dealt to?

When the next President takes office and has the balls to install a next Augustine Committee.

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #97 on: 05/25/2018 10:58 am »
This article from the Verge

The first three missions of NASA’s next big rocket will have to settle for a less-powerful ride

provides this link

ESD-DM-13030

which says

Quote
Mid-2022 is the target date for the next SLS Block 1 launch using ML-1

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #98 on: 06/02/2018 03:29 pm »
From the Verge article.

"Block 1B is designed with a much more powerful upper stage, allowing it to carry about 287,000 pounds (130 metric tons)."

Is that statement true?  I thought Block-II was good for 130 tonnes?  Is their graphic(below) obsolete?
Paul

Offline Sknowball

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #99 on: 06/02/2018 06:50 pm »
From the Verge article.

"Block 1B is designed with a much more powerful upper stage, allowing it to carry about 287,000 pounds (130 metric tons)."

Is that statement true?  I thought Block-II was good for 130 tonnes?  Is their graphic(below) obsolete?

In early May NASA released updated performance numbersl for Block 1 putting it at 95 metric tonnes (there was an excellent article on the NSF front page about the status of SLS which talked about this as well), so the graphic is at least out of date for Block 1 numbers.   It wouldn't surprise me if Block 1b numbers are also being adjusted upwards as the Block 1 performance gains are from the core stage.


Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #100 on: 06/02/2018 08:05 pm »
This is still not as much as Saturn V.   Pushing Orion to the moon without a lander, been there done that.  It is also way behind schedule and is expendable.  Adding a 5th engine on the core with a large upper stage would be much better. 

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #101 on: 06/02/2018 08:11 pm »
At this stage in the game, they need to fly. There is no guarantee BFR or New Glenn will work, or be in a position to replace SLS. Only once the other Super LVs are working, and make SLS pathetically obsolete, will there be any need to stop production. Right now, this is our only hope in escaping the LEO prison we find ourselves in.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #102 on: 06/02/2018 08:18 pm »
From the Verge article.

"Block 1B is designed with a much more powerful upper stage, allowing it to carry about 287,000 pounds (130 metric tons)."

Is that statement true?  I thought Block-II was good for 130 tonnes?  Is their graphic(below) obsolete?

In early May NASA released updated performance numbersl for Block 1 putting it at 95 metric tonnes (there was an excellent article on the NSF front page about the status of SLS which talked about this as well), so the graphic is at least out of date for Block 1 numbers.   It wouldn't surprise me if Block 1b numbers are also being adjusted upwards as the Block 1 performance gains are from the core stage.

I'm glad this came up. This quote from the NSF article really caught my eye:

Quote
NASA recently published an updated performance figure, now saying the Block 1 configuration is capable of lifting over 95 metric tons into a circular reference orbit of perhaps 100 nautical miles.

A circular 100 nautical mile reference orbit? That seems awfully low. Has this always been the reference orbit for LEO performance figures published for SLS/Ares?

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #103 on: 06/02/2018 08:47 pm »
A circular 100 nautical mile reference orbit? That seems awfully low. Has this always been the reference orbit for LEO performance figures published for SLS/Ares?

That's a circular 185 km parking orbit.  I've seen that altitude used in multiple places.  The other reference parking orbit I see regularly is 200 km. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #104 on: 06/02/2018 08:55 pm »
At this stage in the game, they need to fly. There is no guarantee BFR or New Glenn will work, or be in a position to replace SLS.

The SLS was not created because our aerospace industry was incapable of building an HLV. ULA had testified before Congress while Constellation was still the PoR that there was an upgrade path for the Atlas V and Delta IV that would allow them to offer a launcher with the same performance as the SLS, but Congress did not care.

So the SLS is only competing with itself, and it will succeed or fail based on whether Congress, who created the SLS, funds enough payloads for the SLS to merit being operational.

Quote
Only once the other Super LVs are working, and make SLS pathetically obsolete, will there be any need to stop production. Right now, this is our only hope in escaping the LEO prison we find ourselves in.

We have never lacked the desire to leave LEO, we have lacked the money. So spending $30B+ of taxpayers money on an expendable launch vehicle does not address that problem, wouldn't you agree?

As to the continuing schedule slips, this is not a surprise given that Congress defined the specs for the SLS. NASA has little control over the SLS schedule, since it had no control over the specs or budget for the SLS.

