Quote from: Scotty on 01/29/2016 08:58 pm1 SSPF for cargo processing and prepsIt can't handle encapsulated or hazardous payloads. Without hazardous processing facility, SLS is limited to Orion.
1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps
I'm more optimistic than that. I think once past its teething pains SLS could be expected to fly once every 18 months with Orion, and once every 24 months without Orion. If I'm summing correctly, that adds up to an overall flight rate of once every 10.3 months. I would be mildly astonished if with all said and done Boeing and AJR couldn't produce the requisite hardware at that pace.
Yes, nobody knows if the next or next but one president suddenly has an inspiration of putting a man onto mars before the end of the decade (whichever that is). And then it could be quite handy to have a HLV available. Because we currently see how long it takes NASA to develop one.
As far as KSC goes; we could fly an SLS every 6 months (our requirement) with what assets we now have in work:1 VAB High BayThe VAB Transfer Isle for SLS core preps1 VAB Low Bay Cell for EUS preps1 ML1 Crawler1 Launch Pad1 SRB aft skirt processing facility1 SRB segment processing facility1 Orion assembly and check out facility1 Orion fueling and processing facility1 Firing Room1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps
I've not been here in a while. I saw the new SLS images and wonder why they changed the core stage color from that deja vu of Saturn V to the shuttle ET foam covered current look?
Using a simulation object with a ? as to its authentic size and placement of fittings as a fit check device of another set of equipment for an as yet created piece of hardware subject to changes (the SLS core) is not what I consider a good use of funds other than it could reduce the more obvious problems but none of the subtle ones. It is what you do if you are running behind schedule and you are trying to make up some time.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/12/2016 02:29 pmUsing a simulation object with a ? as to its authentic size and placement of fittings as a fit check device of another set of equipment for an as yet created piece of hardware subject to changes (the SLS core) is not what I consider a good use of funds other than it could reduce the more obvious problems but none of the subtle ones. It is what you do if you are running behind schedule and you are trying to make up some time.The SLS core design is basically locked in now. Why would it change?
On March 4, crew members ready a 900-pound steel beam to "top out" Test Stand 4697, which is under construction to test the Space Launch System liquid oxygen tank at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "Topping out" is a builders' rite traditionally held when the last beam is placed on top of a structure during its construction. The 85-foot-tall test stand will use hydraulic cylinders to subject the liquid oxygen tank and hardware of the massive SLS core stage to the same loads and stresses it will endure during a launch. The tests also will verify the models already in place that predict the amount of loads the core stage can withstand during launch and ascent. Prime contractor Brasfield & Gorrie of Birmingham, Alabama, and several of its subcontractors are constructing Test Stand 4697 and Test Stand 4693, which will have a twin-tower configuration and conduct similar structural tests on the SLS core stage's liquid hydrogen tank. Both stands are scheduled to be completed later this year. SLS will be the world's most powerful rocket and carry astronauts in NASA's Orion spacecraft on deep-space missions, including the journey to Mars.
Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...