This is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?!
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 05/14/2018 10:07 pmThis is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?! The exact same thing that happened to the Constellation program...
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/schedule-first-sls-core-stage-sliding/ - By Philip SlossWish 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.
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 theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].
Quote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen 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 theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof 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).
Quote from: AnalogMan on 05/14/2018 11:53 pmQuote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen 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 theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof 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
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.
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...
Quote from: cwr on 05/15/2018 12:49 amQuote from: AnalogMan on 05/14/2018 11:53 pmQuote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen 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 theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof 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.CarlPerfectly 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.
Quote from: cwr on 05/15/2018 12:49 amQuote from: AnalogMan on 05/14/2018 11:53 pmQuote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen 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 theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof 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.CarlPerfectly 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.
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.
Quote from: Jason Davies on 05/15/2018 02:39 amQuote from: cwr on 05/15/2018 12:49 amQuote from: AnalogMan on 05/14/2018 11:53 pmQuote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen 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 theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof 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.CarlPerfectly 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.
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.
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.
Priority should be placed on the core elements withthe goal for operational capability for the core elements notlater than December 31, 2016.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 05/14/2018 10:07 pmThis is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?! Build an additional mobile launcher!
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.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 05/15/2018 11:49 amI 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.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/15/2018 01:00 pmadding 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.
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.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/15/2018 07:26 amBut, 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.
Quote from: Jim on 05/15/2018 04:22 pmQuote from: AncientU on 05/15/2018 01:00 pmadding 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.
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.
So who's actually responsible for SLS?
Quote from: rcoppola on 05/15/2018 09:03 pmSo who's actually responsible for SLS?Brief history:Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttleWanted to keep going to space so Ares program emergedAres program was a dog so Obama cancelled itThe 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
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.
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?
So, who is Mike?
Quote from: rcoppola on 05/15/2018 09:03 pmSo 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?
Quote from: johnfwhitesell on 05/15/2018 09:15 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 05/15/2018 09:03 pmSo who's actually responsible for SLS?Brief history:Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttleWanted to keep going to space so Ares program emergedAres program was a dog so Obama cancelled itThe 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 cheaperHa....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?
So, seriously, who the hell is running this show?
^^ Congress is the answerThat's why there is no responsibility and it is just chugging along. It is doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to be doing.
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.
Quote from: rcoppola on 05/15/2018 09:20 pmQuote from: johnfwhitesell on 05/15/2018 09:15 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 05/15/2018 09:03 pmSo who's actually responsible for SLS?Brief history:Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttleWanted to keep going to space so Ares program emergedAres program was a dog so Obama cancelled itThe 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 cheaperHa....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.
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.
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.
Of course this guy operates in a very constrained & political environment, but in the end he is still responsible for the project.
Quote from: SgtPoivre on 05/17/2018 05:37 amOf 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...
Quote from: kraisee on 05/16/2018 09:21 pmThat 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.
QuoteWhat 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?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/17/2018 05:42 pmQuote from: SgtPoivre on 05/17/2018 05:37 amOf 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/17/2018 05:42 pmQuote from: SgtPoivre on 05/17/2018 05:37 amOf 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.
Contamination found in SLS engine tubing
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.
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.”
New article:QuoteContamination found in SLS engine tubingQuoteA “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.QuoteThe 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/
Quote from: AncientU on 05/18/2018 12:22 amNew article:QuoteContamination found in SLS engine tubingQuoteA “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...
New article:QuoteContamination found in SLS engine tubingQuoteA “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. ...
...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.
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.
You are right to be amazed/outraged, Ross. And I'm puzzled as to why more people aren't
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/18/2018 06:26 pmThe 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.
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.
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 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...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/18/2018 10:58 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/18/2018 06:26 pmThe 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.
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/17/2018 07:47 pmCongress 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.
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.
Unless you have documentation showing otherwise, I don't think that was the calculus used.
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/19/2018 04:21 amUnless 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.
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.
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.
Good move retiring STS.I'd rather be stuck in LEO, than stuck on the ground.
Quote from: Hog on 05/24/2018 01:06 pmGood 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.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/24/2018 08:09 pmQuote from: Hog on 05/24/2018 01:06 pmGood 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?
Quote from: AncientU on 10/28/2016 07:28 pmThis 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.
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.
This whole situation is one big cluster-frakk! How long will it be until this is universally acknowledged and dealt to?
Mid-2022 is the target date for the next SLS Block 1 launch using ML-1
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?
Quote from: Hog on 06/02/2018 03:29 pmFrom 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.
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?
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.
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. >
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.
Quote from: Sknowball on 06/02/2018 06:50 pmQuote from: Hog on 06/02/2018 03:29 pmFrom 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.
Quote from: Steve G on 06/04/2018 03:17 amIn 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.
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.
QuoteVon 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.htmlNASA'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.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 06/04/2018 06:38 pmQuoteVon 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.htmlNASA'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?
Quote from: envy887 on 06/04/2018 06:47 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 06/04/2018 06:38 pmQuoteVon 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.htmlNASA'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.
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.
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.
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.