If the goal was to keep people employed in the right places around the country, the SLS is a great success...
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 docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #105 on: 06/04/2018 03:04 am »
At this stage in the game, they need to fly. There is no guarantee BFR or New Glenn will work, or be in a position to replace SLS.
>

Only one needs to work. ISTM both BFR and New Glenn failing is as unlikely as SLS EM-1 launching on schedule, whatever that is this week.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2018 03:05 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #106 on: 06/04/2018 03:17 am »
In a perfect world, I'd love to cancel SLS and Orion and channel all the money to BO and SpaceX and we'd have moon bases and Mars bases in ten years. But it's not a perfect world, and I'm not living fantasy. We're stuck with SLS until it is superseded by something far superior. I was 13 when man landed on the moon, 62 now, and like to see humans on the surface of the moon before I die. The lack of vision by our society is mind boggling when you consider what we were doing in the 60s. 747, Valkyrie, sexy 727s, Concord, moon landings. Passengers can't even fly supersonic anymore. Somehow the spirit of humanity has gone astray. We've forgotten how to dream.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #107 on: 06/04/2018 07:19 am »
In a perfect world, I'd love to cancel SLS and Orion and channel all the money to BO and SpaceX and we'd have moon bases and Mars bases in ten years. But it's not a perfect world, and I'm not living fantasy. We're stuck with SLS until it is superseded by something far superior. I was 13 when man landed on the moon, 62 now, and like to see humans on the surface of the moon before I die. The lack of vision by our society is mind boggling when you consider what we were doing in the 60s. 747, Valkyrie, sexy 727s, Concord, moon landings. Passengers can't even fly supersonic anymore. Somehow the spirit of humanity has gone astray. We've forgotten how to dream.

Not quite. We've not forgotten how to dream. We've forgotten how to turn dreams into reality.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #108 on: 06/04/2018 11:27 am »
From the Verge article.

"Block 1B is designed with a much more powerful upper stage, allowing it to carry about 287,000 pounds (130 metric tons)."

Is that statement true?  I thought Block-II was good for 130 tonnes?  Is their graphic(below) obsolete?

In early May NASA released updated performance numbersl for Block 1 putting it at 95 metric tonnes (there was an excellent article on the NSF front page about the status of SLS which talked about this as well), so the graphic is at least out of date for Block 1 numbers.   It wouldn't surprise me if Block 1b numbers are also being adjusted upwards as the Block 1 performance gains are from the core stage.
There are no "performance gains from the core stage". The difference between 70 and 95 tonnes payload is just the flight profile and reference orbit.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #109 on: 06/04/2018 12:29 pm »
From the Verge article.

"Block 1B is designed with a much more powerful upper stage, allowing it to carry about 287,000 pounds (130 metric tons)."

Is that statement true?  I thought Block-II was good for 130 tonnes?  Is their graphic(below) obsolete?

In early May NASA released updated performance numbersl for Block 1 putting it at 95 metric tonnes (there was an excellent article on the NSF front page about the status of SLS which talked about this as well), so the graphic is at least out of date for Block 1 numbers.   It wouldn't surprise me if Block 1b numbers are also being adjusted upwards as the Block 1 performance gains are from the core stage.
There are no "performance gains from the core stage". The difference between 70 and 95 tonnes payload is just the flight profile and reference orbit.

When the initial layout of the SLS Block 1 was presented to the public (years ago) there were several folks on this very forum who did some informed calculation. The conclusion of some of them was that SLS Block 1 could easily do 85 - 90 tonnes to LEO.
Remember, the 70 tonnes figure came from the 2010 NASA authorization act. It was never stated that performance of SLS Block 1 could not be MORE than the mandated 70 tonnes.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #110 on: 06/04/2018 01:17 pm »
In a perfect world, I'd love to cancel SLS and Orion and channel all the money to BO and SpaceX and we'd have moon bases and Mars bases in ten years. But it's not a perfect world, and I'm not living fantasy. We're stuck with SLS until it is superseded by something far superior. I was 13 when man landed on the moon, 62 now, and like to see humans on the surface of the moon before I die. The lack of vision by our society is mind boggling when you consider what we were doing in the 60s. 747, Valkyrie, sexy 727s, Concord, moon landings. Passengers can't even fly supersonic anymore. Somehow the spirit of humanity has gone astray. We've forgotten how to dream.

Not quite. We've not forgotten how to dream. We've forgotten how to turn dreams into reality.

Worse than that, we have turned over our dreams to a dysfunctional state.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #111 on: 06/04/2018 02:24 pm »
In a perfect world, I'd love to cancel SLS and Orion and channel all the money to BO and SpaceX and we'd have moon bases and Mars bases in ten years. But it's not a perfect world, and I'm not living fantasy. We're stuck with SLS until it is superseded by something far superior. I was 13 when man landed on the moon, 62 now, and like to see humans on the surface of the moon before I die. The lack of vision by our society is mind boggling when you consider what we were doing in the 60s. 747, Valkyrie, sexy 727s, Concord, moon landings. Passengers can't even fly supersonic anymore. Somehow the spirit of humanity has gone astray. We've forgotten how to dream.

