Quote from: robertross on 10/05/2010 08:29 pmThe SSME's at 109%? (actually the RS-25e in this case). I would say that depends on the vehicle-specific avionics. If they decide to make the 'growth-option' (130mt) lauchers multi-purpose (crew & cargo), we need to certify the RS-25e at that 109% level. I'm not sure if the current SSME HR limit is 104.5%, as I seem to recall they run them to that limit for better service life. Since we're going disposable with (essentially) a 'new' RS-25e engine, they could re-qualify them to that right from the start to 109% and leave it at that. If it's a problem running them at that level, then the avionics would have to be unique for each configuration (cargo only: 109% or whatever; crew+cargo: 104.5% or whatever). IIRC, RS-25D is already abort certified (ie, not a contingency abort?) for 109%. Shannon said, back at the Augustine hearings, that 109% would be acceptable for uncrewed cargo, and I assume he was referring to flying out the existing SSME inventory. I have the impression that it's an option to certify RS-25E for 109% in normal operation, and they are looking at 115% with some plumbing geometry changes, not sure if the 115% would be crewed or not. -Alex
The SSME's at 109%? (actually the RS-25e in this case). I would say that depends on the vehicle-specific avionics. If they decide to make the 'growth-option' (130mt) lauchers multi-purpose (crew & cargo), we need to certify the RS-25e at that 109% level. I'm not sure if the current SSME HR limit is 104.5%, as I seem to recall they run them to that limit for better service life. Since we're going disposable with (essentially) a 'new' RS-25e engine, they could re-qualify them to that right from the start to 109% and leave it at that. If it's a problem running them at that level, then the avionics would have to be unique for each configuration (cargo only: 109% or whatever; crew+cargo: 104.5% or whatever).
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 10/05/2010 10:41 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 10:13 pmQuote from: sdsds on 10/05/2010 07:24 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 07:07 pmQuestion: Is a human rated SLS required by this bill?Yes.Good. Then Congress stands behind funding development (at least partially in case of commercial), maintaining, and operating two human rated systems.Keep reading. Especially Title IV, which provides caveats to the degree to which, the methods whereby, and the justifications for the government "standing behind" a commercial crew "system." Understood, but I got to hope the door is open to their success and that the cards are not stacked against them.
Quote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 10:13 pmQuote from: sdsds on 10/05/2010 07:24 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 07:07 pmQuestion: Is a human rated SLS required by this bill?Yes.Good. Then Congress stands behind funding development (at least partially in case of commercial), maintaining, and operating two human rated systems.Keep reading. Especially Title IV, which provides caveats to the degree to which, the methods whereby, and the justifications for the government "standing behind" a commercial crew "system."
Quote from: sdsds on 10/05/2010 07:24 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 07:07 pmQuestion: Is a human rated SLS required by this bill?Yes.Good. Then Congress stands behind funding development (at least partially in case of commercial), maintaining, and operating two human rated systems.
Quote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 07:07 pmQuestion: Is a human rated SLS required by this bill?Yes.
Question: Is a human rated SLS required by this bill?
