Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 02/15/2017 07:13 pmScrap ICPS and go straight to Block IB.Not likely to happen, but your sentiment is on point. ICPS, intended as a time-saver to appease congress, has morphed into an expensive liability.
Scrap ICPS and go straight to Block IB.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/16/2017 12:59 pmQuote from: jongoff on 02/16/2017 03:13 amMy take on this is that it's much like the original 2016 initial flight goal, and the Ares-I-X flight before that. A stunt to try and show enough "progress" before a new president gets in* that they hopefully can be made to think the program is farther along than it really is. This flight would be using refurbished shuttle engines and booster casings, an interim upper stage that may only fly once, and a European SM for Orion that may only fly once or twice. The whole SLS/Orion system would likely not be operational for another several years, and if anything pulling up the manned flight date is likely to push out the actual regular operation date. I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than a stunt.~Jon* And yes, I'm implying that the people pushing this may be betting on Trump being a one-term wonder.This is an example of the political "circus" stunt that I've been writing about as a distraction. Huge expense and risk for low return. As for the aforementioned WH occupant, he may be lucky to "finish" the current term in office ...I think this is closer to the poker 'call' where the new administration wants to see SLS/Orion Project's hand. If buckets more money are requested and still no way to get even first crew flight (safety aside) by 2020, then the bluff will be revealed... Could still go forward with this craziness, but I doubt it. Political circus indeed!
Quote from: jongoff on 02/16/2017 03:13 amMy take on this is that it's much like the original 2016 initial flight goal, and the Ares-I-X flight before that. A stunt to try and show enough "progress" before a new president gets in* that they hopefully can be made to think the program is farther along than it really is. This flight would be using refurbished shuttle engines and booster casings, an interim upper stage that may only fly once, and a European SM for Orion that may only fly once or twice. The whole SLS/Orion system would likely not be operational for another several years, and if anything pulling up the manned flight date is likely to push out the actual regular operation date. I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than a stunt.~Jon* And yes, I'm implying that the people pushing this may be betting on Trump being a one-term wonder.This is an example of the political "circus" stunt that I've been writing about as a distraction. Huge expense and risk for low return. As for the aforementioned WH occupant, he may be lucky to "finish" the current term in office ...
My take on this is that it's much like the original 2016 initial flight goal, and the Ares-I-X flight before that. A stunt to try and show enough "progress" before a new president gets in* that they hopefully can be made to think the program is farther along than it really is. This flight would be using refurbished shuttle engines and booster casings, an interim upper stage that may only fly once, and a European SM for Orion that may only fly once or twice. The whole SLS/Orion system would likely not be operational for another several years, and if anything pulling up the manned flight date is likely to push out the actual regular operation date. I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than a stunt.~Jon* And yes, I'm implying that the people pushing this may be betting on Trump being a one-term wonder.
Those concerned about crew safety, I don't have the slightest inkling that NASA would allow the first batch of BLEO astronauts into a unsafe vehicle. If they do their study and find it feasible, I'm on-board.
Quote from: Khadgars on 02/16/2017 03:03 pmThose concerned about crew safety, I don't have the slightest inkling that NASA would allow the first batch of BLEO astronauts into a unsafe vehicle. If they do their study and find it feasible, I'm on-board. This whole thing is about pushing a schedule to make SLS Orion look more relevant than it is, and just like Ares-IX, it's a stunt. As for your contention about NASA not putting astronauts aboard an unsafe vehicle, we should all remember that it was NASA leadership that insisted that Challenger be launched - to meet a schedule - in spite of the fact that the engineers made it completely clear that to launch in those temperatures was creating an unsafe condition. NASA leadership ignored them. That "safe" vehicle went on to kill 7 astronauts just 73 seconds after liftoff.It is exactly the same situation as the premature and unnecessary launch of Soyuz-1 - again, to meet a schedule - that killed Soviet Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. How many times do we have to kill our finest before we learn that safety is not a buzzword?
The purpose of the study is to *change* the SLS into a cargo launcher first....
Quote from: dglow on 02/15/2017 07:27 pmQuote from: Endeavour_01 on 02/15/2017 07:13 pmScrap ICPS and go straight to Block IB.Not likely to happen, but your sentiment is on point. ICPS, intended as a time-saver to appease congress, has morphed into an expensive liability.These time-savers tend to do that.
Quote from: muomega0 on 02/16/2017 04:40 pmThe purpose of the study is to *change* the SLS into a cargo launcher first....How do you get that out of a study looking at putting crew on the FIRST flight? Even if they decide it is not feasible, crew would still go on EM-2.
Quote from: Khadgars on 02/16/2017 03:03 pmIt is exactly the same situation as the premature and unnecessary launch of Soyuz-1 - again, to meet a schedule - that killed Soviet Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. How many times do we have to kill our finest before we learn that safety is not a buzzword?I respectfully disagree comparing NASA of mid 1980's to today's NASA. Schedule pressure will always be present, but I stand by that if NASA of today completes their study and finds launching astronauts on Block I first flight, I'm on-board.
It is exactly the same situation as the premature and unnecessary launch of Soyuz-1 - again, to meet a schedule - that killed Soviet Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. How many times do we have to kill our finest before we learn that safety is not a buzzword?
...but I stand by that if NASA of today completes their study and finds launching astronauts on Block I first flight, I'm on-board.
Quote from: Khadgars on 02/16/2017 04:11 pm...but I stand by that if NASA of today completes their study and finds launching astronauts on Block I first flight, I'm on-board.Studies can be made to have any conclusion you want them to have. Remember the study Griffin came up with to show that EELV's couldn't be used to launch crews because they had black zones? Yet they neglected to ask ULA about it? And there wasn't really an issue?NASA is being pushed to do manned tests because it's very expensive to do unmanned tests. If it was free then NASA would probably fly at least three unmanned tests flights, since that is their standard for certifying launchers for science payloads.Which if one wanted to look at this situation cynically, would mean that some in NASA consider humans less important than science instruments. Not that I think anyone does, or that they are meaning to, but the argument could be made about their logic...
Its good to feel a bit of leadership and drive for once. Its been a while. And it seems that fantasy land is opening up again (closed since the death of Direct), But at least the rocket is real, though funding and profitable flight rates dwell in middle Earth. So, cynicism be gone. Anticipating the announcement of a lander soon. 2022 would be a good year.
If the same person holds all those points of view, Mattblak, then you have a point. If not, then welcome to the internet!
Quote from: brejol on 02/17/2017 12:21 amIts good to feel a bit of leadership and drive for once. Its been a while. And it seems that fantasy land is opening up again (closed since the death of Direct), But at least the rocket is real, though funding and profitable flight rates dwell in middle Earth. So, cynicism be gone. Anticipating the announcement of a lander soon. 2022 would be a good year.There are better designs than Altair... As always, show me the money...
As I said; plenty of folk to tell you what they don't want to see - and I wont name names - but then in the same breath they wont offer what they do want to see.
..snip...Excuse me if that seems like there are two different standards being used for safety at NASA, not one. Which seems fishy to me...