I couldn't agree more and I have ten years on you.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #112 on: 06/04/2018 06:38 pm »
Quote
Von Braun brought the same conservatism to the Saturn V program, but George Mueller wasn't having any of it. Mueller assumed responsibility for the Apollo program as Director of the Office of Manned Space Flight in 1963, and he immediately realized that NASA would never make it to the Moon by the end of the decade without a more forceful approach to its rocket development program.

Drawing from his experiences with the U.S. Air Force's ballistic missile program, he called for NASA to adopt an "all-up" approach to its rocket tests. Rather than testing components separately, the standard approach in NASA's early days, he wanted von Braun to test the full rocket all in one go.
https://www.space.com/18505-nasa-moon-rocket-saturn-v-history.html

NASA's risk calculation needs to properly account for the risk of cancellation. If the whole thing gets shelved, it is just as bad as blowing up on the Launchpad. So, pushing schedule to do additional testing may not win every trade. Skipping the Stennis testing, and moving to Kennedy for launch operations should be seriously considered. It worked before.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2018 06:42 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #113 on: 06/04/2018 06:47 pm »
Quote
Von Braun brought the same conservatism to the Saturn V program, but George Mueller wasn't having any of it. Mueller assumed responsibility for the Apollo program as Director of the Office of Manned Space Flight in 1963, and he immediately realized that NASA would never make it to the Moon by the end of the decade without a more forceful approach to its rocket development program.

Drawing from his experiences with the U.S. Air Force's ballistic missile program, he called for NASA to adopt an "all-up" approach to its rocket tests. Rather than testing components separately, the standard approach in NASA's early days, he wanted von Braun to test the full rocket all in one go.
https://www.space.com/18505-nasa-moon-rocket-saturn-v-history.html

NASA's risk calculation needs to properly account for the risk of cancellation. If the whole thing gets shelved, it is just as bad as blowing up on the Launchpad. So, pushing schedule to do additional testing may not win every trade. Skipping the Stennis testing, and moving to Kennedy for launch operations should be seriously considered. It worked before.

How much time could that save?

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #114 on: 06/04/2018 06:58 pm »
Quote
Von Braun brought the same conservatism to the Saturn V program, but George Mueller wasn't having any of it. Mueller assumed responsibility for the Apollo program as Director of the Office of Manned Space Flight in 1963, and he immediately realized that NASA would never make it to the Moon by the end of the decade without a more forceful approach to its rocket development program.

Drawing from his experiences with the U.S. Air Force's ballistic missile program, he called for NASA to adopt an "all-up" approach to its rocket tests. Rather than testing components separately, the standard approach in NASA's early days, he wanted von Braun to test the full rocket all in one go.
https://www.space.com/18505-nasa-moon-rocket-saturn-v-history.html

NASA's risk calculation needs to properly account for the risk of cancellation. If the whole thing gets shelved, it is just as bad as blowing up on the Launchpad. So, pushing schedule to do additional testing may not win every trade. Skipping the Stennis testing, and moving to Kennedy for launch operations should be seriously considered. It worked before.

How much time could that save?

It is in the article. Core stage green run-testing is 6 months.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2018 06:59 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #115 on: 06/04/2018 07:55 pm »
Quote
Von Braun brought the same conservatism to the Saturn V program, but George Mueller wasn't having any of it. Mueller assumed responsibility for the Apollo program as Director of the Office of Manned Space Flight in 1963, and he immediately realized that NASA would never make it to the Moon by the end of the decade without a more forceful approach to its rocket development program.

Drawing from his experiences with the U.S. Air Force's ballistic missile program, he called for NASA to adopt an "all-up" approach to its rocket tests. Rather than testing components separately, the standard approach in NASA's early days, he wanted von Braun to test the full rocket all in one go.
https://www.space.com/18505-nasa-moon-rocket-saturn-v-history.html

NASA's risk calculation needs to properly account for the risk of cancellation. If the whole thing gets shelved, it is just as bad as blowing up on the Launchpad. So, pushing schedule to do additional testing may not win every trade. Skipping the Stennis testing, and moving to Kennedy for launch operations should be seriously considered. It worked before.

How much time could that save?

It is in the article. Core stage green run-testing is 6 months.

Right, but how much of that is actually saved by skipping Stennis? On the plus side, there's transport prep and shipping time. It can't be quick or easy to move the largest stage ever built around. On the other hand, EGS might end up having to do a lot of testing that was going to be done at Stennis anyway, like fill/drain, WDR, and/or a hotfire.