Quote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 11:02 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 10/05/2010 10:41 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 10:13 pmQuote from: sdsds on 10/05/2010 07:24 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 07:07 pmQuestion: Is a human rated SLS required by this bill?Yes.Good. Then Congress stands behind funding development (at least partially in case of commercial), maintaining, and operating two human rated systems.Keep reading. Especially Title IV, which provides caveats to the degree to which, the methods whereby, and the justifications for the government "standing behind" a commercial crew "system." Understood, but I got to hope the door is open to their success and that the cards are not stacked against them.I don't think they are...the commercial spaceflight "community" collectively reviewed those parameters before they even became part of S. 3068, from whence they found their way into S. 3729. And as a group, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation consistently supported passage of S.3729 by the House without amendments.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 10/05/2010 11:26 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 11:02 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 10/05/2010 10:41 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 10:13 pmQuote from: sdsds on 10/05/2010 07:24 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 07:07 pmQuestion: Is a human rated SLS required by this bill?Yes.Good. Then Congress stands behind funding development (at least partially in case of commercial), maintaining, and operating two human rated systems.Keep reading. Especially Title IV, which provides caveats to the degree to which, the methods whereby, and the justifications for the government "standing behind" a commercial crew "system." Understood, but I got to hope the door is open to their success and that the cards are not stacked against them.I don't think they are...the commercial spaceflight "community" collectively reviewed those parameters before they even became part of S. 3068, from whence they found their way into S. 3729. And as a group, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation consistently supported passage of S.3729 by the House without amendments. My apologies if this has been asked before but what instruments are there in the Authorization that prevent the Associate and/or Admin from simply stalling ore scuttling development of heavy lift prescribed in S.3729. What are the ramifications if* provided the full funding by Appropriations NASA produces a vehicle which doesn't satisfy the Authorization? In other words if they come before Congress in 2 years saying they don't have enough money to complete a Kerlox HLV (non-shuttle derived) vehicle. What happens?, and what kind of guidance should we expect from the Legislative branch going forward. Lest we forget that arguably the prescriptions of the 2005 NASA Authorization were clearly not followed placing us in our current predicament.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 10/05/2010 11:26 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 11:02 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 10/05/2010 10:41 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 10:13 pmQuote from: sdsds on 10/05/2010 07:24 pmQuote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 07:07 pmQuestion: Is a human rated SLS required by this bill?Yes.Good. Then Congress stands behind funding development (at least partially in case of commercial), maintaining, and operating two human rated systems.Keep reading. Especially Title IV, which provides caveats to the degree to which, the methods whereby, and the justifications for the government "standing behind" a commercial crew "system." Understood, but I got to hope the door is open to their success and that the cards are not stacked against them.I don't think they are...the commercial spaceflight "community" collectively reviewed those parameters before they even became part of S. 3068, from whence they found their way into S. 3729. And as a group, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation consistently supported passage of S.3729 by the House without amendments. Then lets all hope everyone has done their analysis and costs correctly, dotted their i's, crossed their t's, and that the United States ends up with two human rated launch systems.
Well, many of the same people who wrote the 2005 and 2008 Authorization Acts were involved in drafting S.3729, so they are VERY aware of the potential for "non-compliance." They are also very much aware of continuing efforts on the part of certain parties to "slow-roll" or otherwise undermine the letter and intent of what will soon be signed into law.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 10/06/2010 12:11 amWell, many of the same people who wrote the 2005 and 2008 Authorization Acts were involved in drafting S.3729, so they are VERY aware of the potential for "non-compliance." They are also very much aware of continuing efforts on the part of certain parties to "slow-roll" or otherwise undermine the letter and intent of what will soon be signed into law. I would loathe to see this actually happen, but perhaps it might be in everyone's best interest if those "certain parties" were to be reminded privately, discreetly and thru back door channels of course, of the potential consequences of being found guilty of Contempt of Congress. If nothing else they would be put on notice that they were being individually watched to ensure compliance.
Please, lets try to build support, especially if some of this is coming from the engineers and technical staff. Rest assured there is a good chance the project will fail otherwise. And I don't mean intentionally. To me some of the key ingredients to a successful launch vehicle design process are technical skill, enthusiasm/dedication, ingenuity, and stubbornness. Without these ingredients you may not get as far as you desire. And, I have to hope that the men and women at NASA want success and not failure. I know my friends and colleagues there want success. And I gather one of the issues with Dr. Griffin is that he did not listen to those around him. So please, lets learn that lesson.
Quote from: martin hegedus on 10/06/2010 01:44 amPlease, lets try to build support, especially if some of this is coming from the engineers and technical staff. Rest assured there is a good chance the project will fail otherwise. And I don't mean intentionally. To me some of the key ingredients to a successful launch vehicle design process are technical skill, enthusiasm/dedication, ingenuity, and stubbornness. Without these ingredients you may not get as far as you desire. And, I have to hope that the men and women at NASA want success and not failure. I know my friends and colleagues there want success. And I gather one of the issues with Dr. Griffin is that he did not listen to those around him. So please, lets learn that lesson.Extremely valid and valuable comments, and I agree wholeheartedly. There are extremely good people there who want to contribute to a successful program--and without whom it could not be realized.
