Quote from: envy887 on 09/22/2017 11:45 pmQuote from: ChrisGebhardt on 09/22/2017 10:52 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 09/22/2017 09:53 pmQuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.No. As the article states, after the LH2 tank issues, NASA announced back in May that EM-1 was slipping to "sometime in 2019."This is the first concrete date in 2019 that's been released. So this is the full impact of "the slip to 2019" as announced earlier this year.We knew it was slipping to 2019, but not when in 2019. This is... rather late into the year.From our article in May about the slip to 2019:"While GSDO and the Orion/EMS issues have a good chance of being resolved in time for the newly realigned Q4 2019 launch target, the Core Stage might be a different story."This was always late 2019. No we have a first target date.EDIT: My fault for not including the "Q4 2019" reference again in today's article. I've updated the article accordingly.
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 09/22/2017 10:52 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 09/22/2017 09:53 pmQuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.No. As the article states, after the LH2 tank issues, NASA announced back in May that EM-1 was slipping to "sometime in 2019."This is the first concrete date in 2019 that's been released. So this is the full impact of "the slip to 2019" as announced earlier this year.We knew it was slipping to 2019, but not when in 2019. This is... rather late into the year.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 09/22/2017 09:53 pmQuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.No. As the article states, after the LH2 tank issues, NASA announced back in May that EM-1 was slipping to "sometime in 2019."This is the first concrete date in 2019 that's been released. So this is the full impact of "the slip to 2019" as announced earlier this year.
QuoteEM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019Wasn't it last supposed to fly in "late 2018"? The additional delay is 1 year, this is quite a lot.
EM-1 now targeting No Earlier Than 15 December 2019
Thanks for the great article! Its a pity the usual crowd is ready to attack the program over every little thing every time its so much as mentioned!
According to the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, SLS and CEV (now Orion) were supposed to be capable of supporting human missions beyond LEO by 2016. The Act was signed in October 2010, or 6 years and 2 months before the end of CY 2016.
The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
Great article and let's not miss the fact their have REDUCED the gap between EM-1 and EM-2. No small feat with the first crewed launch and EUS.
This was a great article and I appreciate the update.SLS can potentially let us do some worthwhile things in the 2020s (Europa Clipper and lunar gateway) that cannot be done otherwise in that time frame.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:58 pmTrue, but it isn't really a surprise given the issues Chris. G mentions in the article as well as the tornado that hit Michoud in February.Sure getting a lot of mileage out of that tornado...
True, but it isn't really a surprise given the issues Chris. G mentions in the article as well as the tornado that hit Michoud in February.
Quote from: okan170 on 09/22/2017 09:34 pmThanks for the great article! Its a pity the usual crowd is ready to attack the program over every little thing every time its so much as mentioned! It is disingenuous for someone as creative as you, Nathan, to dismiss this slip as 'every little thing.'Is there nothing that wouldn't get your full acceptance in this program?
'The usual crowd' as you call us* was apparently on the money all this time while Bolden et al continued to chant 2018 and #JourneytoMars -- both are now in the dust bin.
* I am a proud member of this group because I believe an organization as well staffed with professionals as is NASA should have its programs evaluated on their merit, not on their political backing.
Quote from: AncientU on 09/23/2017 12:14 amSure getting a lot of mileage out of that tornado...I think these are the kinds of comments Nathan is talking about. Of course they should "get a lot of mileage" out of this. A flipping tornado hit the main production facility. If a tornado or earthquake seriously damaged Hawthorne or Decatur I would be more than understanding if their schedule slipped.
Sure getting a lot of mileage out of that tornado...
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me.
If SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...
How about countering with specific information on exactly what was damaged and how exactly that affected the SLS program? Then we can debate what a reasonable schedule impact from that could be.
$1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things. STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly. By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget. That sounds like a bargain to me. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: AncientU on 09/23/2017 12:24 pmQuote from: okan170 on 09/22/2017 09:34 pmThanks for the great article! Its a pity the usual crowd is ready to attack the program over every little thing every time its so much as mentioned! It is disingenuous for someone as creative as you, Nathan, to dismiss this slip as 'every little thing.'Is there nothing that wouldn't get your full acceptance in this program?Is there nothing that would even get tacit acceptance from you?
There is already a thread that asks that exact question (in both directions). It is in space policy, so I think that is a sign here is the wrong place for this discussion.
I think these are the kinds of comments Nathan is talking about. Of course they should "get a lot of mileage" out of this. A flipping tornado hit the main production facility. If a tornado or earthquake seriously damaged Hawthorne or Decatur I would be more than understanding if their schedule slipped. ..."Perfect is the enemy of good enough"
One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability. That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds. To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost. - Ed Kyle
Jeff Foust @jeff_foustNASA HQ public affairs says they’ll have an official update to the planned EM-1 launch date next month.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 09:44 pmIf SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...You mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what?
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 09/22/2017 09:49 pmYou mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what? Stop spreading that FUD. A glance at the NASA budget for the last few decades proves that this is wrong. Programs come and go, yet the budget remains remarkably steady. So if anything any money released would with a very high degree of likelihood be spent on other space projects. If this other spending would be worse or better, who knows...
You mean the money that would then leave the space program budget if SLS/Orion weren't around and be spent on goodness knows what?