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #116 on: 06/04/2018 09:13 pm »
Quote
Von Braun brought the same conservatism to the Saturn V program, but George Mueller wasn't having any of it. Mueller assumed responsibility for the Apollo program as Director of the Office of Manned Space Flight in 1963, and he immediately realized that NASA would never make it to the Moon by the end of the decade without a more forceful approach to its rocket development program.

Drawing from his experiences with the U.S. Air Force's ballistic missile program, he called for NASA to adopt an "all-up" approach to its rocket tests. Rather than testing components separately, the standard approach in NASA's early days, he wanted von Braun to test the full rocket all in one go.
https://www.space.com/18505-nasa-moon-rocket-saturn-v-history.html

NASA's risk calculation needs to properly account for the risk of cancellation. If the whole thing gets shelved, it is just as bad as blowing up on the Launchpad. So, pushing schedule to do additional testing may not win every trade. Skipping the Stennis testing, and moving to Kennedy for launch operations should be seriously considered. It worked before.

Not sure what you have in mind as "it worked before", but the Saturn V program did not skip ground tests of the individual stages; in fact, that's what the largest test stands at Stennis were originally built for.  What Mueller got them to skip, with his "all up" testing program, was flight tests with dummy upper stages -- but before those flew, test articles for each stage had been fired on the ground. (So, for example, Ares I-X, with its Upper Stage Simulator, was not an "all-up" test of Ares I, but EM-1, as currently planned, would be an "all-up" test of SLS Block I.)

(The moon program that did skip ground testing was the Soviet one, for a couple of reasons -- they were building the N-1 on a shoestring, and lacked budget for test stands; on top of that, each test would have expended the engines on the test article, as they could only be fired once.  This did not work out well for them.  The upshot was multiple launch failures, more than one of which would have been very likely diagnosed with a test program of ground-based static fires.)
« Last Edit: 06/04/2018 09:14 pm by rst »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #117 on: 06/05/2018 12:54 am »
Let's try to stay narrowly focused. this isn't the thread to debate whether SLS ought to never have been started, should be canceled now, will be canceled once BFS brings the first moon rock back, etc ...  we have other threads for that.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #118 on: 06/07/2018 01:19 am »
That is true, Lar. But I've seen those threads have moderator warnings to 'stay on topic' as well. And this is a 'Schedule is sliding thread' - like it says on the box! We must expect some of these comment types.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #119 on: 06/07/2018 02:23 am »
In a perfect world, I'd love to cancel SLS and Orion and channel all the money to BO and SpaceX and we'd have moon bases and Mars bases in ten years.

Except that Moon and Mars bases are not the reason why Congress created the SLS, since Congress (and the U.S. Government as a whole) currently has no plans for Moon or Mars bases. If they did have such plans they would have funded them, since there should be no doubt that Boeing can build a safe, workable rocket, and there is plenty that needs to be worked on so that payloads are ready for when the SLS is operational.

Quote
We're stuck with SLS until it is superseded by something far superior.

As a government transportation system, the SLS will exist for as long as Congress wants to fund it, regardless of what it is doing or slated to do.

Notice in all of this how little attention these schedule slips get in Congress. The SLS is a $35B program, and Congress stipulated in 2010 that the SLS was supposed to be operational by December 31, 2016.

Quote
I was 13 when man landed on the moon, 62 now, and like to see humans on the surface of the moon before I die.

We've had the ability to return to the Moon since Apollo, yet Congress has refused (so far) to fund any plans to return. That's not because of a lack of interest, but because of the cost vs the value to the U.S. Taxpayer.

So my suggestion is that if you want to see humans return to the Moon before your untimely demise, then I suggest you support all efforts to lower the cost to access space, travel through space, and to stay in space. Because it has been money (or the lack thereof) that has kept us from returning to the Moon, so money is the issue that has to be solved.
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 MaxTeranous

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding
« Reply #120 on: 06/07/2018 12:34 pm »
So my suggestion is that if you want to see humans return to the Moon before your untimely demise, then I suggest you support all efforts to lower the cost to access space, travel through space, and to stay in space. Because it has been money (or the lack thereof) that has kept us from returning to the Moon, so money is the issue that has to be solved.

I think with all the changes that we've seen in spaceflight over the past few years, it's no longer lack of money that's the problem, more specifically it's the money allocation that's the problem. 15 years ago, $4 bill/year for 5 years wouldn't get us to the Moon. Now, $4 bil/year to "Old Space" companies wouldn't get us to the Moon either. But $4 bil/year to New Space almost certainly would !

Tags:
 

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