So what possible contracts could we be looking at? I'm no expert, but here's the obvious list:* SLS Core - LockMart and other MAF contractors; Boeing for Thrust Structure and PLF?* SRBs - ATK - Be they shuttle or 5-seg;* RS-25E and RL-10C - PWR - The RL-10C seems a better idea than J-2X as it can be applied to the EELVs to improve their performance and the DoD may be willing to split costs on the project; It can also be spun as 'commercial-enabling';* Orion - LockMart;* Orion LAS - OSC;* Upper Stage - Boeing - I call this the 'Ares-IA';* SSPDM - TBD, if pursued;* ATV-derived hab module - EADS Astrum, if pursued;* LSAM2 - TBD, if pursued.
IMHO, Boeing should be Prime, with MSFC providing oversight. LM should keep Orion with JSC providing oversight. LM should get ET>JCS conversion. ULA should get JUS. PWR should immediately start to make new SSME Blk-II's, Human Rate the RL-10 and about 3-5 years from now, they should start producing a disposable SSME. ATK should produce the existing 4-seg's, plus get a contract to remove the TVC system and improve the design using some good-value lessons learned from the 5-seg effort.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/05/2010 01:54 pm* SLS Core - LockMart and other MAF contractors; Boeing for Thrust Structure and PLF?There's certainly no doubt about the vendors for [...] the SLS Core. [...] I would think that the SLS thrust structure would be manufactured with the core by LM.Quote from: kraisee on 09/28/2010 05:16 pmLM should get ET>JCS conversion.
* SLS Core - LockMart and other MAF contractors; Boeing for Thrust Structure and PLF?
LM should get ET>JCS conversion.
Quote from: jml on 10/06/2010 04:02 amQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/05/2010 01:54 pm* SLS Core - LockMart and other MAF contractors; Boeing for Thrust Structure and PLF?There's certainly no doubt about the vendors for [...] the SLS Core. [...] I would think that the SLS thrust structure would be manufactured with the core by LM.Quote from: kraisee on 09/28/2010 05:16 pmLM should get ET>JCS conversion. Although it might seem obvious LM should get the SLS core, it isn't clear LM ET experience justifies a sole source contract. Will this work need to be competed?
But if I was SLS project dictator for a day, I might also suggest:Prime Contractor: An extension of Boeing/LockMart's USA joint-venture, to be responsible for both development and operations under a fixed-price contract modeled after ULA's EELV operations
By the way, what is the situation regarding modifying those CXP contracts?
ULA should get JUS.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 10/04/2010 07:57 pmOn the issue of "backup" and what you feel is unnecessary language, in fact, in an earlier version, was not there. But in the course of negotiating to the final language it was felt that, since the Senate was providing a path towards development of commercial crew capability, while at the same time insisting on a government-owned and operated cargo AND crew capability (back to that in a minute), that it was essential to underscore that the government capability would not be a potential competitor to the potential commercial provider. At the same time, it was recognized that other partners (e.g., ESA) were considering, at some level, the development of crew capability through a variant of their own vehicles, and also that, while Soyuz certainly exists as a bona fide crew delivery system, there is no guarantee that it will always be "available" for technical or other reasons. The combination of those considerations led to the additional language regarding back-up capability that is troubling you. It was repeated, later, you will find, in Section 303(b)(3) regarding the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, for the same purpose.Thanks for the clarification!What is your take on what Congress' preference would be in the scenario where commercial crew is not available, but both SLS/MPCV and Soyuz are? It's clear that commercial crew is preferable for ISS over SLS/MPCV, but it's not clear (at least to me) that Congress would prefer to continue passing periodic INKSNA waivers to keep sending money to Russia for Soyuz, even if SLS/MPCV would be more expensive.
On the issue of "backup" and what you feel is unnecessary language, in fact, in an earlier version, was not there. But in the course of negotiating to the final language it was felt that, since the Senate was providing a path towards development of commercial crew capability, while at the same time insisting on a government-owned and operated cargo AND crew capability (back to that in a minute), that it was essential to underscore that the government capability would not be a potential competitor to the potential commercial provider. At the same time, it was recognized that other partners (e.g., ESA) were considering, at some level, the development of crew capability through a variant of their own vehicles, and also that, while Soyuz certainly exists as a bona fide crew delivery system, there is no guarantee that it will always be "available" for technical or other reasons. The combination of those considerations led to the additional language regarding back-up capability that is troubling you. It was repeated, later, you will find, in Section 303(b)(3) regarding the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, for the same purpose.
Quote from: martin hegedus on 10/05/2010 11:02 pmKeep reading. Especially Title IV, which provides caveats to the degree to which, the methods whereby, and the justifications for the government "standing behind" a commercial crew "system." Understood, but I got to hope the door is open to their success and that the cards are not stacked against them.
Keep reading. Especially Title IV, which provides caveats to the degree to which, the methods whereby, and the justifications for the government "standing behind" a commercial crew "system."
Quote from: Mark S on 10/05/2010 01:41 pmFrom the Orlando Sentinel article:Quote"I think it remains to be seen what heavy lift will be," Braun said. "I would like to believe now that we are making progress in Washington towards the 2011 plan that the engineers…will weigh in and that we will move towards the technically correct choice."Is Braun really saying that NASA will ignore the clear direction of Congress and go off to do whatever they feel like doing? That does not seem like a winning strategy for maintaining NASA's funding level. Who does he think is writing the checks for this HLV?Instead of making antagonistic statements like this, NASA bigwigs should be falling all over themselves to reassure Congress that they will do everything in their power to follow Congress' lead as closely as physically possible. Not just the letter of the law, depending on what the definition of "is" is, but the clear intent and spirit of the law too.Why do they continue to fight this?Mark S.I can assure you such comments are not viewed positively by those in the Congress who believe they have sent a clear message that the FY 2011 "plan" regarding follow-on launch vehicles and human spaceflight direction beyond LEO was, and now certifiably is, DOA. Remember Bobby Braun was brought in to oversee the HUGE redirection of formerly Constellation program funds in advanced r and d; the directionless "honey-pots" of open-ended research that were a major point of criticism for many in the Congress when the FY 2011 Budget Request was released. The majority of those funds were redirected--in both House and Senate bills--back to vehicle development. So he's precisely the person NOT to ask about NASA's intent or approach to development of launch vehicles under the terms soon to be established as the law of the land. He's correct in saying that engineers, and not politicians, will design the follow-on vehicles. But engineers have to obey not only the laws of physics, but the law of the land, as well, if they are working on government-funded programs. Organizationally, the Chief Technologist of NASA is NOT in charge of vehicle design activities. (I doubt that he has even participated in the HEFT study activities to date to any significant degree, if at all.) His job is to seek and develop technology advances and enhancements that can INFORM the vehicle design, or make elements and subsystems more efficient and effective with applications of new technology, if possible. But he does not and will not be "designing rockets." Therefore, he is not and should not be seen as, a credible source regarding NASA's eventual approach to vehicle design.
From the Orlando Sentinel article:Quote"I think it remains to be seen what heavy lift will be," Braun said. "I would like to believe now that we are making progress in Washington towards the 2011 plan that the engineers…will weigh in and that we will move towards the technically correct choice."Is Braun really saying that NASA will ignore the clear direction of Congress and go off to do whatever they feel like doing? That does not seem like a winning strategy for maintaining NASA's funding level. Who does he think is writing the checks for this HLV?Instead of making antagonistic statements like this, NASA bigwigs should be falling all over themselves to reassure Congress that they will do everything in their power to follow Congress' lead as closely as physically possible. Not just the letter of the law, depending on what the definition of "is" is, but the clear intent and spirit of the law too.Why do they continue to fight this?Mark S.
"I think it remains to be seen what heavy lift will be," Braun said. "I would like to believe now that we are making progress in Washington towards the 2011 plan that the engineers…will weigh in and that we will move towards the technically correct choice."